WEF Worried Ukraine War Could Jeopardize 'Climate Progress,' Hopes It Leads to 'Constructive Climate Efforts'

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is always focused on the most important things. For instance, on April 11 WEF posted an article about what should obviously be a major concern as Ukrainians are blown up by the Russian army—climate change. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine need not hinder climate progress. Here’s why,” the WEF article title stated. The article then went on to worry about how the slaughter of Ukraine’s civilians might distract from the (clearly) greater threat of climate change, and how there could actually be a positive angle here—crises sometimes make the global energy economy greener! I’m sure dead Ukrainians would be happy to know they lost their lives in such a noble cause as pushing the world toward combatting alleged climate change.

Mariupol, Ukraine, courtesy of Fox News.

The tone-deaf WEF article began:

• “Many countries don’t want to continue buying Russia’s fossil fuels following its invasion of Ukraine.

• But efforts to tap other sources and ease prices may hinder climate progress.

• Previous energy crises led to constructive climate efforts.”

There’s a silver—or rather green—lining, folks!

“It’s ‘now or never’ to stave off a climate catastrophe, according to a UN report published last week.

But ‘now’ happens to be in the midst of another unfolding tragedy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has incurred efforts to punitively isolate the world’s third-biggest oil producer, in ways that threaten to impede the climate progress made to date.”

At least WEF admitted the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy. But considering how quickly WEF went on to mourn how the invasion might “impede the climate progress made” one wonders exactly what WEF considers the tragedy—the deaths of Ukrainians or the lack of attention to “climate change.”

“In the US, where lawmakers approved a ban on Russian oil, surging gas prices following the invasion have spurred calls for more drilling and may slacken a recently-revitalized climate focus. Germany is firing up old coal power plants, and the Czech Republic now expects to rely on coal longer than anticipated. The UK aims to expand oil and gas drilling in a way that may ‘blow’ its net-zero emissions target.

Goldman Sachs says a ‘global reset’ in energy spending is underway, following years of declining investment in fossil fuels.

Yet, at the same time the stigma of Russia’s fossil fuels is spurring interest in pulling more out of the ground elsewhere, the UN’s report on dwindling opportunities to counter climate change is generating clashing headlines – and a sense of cognitive dissonance. . .But many places, particularly in Europe, now find themselves in a predicament due to their heavy dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. They must somehow keep the lights on without also seriously undermining their ability to adapt to a warming planet.

Ultimately, the current situation may actually sharpen our focus on weaning ourselves from fossil fuels – no matter where they come from. While Goldman Sachs says spending on producing hydrocarbons will increase, it also says investment in renewable power will grow in tandem.

Meanwhile the companies responsible for the bulk of global carbon dioxide emissions may make use of high oil prices to do things other than drill for more fossil fuels – by using related windfalls to fund the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, for example.

Previous energy price shocks spurred progressive, climate-friendly measures [emphasis added]. . .It might seem misguided to focus on energy choices and climate change when a war is causing so much suffering. But there’s a clear link.

‘This is a fossil fuel war,’ a Ukrainian climate scientist said recently in a published interview, because a lack of progress on curbing the use of one has contributed to a country’s ability to wage the other.”

Yes, WEF, it IS “misguided.” And climate change is not one of the world’s biggest problems (Iran, China, Russia, and powerful globalists like WEF are definitely a more immediate threat—after all, WEF’s head Klaus Schwab is among those charged in an international court with genocide). Nor is it necessary to depend on Russian oil OR “green” energy. The US, at the very least, was energy independent under Trump—and “green” energy isn’t as great or nature-friendly as WEF would like you to believe.

Windmills are currently under fire for the number of birds they’ve killed. Per 2013 and 2014 studies, windmills or wind turbines were estimated to kill hundreds of thousands of birds yearly just in the US. Solar panels also kill thousands of birds. And if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t out—what then? Not only that, but windmills and solar panels (enough to keep modern societies running) take up large amounts of land. When I was little there was no more obvious illustration against wind turbines than driving through miles and miles of land that would have been beautiful, natural scenery full of wildlife had it not been for the endless rows of windmills. Then there’s electric cars. I know of people who recently couldn’t drive their electric cars due to electricity shortages. There’s another angle, too—whoever controls the power grid can decide who is allowed to use a car and who isn’t. Remember, WEF predicted that by 2030 people will “own nothing [including cars], have no privacy” and their lives will be “better.”

Actually, too, there is no scientific consensus on climate change and its threat level. Is the climate changing? Quite likely, I should say almost certainly (to some degree)—that is, after all, the nature of climate: to change. Yet the same scientists trying to scare you about a rise or drop of a few degrees (and often that data is flawed anyway) will probably tell you about the Ice Age. I don’t know about you, but it sounds as if there were way more drastic changes to climate long before humans invented SUVs. Furthermore, so-called climate experts have been wrong dozens of times throughout the last few decades in their predictions and analyses.

For example, former US Vice President Al Gore stated in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth that “within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” About 16 years later, Mount Kilimanjaro still has snow—so the UN just moved the goalpost and set 2040 as the new doom date. Gore also predicted “dangerous heat waves and the ‘hottest years’ on Earth would happen due to Earth’s fever.” Climate Depot founder Marc Morano explained in May 2021, “Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades, according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).”

Furthermore, the United Nations, WEF’s doom-predicting climate experts, have been very wrong before, too. According to New York Post: “The first UN environment director claimed half a century ago that we had just 10 years left [because of climate change], and the then-head of the IPCC insisted in 2007 that we had just five years left.” And yet, here we are.

But facts so often get in the way of the WEF’s globalist plan to remake the world (see the Great Reset or 2030 predictions). It’s interesting that WEF head Klaus Schwab once boasted that Vladimir Putin had been trained by WEF. Now WEF sees Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a potentially positive catalyst for “constructive climate efforts.” There’s nothing like helping train a dictator and then using the dictator’s war to push your own socialist, globalist agenda.