The devastating European floods reveal an incredible hypocrisy in the green agenda. They want to spend untold sums, supposedly to prevent natural floods by cutting emissions. But they spend nothing to prepare for these same floods, which they predict will get worse!
This glaring point is made quite clearly by CLINTEL President, Professor Guus Berkhout, in a letter published by the Netherland’s biggest newspaper. The head office of CLINTEL is based in the Netherlands and Berkhout has been involved with flooding issues for decades.
Here is an excerpt that makes the telling point:
“The downstream situation along the coast and major rivers of my country is pretty much in order and ensured there were no casualties. However, upstream still a lot of work need be done on the canals, tributaries and local streams. This work has been seriously delayed by green politicians, who forces the government to spend all resources on CO2-reduction. As a result, in Southeast Netherlands life is totally disrupted for some time.
We already took note of the upstream shortcomings during the major floods in the early 1990s. We also already saw at that time that responsible national and local green politicians were ducking their responsibility by blaming CO2-emissions. Now, after 30 years, nothing has changed. Again, the green European politicians state that they are not to blame for the victims and damage, but claim that the citizens and entrepreneurs, who have refused to play the green climate emergency game, are the culprits – an impudent way to disguise their own failure.”
If floods are to be expected, why are they not prepared for? The fallacy is ridiculously obvious. Yet the officials who are clearly to blame are chanting together “climate change, climate change, climate change” as though that somehow absolved them of glaring failure.
Here is how Professor Berkhout describes the foolish preoccupation with mitigation:
“However, if we look at the cold, hard facts, we see that – in contrast to climate mitigation (less CO2) – climate adaptation (protection measures) has brought a spectacular reduction in climate casualties in recent decades. Why haven’t green decision-makers learned anything from this historical adaptation success? They are so occupied with investments in CO2-reduction that embarrassingly few resources are allocated to effective protection measures.“
Mind you this colossal blunder is just as true of the US as of the EU. The Democrats want to spend trillions on cutting emissions and nothing on preparing for the expected floods and droughts.
Developing countries are not nearly so stupid. They insisted that the Green Climate Fund direct at least half its funding to adaptation. The US and EU are major donors to the GCF. So, they are in fact funding adaptation everywhere except at home.
And of course, the developing countries are also emitting like crazy. As Berkhout puts it:
“We also know very well that countries like China and India are responsible for most of the global CO2 emissions and that they are going to increase their emissions significantly with hundreds of new coal-fired power plants. Note that the EU contribution is only 6% and the Dutch contribution is less than 0.5%(!) of the global CO2 emissions. So, whatever the EU is doing with CO2 it makes little difference and for The Netherlands it makes no difference at all. What will have a decisive effect, however, is to get the water drainage system in order. Success is guaranteed!“
He adds another advice to this directive: “Stop straight away with burning wood in biomass power plants. The immediate result is that we lower air pollution, we save forests with their unique ecologies and we retain huge amounts of water in the upstream areas.”
We know adaptation is low cost and high yield, while decennia of mitigation have only produced huge expenses and never saved a single climate victim. Are these natural disasters in Europe a prelude to what we can expect if we surrender to the ‘Great Reset’ of the climate alarmists? Time to turn around before it is too late.