---

According to an article published by the United States civil space and aeronautics agency (“NASA”) in 2016, a study found carbon dioxide fertilisation caused an increase in plant growth. “Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilisation explains 70 per cent of the greening effect,” said one of the authors of the study.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to twice that of the continental United States.

NASA explained why rising carbon dioxide levels is good for all life on Earth:

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fibre and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds, NASA, 26 April 2016

Despite this, the insanity of climate alarmists continues.

Climate Equity

In an article published by Climate Uncensored titled ‘The Inescapable Maths of Equity: Why Fairness Is Key to Addressing Climate Change’, the two authors – both formerly of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – attempt to argue why fairness is key to staying within 1.5 to 2°C global carbon budget.  One of the authors is Kevin Anderson, whom some refer to as “Mr. Stinky.”  In concluding their article, the authors wrote:

Why is fairness key to staying within the 1.5 to 2°C global carbon budget?

• First: For poorer nations to raise their level of well-being closer to the global average, fairness demands immediate and deep cuts in emissions by richer nations.
• Second: If we are not to hand our children a potentially impossible burden for removing our carbon from the atmosphere, fairness demands immediate and deep cuts by the people emitting now.
• And third: to target the vast bulk of carbon being emitted today, fairness (and effectiveness) demands that the highest emitting, wealthiest citizens should make the biggest cuts.

The Inescapable Maths of Equity: Why Fairness Is Key to Addressing Climate Change, Climate Uncensored, 12 September 2022

The entire article is based in the belief of cutting emissions to “hold global warming” according to the Paris Agreement.  “For a ‘good chance’ of holding warming to below 2°C, we are now limited to emitting a little under 700 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (about seventeen years’ worth of emissions at the current global rate),” the authors stated.

While the Paris Agreement emphasises the importance of equity in dividing the global carbon budget among individual countries, it doesn’t tell us exactly how to divide it.

We get the budget from science, specifically from our understanding of how the climate and average temperatures respond over time to inputs of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The Inescapable Maths of Equity: Why Fairness Is Key to Addressing Climate Change, Climate Uncensored, 12 September 2022

The authors seem to be completely convinced, religiously so, that the driving forces behind the agreement made in Paris can only be noble and good.  They do not even so much as question whether cutting carbon emissions may be bad for the planet.  However, the article does give some insight into how divorced from reality climate alarmists are and that all life on Earth is, as they believe, in the hands of some mathematical wizardry mixed with a dose of equity.

Understanding Equity

The word equity is an important concept to understand as it is a favourite among Great Resetters and is reiterated over and over again as one of their main mantras.  The bottom line is, the proponents of The Great Reset want to replace equality with equity.  Although equity is sold to the public as “fairness” and “justice” it is not. Equity and equality are two very different concepts which are at odds with one another.

Equality means providing the same to all or the state of being equal.

Equity means recognising that we do not all start from the same place and people or systems must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.  The key to understanding the destructive, unfair, unjust and unlawful nature of equity is to understand who decides the rules for “equity.” Which raises questions such as: what is the “starting place” to measure the “imbalances,” what “imbalances” are monitored, and who decides who has to make “adjustments” and the nature of “adjustments” to be made? 

While there may be many who feel they should be the ones making the “equity” rules, the vast majority of them will be left disappointed because of this one thing, at least, we can be certain – these rules will not be made by us or for our benefit and they will not apply to everyone equally.

To understand the broader reaches of equity in the context of the climate agenda, we’ll use examples of the rampant “equity” being touted by critical social justice theories.  This understanding can then be broadened into the global “equity” ideology climate alarmists, such as Mr. Stinky Anderson, are promoting.

Diversity, inclusivity and equity (“DIE”) is a mantra increasingly being forced onto the world in the name of “social justice.” “Of these three, equity is the most egregious, self-righteous, historically ignorant and dangerous,” wrote Jordan Peterson.  He explained:

Equity means “equality,” in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is (1) equality before the law and (2) equality of opportunity.

Let’s ignore all [of its shortcomings], and assume for a moment that we should aim at equity, and then actually think through what policies would inevitably have to be put in place to establish such a goal … we would [ ] have to establish targets … [and an] implementation period … Failure to meet the appropriate targets would be obviously and necessarily met with fines … [and] scrutiny [to implement improvements] … That’s not going to be good enough, however … [Because] it [then] becomes clear that [ ] practices [ ] must be radically restructured.

Are we really up for these large-scale interventions? Do we really believe that they are necessary and, even more naively, that they would solve more problems than they would cause?

The truth of the matter is that there is no excuse for the equity doctrine.

Equity: When the Left Goes Too Far, Jordan B. Peterson

In the video above, Jordan Peterson reads this article: ‘Why I am no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto’.

To give another practical example of how equity will be used for behaviour modification and control, watch the Project Veritas video below in which a New York educator stated:

“We have very specific questions, and ultimately our Diversity-Equity-Inclusion question, our DEI question is — it’s very telling if somebody has done a lot of work within themself, within the profession…if people don’t answer that question right, they are just an automatic not hire.

“If they [candidates] say that diversity is about — if they say something that lends itself to be colourblind, which could happen, like, ‘Oh, it’s like, you know, like everyone is equal.’ Those things that are well-intentioned statements, but they’re missing the depth of understanding of how the intersections of our identity live out in the world. So, that person wouldn’t get hired.”

Equity is not equality.  Nor is it fair, just or even lawful.  Instead, it is a virus poised to take control of every aspect of our lives – looking to punish those who do not conform to a ruler’s ideology or diktats. 

Additionally, we should all feel uncomfortable that “equity” appears to be preparing societies to effortlessly slide into a social credit system. 

Globalist criminals are not only using governments and corporate media to achieve these aims. They are also tearing societies apart by using our colleagues, our friends, our neighbours and our family members to usher it in. The aim is to not only shape one or two societies but to shape all societies. As Climate Uncensored’s article demonstrated, they are attempting to make the equity doctrine global using, for example, their “net zero,” “climate crisis” ideology. 

In equity doctrine, there will be those who will benefit but not because they are deserving or in need. There will be those who are punished but not because they have committed a crime.  Benefits and punishments will be determined by the equity rule makers. Equality – striving for equal fairness and justice for all – will be replaced by a mechanism, equity, to control societies according to the whim and wishes of the rule makers.  No man or woman is worthy to have that much power over anyone’s life, let alone a multitude of people’s lives.  There is no equality in equity. Say no to equity!