Less than two years after the Paris Climate Accord was adopted, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it, charging correctly that it would carry huge economic costs and eliminate employment without achieving its stated intention of improving the environment.
Now the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has, in effect, repudiated the Paris Agreement as not carrying huge enough economic costs. It threatened terrifying consequences to the planet if all nations do not “take rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Holding “global warming” below 2 degrees centigrade over the 21st Century is not enough, says IPCC in its new report released Oct. 7. The carbon emissions reduction pledges of all the countries in the Paris Agreement “are not enough.” Rather, large steps backward in human productivity and industrial activity, and in the human diet, must commence right now. Cutting industrial activity, livestock and meat production, and cutting carbon emissions by 1 million tonnes every year, must start immediately and be pursued until there are NO carbon emissions — i.e., no petrocarbon fuels, and no nuclear power, either — by 2050 or earlier.
This is an attack on Trump’s pro-growth policies. Even more, it is an attack on China’s policy of spreading its economic growth and poverty reduction to Africa; on its Belt and Road Initiative as a whole and particularly its enthusiastic acceptance in Africa. The IPCC report expresses Barack Obama’s disgusting, absurd, and deadly threat at a “leadership” meeting in Africa several years ago, that “if you all want air conditioning and a western diet, you’ll boil the planet.” Most fundamentally the IPCC is attacking the science of human economic development itself, a science stemming from the universal genius Gottfried Leibniz three centuries ago and revived by Lyndon LaRouche and his movement in the very teeth of the British Empire’s post-World War neo-Malthusianism. Central to that science is what LaRouche calls the rise of potential relative population density, the sign of progress both of the human species and of the Earth’s biosphere which human beings, uniquely, can consciously improve.
Rising energy flux-density of human power sources — leading upward from conversion of solar insolation and biomass, through wind and wood power, through petrochemicals to nuclear fission, pointing now to nuclear fusion and plasma technologies — this means higher potential population density of the human species at rising standards of living. That “progression up from fire” also means higher technology industry and greater potential to improve the environment, Earth’s water supplies, its agricultural productivity and sustainability — thus, higher potential population density still.
This is what is needed in Africa, where poverty reduction has at last begun to occur along with increasing Chinese investments in power, along with rail, roads, water transfers, ports — and in the Mideast, South America. It is the reason Asia is pursuing nuclear power technologies while the environmentalist paradigm in Europe abandons them.
America is fortunate that President Trump has turned more of its people against the IPCC’s enviro-terror campaigns. If the “Russiagate” coup against him is decisively turned back, in this mid-term election and afterwards, he may be able to work with the other major powers which embrace industrial progress, on a higher level.
Among those countries, the United States, China, Russia, and India could launch a new international monetary system designed for high-technology foreign direct investment. Then, with their space and nuclear capacities, they could jointly concentrate on the breakthrough to inherently safe small, modular nuclear reactors, the key to electricity for all human beings at last. And while improving this planet they could jointly work on our species’ ability to travel rapidly elsewhere in the Solar System.
Lyndon LaRouche designed “four laws” for these economic actions. They express the potential of really winning the battle over the U.S. mid-term elections.