by Dr. Johanna Weber //
Climate protection is an ongoing topic, and CO2 is almost always mentioned in the same breath. As part of the 2030 Agenda, the German government also supports climate protection projects in various developing countries. Other parts of the 2030 Agenda are promoted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [14]. Sounds good in itself. But what is the scientific background to climate change, and what exactly is being funded, and...what is not currently being funded here in Germany?
It is undisputed that the Earth has repeatedly warmed and cooled over the course of millions of years. These temperature fluctuations correlate only very weakly (correlation coefficient 0.036...) with the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere [1]. A correlation coefficient of less than 0.1 is generally not considered high enough in statistics to even be mentioned in scientific publications [2]. Other factors also have an influence on global temperature, such as sunspot activity, forest cover or the hydrogen content of the atmosphere [3, 4, 5, 7, 9,], whereby CO2 promotes plant growth [5, 6] and therefore, on balance, a certain self-regulating effect occurs, as plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere [3, 4, 5]. The negative effect of CO2 on global warming is therefore rather small.
In 2020, CO2 emissions from all German economic sectors amounted to 573.2 million tons; emissions from private households, on the other hand, were only 207.4 million tons [11]. Agriculture, which is currently undergoing such massive cuts "for reasons of climate protection" as part of the abolished diesel tax relief [15], was below 20 million tons in 2020 (see Fig. 1). Moreover, large investors in particular have a high degree of control over how much CO2 is emitted; where the rich invest, CO2 is also emitted [12], and the rich also cause more CO2 through their lifestyle [13].
Fig.1 Domestic CO2 emissions
Interim conclusion
Neither small private households nor the agricultural sector have a really high share of CO2 emissions, which incidentally is only ONE of many factors that have an influence on global temperatures. Nevertheless, the tax relief for farmers on diesel fuel is now being abolished and there are repeated appeals to private individuals to cut back on CO2 emissions.
The German government is currently funding the establishment of climate-friendly cookstoves in Senegal with around 53 million euros [19, 20]. Another initiative aimed at reducing emissions from private households. According to an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 6 megatons of CO2 equivalent could be saved annually if the 2.5 billion people worldwide who prepare their meals on stoves were to switch to energy-efficient stoves [20]. The exact impact of the switch on the 65 million people in Senegal and Kenya, i.e. how much CO2 or CO2 equivalent is saved, is not explained in detail on the project page [20]. To explain: CO2 equivalent means how the greenhouse gases produced during cooking affect the climate compared to CO2 [21]. Whether and to what extent CO2 or the other gases really have a detrimental effect on the climate is not taken into account here. The fact is that Senegal has rather low CO2 emissions, especially compared to larger economies such as Germany, Russia, the USA or China (see Fig. 2). Per capita CO2 emissions are also rather low in Senegal (see Fig. 3)and Senegal accounts for only 0.02 % of global annual CO2 emissions [25], Kenya 0.05 % [28]. To put it bluntly: Senegal and Kenya are most likely not the problem in terms of climate change. We have asked the project manager and the ministry by email whether the production of the herd is climate-neutral for the Senegalese and Kenyan population. If we receive an answer, we will let you know.
Fig.2 Senegal CO2 emissions
The Greens are currently campaigning for climate protection in Senegal and are supported by Germanwatch, among others [16]. Germanwatch is part of the 2030 Agenda [17, 18]. As part of the 2030 Agenda, countless projects are being funded worldwide, including those in the field of climate protection. Over the last 20 years, the total amount of funding has amounted to around 11.5 billion euros, although the majority of projects are not evaluated.
No quality management when spending billions of taxpayers' money
Fig.3 Senegal per capita
Most of these projects are financed by the Ministry of Development alone; the partners mentioned (foreign governments, internationally active banks and foundations etc.) cooperate, but in the vast majority of cases do not provide any funds. What is particularly macabre is that most of the projects aim to promote affordable and clean energy [26, 27, 29]. The very thing that German industry and private households are lacking (affordable energy) is being promoted abroad to the tune of billions. The frontrunner among climate-related projects is a solar power plant in Morocco costing EUR 600 million [26, 29]. The goal of "gender equality" is also frequently mentioned. For background information on this, please refer to the article "The food monopoly" [14].
The entry in 2010 referred to a single cost item. "CTF" is noted as the purpose, otherwise there is no entry in the project database for the 499,999,999.95 million euros. The entry is also not assigned to an explicit funding region [26, 29].
Fig.4 Budgets of the departments
Commentators Summary:
While the budget of the development aid ministry in 2023 was 12.16 billion euros, that of the ministry responsible for our domestic climate protection was only slightly higher at 14.57 billion euros; our domestic agriculture had 7.25 billion euros available in its agriculture ministry. Only slightly more than half of what flows abroad in the area of similar topics (see Fig. 4). In 2024, our German environment ministry will receive only 2.4 billion euros, while the ministry for food and agriculture will only receive 6.83 billion; just under 11 billion will now flow into domestic climate protection together with the economy, and 11.5 billion into development [22]. At this point, it should be noted that the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs receives the largest share of the federal budget at 38.52 %. Of course, if you drive the economy and the labor market to the wall, you also have to pay for all the unemployed...followed by the Federal Ministry of Defense with 11.62 %, which is also clear, because if you save money for years and then hand over armaments to Ukraine, you naturally have to make up for it in the end. Everything else is obviously worth less than 10 % to us; the only consolation here is that development cooperation does not receive more than 5 %, nor do (irony on) completely unimportant areas such as education and health (irony off) [22], but well, Senegal is no better off with a literacy rate of around 55 % [24]. Climate-friendly cooking stoves are of course more important than reading and writing.
Based on an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the German government is therefore funding projects abroad that it is financing or neglecting in Germany at the expense of the population and, in particular, private households. This does not include projects financed by non-governmental organizations, which of course provide funding out of pure philanthropy [14]. Incidentally, Germany then secures a deal for Senegalese gas [23]. Well, if that isn't climate-friendly.
Conclusion
Everyone is talking about climate protection, but you can't eat it - the energy-efficient stoves in Kenya and Senegal have less to do with climate protection.
Sources
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76
[2] https://lehrbuch-psychologie.springer.com/statistik-f%C3%BCr-human-und-sozialwissenschaftler
[3] https://phys.org/news/2023-11-absorb-co2-human-previously.html
[4] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh9444
[5] https://tkp.at/2024/01/06/mehr-co2-foerdert-kuehlendes-pflanzenwachstum/
[6] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609
[8] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047?scroll=top&needAccess=true
[9] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=129477
[10] https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw45-pa-haushalt-bereinigungssitzung-918112
[11] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/10/PD22_437_43.html
[14] https://clubderklarenworte.de/das-nahrungsmittelmonopol/
[16] https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/themen/klimaschutz/klimapartnerschaft-mit-senegal
[17] https://www.germanwatch.org/de/netzwerk
[18] https://www.sdsngermany.de/
[19] https://www.giz.de/projektdaten/projects.action?request_locale=de_DE&pn=201923499
[20] https://www.giz.de/de/weltweit/123269.html
[21] https://www.helmholtz-klima.de/faq/was-sind-co2-aequivalente
[22] https://www.bundeshaushalt.de/DE/Bundeshaushalt-digital/bundeshaushalt-digital.html
[24] https://knoema.de/atlas/Senegal/topics/Bildung/Alphabetisierung/Alphabetisierungsrate-Erwachsene
[25] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/senegal-co2-emissions/
[26] https://www.govdata.de/daten/-/details/bmz-projektdaten-iati-meldung
[27] https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/097/2009761.pdf
[28] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/kenya-co2-emissions/
[29] Line 239: https://clubderklarenworte.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/iati-Export.xls
English 
German 
Spanish
17 Responses
CO2 does not warm! Atmospheres with a higher CO2 content cool down!
CO2 does not block infrared rays.
CO2 is the worst energy absorber compared to all other components of the atmosphere!
The strong infrared rays that CO2 could absorb are not produced by the Earth due to its low mass!
There is no greenhouse effect.
There are no greenhouse gases!
There is no positive feedback!
All 3 are pseudo-scientific terms that have no place at all in real physics. It is hardly possible for the layman to recognize the difference between science & pseudo-science, since the pseudo has practically replaced the real!
The average CO2 content in the air is 0.04 % because of the Earth's mass, not because of human activity.
0.04 % corresponds to 100% of relative CO2 content in the air, analogously 4% of water vapor in the air corresponds to 100% of relative humidity! Just as anything over 100% of water falls back onto the ground and the oceans as precipitation, CO2 is also absorbed. It is therefore simply impossible to increase the content of water and carbon dioxide in the air globally.
Of the 0.04%, at least 90% is due to global volcanism. For living beings & other natural causes, a maximum of 0.004 % remains.
Of this 0.004 %, an overestimated 3% may be human, which corresponds to 0.0001% in absolute terms.
More questions are answered here.
Questions and answers about CO2!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/fragen-und-antworten-zu-co2.html
Nevertheless, man-made climate change does exist, but it is being applied in a targeted and quasi-global manner through CLIMATE CONTROL for military and commercial purposes. The aim of climate control is to control the water cycle, and control of the carbon cycle is also linked to this.
What is being legalized and promoted is the privatization and militarization of the atmosphere!
The following articles provide a quick introduction to the topic:
What is climate control?
Who does it, who benefits from it and who is harmed by it?
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/was-ist-klimakontrolle-wer-macht-es-wem.html
Climate control process. Water theft in 10 steps. Ozone hole - chemtrails - tornadoes - fracking & farming!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/prozess-der-klimakontrolle-wasserklau.html
Unfortunately, nothing will change, because the Greens are against everything that is German, except for the billions in taxes that are squandered all over the world.
And today they also want to naturalize the predominantly criminal Islamists by law
Just by the way.
Which manufacturers received the order (53 million) for the production and sale of these electric stoves?
Kind regards.
When you read it like that, you can't really think of anything else. It makes you salivate and you just want to scream. If there really is a higher power, I only have one request: save us from these idiots.
I find the picture with the electric stove in the desert completely inappropriate, because it is not about such stoves, but about the kind shown in the following link: https://endev.info/countries/promotion-of-climate-friendly-cooking-kenya-and-senegal/
The video at the bottom of the page gives a better insight than all the texts. It also shows different models, but unfortunately nothing at all about the extent to which energy and CO2 emissions should or can be reduced by these stoves. It is astonishing that it is only briefly shown that these stoves are fired with charcoal in the video. I lived in India for about 27 years and very often saw that in rural areas cooking is mainly done with wood or cow dung (mixed with straw and dried in the sun) on extremely simple "stoves", which are often made of stones, sometimes smeared with clay. The stoves shown in the pictures and in the video do not suggest a huge improvement in energy efficiency to me. I immediately wondered which people in Senegal and Kenya could produce or afford charcoal themselves? In India, it was rare to find and when it was, it was expensive. In India, almost no one cooks with electricity because it can fail at any time and for hours, sometimes even days. Since these stoves are made in Senegal and Kenya and are to be sold, the big question is what these millions are needed for? In India, the officials and suppliers involved, and their relatives, would build themselves huge bangalows (villas) complete with air conditioning and diesel generators and even bigger cars. I would be extremely surprised if Senegal and Kenya were any different. What proportion of the population will be able to afford such stoves and the charcoal to go with them? Will it be supplied from Germany? Questions upon questions! Does anyone have any answers?
Very interesting article. For me, it rounds off the entire article conclusively. Right at the beginning, I asked myself which ovens could be involved, how an improvement could be brought about and why EUR 53 million might be needed. I've been asking myself that more and more often recently when I hear once again where all this incredible amount of money is being spent that I and every other working taxpayer is handing over. Thank you
I grew up in the GDR and can still remember very well an interview with an African local politician (I think it was in Angola) from the 1980s who was asked what he thought the difference was between development aid from the West (then still the EC) and from the East (CMEA). He replied: "The West gives us fish against hunger, we eat it and then we are hungry again at some point. The East gives us a fishing rod so that we can fish for ourselves... Today, "green" refrigerators or cycle paths are given as gifts
"Germany is a problem because Germans are more industrious, disciplined and talented than the rest of Europe.
This will always lead to imbalances. However, this can be counteracted by channeling as much money as possible out of Germany. It doesn't matter what for. It can also be radically wasted. The main thing is that the Germans don't have it. The world is already saved.
Quote: "Joschka" Fischer (The Greens) ex-Foreign Minister and ex-Fice Chancellor
There are many unbelievable statements from Green politicians and they are currently putting one after the other into practice.
"History has taught man that man learns nothing apart from history." (Albert Einstein)
Only this time Germany has no rubble women........... but men who feel comfortable in Lenor.
Good luck
This quote from Mr. Fischer has become a guiding principle for me as I wondered more and more how people keep coming up with the idea of distributing more and more money from our tax revenues to the wildest projects in the remotest corners of the world. If the German people were doing well, I would even be happy with some of the projects, but this is not the case. It almost seems as if we want to provoke, as if we want to take it to a fragile extreme...
As is so often the case, one has the impression that the actions of the red-green government are not based on reason, but are driven by ideology. It is also possible that (non-transparent?) lobbying is being followed.
Well, hopefully the poor Senegalese will also be sent the dishwasher next year.
"...and the rich also cause more CO2 through their lifestyle:" A short excursion through an area that is predominantly inhabited by the 'rich' and, as an extension of this excursion, another slow drive through a landscape of houses in a less well-off area shows that reality speaks a different language than the above sentence tries to suggest. While the latter, in a frenzy of cheap, throwaway consumption, spend their money, as a rule, on junk that has neither an average half-life nor a quality that exceeds the price of the packaging, the former focus on longevity, proportionality and, not least, a balanced energy/performance ratio. Whether the 'rich' invest, have their own business or work for free, it is usually designed so that generations can still participate in it. They are, so to speak, the inventors of sustainability. Of course, you can't count the super-rich among the 'rich'. A Bill Gates naturally consumes more kerosene per year than the entire population of Frankfurt. Poorer people buy furniture made from wood that the Bulgarian, Romanian or Ukrainian timber mafia illegally cuts out of their state forests, which is neither certified nor subject to quality or sustainability controls. This is just one example. If you do without quality, you do without the intelligent use of our resources.
I agree with you. I used to work in sales for a manufacturer of expensive audio/video products. If you can still use a remote control after 20 years to control successor products, and can also repair it, then that's real sustainability.
There is nothing to add to this. At most: this distribution of money is so much to the detriment of education, which is why we hardly find a complaining population in this country.
Unbelievable how they handle our tax money!
and another thing: the alleged development aid to foreign countries must be stopped as long as we German taxpayers have to suffer as a result! Tax revenues are gushing, but the money is not being spent on sensible things, it is being squandered!
Dear rulers: stop misleading us with the fairy tale of alleged climate change and the harmfulness of CO2 emissions!