24. Climate change is not an isolated problem

24th blog, March 15, 2019

This is my one of last blogs of a series of 25 on the Climate Agreement concluded in the Netherlands between stakeholders in back rooms without the citizens in the Netherlands - who ultimately have to pay the price – having something to say about it. Because this is one of the last blogs, it will be a bit longer than the 300 words I usually try to limit to.

In these back rooms, stakeholders have practically all pursued their hobbyhorses or defended their financial interests. They often supported this with arguments or financial figures that are not correct. Influential media are used to distribute fake news. Everything is done to make the citizens accept that the decisions made in the back rooms are the only solutions. People who think differently are ridiculed, opponents are not allowed to speak, and facts are distorted.

This problem does not only play out in the Netherlands but in the entire world.

The biggest mistake made by virtually all climate experts is that climate change is treated as a stand-alone problem - while it is unmistakably not so. Climate change is an integrated problem of what I call 'The 7 Challenges for Humanity':

  • Erosion
  • Poverty
  • Food shortage
  • Unemployment
  • Climate change
  • Rural-urban migration
  • Falling groundwater levels

These '7 Challenges for Humanity' are all inextricably linked.

The way climate experts want to combat climate change focuses on one of the 7 Challenges - climate change - but does not solve the other 6 Challenges. Most of the time, the proposed solutions often exacerbate one of the 6 other Challenges. A windmill, CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) or a CO₂ levy do nothing about erosion, poverty, food shortage, unemployment, rural-urban emigration or declining groundwater levels.

The proposed solutions themselves often have enormous negative side effects. If we place hundreds of thousands of windmills  - because each provides very little energy, as I have shown you – we will kill billions of birds and destroy all the landscape in the world. Just drive to the province of Flevoland in the Netherlands or to the area north of Palm Springs in the USA and you immediately understand that we cannot place a mill on every hectare (acre) in the world. An electric car consumes less fossil fuel in the car itself, but it also causes us to use more fossil fuel in gas-fired power plants - which we need because the windmills do not provide enough for cars - because electricity transport leads to efficiency losses. In addition, we will soon need huge lithium mines - see here what this means in, for example, Congo and Bolivia - which will cause tremendous damage to the environment worldwide, much more than oil or gas extraction. This will become even worse if we are going to mine the sea. CCS ensures that we use 20% more fossil energy, the so-called energy penalty that I have explained to you.

In addition to the fact that 1) many solutions have serious negative side effects and 2) they do not offer an integrated solution for the 7 Challenges, the third negative side may be the most important: 3) none of the proposed solutions in the Dutch Climate Agreement lower the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. All proposed solutions only delay the speed of the CO₂ increase.

The Netherlands is therefore going to spend 20 to 25 billion per year - between 700 and 1000 billion euros - over 3,000 euros per household – which

  • does not reduce the CO₂ concentration and thus does not counteract climate change
  • sees climate change as an isolated problem and does not tackle it in an integrated way

with the '7 Challenges for Humanity'

  • will ensure that energy intensive companies will move to other countries
  • may seriously reduce prosperity

The Treesolution is the only solution that:

  • if implemented on a geo-scale, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere will decrease
  • tackles all '7 Challenges for Humanity' as integrated problems and solves them completely

or partially

  • is about 20 to 40 times cheaper than the proposed solutions in the Dutch Climate Agreement
  • causes prosperity in the countries that tackle the problem by financing the Treesolution
  • causes prosperity in the countries where the Treesolution is being implemented

I hope you enjoyed my blogs. Since I have no influential friends, no lobbyists, no huge company that can gain influence worldwide, no seat at the climate tables in the back rooms of the Netherlands, my direct influence will most probably be little. As a Green Musketeer I have no more than motivation, love for Mother Earth, a little wit, a pen and my Green Musketeer followers.

That is why I ask all of you: read and spread the message of the Treesolution. Call your political representatives, write your own blogs and letters about the Treesolution. Please read my book that I already published in 2008 about this wonderful solution and finally: a Green Musketeer plants one tree per year! My last blog about climate change will be published tomorrow. It has the intriguing title ‘Is Pieter Hoff the Don Quixote of the 21st century’. 

Pieter Hoff
Green Musketeer

Background information
On 8 October 2018, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued an emergency call to all countries to reduce their CO₂ emissions by at least 50% by 2030. The Netherlands wants to comply with this by means of a Climate Agreement. Pieter Hoff is of the opinion that the Climate Agreement needs additional policies to achieve 0% net CO₂ emissions by 2030 and that this supporting policy can be implemented much more efficiently, quicker and less costly than the current proposals that are included in the proposed Dutch Climate Agreement.