The company, one of India’s largest renewable power producers, said it remains committed to long-term expansion but is temporarily aligning new project additions with the availability of grid evacuation capacity.

Transmission limits slowing clean energy rollout

According to a senior company executive, the decision to rein in expansion is not driven by financial or technical limitations, but by insufficient transmission infrastructure to carry power from renewable-rich regions such as Rajasthan and Gujarat to high-demand industrial centres.

“We have the capability to build faster, but grid evacuation constraints are becoming a limiting factor,” the executive said, noting that curtailment risks and grid congestion are forcing a more cautious rollout strategy.

India’s rapid renewable energy growth has outpaced the development of transmission lines, creating bottlenecks that prevent full utilisation of installed solar and wind capacity.

India’s grid expansion struggles to keep pace

India has set an ambitious target of reaching 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030, but transmission expansion remains a critical challenge. While thousands of kilometres of new lines and substations are being added, delays in project execution and right-of-way approvals continue to slow progress.

Recent policy actions, including the revocation of grid access for delayed clean energy projects, underscore the pressure on authorities to prioritise ready-to-connect capacity over pipeline projects.

Analysts say the mismatch between generation growth and transmission readiness is already leading to power curtailment in some renewable-rich regions, where solar output must be reduced during peak production due to grid constraints.

Adani Green still expanding, but more selectively

Adani Green, a key player in India’s renewable sector and part of the Adani Group, continues to expand its portfolio of solar and wind projects, but is increasingly focusing on “grid-ready” locations where transmission infrastructure is already available or under development.

The company has been one of the fastest-growing renewable developers globally, but executives say future capacity additions will depend heavily on coordinated planning with transmission utilities.

Broader implications for India’s energy transition

Energy experts warn that transmission bottlenecks could slow India’s clean energy transition unless grid infrastructure is developed in parallel with generation capacity.

Reports show that even as India crosses major milestones in solar and wind deployment, curtailment and underutilisation of assets remain persistent challenges in several states.

The issue also raises concerns about investment efficiency, as delayed grid access can increase project costs and reduce returns for renewable developers.

Outlook

Despite these challenges, India remains one of the fastest-growing renewable energy markets in the world. However, industry leaders stress that achieving long-term climate and energy targets will depend not only on building more solar and wind plants but also on rapidly upgrading the national transmission backbone.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Energy crisis drives rapid shift to solar power

Across Europe, rising oil and gas prices linked to supply disruptions and geopolitical tensions have pushed electricity costs significantly higher. The crisis has intensified since the escalation of conflict in the Middle East, with key energy routes and supply chains facing uncertainty.

As a result, consumers are increasingly turning to rooftop solar installations as a long-term hedge against volatile energy prices and dependence on imported fossil fuels. Industry reports indicate that demand for residential solar systems has more than doubled in parts of Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands since the conflict began.

Solar companies report surge in orders

Major renewable energy providers across Europe are reporting a sharp spike in installations and inquiries. Companies in Germany and other key markets say orders for full home energy systems including solar panels, battery storage and EV charging units have surged significantly in recent months.

Industry data suggests that some installers have recorded sales increases of up to 30–50%, with battery storage systems seeing particularly strong growth as consumers seek greater energy independence and backup power options during periods of grid instability.

Households seek energy independence

Analysts say the trend reflects a broader shift in consumer behavior, where energy security is now as important as cost savings. Rooftop solar is increasingly seen not only as a climate-friendly solution, but also as a practical response to geopolitical risk.

The war in Iran has disrupted global energy markets, contributing to volatility in oil and gas supplies and reinforcing fears of prolonged high electricity prices. These conditions are accelerating Europe’s transition toward decentralized and renewable energy systems.

Policy support strengthens the trend

European policymakers are also responding to the crisis with measures aimed at reducing electricity costs and promoting clean energy adoption. The European Commission has proposed lowering electricity taxes and expanding incentives for renewable energy systems, including rooftop solar, to ease pressure on households.

These initiatives form part of a broader strategy to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and strengthen energy resilience across the region.

Structural shift in Europe’s energy landscape

Experts suggest that the current surge in solar demand may represent more than a temporary reaction to crisis conditions. Europe’s solar sector has already experienced strong long-term growth, and the latest energy shock is likely to accelerate structural change.

The combination of falling solar technology costs, improved battery storage and persistent geopolitical uncertainty is pushing households toward self-generation of electricity at unprecedented levels.

Outlook

While short-term volatility in energy markets remains high, analysts expect rooftop solar adoption in Europe to continue rising even if geopolitical tensions ease. The war in Iran has effectively reinforced a long-standing trend: Europe’s gradual but accelerating move away from centralized fossil-fuel dependence toward renewable, household-level energy production.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

US Threatens To Quit IEA Over Green Energy Advocacy

The United States has once again threatened to withdraw from the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organisation established after the 1970s Arab oil embargo, unless the agency resumes forecasting energy demand without being swayed by what some view as questionable green energy advocacy. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated ahead of an IEA ministerial meeting that support would be unwavering if the organisation returned to its roots as a reliable international energy data agency, addressing critical minerals and core energy issues. However, Wright made clear that if the agency continues to be heavily influenced by what he described as climate-driven agendas rather than focusing on pragmatic energy analysis, the U.S. would depart. He emphasised that if the agency remains “dominated and infused with climate stuff,” separation would be inevitable.

In November of last year, the IEA reversed its earlier forecasts, dropping predictions that global oil demand would peak within a few years—a significant shift since the agency began promoting net-zero policies and green energy at the start of the decade. Tensions between the Trump administration and the IEA have heightened in recent months. Last summer, a House committee approved a bill to end U.S. funding for the IEA. Republican lawmakers argue that the agency has abandoned its primary mission to maintain energy security and instead promotes green energy policies that they believe lack objective scientific backing.

In July 2025, Secretary Wright reaffirmed that the United States could exit the IEA should the agency persist in prioritising renewables over rational, evidence-based energy demand analysis and the principle of energy security. Wright told reporters in July that the U.S. would pursue one of two courses: either reform the IEA’s operations or withdraw entirely, with reform being his preferred option. Secretary Wright reiterated his strong preference for reform over withdrawal, hoping for a renewed focus on unbiased energy analysis. The official echoed sentiments among Republican lawmakers who assert that the IEA has become an advocate for the energy transition, arguing it no longer provides objective forecasts for energy demand but instead pursues a climate agenda many consider scientifically questionable.

The International Energy Agency: A Once-Useful Outfit Gone Rogue

Let’s start by talking about what the IEA is. Founded in 1974 under the OECD umbrella after the Arab oil embargo hammered the West, the IEA’s core job was straightforward:

Coordinate emergency oil stockpiles among member countries.

Promote energy security, affordability, and realistic market analysis.

Counter OPEC’s influence by sharing data and ensuring stable supplies.

It had 16 original members (now 32, plus associates like China and India in limited roles). The focus was pragmatic: Keep the lights on, fuels flowing, and economies growing without blackmail from oil cartels. No nonsense about “saving the planet” by killing reliable energy.

The IEA’s Drift: From Objectivity to Green Advocacy

Everything changed in the 2010s under Executive Director Fatih Birol. The IEA started prioritizing “clean energy transitions” and net-zero scenarios that assume governments will forcibly suppress fossil fuels. Their flagship World Energy Outlook began pushing predictions of “peak oil demand” by the mid-2020s—claims that aged like milk as global demand hit records year after year. Critics on the right (including U.S. Republicans and energy producers) rightly call this ideological bias. The IEA’s models bake in massive subsidies for wind/solar, ignore intermittency problems, and downplay breakthroughs in American oil/gas production that made the U.S. the world’s top producer. It’s no coincidence their forecasts aligned perfectly with Paris Agreement globalism—restricting Western energy while China builds coal plants unchecked. This isn’t neutral analysis; it’s advocacy masquerading as expertise. I’d never invest based on models this politicized—they’re designed to justify trillions in stranded assets and higher energy costs for regular people.

For years, their flagship World Energy Outlook reports obsessed over fantasy paths to net-zero emissions by 2050, predicting premature “peaks” in oil demand that never materialized. This wasn’t neutral forecasting – it was advocacy disguised as science, influencing trillions in investments toward unreliable wind/solar while demonizing proven fossil fuels. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright put it bluntly: The IEA spent five years publishing scenarios with “zero relevance to reality,” all tied to political climate ambitions. They’ve admitted as much indirectly – in November 2025, they finally dropped their peak-oil-by-2030 nonsense and acknowledged demand keeps rising under current policies. But they still shove net-zero fairy tales in every report. Why? Because it’s infested with the same globalist ideology driving the UN, Paris Agreement, and ESG scams that tank shareholder value. This bias distorts markets. Investors pour money into overhyped “green” tech based on IEA hype, only to see subsidies dry up and returns crater when reality hits (e.g., Europe’s deindustrialization from high energy costs). Meanwhile, actual energy poverty kills millions in the developing world – 2 million die annually from lack of clean cooking fuels, per Wright – but the IEA fixates on theoretical CO2 reductions that do zilch for real people.

The Cost: Taxpayer Dollars Funding Anti-Energy Propaganda

Your Tax Dollars Funding Globalist Nonsense

Membership isn’t free. While the IEA doesn’t reach the scale of a sprawling UN bureaucracy, it nonetheless drains the coffers of its member countries, all for the privilege of funding an institution that increasingly works at cross-purposes to their own interests. In recent years, the organisation’s core annual budget has hovered between €20 and €25 million (about $22–27 million USD). The United States shoulders the heaviest load, handing over roughly $6 million each year—about a quarter or more of the IEA’s basic operating budget, covering everything from staff salaries to slick reports and meetings in Paris. Some outdated estimates put America’s share at 14%, but recent figures confirm a much higher mark. Dues aren’t negotiable, either; payments are assessed using a formula pegged to each nation’s economy and energy consumption, meaning the largest economies—America, Japan, Germany—are always on the hook for the lion’s share. There’s no cherry-picking the bits you want to fund. Every member pays for the whole package, and that includes the IEA’s persistent green lobbying, whether you approve or not.

Step back for perspective: $6 million might be a drop in the bucket compared to federal spending, but it’s money tossed down the drain when the agency’s agenda now openly undermines American energy strength. The shale revolution turned the U.S. into a net energy exporter, and yet they are subsidising an outfit determined to hike costs for families, destroy jobs in real energy sectors, and campaign for the abandonment of fuels that built their prosperity. In a Trump-led administration, which puts America First, why keep propping up bureaucrats in Paris who never miss a chance to scold Americans over their energy choices? Enough is enough, and Republican lawmakers have reached their limit.Already, a House committee moved forward with bills in 2025 to defund the U.S. contributions. Energy Secretary Chris Wright—a no-nonsense pioneer in fracking—has repeatedly drawn a line in the sand: unless the IEA scraps the climate crusading and returns to its original mandate of energy security and objective data, the U.S. should pull out entirely. As Wright bluntly put it: reform or we walk. Frankly, the smarter move is to walk, pocket the $6 million, and send a clear message that America won’t bankroll institutions that undermine its interests.

A U.S. exit isn’t just about the money. It’s about sovereignty—no longer handing over American tax dollars to an organisation obsessed with imposing supranational green mandates. It’s about fiscal sanity—redirecting those funds to genuine American priorities, perhaps even tax relief. It’s about energy realism—when American dollars and influence vanish, the IEA loses credibility as the so-called “gold standard” for market forecasts. And it’s about precedent—declaring that they are done footing the bill for globalist outfits that sneer at affordable energy and American prosperity.

The IEA’s recent softening—quietly stretching oil demand growth projections out to 2050—came only after sustained American pressure. If anything, this proves that U.S. leverage works, but it also begs the question: why stay in a club that has long since abandoned its founding mission? At the end of the day, the climate hysteria peddled by such institutions has enriched consultants and foreign manufacturers, while gutting the reliability of Western energy.

Why Withdrawal (or Forced Reform) Makes Sense

The Trump administration’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright prefers reform – get back to unbiased data, critical minerals, and real energy security – but withdrawal is on the table if they keep peddling “climate stuff.” Wright called net-zero 2050 a “0.0% chance” delusion that’s already wasted $10+ trillion globally for a pathetic 2.6% shift to wind/solar/batteries, driving up electricity prices everywhere it’s forced (U.S. states with renewable mandates pay 50% more on average). This isn’t isolationism – it’s anti-globalism. Why fund an OECD club that’s hurting American energy dominance? We lead in oil/gas production; let the Europeans chase their deindustrialization dreams if they want. Bottom line: the IEA as a bad investment. For anyone who values sound finance and national strength, the solution is obvious: it’s time to defund and depart.

IEA Chief claims Fracturing Global Order Is Splintering Energy Policy

IEA Chief forced to admit fading climate hysteria

According to the International Energy Agency’s chief, the fragmentation of the so-called “global order” is disrupting the consistency of energy policies worldwide—a disruption that reflects the growing rejection of climate alarmism. Fatih Birol, speaking to the reporters, acknowledged that the global political landscape is splintering and, consequently, nations are pursuing divergent approaches to energy and climate change. Rather than blindly following climate dogma, countries are now making pragmatic choices tailored to their own interests. This follows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to repeal the so-called endangerment finding, a regulatory tool previously wielded by the Biden administration to justify sweeping climate policies. The move signalled a shift away from prioritising climate alarmism in favour of practical energy policy. The endangerment finding had claimed that carbon dioxide, methane, and four other gases posed threats to public health and welfare, a narrative now being challenged as part of a broader pushback against climate hysteria.

The Trump administration’s efforts to undo Biden-era climate regulations highlight a renewed emphasis on energy security and national interest over costly emission reduction mandates. Even within the European Union—long a champion of climate policy—there has been a retreat from ambitious regulations, as industry and consumers push back against the financial burden of climate commitments. The EU’s proposed 2035 ban on internal combustion engine vehicles, for example, is now under reconsideration, with Brussels authorities searching for ways to lower energy costs and stave off deindustrialisation. This pragmatic shift further illustrates the waning influence of climate hysteria on actual policy decisions. Revisions to emissions permit trading are also underway, with the chemical industry demanding urgent reform and the abolition of the planned phaseout of free carbon permits—a further sign that business realities are trumping climate ideology. As Birol had to acknowledge, climate change is “moving down the international policy agenda,” reflecting the reality that governments are increasingly unwilling to sacrifice economic stability and energy security for climate hysteria. Even China, once a strong supporter of electric vehicles, has slashed subsidies—resulting in a sharp 20% monthly drop in sales—demonstrating a global trend away from climate-driven policies and towards practical economic concerns. Shall I remind you that this is prophecy coming to pass?

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic is expected to attend the gathering of trade officials in G7 capitals alongside counterparts from other leading economies including the United States, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom. The meeting comes against the backdrop of unpredictable tariff actions out of Washington that have unsettled transatlantic trade relations.

Tariff Turmoil and Transatlantic Tension

The announcement follows a ruling last week by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down large portions of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime a decision that raised fresh questions about the legal basis of trade measures and disrupted the stability of an already delicate trade environment. In response, the U.S. temporarily imposed new blanket tariffs of around 15 % on imported goods, including those from EU member states a move that has left Brussels seeking clarity on future policy.

The EU Commission has pressed Washington to honor the terms of a 2025 EU‑U.S. trade agreement, under which both sides agreed on tariff ceilings and reciprocal concessions. “A deal is a deal,” senior EU officials have reiterated, urging that unpredictability in tariff policy could damage confidence in global markets.

What the G7 Talks Aim to Address

The G7 session will provide a forum for industrialized democracies to align on approaches to tariff uncertainty and explore ways to promote trade predictability. According to EU spokespeople, the goal is to discuss coordinated responses, establish common principles for trade stability and manage the fallout from recent policy shifts.

Sefcovic’s participation reflects Europe’s push for multilateral engagement on trade rules rather than unilateral measures that could invite retaliation or fragmentation of global supply chains.

Analysts say the G7 meeting could also touch on broader issues affecting world trade, such as rising protectionism, digital trade barriers and ongoing disputes over industrial subsidies, although tariffs remain the immediate priority.

European Parliament Weighs Agreement Ratification

Meanwhile, uncertainty surrounding U.S. tariff policy has spilled over into legislative discussions in Brussels. Members of the European Parliament’s trade committee have signaled they may delay approval of the Turnberry trade agreement the pact designed to stabilize EU‑U.S. commerce until clear legal commitments from Washington are secured. Parliamentarians argue that unpredictable tariff changes undermine the treaty’s underlying assumptions.

Bernd Lange, chair of the trade committee, has proposed pausing legislative work on ratification until lawmakers can gain comprehensive legal clarity from U.S. officials, describing the current situation as “pure tariff chaos.”

Business and Markets Feeling the Strain

Corporate and industry leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have expressed concern over the uncertainty created by recent tariff actions. Executives warn that abrupt changes to duties can disrupt supply chains, complicate investment planning and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers alike.

In Germany, the head of a major banking association described the newly announced tariffs as a burden on economies on both sides of the Atlantic, highlighting concerns that trade unpredictability could stifle growth and heighten inflationary pressures.

U.S. Response and Next Steps

U.S. trade representatives have attempted to calm concerns, asserting that the Supreme Court ruling would not unravel existing trade agreements, and have reiterated commitments to uphold fair treatment for trading partners. Washington emphasizes continued engagement with allies to ensure stability while navigating legal and policy changes.

However, for European officials, securing legal certainty and transparent tariff commitments from Washington remains essential before fully advancing any formal trade pact.

Looking Ahead

As the G7 talks loom on Monday, all eyes are on whether the bloc’s major economies can collectively address growing tariff uncertainty and push for a more predictable global trading framework. For now, Brussels appears determined to use multilateral dialogue to reinforce stability and protect economic interests across borders.

The outcome of the G7 discussions could set the tone for future trade cooperation between the EU and the United States and influence how global markets navigate an era of renewed tariff tensions.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Charlotte Scaddan, the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, appeared via teleconference as a witness during the hearing, which examined how climate and energy information is managed and communicated. During the session, panel members raised concerns about whether statements that challenge or “undermine” established scientific consensus could be categorised as misinformation.

Critics at the hearing questioned the threshold for such classifications and pressed for clarity on the evidence underpinning UN backed climate claims. When asked to cite specific empirical data during the exchange, Scaddan did not reference particular page numbers or datasets, prompting further debate among panel participants.

The United Nations has consistently maintained that its climate positions are based on assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which compiles peer-reviewed scientific research from around the world. However, the hearing highlighted ongoing tensions over how climate related information is moderated and the balance between combating misinformation and protecting open debate.

The discussion reflects a broader global conversation about free expression, scientific consensus, and the role of international institutions in regulating information in the digital age.

In South Africa, persistent downpours have inundated low lying areas, damaging homes and critical infrastructure, while emergency services have been deployed to rescue residents trapped by rising waters. In Mozambique, flooding has displaced thousands, reviving memories of past climate-related disasters that have repeatedly struck the country during the rainy season. Zimbabwe has also reported multiple fatalities, with rural communities particularly vulnerable as dams overflow and crops are destroyed.

Meteorological agencies across the region have issued fresh weather warnings, cautioning that further heavy rainfall could lead to additional flash floods and landslides. Disaster management officials say the scale of destruction highlights the growing impact of extreme weather events, which scientists link to climate change, increasing both the intensity and frequency of heavy rains in Southern Africa.

Humanitarian organisations are mobilising to provide food, shelter and medical assistance to displaced families, while governments assess the damage and appeal for regional and international support. Authorities have urged residents in high risk areas to remain vigilant and follow evacuation orders as rescue teams continue operations under challenging conditions.

COP30 WAS BASED ON A MISCHARACTERISED UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUS QUO

The pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is on a notable decline; and to begin with, I’d like to address the fundamental and strategic flaw among the organisers of COP30 – which is that they mischaracterised the status quo, as it pertains to genuine environmental issues. Of course, this might be generous language on my part, because it very well could NOT be a mischaracterisation, and was instead the COP30 organisers doubling down on a deceptive narrative. However, it nevertheless is a gross mischaracterisation, and I say that understanding that it is also the irony of deception that those who are deceived often do not know that they are.

So, what is the mischaracterisation? Well, the UN climate chief Simon Stiell was in fine hysterical form at the start of the COP30 conference in Belém, telling delegates that squabbling would not be forgiven while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands. His exact words were (quote) “To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense economically and politically.” Now, these words almost sound noble, except that they are contradicted and overshadowed by the fact that the COP30 organisers cut down 100,000 mature rainforest trees so that 50,000 other COP delegates can hear them. 

But, despite the sentiments from the UN climate chief Simon Stiell, herein lies the mischaracterisation of the status quo: over the last 30 years, higher crop yields (thanks to hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser and increases in global biomass caused by a slight increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) … these higher crop yields have led to the almost complete elimination of natural famine. Which is why climate alarmist cannot adequately define a climate refugee (even through they continuously churn out the false rhetoric that billions are already on the move try to escape climate change disasters).

In reality, over the last 25 years, natural famine, that primarily caused by environmental factors such as droughts and heat, has become exceedingly rare. In fact, natural famine mortality has been falling dramatically over the last 100 years. The nuance (which climate alarmists conveniently skip over is that almost all famines (at least since the last 100 years) are caused by local conflicts or senseless outbreaks of political ideology. For example, Chairman Mao Zedong’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ in the late 1950s destroyed traditional farming in China and led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation. And ironically, if the hard-Left Net Zero advocates would implement their plans and abolish hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser across the globe, even higher numbers of people, stretching into billions, will starve.

But it was not just Simon Stiell who had ideas divorced from reality. In addition, former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo was also at COP30 and offered the opinion that (quote) “we’ll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food.” Now, either that is a very hardline alarmist and pessimistic opinion on the state of the climate, or it is flat out wrong – neither of which are not concerning. And I say this because (as far as what science evidences) you cannot destroy H20 (or water). Water molecules are made of atoms. Chemical and nuclear reactions rearrange these atoms, but the atoms themselves are never created or destroyed. Additionally, while the water is “broken apart,” the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are still present. And so, in other words, water cannot be easily “destroyed” by heat in the typical sense, as it is a very stable molecule that is actually a product of combustion (which is a burning). And while this is said as a refutation of the claim from former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo, it is impossible to miss that it also testifies of how utterly incredible God’s detail to creation is. So, no: there is not a reality where weather heat can destroy water; and even those who separate water molecules will tell you that it requires excessive amounts of heat that exceed (I believe) 3000 degrees celsius. And so, the very primary concerns that were expressed at COP 30 were gross mischaracterisation of reality or the status quo. Frankly, it is amazing what you discover when you question and poke holes into the alarmist sentiments that are promulgated. But, as you can imagine, those were not the only concerns from COP30.

COP30 CLIMATE ALARMISM IGNORES CENTURIES OF ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN CLIMATE

Additionally, it is worth noting that mischaracterisations fueling the climate alarmism at COP30 ignores how people have always adapted to changes in the climate or environment. This is to say, that firstly, there have been no statistically worsening trends of climate impacts. But, in addition, there have been many improvements in humans adapting to whatever nature has thrown against them. We have ways of keeping water cumulatively for dry seasons, non-GMO means of ensuring a higher crop yield, and seed cleaning strategies that lead to more reliable and uniform growth; among many others.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to accumulate showing the Earth is increasing biomass at a considerable rate as higher levels of CO2, partly helped by humans using hydrocarbons, rescue the atmosphere from the near-denuded levels of the immediate past. Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere has boosted plant growth almost everywhere, leading to notable de-desertification in marginal living areas in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Another advantage is that plants growing with more CO2 need less water and can survive in areas where local droughts occur. More biomass also leads to a healthier planet with massive benefits cascading through the ecosystem. All of this is ignored by the COP30 attendees. But, as they travelled down their local ‘highway of irony, built for their comfort by chopping down 100,000 rainforest trees, they should at least have been comforted by the news that the remaining mature Amazon trees are gorging on CO2 gas, and will thus continue to flourish for that reason. But, here is more on the role and importance of CO2.

THE LACK OF CONSENSUS ABOUT ABOLISHING FOSSIL FUELS AT COP30

This then brings us to a notable outcome from COP30 – particularly in how the conference ended. In essence, a last-minute agreement at the conclusion of COP30 was struck which ended up satisfying nobody, following threatened walkouts and tantrums.

And how it started is that a minority of countries, led by the UK and the EU, wanted the agreement at the conclusion of COP30 to include a legally binding roadmap on how and when the world would transition away from fossil fuels – which is concerningly something that leaders of nations had committed to (in principle) at COP28. Such a roadmap would essentially put meat on the bones of what had been no more than a vague promise to do something at some stage in the future.

However, a majority of countries opposed the UK’s plan, which had been strenuously argued by Ed Miliband. Although fingers were pointed at the Arab oil states, it was China and India, supported by many Asian and African nations, whose economies depend on fossil fuels and who need them to improve the lot of their people, that challenged the idea (which is quite incredibly, seeing as climate policies are often dictated to African and Asian countries).

In contrast, the UK and EU, along with a small handful of Latin American countries and Pacific Islands, even sent a letter to the COP President threatening to block any agreement that did not include a firm commitment to phase out fossil fuels. But it was all to no avail, as the COP Presidency simply ignored their demands and offered them a ‘take it or leave it’ choice instead. To which the UK and EU had to back down. Consequently, the final deal made at COP30 made NO MENTION of a roadmap and even failed to include stronger language about phasing out fossil fuels. The only mention was a passing “acknowledgement” of the transition already agreed at COP28. Indeed, the pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is at a decline.

And in addition, I believe one of the key takeaways of COP30, especially in light of the failure to create consensus on abolishing fossil fuels, is that there has been the eclipse of Europe as a force in world politics. No longer does the rest of the world put a premium on the declarations of European climate alarmists. Because, after all, why should any developing nation be denied cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy because of the declarations of European nations? In truth, COP30 was the conference when pious platitudes met reality. And reality won. As such, while some Western countries are still determined to pursue Net Zero regardless of the cost and damage entailed, the rest of the world long ago worked out that fossil fuels are an essential, not a luxury.

THE WAR ON FOSSIL FUELS

While they ultimately failed, the attempt at pushing for a legally binding commitment to phase out foil fuels represents a war on fossil fuels, which is quite important to be aware of and push against. And to detail this further, we ought first to quickly establish why fossil fuels are not a problem. So, you no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before. When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars. They also think that “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet. In any case, none of these notions are true, but many people believe them; and – no doubt – the use of propaganda terms plays a large role.

In fact, George Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts. Additionally, it is crucial to note that the problematisation of fossil fuel has an extensive history – as there has been a prolonged war on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, kindly have a listen to this promotional video from Greenpeace on what they say are the dangers of fossil fuel advertising; and subsequently a discussion with Bill McKibben, on what he called the Radicalness of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

UNDERSTANDING HYDROCARBONS IS ESSENTIAL FOR APPRECIATING FOSSIL FUELS

Now, considering the presence of such propaganda against fossil fuels, I would kindly suggest understanding “fossil fuels” as being somewhat synonymous to hydrocarbons, which is a much better and more precise word.

In essence, a hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes. Therefore, they are not an inherent evil; they are a necessary and functional resource. In fact, oil and gas account for two-thirds of all energy consumed on earth. Add in coal, and the total soars to well over 90%.

Even as oil and gas are consumed, reserve estimates are not decreasing, but increasing, thanks to significant advances in drilling and production technology, especially deepwater drilling, multistage hydraulic fracturing, and horizontal drilling. Consumers’ natural gas prices are down significantly, as a result. Similarly, production from US shale oil has saved consumers as much as $248 billion on gasoline and other refined projects. And it’s a good thing, because global hydrocarbon consumption is expected to grow significantly in the coming decades, particularly in the developing world. And so, this is why we ought to be cautious of messaging that tries to vilify what is clearly a reliable energy source. However, the war on fossil fuels is also driven by diabolical approaches that have a Malthusian view on human life, as the President of Loveworld Incorporated warned a long time ago. 

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT HYDROCARBONS ARE RELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Now, it is also important to note that hydrocarbon fuels still make up about 86% of the world’s energy supply, which is roughly the same as it was in 1997. 22 Years later, and these fuels are still the primary source of energy, despite the growing use and development of renewables. When we ask why this is so, we discover that it is because these fuels are good at what they do! Most industries still rely on these fuels to provide power, heat and energy because they are efficient, effective, and readily available.

For instance, a major user of hydrocarbon fuels is the transportation industry. This includes everything from the taxis, e-hailing rides, buses, ferries that transport people over short distances of water, and even private vehicles. And while advances are being made in this sector to introduce modes of transport that rely less of hydrocarbons – with for example, the Ugandan-based company Kiira Motors introducing a solar-powered electric bus, the first of its kind in East Africa, …while these inventions are making great strides, they are far from being a model for what transportation ought to look like, because of challenges like high costs, limited availability, and issues with charging the vehicles which make them less reliable options for many.

Similarly, the mining industry doesn’t just obtain the hydrocarbon fuels we use every day – it uses them itself! Mining operations require enormous amounts of power, relying on energy from the grid, where possible, and generators in order to get the job done. Diesel and HFO are often the fuels of choice here, due to their lower costs and the added benefit of lower machine maintenance costs, and for the fact that these fuels are readily available.

Additionally, marine transport (or shipping) remains the best and most efficient way to transport goods around the world – 90% of Africa’s imports and exports happen via sea! But those enormous, mobile, island-size vehicles need the power to do it, and hydrocarbon fuels are its primary source of fuel and energy. These tremendous machines use a variety of fuels, including diesel, bunker fuel (HFO) and liquified natural gas (LNG). Renewable energy has infiltrated the shipping industry as well, offering the use of solar energy. At this point in time, solar energy can’t do much more than power basic electrical facilities on ships, leaving hydrocarbon fuels to do the heavy lifting.

And (of course), as we know, hydrocarbons are essential for the availability of electricity. With electricity, almost all things were made possible with ease: we have heated water, we can store our food safely in refrigerators, we can control the immediate climate in our environments through air conditioning, we can work on our computers, laptops, and phones, and we have something to power machinery, doing the jobs humans can’t. And all of this was initially made possible with hydrocarbon fuels! To provide us with the power we have at arms’ reach every day, hydrocarbon fuels and materials like coal are burned in power stations, transforming that heat and stored energy into kinetic energy, which turns huge turbines and generates electricity. Hydrocarbon fuels are even used to make renewable energy sources like solar panels – silica rock must be melted to create the silicon needed for solar panels, which can only be done with coal-fired or HFO-fired power plants!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

First Things First; the “climate change” hysteria is the biggest Ponzi scheme since the dot-com bubble. It’s not about saving the planet; it’s about control, regulations, and funnelling billions into the coffers of Big Agra and their cronies. Case in point: Bovaer, that so-called miracle methane-reducing additive for cows. Pushed as a green rescuer, it’s now leaving Danish dairy herds collapsing in agony, proving once again that meddling with nature for a fabricated crisis only leads to disaster—and massive financial hits for the little guy.

First off, what is this Bovaer nonsense? Bovaer—fancy name for 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), peddled by Elanco and DSM-Firmenich—is a feed additive dumped into cow rations to supposedly slash methane emissions by 30%. Methane? That trace gas the alarmists blame for “global boiling” while jetting to Davos? Yeah, cows burp it out naturally, but according to the hoax-peddlers, it’s doomsday fuel. So governments, chasing ESG brownie points and EU subsidies, mandate this stuff. Denmark kicked it off hard: Since October 1, 2025, any dairy farm with over 50 cows must feed Bovaer for at least 80 days a year, or face fines and fat taxes. No opt-out for the climate cult. Financially? It’s a raw deal. Farmers shell out $20-30 per cow annually for this additive, on top of already razor-thin margins from skyrocketing feed costs and suppressed milk prices. And who profits? Not you or the farmer—Elanco’s stock popped 15% last quarter on “sustainable ag” hype, while DSM-Firmenich rakes in millions from global approvals in 70 countries. It’s classic crony capitalism: Governments print money for “green” mandates, corporations cash the checks, and rural America (or Denmark) gets the bill. Subsidies? Sure, but they’re dwarfed by the hidden costs—like vet bills when your herd starts dropping like flies.

As the fake climate crisis unfolds, a not so shocking reality is emerging in Denmark, where dairy farmers are witnessing their cows collapse under the weight of a supposedly eco-friendly solution. Just weeks into the mandate, farmers are rising up in revolt as reports flood in of cows plagued by fevers, lethargy, bloating, diarrhea, plummeting fertility, and sudden deaths. Farmer Anders Ring was forced to remove Bovaer from his herd after just 30 days, as his cows developed digital dermatitis, a debilitating hoof rot that makes walking a torturous experience. Another farmer suffered the devastating loss of six cows in a matter of days, prompting him to vow never to use the product again. The Danish Agriculture & Food Council has launched an emergency survey, citing animal welfare as its top priority, as the director, Ida Storm, acknowledges that no amount of lab testing could have prepared them for this catastrophe.

Milk production has plummeted by up to 20% in affected herds, with fertility crashes resulting in fewer calves, delayed breeding cycles, and a significant financial hit, with losses estimated at over $1,000 per cow. This crisis is affecting thousands of animals across 1,400 Danish farms that adopted this “eco-friendly” solution. The deaths are not isolated incidents, with multiple reports of cows bloating and dying mid-feed, exhibiting symptoms of rumen disruption caused by the enzyme-blocker. Meanwhile, the manufacturer, DSM-Firmenich, is in full damage control mode, claiming “no evidence” links Bovaer to the disaster, citing Aarhus University trials and 15 years of supposed safe use elsewhere. However, investigations are ongoing, and many are skeptical, given the same regulators who approved Roundup despite cancer lawsuits are now overseeing this crisis. Independent probes are scarce, while the EU continues to tout its “climate action” initiatives. A whistleblower farmer, who owns 600 cows, reported a significant decline in his herd’s health, including lethargy and reduced milk yields, until he removed Bovaer, after which his herd recovered within days. The Danish Dairy Board has received over 200 complaints, with animals showing reduced appetite and production plummeting, raising concerns about product liability.

The manufacturer and its allies are denying any wrongdoing, citing controlled studies that show no issues, but real-world farming is far more complex, with high stakes and significant financial losses. Farmers are being forced to pay for Bovaer or alternative solutions to avoid fines, only to watch their productivity decline, resulting in lower milk output, increased vet bills, and potential herd losses. The beneficiaries of this crisis are the additive manufacturers, subsidized by taxpayer-funded “green” initiatives, and billionaires like Bill Gates, who have invested in similar methane-reducing technologies. Small family farms are being squeezed out, consolidating power in corporate hands, in a classic case of crony capitalism masquerading as environmentalism.

The human impact of this crisis should not be ignored, with claims of eye and skin irritation, as well as fertility risks, from high doses of Bovaer, although regulators insist it is safe at cow levels with no residues in milk. However, why take the risk when the methane panic is overhyped, and cows are not the primary emission culprits? The real villains are being ignored, while the food chain is being poisoned. It is time to reexamine the green initiative and prioritize animal welfare, human health, and the long-term sustainability of the dairy industry.

Bovaer’s Sinister Connection to the Depopulation Agenda Uncovered

We’ve already exposed how Bovaer, a toxic methane-suppressing feed, is devastating cow herds and bankrupting farmers under the guise of addressing the so-called “climate crisis.” However, a deeper look reveals a more ominous plot, directly tied to the depopulation agenda. This is not just about ailing cows; it’s a deliberate attack on humanity, masquerading as a noble effort to save the planet. The key players include Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and a strategy straight out of dystopian devil worship, all aimed at reducing the global population while consolidating control over food, fertility, and future profits. To understand the basics, it’s essential to acknowledge that depopulation is a real and sinister goal for some of the world’s most influential billionaires, who view ordinary people as the primary contributors to the carbon footprint problem. Bill Gates has openly discussed this in TED talks, proposing the use of vaccines, healthcare, and “reproductive health” to reduce the global population by 10-15%.

The introduction of Bovaer is a prime example of engineered chaos. In Denmark, farmers are witnessing cows dying from fevers, diarrhea, and plummeting fertility rates, with ovaries shrinking and miscarriages increasing. Notably, the active ingredient, 3-NOP, has been flagged as potentially damaging to fertility and the unborn child. Despite this, the substance is being pumped into the food chain, potentially contaminating milk and meat. Meanwhile, Bill Gates is investing millions in the company behind Bovaer. This is not a coincidence; Gates is also a proponent of mRNA vaccines and fake meat, supposedly to “save the planet.” Upon closer examination, a web of connections to globalist interests becomes apparent. The manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich, has received over $5 million from Gates’ foundation, and Arla Foods, which is testing this toxic substance in the UK, is deeply involved in Gates-linked operations in Nigeria through SAHEL Consulting.

The World Economic Forum and the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 serve as the blueprint for this sinister plan: eliminating livestock under “net zero” mandates, crippling food supplies, forcing people to consume bug-based and lab-grown products, and ultimately leading to a significant decline in population due to starvation, infertility, and mysterious health crises. BlackRock’s Larry Fink has even explicitly stated that depopulation is necessary to make way for machines to replace humans. Bovaer fits perfectly into this scheme, poisoning cows, contaminating dairy products, reducing birth rates, and resulting in fewer people to feed and more control for the ruling elite. Small farms are going bankrupt due to sick herds and boycotts, as informed consumers are already avoiding Arla products.

As a result, corporate giants like Gates, who is the largest owner of farmland in the US, are buying up land at discounted prices. They then shift to producing “sustainable” synthetic alternatives. Beef prices are skyrocketing, with a 26% increase already and a projected 60% rise by 2026, while these corporations profit from scarcity. This is not capitalism; it’s cronyism on steroids, subsidized by taxpayer dollars earmarked for “climate” initiatives. Meanwhile, the media is complicit, downplaying the truth and labeling it “misinformation” as cows succumb to illness and fertility rates decline. The fake climate crisis is being exploited as a cover for control, and the well-being of the planet is not their concern.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

According to local reports, demonstrators broke through security barriers at the entrance to the conference center, chanting slogans and waving banners that read “Save Our Forests” and “No Climate Justice Without Indigenous Voices.” Security guards attempted to block entry, resulting in scuffles and heightened tension before order was eventually restored.

The protesters, many representing Amazonian Indigenous communities, accused world leaders of failing to meet previous pledges to curb deforestation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They demanded immediate action to protect ancestral lands from illegal logging, mining, and agribusiness expansion issues they say threaten both the planet’s biodiversity and their way of life.

The COP30 Summit, being held in Belém, Brazil, marks a crucial gathering of global leaders, activists, and scientists as the world confronts worsening climate impacts. The event’s host nation, Brazil, has faced scrutiny for balancing economic development with rainforest conservation.

Organizers later released a statement affirming their respect for the protesters’ right to express their views but urged all participants to maintain peace and dialogue.

THE UN IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL CLIMATE TAX

The war on the sovereignty of nations around the world, through the United Nation’s efforts at a global climate tax; and to begin with, while nations around the world reject climate policy, the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations are looking to force an international tax on carbon emissions. This week, the UN agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO) gathered in London to vote on a “net-zero framework” on shipping. It’s the first time the UN has attempted to levy a tax. Implement

Now, if the proposal is approved, ships over 5000 gross tonnage will be subject to regulations and a pricing mechanism. Current talks set the fee at around $100 per ton of CO2. Future increases will be decided by an unelected 170-member committee. MEANWHILE, shipping is responsible for a mere 3% of global emissions, but this tax will have a major impact on consumers. Experts say it will raise shipping costs by up to 10% and will increase the cost of most household goods.

Then, regarding the money and overall utility of the tax, first, the UN will collect an estimated $11-13 billion every year from this tax. The money will go into a new fund, controlled by the UN, to push decarbonization and “mitigate negative impacts” of climate change in developing countries. The fund will also apparently “reward low-emission ships” and forward green innovation. This means that an unelected international agency, not a sovereign state, would set a price on carbon, collect the money, and decide how to spend it. Essentially, the UN has found a way to do what it has sought for decades: which is to create a global tax base, and one where once established, there would be no logical or political limit to where that power expands next — be it aviation, logistics, manufacturing, agriculture, or even individual consumption.

Meanwhile, the UN’s long record of corruption, mismanagement, and political bias makes it unfit to handle global taxation, and this is not even considering that taxation is itself a horrible system. But, this is to say that this plan for global taxation severs the link between taxation and representation, transferring fiscal power from nations to unelected bureaucrats, thus creating a multi-billion-dollar fund with no accountability. And by rewarding compliant states and punishing dissenters, this global taxation system further undermines national sovereignty over energy, trade, and emissions policy, by placing control in the hands of those who stand to profit from the rules.

Well, unsurprisingly, the United States—which is the UN’s largest sponsor—is balking at the prospect of taxation without representation. The Trump Administration has threatened sanctions on any country that votes for it, among other actions which we will address shortly. And in addition, some lawmakers, like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, say it is time for the US to pull out of the UN altogether.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO NATIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK

Now, in light of the actions considered by the Trump administration on nations that support the net zero framework, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Energy Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Duffy issued a Joint Statement in response to the UN’s efforts; and it states the following. First, the statement details that “President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.”

The joint statement continued to remark that “The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the International Maritime Organization and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more. We ask you to join us in rejecting adoption of the NZF at the October meeting and to work together on our collective economic and energy security.

Then finally, the joint statement proceeds to highlight notable considerations from the Trump administration. Here, the joint statement notes that: “The NZF proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all International Maritime Organization member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided. The United States is considering the following actions against nations that support this global carbon tax on American consumers:

(1) The first is Pursuing investigations and considering potential regulations to combat anti-competitive practices from certain flagged countries and potential blocking vessels registered in those countries from US ports; (2) Second is imposing visa restrictions including an increase in fees and processing, mandatory re-interview requirements and/or revisions of quotas for C-1/D maritime crew member visas; (3) Third is imposing commercial penalties stemming from US government contracts including new commercial ships, liquified natural gas terminals and infrastructure, and/or other financial penalties on ships flagged under nations in favour of the NZF; and (4) Fourth is imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the framework; and the final measure considered by the Trump administration is evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration.

Now, you heard in the excerpt that we’ve just watched, where Ambassador Mike Walz stated that this net zero tax would primarily be a win for the EU and Chinese corporations; and before this is quickly dismissed as standard US government official banter; I’d like for us to look into these remarks further, because they reveal something important about the shadow activities of diabolical corporations in influencing government action – which is another crucial aspect on the war on the sovereignty of nations.

UNPACKING THE UN’S INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION’S “NET ZERO FRAMEWORK”

But first, let’s proceed to zoom in on the Net-Zero Framework, and what exactly it entails. In essence, the Net-Zero Framework is: The International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping by or around 2050. The Net-Zero Framework introduces legally binding requirements on GHG fuel intensity, pricing, and rewards mechanisms, applying to large ships engaged in international trade. It is designed to accelerate the adoption of zero or near-zero GHG fuels, technologies, and energy sources in the maritime sector, with implementation expected to begin from 2028 if formally adopted.”

Secondly, it is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The International Maritime Organization was established by a UN conference and operates under an agreement that defines its relationship with the UN, focusing on setting global standards for shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its framework and regulatory authority derive from the UN system, but it functions independently to create and enforce legally binding shipping regulations. Here’s more on this:

Then thirdly, (and this is where we begin to look further into the remarks we watched from Ambassador Mike Walz) there is also a driving force behind this push for the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework; and this driving force comes from a coalition of European nations, UN-aligned climate institutions, and major green fuel and maritime associations, with endorsement from several international business groups linked to the clean energy transition. The major entities involved in green shipping fuels, often referred to as “green fuel” companies or organizations, include both large international shipbuilders and fuel producers. Key players actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonization are:

(1) First, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (in South Korea) and they are leading in building dual-fuel vessels capable of running on what is said to be green methanol and other low-carbon fuels. (2) Second is Samsung Heavy Industries (also in South Korea) and they focus on developing what are said to be sustainable ships powered by green ammonia and methanol. (3) Third is COSCO Shipping Industries (in China): and they are working on green vessel technology, including methanol and alternative fuels. (4) Fourth is Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding (also in China): Designing what are deemed eco-friendly, dual-fuel vessels, including green methanol ships. (5) Then finally, is Shanghai Shipbuilding (in China): and they are developing what are said to be environmentally friendly vessels capable of operating on green methanol.

In addition, fuel production firms and renewable energy projects supporting green fuels such as e-methanol, green hydrogen, and ammonia include corporations like European Energy and other renewable energy firms involved in scaling up green hydrogen and e-fuels. It also involves projects like the Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Murchison project in Western Australia, which aims to produce green ammonia using renewable energy. And (as you would probably already expect) it also involves various public-private partnerships pushing for the scaling of green hydrogen and methanol, such as Hyphen Hydrogen Energy in Namibia. And so, ultimately, the development of green fuels is closely tied to major shipbuilding conglomerates and energy firms that are investing heavily in low-emission vessel technologies and infrastructure.

In other words, while the International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping will significantly increase consumer costs, it also sounds like a lucrative endeavour for corporations who have invested in green policies – first because they are key players that are actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonisation; but also because they stand to receive rewards for “ low-emission ships” and forward green innovation.

This is crucial to note because it brings to mind something that the President of Loveworld incorporated highlighted in light of concerning agendas that are supported by governments; and it is that there are often diabolical corporations that serve as the culprits driving these concerning agendas. It is the case with free speech restrictions, and evidently, even with climate tax policies.

THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK WOULD ULTIMATELY AMOUNT TO CLIMATE IMPERIALISM

In reality, the net zero framework it is a test run for a global taxation regime — one no citizen voted for, no parliament authorized, and no nation can easily opt out of. If adopted, it would mean that for the first time in history, taxation without representation would be enshrined at the global level — imposed not by kings or empires, but by an international bureaucracy claiming moral authority through “climate activism.”

Secondly, embedding this mechanism into what is called MARPOL Annex VI, which is the legally binding part of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that regulates air emissions and sets mandatory energy efficiency standards for nearly all international vessels, and which is already ratified by 108 nations covering 97% of the world’s merchant shipping fleet by tonnage, the UN actually aimed to make participation mandatory! In other words, what was presented as climate policy in April has, by October, become the framework for the world’s first global tax, created and administered by unelected officials — without a single citizen’s consent – thus amounting to climate imperialism, and a war on sovereignty.

However, beyond being climate imperialism, the NZF is particularly a European inspired climate imperialism. More specifically, the NZF was written largely by European delegations and backed by the European Commission, the U.K., and a handful of Pacific island states. It is framed as climate solidarity but functions as regulatory imperialism — exporting European-style carbon policies through the UN to countries that never voted for them. And so, Europe, having already imposed its own shipping emissions rules regionally, now seeks to universalize the cost through the UN so its industries don’t lose competitiveness. The result is a global redistribution of costs from Europe’s climate ambitions to the developing world — and to consumers everywhere.

However, it is also worth remembering that this system did not emerge from nowhere. Many of its founding figures were not defenders of liberty but disciples of liberal eugenics — men like Brock Chisholm of the WHO and Julian Huxley of UNESCO, who openly argued that humanity must be “scientifically managed” through psychological reconditioning and population control. After World War II, these ideas were rebranded as global health, global education, and global governance. The language changed, but the underlying principle remained: the UN and its satellite organisations see ordinary people as too ignorant to rule themselves.

And so, the same logic that justified the World Health Organization deciding “global health emergencies,” UNESCO dictating “educational standards,” and the IMF enforcing “fiscal responsibility” on sovereign states now seeks to tax the world. The institutions may differ, but the ideology is the same: which is that these institutions seem to think that unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts should govern humanity in the name of what they define as science, efficiency, and progress. This is UNACEPTABLE.

But furthermore, we already see the cost of carbon taxes on a national scale, when we look at Canada as a case study. Canadians protested the carbon tax on the grounds that it makes life too expensive, punishes citizens for requiring basic necessities; and that it is ultimately not working.

REMINDER: AFTER COVID FAILED, CLIMATE ALARMISM WAS THE NEXT CONSIDERATION

What is interesting to note is that it is not so long ago that we were warning against new efforts at drumming up climate alarmism, as we were offering rebuttal to a Times Magazine article about so-called scientists claiming we have passed the first tuning point towards irreversible environmental harm; and yet meanwhile, globalists were working since April to implement a global carbon tax! BUT, here is a crucial nuance we ought not to miss: the globalists efforts at using climate alarmism as a conduit for authoritarianism is an implicit concession of their failures to subjugate the world, with earlier strategies – especially the COVID plandemic.

In fact, you’d recall the footage of a CNN staff member who was caught on camera conceding that they were working towards climate alarmism as the new and predominant fear-mongering message, because COVID was no longer an effective bogeyman for the globalist cause.

HOWEVER, just as efforts at the subjugation of nations and the robbing of their sovereignty were thwarted by the Church, even the climate change hoax will not progress, and is restrained only until He who restrains is taken out of the way.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso