Category: climate

Posted on

Plan AAA: The climate restoration

The rescue of the climate would be easily possible. Why doesn’t anyone know?
The urban legends almost succeeded in establishing a feeling of powerlessness and to weaken hope: “The climate change is irreversible!”
But from a purely scientific point of view, the complete restoration of the climate can be achieved without any problems: The CO2 content of the air can be reduced to an almost pre-industrial level till 2060.
Eenewable instead of fossil
If we half the fossil energy consumption, it would save 5 Gt C/y. In particular, solar energy would be cheaper than fossil if the inhabitants of the industrialized countries would cover their energy needs with a mix of solar, wind and water energy, the available amount of energy is tens of times the currently consumed energy. Efficient and affordable solar technologies would benefit the over 4 billion people of the tropical and subtropical regions, whose energy needs can be fully covered by solar energy.

Global ban on forest destruction
16 million hectares of forest are destroyed every year, most of them tropical rainforests that absorb 500 tonnes of carbon per hectare. A global ban on forest destruction would save over 7 Gt C/y. (A sustainable use of the forests or their conversion into Agroforestry would still be possible, they do not pollute the climate or pollute it only slightly.)

Less meat
Only a healthy amount of meat: Converting one-tenth of global forage areas into forests or agroforestries would save 4 Gt C/y. (Worldwide mast area: ~ 4 billion hectares, but a new forest only starts to incorporate 10 tons of carbon per hectare after 10 years.)
The carbon difference pasture-secondary forest/agroforestry is about 250 tons per hectare, after 35 years 10 tons of wood per year and hectare can be extracted for CO2-neutral energy or as building material).

Plan AAA
If it takes 8 years to implement these “tripleA”-win-win solutions, then in 2050, CO2 would have fallen to an almost pre-industrial level:
– Only half as much fossil energy left: 160 billion tons of carbon reduction
– No forest destruction:120 billion tonnes of carbon reduction
– A tenth of all pastures to forest: 40 billion tons of carbon reduction
In 2050, the amount of carbon in the air would have dropped by 320 Gt C to an pre-industrial level. Global warming would be history.
Where there is no will, there is no way: Such scientific calculations show that economy and politics unfortunately pursue other goals than the protection of climate and mankind.
These methods cost less than the government bailouts for the financial industry, or the trip to Mars, not to mention the army budgets.
We can only prevent climate destabilization if an update of analyses reveals the key industrial strategies and missing links for the empowerment of idealists.
A trap works only as long as we don’t see the way out.

(1 Gt C = 3.67 Gt CO2 = 3.67 billion tons of CO2) (At present, the atmosphere contains about 860 Gt C, 250 Gt C less than 250 years ago, the current annual increase of 5 Gt C/y is dramatic. In the 10’000 years from Stone Age to industrialization, the total increase in CO2 was barely 100 Gt C. Calculation basis: IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Base)

Posted on

Healthcare? – Hellscare!

What kind of solidarity locks up children and legalizes poisons?

The immunity of human rights

Human rights are the most important achievement of our civilization; they should not be jeopardized: Even a temporary elimination of human rights means a fundamental negation of their inviolability.

Sweden had average corona casualty rates compared with the EU, without a lockdown. This is the scientifically incontestable proof that the lockdown was ineffective and useless.

The pandemics of panic
The lockdown caused disproportionate fears of death: Covid-19 was involved in about 3% of annual deaths, like most of the normal seasonal pneumonias.

97% of all deaths in the last 12 month were not caused by Covid-19.

Nonetheless Corona served as a pretext for a global captivity.

It was not predictable that Corona would only be dangerous in exceptional cases? The statistics are clear: The bird flu pandemic in 2005, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, and the EHEC pandemic in 2011 caused much less than 1% of the annual deaths.

The Taboo: The real Great Pandemic

The vast majority of deaths have other causes: Every second person gets cancer, the chances of recovery are small.

Governments not only approve toxins, they often even subsidise them. In many countries, the authorities are now increasing the limit values for glyphosate in water. The barely effective, but overpriced cancer therapies are bleeding out a profit-oriented health system.

But civilization diseases are not pandemics? Because the word is ancient Greek, and at that time it was forbidden to poison people with food.

Shock strategy and Stockholm syndrome

The medicine should never be more dangerous than the disease, the protection should never be worse than the danger.

The lockdown was a great sacrifice, this must not prevent the acknowledgement that science, effectiveness, proportionality and legality got lost out of sight.

The shock strategy of a “killer virus” used the weak point of democracies, the emergency law. And the idealistic key word “solidarity” was misused for a Stockholm syndrome, to force a self-censorship on people and media, in order to accept a global imprisonment and a temporary abolition of human rights.

“Together against the virus”, with this motto designed to unite the leading elites, the idealistic politicians and the press were committed into pseudo-scientific and pseudo-humanistic disguised repressive strategies.

Next virus lurking

The almost global, militarily secured curfews reveal the true intentions and the almost unbelievable power of irresponsible industries and interests.

Governments have not yet admitted that it was disproportionate to impose the legal status of convicted criminals with electronic shackles and house arrest to the entire population, even children, in order to save maybe a few people. It would have been far more efficient, cheaper and far more solidary not to close “unprofitable” hospitals.

The war against the virus was a disguised war against the people, a panic brainwash and a professionally engineered, organized crime against humanity: The (provisional) abolition of human rights.

The next virus is bound to come, a legitimization of the lockdown is an invitation for a remake, in an optimized version.

If we do not admit that we have been double-crossed by a policy of austerity. The liberal opinion leaders are looking forwards to an era of “freedom brokers”, who can abolish human rights thanks to seasonal viruses, contact tracing and emergency laws.

Real solidarity!

A true commitment of the governments could really save lives:

  • Cancer and other diseases caused by industrial toxins kill more than 10 million people worldwide per year, a ban on toxins could stop this.
    • A climate collapse could kill billions of people, CO2 taxes would avoid this.
    • More than 10 million people are starving to death each year, despite a massive food waste.

Why is it solidarity to put almost the entire world population in captivity in order to save a few people? But laws that require small sacrifices to save millions and even billions of people are … harmful to economy?

All products that are harmful to health and climate should be replaced by unproblematic alternatives, if they are lacking because the industries don’t want to fill this market niche, the governments should support start-ups that develop them.

Win-win-solutions or vicious circles?
The solution of all of our problems is simple: An implementation of the idealistic trends and demands.
With the thousands of billions of the lockdown, we could have financed a paradise on earth, a global transition to a fair, sustainable economic system that protects all: People, nature and climate.
But this is not the goal of the most powerful.

“The sleep of reason produces monsters.” Francisco de Goya

Posted on

How can we safe the climate?

The climate can hardly be saved?

The atmospheric deterioration is irreparable?

Actually, no experts pretends this, it’s mainly the industrial lobbying that suggest that all our global problems such as hunger and civilisation diseases can’t be solved.

Pessimism and desperation are misleading us: Win-win-solutions are existing in all sectors, they just have to be known and used.

Ecology is the scientific manual for living (production) systems; it is only a cost factor if the decisive criteria for success is lacking: The knowhow.

And the good will: The best solutions are of no use if they are blocked, because they threaten profits.

The transfer of knowledge is the missing link to change a frightening future into a wonderful one.

Misconceptions are the pillars of power that can be rectified most easily

Posted on

The pest insurance

The big taboo in agriculture: Why do we need pesticides?

To make the work of farmers easier?

In China, workers pollinate the fruit trees by hand.

Why does agricultural policy risk such an unseless and expensive amount of work?

It has other objectives and priorities than protecting agriculture.

Or bees.

Or people.

An insurance against pests

“Farmers need pesticides to secure their crops and income”.

But why should they secure it with dangerous toxins?

Their incomes could also be secured with a pest insurance: Yield losses due to butterflies, mold and other natural pests would be reimbursed by the state, like the damages caused by lynxes, wolves and bears.

The costs of such an insurance would be too high? It would be the simplest, cheapest and most efficient way to reduce civilisation diseases. Pesticide contaminated food is the dumbest possible method of saving money.

The big taboo question in agriculture: What do we need pesticide industries fpr?

What can they do that farmers can’t? To produce food, we need arable land, rain, seeds, (green) manure, machines, farmers and their knowhow. Nothing more.

And pesticides, because they secure the yield?

With a best professional practice there are hardly any problems in the fields. Because the most profitable of all investments is professional competence.

The only real lack in agriculture is the lack of appreciation of the real experts in the field: With their images of an evil nature and of inept farmers, the chemical industres succeeded in denying the right to exist and the professional competence to the only food producers that are really needed.

Farmers don’t need pesticides.

They need a secure and fair income.

The agricultural policy entrusts the agricultural leadership to the chemical industries and pretends, that we cannot afford fair wages for the farmers, and even less a non-toxic food production. But only a gigantic pesticide industry, the astronomical bonuses of their managers and the enormous costs of civilization diseases.

A pest insurance is a win-win solution for all: For farmers, consumers and the environment.

Except for the pesticide industries. But the damages they cause are infinitely worse than the modest yield losses caused by beetles, butterflies and fungi.

If you are afraid of horses, you will never win a race.

Posted on

Save the Climate: Plan A

To save climate and future – an utopy?
Climate change can’t be stopped? The politicians are bargaining the acceptable degree of damaging the climate.
Our future deserves an appropriate level of discussion. There are no climate concepts or solutions that evoke confidence or even enthusiasm

The sabotage of climate protection.
The climate is ill, and goes to the doctor. Instead of explaining the most efficient therapies, he conceals them with incomprehensible and never ending terminologies. Until poor climate accepts sadly, that there is no hope.
Climate protection is not working
… because we don`t ask why it doesn’t.
…and because we don’t know the most efficient methods.

Plan A: A global forest protection law
To safe the climate seems only impossible because we do not realise how simple it would be.
From the scientific point of view, it would be very easy:
Up to 24 million hectares of forests are destroyed every year, often tropical rainforests that incorporate up to 500 tonnes of carbon per hectare.
A global forest destruction ban would save more than 8 Gt C per year. .  8 Gt C= 8 Billion Tones of carbon = 30 Billion Tones of CO2)
The annual increase in carbon in the atmosphere is 5 Gt C. (= 18,5 Gt CO2)
This one single law would stop global warming.

Land use – a “forgotten” climatic key factor
If it is as easy as that to stop climate change, why don’t we do it?
The concept “biomass instead CO2” once got ratified by most countries, and then went …. forgotten.
This win-win-solution got eliminated from the climate discussion.
By whom?
By those groups that will reject also in future a global forest protection law.
Their catalogue of cheap excuses:
• “We need land for fodder” … for XXL steaks.
• “We need land for agrar-fuel”… for XXL cars.
• “The compliance of a global forest protection can’t be controlled!” Computer programs are able to detect forest destruction by satellite images.
• “But the poor people!?” Agroforestry, the traditional, tropical forest garden for fruit and spice production, generates a much higher income per hectare than a pasture or a soybean field.
• “But the poor developing countries!?” The coalition of the rainforest nations agreed long ago to protect their forests thanks to fair compensations such as a debt cancellation-

The crucial question.
 “Forest and future of mankind should not be protected by laws!?” .
If you park wrong, you get fined. .
The destruction of climate and humanity however is not even forbidden. .
Where there is no will, there is no way. The demand for a global forest law is the crucial question, revealing the real priorities of politicians, opinion leaders and influencers, and exposing greenwashers. .
Politicians must realize and agree that the “right on profits” is not a human right. The right on life for future generations however is the most fundamental one. .
The CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by a third since the beginning of industrialization, the current annual increase of 5 Gt C is dramatic.

Conflict of interest.
Why does the IPCC calculate in Pg, in petagrams? 1 petagram corresponds to 1 quadrillion grams, i.e. 1,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Why are calculations on the level of a planet, enormous quantities, calculated in grams?
1 Pg =1 Gt:  (1 petagram = 1 gigaton, 1 billion tons, a far more comprehensible formulation) .
It is naïve to assume that the all-powerful arsonists/fossil industries are not trying to to take maximum advantage of the fire brigade/IPCC.
In the IPCC agricultural reports, organic agriculture does not even exist, nor does its excellent climate records. Despite the devastating climate impacts of industrial agriculture, they propagate the climate „protection“ methods of pesticides, GMOs, artificial irrigation and fertilisers.