Climate change drives the green agenda but the road is littered with bias and error

With the so-called man-made danger of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, a global revolution kicked off to curb CO2 emissions. While many nations spend on expensive renewable energy sources, developing countries still in their own industrial renais- sance rely on fossil fuels. A pragmatic approach is needed to address the false prem- ises of the green agenda and the challenges and opportunities we collectively face in the future.

The climate has changed for millennia.    (This is fact) The climate is changing today.    (This is true)
The climate will change tomorrow.    (Nothing remains the same) The climate narrative should reflect reality. (Best to  adapt to  Mother
Nature)

With the modern push to go green, it is ohen lost in the messaging that we share this world with over 8.2 billion people with individual vested interests. Each state has its own natural resource needs to keep its people alive, prosper and con- tinue to develop industrial capacity. In survival mode, it is instinctive for individual

states to look aher their own instead of collectively sacrificing opportunities for the sake of reducing man-made CO2 emissions that may, or may not, affect global temperatures. However, these priorities are ohen trumped by virtues that place an agenda ahead of the good of the people. With this in mind, it’s time to take a prag- matic look at:
1.    The impacts on developing economies pushed to adopt a green agenda
2.    The pollution shell game that shihs emissions fr om point A to B
3.    The recycling practices that are meant to help the environment
4.    The effect of man-made CO2 emissions on the climate
5.    The past, present and future of our planet, (it’s Mother Nature’s plan)
6.    The opportunities and solutions to deal with the effects of earth’s climate
7.    The BRICS+ members and partners that stand to lead with a global solution For centuries, step-by-step progress and rapid innovations have devel-
oped solutions that place heavy burdens of the past on the shoulders of modern machines and internal combustion engines as sprawling power plants light up our lives and provide the creature comforts many enjoy. The petroleum industry and its downstream plastic industry are part of the backbone of modern society, but not every nation in the world community has reaped the benefits as their industrial base lags decades behind and some have become the dumping grounds of the waste other countries look to ignore.
During this time, the ‘go green to save the environment’ campaign has pushed renewable energy projects like wind and solar to the forefront of the agenda with nations shuttering fossil fuel production and use. Aside from the fact these ‘green’ systems operate intermittently, their own financial and environmental costs remain high. From project lifespan, upkeep, recycling and geographic issues, the cost of this power is simply an unaffordable or unobtainable option for many states.
So with mandates in place like the Paris Agreement that are failing, and pledges made at yearly climate gatherings like COP 29 coming up short, develop- ing economies are now still expected to skip, or somehow fast forward their own industrial revolution and plug gigawatts full of solar, wind and hydro power into their grids. While the cost of renewables has come down to about par with fos- sil fuels, the capacity is not there in terms of generation as wind, solar and hydro depend on specific geological and weather parameters. Nearly every nation in the world still relies on coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power generation because the 24/7 output stands as the only reliable power for global society. Many countries are criticized for their total emissions output and told to make cuts. China and India for example are some that are singled out, but beneath the layers of numbers, you can see they are far from the worst offenders on a pollution per capita basis. The world needs to look at this data to see wh ere the most serial polluters are and not drive a narrative and lay selective blame that leaves those on top blameless.
As part of the seemingly well-intentioned… and profit driven… green agenda, the electric everything generation was born. The EV revolution has made many

feel like they are doing their part in the fight against climate change. However, the smokestacks on the backend of power plants that produce the electricity are just out of sight. Data shows EVs cost up to 40% more to manufacture than their gas and diesel brethren in the next lane over with hopes this cost will come down within the next couple years.
While renewable energy systems are a great idea, their net effect on the envi- ronment is questionable. Recycling solar panels is a labor and energy intensive task, as dismantling the complex layers is considered hazardous work and a costly endeavor. With solar thermal power plants, ‘streamers’ has become a new word in the lexicon to describe scorched birds who can’t escape the deadly heat rays. In the wind industry, millions of birds are killed yearly by the spinning blades. The incessant whooping soundtrack of megawatt-size windmills lumped into farms has been known to make humans sick and have an effect on whales in transit. All this while many projects do not end up making money or meeting the energy produc- tion models made that are promoted before ground was broken and government grants and investors sink money into deals.
In the case made to go green, the petroleum industry has been vilified. From ‘Just Stop Oil’ campaigns to others, the headline banners do not address the con- sequences of enacting the proposed solutions. The hope to transit to all electric renewable energy generation and propulsion systems would leave a fraction of drivers on the road, and the majority in a forever queue to charge from a grid that cannot now, nor in the near future handle that capacity. In turn, if it were 100% mandated and enacted today, society would seize, freeze and likely starve. In short, the human cost is not worth the virtuous dream today and more innovative strides are needed before this becomes possible.
The plastic industry is also in a precarious position, as we all need its products, but many hate to admit the reality. The industry’s public relation solution has been to blitz the world with a recycling campaign. However, the truth of the matter is that most of our single use items never see a transformation according to Greenpeace which says:
“Mechanical and chemical recycling of plastic waste has largely failed and will always fail because plastic waste is: extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to reprocess, often made of and contaminated by toxic materials, and not economical to recycle.”
Just a fraction is actually economically viable to recycle and reuse. Take a look at the codes on the bottom, understand a bit more of the technological challenges and it becomes clear that a new policy is needed to move forward like gasification by turning the trash into gas with technology that currently exists.
The main driver of the climate change agenda is the claim we emit too much CO2 for the planet to cope with. However, we can also agree there are plenty of other factors associated with emission such as natural fires and volcanoes and others. So are we to blame for rising temperatures? The question can certainly be

asked but can also effectively be paired with a moment to ponder if it is realistic to change course from a modern society and would it be better to spend our time to deal with, and plan for the ramifications of a changing world. Aher all, as was men- tioned above, the climate on earth has always changed, sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically, all long before there were millions and then billions of people on our planet. We can assume, with or without us, Mother Nature has a more pow- erful plan, and we are just along for the ride that has been going on forever.
A collective effort is needed to tackle the challenges and opportunities ahead, and the answer is not a deindustrialized world. There should be no hierarchy of interests for some nations and people to throttle down their effort that are looking to catch up with the most developed nations who export their waste and buy up carbon credits in a shell game to win green medals. While we share one planet, vast political and economic divides remain that keep us at polar opposites.
Today we live in a multipolar world, and this can and should be a rally cry for
8.2 billion people to join forces for the greater good. The largest Bloc that exists today is the BRICS+ group of nations along with its member partners, and within this Bloc is an opportunity to create a roadmap for overcoming the global chal- lenges ahead. BRICS is not bound by a military ideology, BRICS is an economic centric powerhouse that has become a leading unified voice in the world, repre- senting nations that are currently affected by extreme weather events and eroding coastal areas amid a changing climate. These pages in this essay are too short to dissect the cause of each extreme case, if they are new to the world, if they are 1 in a 1,000-year events and how many more are likely to be on the way. The point stands that we must prepare for what’s ahead and learn from, and deal with the conse- quences. BRICS has an opportunity to carry out a mission and plan that could unite the world.
The essence lies in developing a plan of action. Member and partner states of BRICS can and should fund solutions based on remediation, reconstruction and prevention. These efforts should not be based on charitable donations. Profits do drive the world and are a singular point that everyone can get behind. Consider the idea of a ‘GLOBAL SHARE’ (presented here) to represent both national and individual interests that can be purchased and managed via a transparent block- chain accounting system. Applicants in need of assistance may submit propos- als to attract the capital to remediate, reconstruct or prevent a certain outcome. Global shareholders may vote via a unique blockchain backed system and funds would be provided. This creates the establishment of a global fund to deal with the consequences, and more importantly, identifies real problems that can be tackled versus speaking about generalities that the sky is falling and rallying the world to drive electric cars that shih their pollution to the power plants elsewhere or recycle plastic that will never be recycled.
The green agenda is written upon a false basis of cause and effect. The authors and lobbyists look at historical events (the effect) and ins ert a narrative that

de-facto human actions are responsible (the cause) of future hypothesized events (the effect again). This is an unproven premise, but it has shaped actions from the Paris Agreement to recycling campaigns that could have for years been dealing with solutions today that could make the world a better cleaner place. Technology and practices exist today that could clean up the dirtiest areas of the planet and turn trash to energy (gasification) on an industrial scale. Technology and practices exist today that could transform fossil fuel energy to a cleaner burning industry (scrubbing). Technology and practices exist today that can remediate and rebuild past damage and protect us in the future.
It is time we take a step back and look at climate change and the green agenda with a new se t of optics, not from a standpoint of fear and blame, but from a col- lective view that whatever is ahead of us, we can overcome together, because each instance can be solved, one by one.