Can the UN be trusted on climate change?
It is a moment of crossroads for the United Nations, as US President Donald Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), and halted funding for the UN’s Climate Convention, and there will be more withdrawals to come. As a result, he calls the UN an poor performer, indicating it is a swamp to be drained.
At this point, the UN would explain its existence by pointing its emphasis on peace and prosperity via sound, data-based guidance. Instead, it is functioning to stifle open debate on climate change while causing prosperity-wrecking procedures. The UN has joined forces with Brazil to create a global initiative aptly called the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change,” which will facilitate the publication of “verified” information on climate change by media platforms and on social media.
According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “urgent climate action” represents a race to net-zero, economy-punishing policies, extremists, including rich nations paying poor nations huge sums for climate compensation, mopping new climate tariffs, and concluding fossil fuels completely within 25 years.
When it comes to deciding what policy response you should choose, the experts state UN is simply spreading propaganda. What if it were to regulate the migration and would only allow statements that endorsed an extreme policy of completely unclogged (or closed) borders everywhere.
The UN is missing the inconvenient fact that there are many significant, continuing debates among climate researchers and economists. After decades of extensive research, huge suspense remains on how much the world would heat from a doubling of CO2.
The UN would ignore policy discussions and even particulars in the name of advancing a singular reaction to climate change. One such “fact” the UN is promoting is that sea level elevation could dip small islands like Kiribati. Progressive media outlets frequently repeat this claim, yet it overlooks vast scientific literature indicating that almost every atoll, including Kiribati, has remained stable or has increased in size.
The UN has also stated that climate change is a significant threat to human health because fossil fuel-generated air pollution generates some 8.7 million fatalities each year. As well as being more than twice as high as the WHO’s assessment, the UN deliberately complicates climate policy with the only viable solution, which is missing air pollution through scrubbers on chimneys and catalytic converters on cars.
The UN also perpetuates the myth that renewables are more affordable than fossil fuels. They smooth over this mistruth by estimating the cost only when the sun is blazing, or the wind is blowing, overlooking the costs of intermittency and unpredictable weather. The fact is, no country with effective solar and wind has low electricity prices.
According to recent research, the benefits and costs of net-zero climate policies show average annual advantages of $4.5 trillion over the 21st century and substantially higher costs of $27 trillion per year.
The UN is attempting to control what people can listen to, watch, and read about climate change just when social media players like Meta are changing their years-long policy of “fact-checking” climate change policy discussion which Meta acknowledges resulted in censorship.
