A leaked document shows that vested interests may have been behind a “mud-slinging” PR campaign to discredit a landmark environment study, according to an investigation.
The Eat-Lancet Commission study, published in 2019, set out to answer the question: how can we feed the world’s growing population without causing catastrophic climate breakdown?
The actual leaked document is the PR company claiming – note, claiming – in the usual snow job you use to sell to the next customer how wonderful they are. Not wholly scientific proof, obvs.
But sure, it’s possible they were. Also, it’s possible the report itself was just a target rich environment. I certainly shouted at it, I also didn’t get paid by anyone to do so. Because it was, well, target rich, see?
A leaked document seen by the climate website DeSmog
Ah, yes, those are the folk who call me a climate denier because I support a carbon tax….
Ah, that wonderful carbon tax…
The government makes about 20 billion a year selling carbon credits. Anyone can buy them, and because the gov plans to reduce issuance, the price goes up.
Hedge funds are piling in.
The result is about 40 quid on your gas bill, plus cost increases for everything else that might emit carbon in its manufacture.
Fuck your carbon tax, Timmy, and the hobby horse it rode in on.
You do realises that carbon credits are the opposite of a carbon tax? One good reason to be for the ta is to be against the credits?
You dont? Ah….
Anyone who lived through Covid and the organised campaign of lies and censorship that they created for that, and has not backstrapolated from it to take account of everything else the deep state wants us to think and do, is stupid. Of course vested interests were involved. They always are. Probably funded via USAID.
@philip
Fuck your carbon tax, Timmy, and the hobby horse it rode in on.
Hear hear. Tim has a few blind spots, and this is one. I think it’s tactical – pretending to support a carbon tax at least gets you a hearing with some people, but ultimately it’s a fool’s errand. We don’t need a carbon tax, it is fucking theft in service of an agenda either merely to further enrich powerful wankers or something even more sinister.
I always argue that, even if I’m wrong about climate, we’ve already solved the problem.
We’ve invented the air conditioner.
Tim, you accept all this CO2 guff so who pays, either for carbon ‘credits’ or a carbon ‘tax’?
I have a hunch the answer will be the same – the consumer.
All to solve an imaginary problem.
BB @ 12.22, and the solution to world hunger is obvious – sandwiches.
You do realises that carbon credits are the opposite of a carbon tax?
Both are simply two sides of the climate change scam.
@Tim
You do realises that carbon credits are the opposite of a carbon tax? One good reason to be for the ta is to be against the credits?
You dont? Ah….
Very weak.
Addolff @ 2.16.
I preferred the porterhouse I scoffed down when visiting my sister.
But I agree with your principle.
So a “carbon” tax should be imposed on volcanoes and credits be given to plant life and the oceans?
And if only such a tax could have been imposed on Venus it would today be a verdant paradise?
The whole concept is so detached from reality it wouldn’t shock me at all if some “think tank” were to suggest it.
It shows just how far up their own collective back passage economists can get when the idea that economics is some sort of actual science (one day, perhaps, it might be) takes hold and computer models stop being vaguely indicative tools.
Grifting governments via computer models was rather the preserve of economists but the climate cult has SO handed economics it’s collective arse in the last decade or two.
I can see why you all might be a bit miffed, but joining them won’t do you any good in the long term (and probably not the short either).