COP28UAE
[The Curious Case of Power, World Order and Science]
_______
Zambia has now become a very dangerous place.
To paraphrase, Zambia is now one of the most economically and geopolitically important places in the world, whose innate potential can change lives and transform the world.
Each Zambian that seeks to lead this country ought to be aware of this development.
Zambia is now a fulcrum of an impending global reset.
Dear reader, read this article carefully. It is perhaps one of the most important you will ever read.
Zambia has now become a theatre of war. And at the centre of this gargantuan geopolitical event is climate change.
A few days ago, over 170 heads of State and over 70, 000 other delegates, converged in the United Arab Emirates [UAE] to attend the 2023 Conference of Parties on Climate Change.
What is true but shocking is that if you were to ask these leaders individually what this conference is really about, none if at all any, would give you a coherent or convincing answer.
Few know though.
On the other hand, most world leaders do not know what really is happening.
All they are bombarded with is a daily barrage of scary and mind-altering PR that hurricanes are increasing, the Earth’s temperature will soon fry everyone, droughts are everywhere, tropical diseases will proliferate, flash floods are now killing millions and that the Earth is running out of water.
And that African and other ‘poor and developing countries’, are bearing the hardest brunt of this ‘climate crisis.’
But is all this really, really true? Is there really such a thing as a climate crisis?
Most of these leaders, more so the Africans, are merely being led by the nose by the hidden hand of the powerful climate change lobby whose agenda might not be readily visible to their naked eye.
In the world today, there are two things that are very, very dangerous.
In the wrong hands, these two things can terribly maim and kill.
One is religion and the other is science. Religion has God and science has evidence.
Arguing against either of them is one of the most problematic endeavours any human being can ever engage in. These two are among the most arrogant fields of thought ever created by man.
And as a consequence, they have become powerful and not-to-be-questioned conduits of global corruption. They now constitute powerful instruments in everyday use for global mind manipulation and people control.
Though coming with the cloak of God, no one should follow any religion hook, line and sinker, unquestioningly.
Though science comes under the guise of evidence, a significant fraction of this science is flawed.
No one should ever be swayed by both at face value.
‘Excellencies, Earth’s vital signs are failing…we need leadership, cooperation and political will for action…Renewable energy is the gift that keeps giving…The science is clear…We must ultimately stop burning fossil fuels…Not reduce, not abate, but phase out…The economics are clear. The global shift to renewables is inevitable,’ the UN Secretary General Antonio GUETERRES poetically coerced the raptly listening world leaders.
But the question must be asked. What is Antonio GUETERRES really saying? Who wrote the speech for him? What is the real interest of its authors? And where does he draw his strength from to speak the way he did?
Note that to shut everyone up, he strategically says the science is clear. But is it?
The science about climate change, dear reader, isn’t clear at all. The debate isn’t closed. Or does a jaundiced someone want it closed?
What is clear is that, just like Nature, all technology that we create must be efficient, clean and sustainable.
But to claim that the burning of fossil fuels is the lead cause of climate change just isn’t true. This is stretching the truth/evidence a bit.
Dear reader, you will be surprised to learn that one of the leading causes of global warming and climate change is the sun.
Yes, our own sun and its cyclical behaviour account for our climate.
Nonetheless, as both a political and economic statement only meant as a primer, a prelude to a new world order, the UN Secretary General’s speech retains its merit.
Further, note that commonly, the phrases global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably.
It must be mentioned that Earth, as a small component of the Universe, is itself a complete renewable celestial living thing.
And worth stating is that Earth on its own naturally produces more green house gasses than all human activity put together.
Who then is going to call Earth to order?
Interestingly, the COP uses strange words such as de-carbonisation.
What really should be de-carbonised, noting that carbon is one of the most prevalent elements in Nature?
Does Zambia’s own State House fully know what this de-carbonisation really means?
Has humanity forgotten that carbon dioxide is a vital resource for the integrity of the Earth?
Has humanity forgotten that without carbon dioxide the world would be without food?
If Earth had excess carbon dioxide, wouldn’t harvesting of this resource and its storage be the business of the future?
Shouldn’t de-carbonisation devices be attached to industrial or car exhaust pipes to give us carbon and oxygen as products for reuse?
Has it ever occurred to Zambia’s State House and many other third world capitals that this climate change movement could just be a Hegelian ruse only intended to kowtow them towards serious behavioural change for purposes of resetting the global power and economic order?
What if, under the guise of climate change, there was an economic geopolitical war going on?
So then, what climate now is really changing?
As earlier stated, how come the Earth itself produces more green house gases than all burping cows, bad jalopies and human beings put together? How is COP28 and all other oncoming COPs going to address that?
Look at the following green house gases and their significance on global warming:
1. Water vapour – 98%
2. Carbon dioxide – 1.96%
3. Methane – 0.0083%
4. Nitrous oxide – 0.0015%
5. Ozone – 0.0002%
6. CFCs – 0.0000%
So then if these are the culprit gases for global warming, what then is the problem?
How come no one is talking about water vapour?
The question every curious mind like mine ought to ask is, is human activity alone really, really capable of changing the framework that governs climate on Earth?
Regional pollution, intrinsically a transient phenomenon, is common and can readily be dealt with but are human beings really capable of irreversibly altering the existential default settings of the Earth?
Or are we just guilty of overrating ourselves as polluters?
But then perhaps all these questions are unnecessary.
What if the real aim is to shift global geopolitical and economic power from the East [read OPEC – Angola, Bagrain, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Venezuela, etc] to the West [read electric]?
What if climate change was only a strategic ruse? What if it was just the required whip to frighten everyone towards obedience for purposes of shifting global reliance on oil to something else?
Further, what if climate change was a new approach to coercive lending, to get countries into debt and encourage and consolidate specific investment behaviour?
Worth noting is that Zambia, coupled with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has all the minerals required for the success of this transformation, namely cobalt, copper, lithium, and nickel, and then some.
This then is what puts Zambia on the geopolitical spot. This then is what makes Zambia one of the most economically exciting and dangerous places on Earth today.
Dear reader, from the foregoing, it is hoped that now you fully understand why an office of AFRICOM was set up in Zambia.
It is also hoped that you have an idea why STARLINK was given operating permission in Zambia.
These installations are not primarily for the interests of Zambia and Zambians.
They are strategic fixtures intended to safeguard Western interests.
AFRICOM is a combatant arm of the US Army.
On the other hand, STARLINK, for surveillance purposes, is a contractor of the US Army.
And in concert, the US signed an MOU with Zambia to guarantee the intended and successful shift to ‘clean’ energy.
Whatever the case may be, whichever way the climate change argument goes, depending on its leadership, Zambia as an accidental game changer, is now in the unique position to skyrocket its per capita income and subsequently end its poverty.
However, the downside to this development, this urgent and increased demand for the required transformational resources, might only be entrenched colonialism, national instability, increased exploitation and national wealth stripping/plunder.
Still, in the end, the final outcome is in the hands of the Zambians themselves.
Further, bear in mind that, in Nature, there is really no such thing as clean energy.
All energy is energy, and as the first law of thermodynamics states, ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.’
Dirty or unclean energy is only a human construct with its origins rooted in bias and ignorance, devoid of utilitarian value save only as a label/term for communication purposes only.
What exists is only our own inefficient use of energy and our own collective limited understanding of energy itself, as typified for example by the ill-informed Swtch and Save campaigns by our own ZESCO.
Everything that exists is only a resource for everything else. Always remember that, dear reader.
All in Nature is green. And one of the immutable laws that govern Earth is that of balance. Everything balances in the end.
It follows that the term renewable energy is then nothing but a misnomer.
As King Charles aptly put it: ‘The Earth does NOT Belong to us. We belong to Earth.’
The arrogance, therefore, with which man goes on about his life ought to cease. The sooner we agree with King Charles the better.
But then the more enlightened we become, inevitably, the humbler we shall be.
Human beings form only a very tiny fraction of the Universal ecosystem.
To claim that all there is to existence is human beings is therefore only a flaw of cognition.
Phasing out fossil fuels is not only untenable but it is also unwise.
It is new, improved methods of their utilisation that we must research and develop, encourage, and found new start-ups upon.
We will now end this article on a cautionary note.
That off-grid solutions must always exist for the security and survival of mankind.
Thinking the same way by mankind must be legislated against, avoided and strongly discouraged.
It follows then that for the survival and security of mankind, some things will necessarily have to remain analogue.
Diversity saves.
It is a dictate of nature that monopolies are antithetical to life.
Hope is and remains.
Dr Canisius BANDA Development Activist
3 December 2023
