UN Plan to Ban All Fossil Fuels (Except China) By James Reed

George Gammon, who has the Rebel Capitalist website, draws out the implications of the World Economic Forum and UN agenda, coming out of the climate change elite show, COP27, of the banning of fossil fuels, at least in the West. As usual, as with carbon emissions, China, the world’s worse polluter, is given a free pass … getting renewables when it can. Europe has already been given a taste of what a post-fossil fuel world would be like, with industries closing down, businesses no longer able to function, and ordinary people facing the prospects of freezing to death in the bitterly cold European winter that will be there in less than a month. But if these globalists succeed in this plan, there will be no artificial fertiliser, and food production, already under, threat will crash. It could lead to the death of two billion people.

Hopefully there will be a mass revolt against this, before things get to that level, but there is likely to be considerable harm as the globalist depopulation agenda is attempted to be put in motion. Given the success that they had with the Covid mandates, we need to be extra vigilant, and take their boasts very seriously. They are so over-confident that they give advanced warning, just like the ancient warriors who sent weapons to their enemies before a battle as a show of confidence.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-11-08/un-reveals-plan-ban-all-fossil-fuels

“I want to go over and address this climate change summit. The cop37 or whatever it's called in Egypt has allegedly produced some extremely inflammatory rhetoric. Absolutely insane.

The scary reality is that if this rhetoric continues, it could kill hundreds of millions of people. I'm not being melodramatic, this is the cold hard truth.

I want to show you how these people are void of any cost-benefit analysis.

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this is intentional, or they intentionally avoid a cost-benefit analysis, or they're just too stupid. They're just too emotional.

There's a complete absence of any type of critical thinking whatsoever.

So a sinking Pacific Island nation issues a historic call for a treaty to phase out fossil fuels. And they did this at this COP27 convention, which we'll get into later in the above video, where this UN chief comes out and basically calls for the end of all fossil fuels.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Not just gas, oil, diesel, and natural gas. And it's not just about energy destruction. But also the death and destruction that comes with it. You're talking about something that would likely eradicate the human race.

Without fertilizer, there would be no food. Buying necessities would be impossible.

How do you build a house that requires fossil fuels?

A tiny population, no greater than a couple of million people maximum, would know how to go back to living in caves and the Stone Age. They'd have to scrape by and find food for themselves where they could. These people would survive. Everyone else. You're pretty much gone. And that's not exaggerating.

It is clear that fossil fuels are not only essential to the economy, but to the continuation of civilization itself. These are just facts. Bottom line.

So this tiny island nation of Tuvalu calling for the end of fossil fuels.

Here's a quote,

We, therefore, unite with 100 Nobel Peace Prize laureates and 1000s of scientists worldwide to urge world leaders to join the fossil fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to manage a just transition away from fossil fuels.

What is a 'just transition'? That's the first question. 

Another question: does it need to happen right now, in three years, or five?

Then they went on to talk about a treaty to completely ban and phase out all fossil fuels. Not hard to believe.

Okay, well, let's think about this. Let's do a cost-benefit analysis. They're saying they want to get rid of fossil fuels ASAP.

Let's just assume that means by 2030. We'll call it the Klaus timeline. Right?

Okay, now, would that save this island? Debatable.

Debatable, because we don't know with 100% certainty, that the reason this island is disappearing, is because of manmade climate change. Well, you can say with 99% certainty, okay. But that's not 100%.

There are NO certainties in life, there are only probabilities.

Let's assume if we rid ourselves of all fossil fuels by 2030, this island would be saved. That's the benefit. Great, what's the cost? A billion people dying?

I get it.

I'm very sympathetic to the people. But it looks like there are no people living on this tiny island at all. It's possible that the only person living on this island is the president.

I understand that the members of Gilligan's Island have formed a strong attachment to their home, but if I had to choose between sacrificing a strip of land or saving 2 billion people, I would go with the latter.

And I don't know if I'm taking this idea to an extreme for this thought experiment. I'm just pretty much stating it like it is.

I think what's so shocking is these people either can't see the obvious or choose to ignore the blatant, just stark reality that's right in front of them.

So this is the first thing I wanted to talk about this is the main problem here in this quote-unquote debate is just a lack of critical thinking and a lack of just doing a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Them just sitting there saying, "We have to save this par-five-sized island out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and the only way to do it is to eliminate fossil fuels. Therefore, the only fair thing to do is eliminate fossil fuels. Because we don't want this island to be ruined."

And that's the end of the thinking. That's it. That's the only debate. And if you scratch your head and say, "Well, maybe banning all fossil fuels isn't a good idea."

Oh, well then you must want to kill everyone that lives on this par five in the middle Pacific Ocean. You evil person! What? Are you paid off by the evil oil companies?

That's the level of debate you get.”