Aviation emissions excluded from Paris deal – of course !
Exclusion of aviation from Paris deal supports Climate Engineering
We have not managed to analyse the draft agreement from Paris yet but activists who attended the event have reported the disappearance of aviation and shipping emissions from the most recent draft. This is a serious blow to genuine climate campaigners and to those of us who realise the reality of what is going on behind the facade of international climate negotiations.
Earlier drafts had included both in the global CO2 emissions limiting deals but in the latest draft, published recently by the UN, both shipping and aviation have been mysteriously removed with no explanation it seems. Obviously from our standpoint shipping is not too much of an issue, but the removal of aviation is yet further confirmation that this event, the agreement and the Global Climate Circus that underpins it is a total and utter farce.
Much is made on Wikipedia and assorted other more official sources about the large contribution to global emissions by the aviation industry, so it is well-known that it is probably the largest single industrial polluter globally, and some accounts refer to it by saying that if it were a country it would be the 7th largest polluter globally, apparently contributing in the region of 2.5% of all CO2 emissions.
Let’s leave aside for a moment that most passenger aircraft have been modified to spray aerosols during flight and that they are being used to create what little extreme weather there is and what little climate change is actually happening. Let’s imagine that the world really was warming. Let’s imagine that CO2 really was able to cause our atmosphere to warm. Finally let’s try really hard to imagine that the world really did face the prospect of a very sudden and catastrophic period of runaway warming that will spell the end of mankind… we realise it’s hard, but try just for a moment.
If all those things were true, and if the Poli-Comm Mafia that are behind the Global Climate Circus really were trying to work out a way to save us from said apocalypse then the first thing to do would be to limit aviation activity. One might describe aviation as a luxury; very few people absolutely have to fly, especially in a modern world with high-speed global connectivity, so it is the easiest place to start as no nation-state has to agree to it, rather it is simply a matter of implementing new regulations via the global governing body The International Civil Aviation Organization, so there is absolutely no reason for this not to happen other than the unwillingness of the governments and organisations at the COP21 summit and the industry itself. The aviation industry cannot claim that profits will be harmed by any restrictions because operating in the way they currently do is far less profitable than operating in an eco-friendly way as we explain below, so something else is going on. It’s last-minute removal is, therefore, suspicious to say the least, but not a surprise at all. Allow us to explain.
Some time ago we wrote an article, Fatal flaws in the GW/CC/CE Hoax, in which we briefly looked into the way the aviation industry has been steered over the last 30 years, both in terms of organisational structure and operationally. The upshot of that article was that it seemed clear, when considered in the context of Climate Engineering, that it has been deliberately manipulated with a view to accommodating the introduction and efficient maintenance of large-scale (global) Climate Engineering programs. The following is an extract from that article.
If a global program of weather modification were to be carried out covertly it would need the following things:
- Regular, flights of high enough frequency to cover all populated areas irrespective of passenger numbers or profit figures.
- A ticket pricing structure that encourages passengers to fly spread across as many flights as possible and at all hours of the day to justify those flights occurring regularly at all hours.
- To be heavily subsidised by central government sources.
- To reduce luggage allowances so as to free up capacity for containers of chemicals to be transported on each flight.
- To have very few centralised sources of management incorporating virtually all the worlds airlines
- For aircraft to be modified with equipment to spray aerosols during flight
- A program of disinformation designed to convince the public that persistent trails from aircraft are natural and have always been there.
All of the above have been put in place over the past 30 years so the aviation industry is now perfectly formed to carry out large-scale weather manipulation.
The first 3 points are relevant to this article because they clearly demonstrate that efforts have been made by the industry, but more importantly also by our government, to expand civil aviation as much as possible at the expense of efficiency and with total disregard for any environmental consequences.
Let’s analyse in more detail those points in the context of the Paris agreement.
- 1. The deregulation of the UK airline industry resulted in a 256% rise in intra-European flights between 1994 and 2002. It also resulted in the formation of new, low-cost carriers with aggressive pricing policies. The deregulation occurred in 1993 at a time when we were already being preached to by government about the so-called damaging effects of CO2 on our climate. Global Warming as it was known before its re-branding as the even more ambiguous Climate Change, was already a fully formed government fear campaign. How then can this be viewed as a sound policy unless government knew at that time that a). CO2 is not actually capable of warming our planet, and b). that significant expansion of the aviation industry would be required to maintain flight numbers of sufficient frequency to execute the level of Climate Engineering we are now seeing. We think that is exactly what happened, and when all things are considered, it seem likely that all connected government policy, when viewed through that lens, has been laying the ground for this situation to evolve as it has.
- 2. The budget airlines introduced a new philosophy in pricing, that of low-up fares. By this we mean a limited number of extremely low fares now go on sale first. Nobody, it seems, has ever stopped to question this because we all benefit from cheap air fares if we are organised enough to book early, but in economic terms it makes absolutely no sense. It results in lower overall profits if any at all, because it encourages the thinnest spread of passengers possible and over all possible flights. In complete contrast, and as a result of competitive pricing from budget airlines, we have strong evidence that scheduled flights, including those from what was once our national airline*, are operating empty due to prohibitive pricing. We delve into this in a separate article coming soon, suffice to say that no plane should ever fly with no passengers except in extreme circumstances, and a general industry pricing policy that encourages low occupancy is not at all in line with being Eco-friendly. Obviously in the context of facilitating Climate Engineering both of these scenarios make perfect sense as it ensures regular and numerous flights at all hours irrespective of revenue. in the case of the scheduled flights something even more unexpected is going on but we deal with that elsewhere. In the case of budget airlines it probably results in many off-peak flights operating at a huge loss. Once again, if governments were at all concerned about global polluting emissions they would not have allowed this situation to have arisen. Rumour has it there exists a report by an economist that shows that budget airlines are intrinsically unprofitable but we have not managed to find it. yet Maybe that is why they are heavily subsidised by our government.
- 3. Why is the UK government subsidising private civil aviation? There is no justifiable reason to do so even before we consider polluting emissions, but when we do consider them it becomes impossible to accept that our government has any genuine concerns about emissions at all. The subsidy in the UK is estimated to be around £10billion in total across the industry, and takes the form of exemption from VAT on fuel and ticket sales. This is a huge amount of money that is basically being removed the public purse to maintain a completely private group of companies, some of which are not even really British anymore. When we look at the corporate structure of these airlines, some belong to the 3 major airline alliances whose management operations are situated outside of the UK. The intricacies of this situation are still unclear at this stage and we do not yet know whether they pay any corporation tax in the UK as we have not had time to investigate, but will update this article when we have that information, suffice to say that the government are guilty of monumental double standards and double-speak here. On the one hand bleating about the risk of CO2 ending humanity as we know it, and on the other subsidising a high-polluting industry and allowing them to expand while operating a pricing structure that makes them far more polluting than they otherwise would be.
Emissions and inefficiency encouraged
It is a widely held belief that the failure of governments to reach agreements that actually achieve anything is simply down to the complexity of international relations and the inherent fallibility of human nature generally. Nothing could be further from the truth though as we expand on in out article All climate summits are designed to fail.
It should be pretty clear to our readers now that if the threat of runaway Global Warming were actually real then these contradictions simply would not exist. It is not possible that national government and international policies can be so consistently wrong for so long unintentionally. The truth of the matter is that those at the top of, and above and behind governments, know and have always known that CO2 is no threat to our environment at all and so there is no need to restrict the operational policies of the aviation industry in any way.
This is not just a national issue either. Global aviation carbon emissions are estimated to triple by 2050, making aircraft pollution one of the fastest-growing contributors to atmospheric CO2. The International Civil Aviation Organization – ICAO – has ‘repeatedly failed’ to adopt any measures to curb aviation emission. So far the ICAO has rejected efficiency standards, fuel taxes, emissions charges and global emissions trading and nobody, at a global or national level, seems at all concerned about this. Even environmental groups who claim to be campaigning against aviation emissions do not seem to have twigged that the national and international policies governing the industry are encouraging higher emissions and inefficiency rather than discouraging them. The public are not aware of these inconsistencies so governing bodies and governments can get away with ignoring them completely in favour of making the occasional ‘concerned’ noises about the environment but actually doing nothing to improve the situation. Due to pressure in the UK, Gordon Brown introduced a ‘token gesture’ tax on aviation, but it was a fixed passenger tax and so made absolutely no difference to purchasing habits of passengers or the industry as a whole despite being labelled as a green tax, and indeed if anything, it resulted in even sparser occupation of each flight.
The website Elephantsintheroom.eu also gives some very clear evidenced that governments and international governing bodies do not really want to curb the industry at all.
So, in the context of what we know about current Climate Engineering programs we feel it is reasonable to conclude that this is yet another sign that our governments, national and international governing bodies, and the assorted representatives that attend the International Climate Circus events such as Paris 2015 know exactly what is going on in our skies. It is simply inconceivable that they don’t. The exclusion of aviation, therefore, makes complete sense as to include it in the negotiations and resulting deals would draw attention to it and would allow society to demand restrictions on the industry. If that social action then forced the budget airlines to change its pricing ethos away from a low-up to high-down, the result would be much fewer flights. That is obviously not good for Climate Engineering !
We have to make very clear at this stage that we are in no way pro-oil and anti clean energy, quite the opposite as we state in certain other pages of this site. The purpose of these articles and investigations is to try to make people realise that not all is what it seems. These summits and the Global Climate Circus as a whole are based entirely on a fallacy, and so it is fair to conclude that their aim is not to deliver a cleaner world at all, but rather to move the world towards a situation that benefits the organisations and corporations they serve. It is a very complex equation and a movement characterised by double-speak, pseudo-science and some truly creative political gesturing, all of which we feel is designed to blind and confuse the public, and when combined with endless and increasingly alarmist fear-mongering, will ultimately, if they get their way, beat the public into submission. We feel we have the situation worked out but we don’t have every answer to every question that concerned sceptics will justifiably ask us. What we do know is that nothing really stands up to scrutiny, and that anything that is based on a lie, is probably a lie through and through, so we cannot allow this to proceed until everybody knows exactly where it is heading.
We could have been there years ago
It might be argued by some that if the end – the reduction of high-polluting industries such as coal and the introduction of clean renewable technologies – justifies the means then it really doesn’t matter how they achieve it. Nothing could be further from he truth though. Once again we need not look very far to see that successive governments have failed (probably deliberately) to invest in, by means of direct investment and subsidies, renewable technologies and clean energy. Solar power and electric cars could be the norm now if they had been adequately supported by government during the last 30 years but instead they have focused on supporting and subsidising aviation. Let’s imagine that the £10 billion lost each year since 1993 from aviation subsidies had been invested in solar energy and electric transportation. £220 billion! We would now be living in the clean utopia that was often portrayed in images of future cities in novels and documentaries of the 70s and 80s, but instead we find ourselves in an increasingly dull and polluted world. Very little sunshine and high levels of particulate pollution. Once again, even if we leave aside whether it is deliberate or not, it is a completely unnecessary situation. Are we really to believe we have got here simply because of the fallibility of human nature?
Even recently solar power subsidies were slashed by 65% so we must question the motives and true intentions of our government and others who profess to be supporting a greener future, but who have failed, probably deliberately, to deliver it in favour of endless stories of pollution and climatic Armageddon.
It’s our own fault
We have also noticed a trend, in the UK at least, to shift accountability from governments to individuals. This could be construed simply as lazy politics but it is, in fact, a crucial point in understanding how this entire ruse works. ‘They’ know full well we cannot and will not give up oil unilaterally. It is a completely unrealistic expectation to place on the individual and yet we are bombarded with endless guilt-inducing ideas and TV programs about reducing our carbon footprint, about giving up our cars, and about assorted other fanciful ways the individual can ‘make a difference’ to avert this impeding Armageddon. Apart from inducing guilt and stress on an already overstressed population, this is a deliberate tactic to divert attention away from the fact that governments are deliberately failing to act. More importantly though, psychologically it is leading us towards a scenario where we will be forced to say “we can’t do it, for god’s sake help. Save us.” And of course they will. Not by suddenly introducing the solar power subsidies they have just removed, and not by encouraging national rather individual efforts to cut emissions, and not by reducing emissions from aviation, but by declaring an emergency… “We can save you, BUT we will have to use this insane thing called Climate Engineering” they will say. “It’s crazy and it might have terrible consequences, but things are SO bad now we can’t do anything else.”
Own both sides of the argument
Who thinks Al Gore’s recent statement about using Climate Engineering to save us as “insane“, is a coincidence? Of course not. When the emergency arrives, he will conveniently change tact from, “it’s insane you can’t do that” to “it’s insane but things are so desperate now that I guess we have no choice“. Other public figures in the on-the-fence and no camps will likely follow suit leaving the bewildered public with no allies. The assortment of complicit climate scientists that will emerge from the shadows in the next year or two claiming that nothing else but spraying stuff into the sky will work will bolster this idea and politicians will diligently respond and offer to save us by introducing ’emergency measures’ – Climate Engineering. Job done.
Increasing Pollution + State Inaction x ∞Climate Fear-Mongering = Emergency
If we allow ourselves to led into a state of emergency we will be in serious trouble and there could be no way back.
We firmly believe this is where the whole Global Climate Circus is leading us… we are all following behind the procession blowing our whistles as we are led towards the Climate Singularity. Paris was not The One, a possibility we discussed in our previous article, so the circus will go on. This is good news though as it gives us, and that includes YOU, time to make others realise what is really going on.
Don’t be fooled. The only real threat we face is when the emergency is declared and they finally offer to save us by spraying chemicals into our skies to block what little sunshine we have left !
* it is important to note that there is no such thing as a national airline anymore. All airlines are privately owned, and most belong to one of the 3 airline alliances. (2017). We discuss this more in another article. We feel the privatisation policies of the previous governments were done so as to remove and public control or accountability within those organisations. If and when they are eventually outed as being involved in weather modification programs our government can claim they did not know. Crucially, it also excludes them from Freedom Of Information requests, preventing organisations such as us from obtaining crucial evidence, as we have found out. This is also why NATS – National Air Traffic Services – was privatised, so as to be exempt from FoI requests and indeed they have failed to respond to any of our communications.
United Nations Paris COP21 2015 draft agreement.
The Guardain article on this document
ICCT article on clean transportation