Zero Growth / Croissance zéro
Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente

Benjamin Deniston: ’Higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere are probably a net benefit to the planet.’

Printable version / Version imprimable

Interview by Célestin Ngoa Balla journalist for the Cameroon weekly Journal Intégration in New York

A member of Lyndon LaRouche’s Scientific Research Team takes a cold look at COP21 which just took place in Paris, France.

What is your general evaluation of the way the discussion developed at the COP21 conference which just ended in Paris ?

In many respects the COP21 conference was a failure, and that is a very good thing. There was no legally binding agreement reached, meaning nations are left to voluntarily choose whether or not they will follow the various agreements. This is important because the recent and future climate change is mostly natural and does not represent a crisis. Human impact on climate change through CO2 emissions is negligible. Therefore nations should not be legally bound to an agreement based on the false claims to the contrary. More importantly, forcing major reductions in CO2 emissions would be devastating to billions of energy-starved people on this planet.

Much of the opposition to such CO2 reduction schemes has come from the so-called developing nations, including important leadership from India, for example. This is a continuation of the opposition that defeated the last major push to get a legally binding agreement (in Copenhagen in 2009; COP15). As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated recently, India’s priority is eliminating poverty and pursuing economic development, and they’re refusing to give that up, which is very important.

While I think these opposing nations have not gone far enough in directly challenging the fraud of the man-made climate change scare, what they have done is critical.

If we consider the resolutions adopted at that meeting, should we continue to believe that there is a hidden agenda behind the official talk on climate change? By the way, why are there some discordant voices as was already the case before the beginning of COP21?

I do not think it is a "hidden" agenda. There is a very open agenda to reduce the world population down to just a few billion people. The leading members of the British Royal family are some of the most active in pursuing that agenda. For the past half century they and their associates have very openly argued that the human population has far surpassed the Earth’s carrying capacity, and that therefore economic growth must be stopped, development must be reversed, and the world’s population must be reduced. It is an imperial, neo-colonial policy. This genocidal agenda is the motivation behind the man-made climate change scare. For further details on this I would like to reference a 2015 report that I helped author with some associates at Executive Intelligence Review, " ‘Global Warming’ Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science."This is a bombshell report, and should be read by everyone concerned about this issue.

This agenda comes from the British empire and it is being pursued by their allies, like President Obama. Recall what Obama said to a gathering of youth in South Africa in June 2013, "Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over." This is a disgusting policy to impose on the world.

Regarding the second half of your question, I think there are a few reasons why we are seeing a growing number of discordant voices. Some know about the evils of this depopulation agenda. Others are realizing how limiting CO2 emissions would devastate their economies. And others are reacting to the worsening science being presented to try and prop up the false thesis of a man-made climate change crisis. According to satellite measurements there has been no increase in average global temperatures for nearly 20 years. There is no acceleration in the ongoing natural process of slow sea level rise. There is no increase in extreme weather globally. People are realizing that these facts are contradicting the claims of a man-made climate change crisis, and they are speaking out.

What is your analysis and appreciation of the argument of the African leaders who spoke at COP21?

I did not monitor every element of the COP21 conference, so I may have missed some important statements. But what I generally saw was an effort to ensure that African and other developing nations would receive financial and other support from developed nations to help them address the so-called climate crisis. I think this is an unfortunate compromise. There may have been actions that I am not aware of, but I didn’t see any nation stand up in opposition to the fundamental issues.

Surprisingly, Africans didn’t evoke the doctrine of the philosopher Cheick Anta Diop who advised African countries to exploit the wealth of their land in order to unleash a development which will allow them to reach the level of the nations that are oppressing them through neo-colonialism, after having done so with colonialism and slavery. How do you explain this attitude of the Africans?

I do not think I’m qualified to provide any specific explanations for these attitudes in this particular case. What I can say is that we are still dealing with a global imperial system which exerts tremendous pressure on nations and leaders of nations. In the early 1990s Lyndon LaRouche commissioned a report exposing and condemning the modern structure of the British Empire, including its ongoing neo-colonial crimes throughout Africa, entitled, “The coming fall of the House of Windsor.” Today, twenty years later, some of the details might have changed slightly, but what was exposed then as the modern structure of the British empire remains as a force of evil on this planet, working to control nations in Africa and other regions.

Fortunately there is a new global orientation emerging under the leadership of China, Russia, and allied nations. China’s New Silk Road program and the various development initiatives launched by BRICS and collaborating nations is creating a revolutionary break from this British system, vigorously pursuing the type of economic development and progress which has been denied to much of the world for generations. This is creating the potential for a new global reorientation which can ensure and support the sovereign development of African nations.

In your opinion, what does Africa gain and what does Africa lose coming out of this conference?

In terms of specifics this depends upon what African nations and other nations decide to do, or not do. Because there was no legally binding agreement reached in Paris it is upon nations to decide how to proceed with the non-binding agreements.

More generally I would say that the fact that this climate conference occurred at all is a loss for Africa and for the world. In the weeks leading into the conference the head of the international Schiller Institute Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the entire conference to be repurposed to focus on the serious, immediate issues of the refugee crisis and the resurgence of terrorism. While millions of refugees are immediately threatened with the onset of a life-threatening winter cold, the participants of COP21 gathered to talk about hypothetical future climate scares based on bad science. This was a disgusting disgrace.

On the sidelines of COP21, the French President held a meeting exclusively with African leaders. Do you think, as some are saying, that COP21 was only a political and strategic meeting organized by some powers to divide the rest of the world between themselves, as happened in Berlin almost two centuries ago?

I am not aware of any specific such plans, but it would not surprise me if some people are involved in such discussions. What I can say is that there is a real split in the world, with the trans-Atlantic system of Wall Street and London on one side, and BRICS and allied nations on the other. The dividing issue is the right to economic growth and high technology development.

To some observers, the multinationals are the ones who really profit from COP 21. What do you think?

I think there is some truth to that, but I think it comes back to the British Royal family faction and their allies in this global depopulation agenda. In the report I cited earlier "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor" it is shown that many top multinational corporations and cartels are fully integrated elements of the British imperial system. Companies like Unilever, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. are incredibly active in promoting this carbon emissions scare.

Another important aspect is the banking and finance side. Part of the plan is to create new financial markets to sell, trade, and speculate on rights to emit CO2. This would create a new financial bubble and bring in the global giant banks in as a fully integrated part of the whole program.

Given the present situation, is it possible to build another world without worrying about the climate threat? And how should we do so?

The majority of recent and coming climate change is natural. On decadal timescales the major drivers are cyclical changes in the oceans and in solar activity; on longer timescales we have changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and on very long timescales the motion of the Solar System through the Galaxy controls changes in the Earth’s climate. Variations in CO2 levels appear to play a minor rôle, and mankind’s emissions have not had, and will not have, a significant effect on the climate system. I should add, however, that satellite measurements are now showing us that the planet has been getting greener with more plant life over the past decades, and a significant portion of this is due to the increased concentrations of CO2 created by human activity. So higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere are probably a net benefit to the planet.

But the primary issue is the need to increase energy production and consumption throughout the world economy. In his physical science of economy, Lyndon LaRouche has developed the metric of energy flux-density as a measure for economic progress. The total power used per capita and per land area of an economy defines certain boundary conditions for the potential of that economy. Wood and other biomass can supply the energy for a primitive economy, but advancing to the next stage requires a leap to so-called fossil fuels. The higher energy densities of coal, petroleum, and natural gas enable the higher levels of national economic energy flux-density critical for an industrialized economy. However today we have to look to the next great leap, to the power of the atomic nucleus. Fission and fusion reactions release a million times more energy per fuel weight, and open up an entire new domain of science and physical chemistry for mankind.

And we must not stop there either.

Mankind is a unique species on this planet, distinguished by his power of creativity. The natural state of mankind is continual progress, continual creative leaps to higher and higher levels of society, fueled by the scientific and artistic creativity which is unique to mankind.

We have to build a new world, one premised on the highest form of natural law: the inherent right of every human individual to have the opportunity to participate in a process of raising society to a qualitatively higher level of existence. Continual growth is a right that can never again be denied. Endless progress is a necessity which must never again be repressed. Only then will we reach our true potential as mankind.