“What happens when climate change and the mental health crisis collide?”
The actual headline on Nature.com triggered my BS meter. What does climate change have to do with mental health?
“Global warming is worsening mental illness and psychological distress. Researchers need to understand the scale of the problem and how we can help those in need,” the editorial continued. ing.
More hyperbolic:
“Nearly 1 billion people around the world (including 1 in 7 teenagers) have a mental disorder. Climate change is worsening people’s mental health and emotional well-being. A growing body of research suggests that extreme heat waves, droughts, floods, and fires will accelerate. [sic] Climate change causes trauma, mental illness, and suffering. Chronic effects of global warming, such as water and food insecurity, community breakdown and conflict, can occur as well, as we report in our news feature. ”
Think about this. “The extreme heat waves, droughts, floods and fires caused by climate change cause trauma, mental illness and suffering.” Who Said? They say the same thing in another article, “Environmental anxiety on the rise: Scientists wake up to the mental health toll of climate change.”
The “growing body of research” they are referring to is a dubious 2021 white paper from Imperial College London’s Grantham Institute, in which key stakeholders (governments, health systems, community groups, It recommends a well-coordinated “international network” including academics, emergency responders, etc.catalyze [influence] Share knowledge, efficiently target research, and identify and expand successful interventions. ” [emphasis the Globe]
We also recommend:
- Prioritize successful climate change mitigation and adaptation measures with co-benefits for mental health and wellbeing. reduce social inequality. Such measures include improving air quality; provide equitable access to nature and Improving home energy efficiency.
- When negative mental health impacts occur, we put in place appropriate strategies to manage their impact and reduce their severity. [emphasis the Globe]
It doesn’t take much investigation to find out that the Grantham Institute (and its foundation) is in cahoots with other shady “charitable” organizations.
“We have long-standing relationships with Rare, The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, Rocky Mountain Research Institute, and the Environmental Defense Fund. We work with these organizations to develop new environmental and climate solutions. We are promoting.”
Rare is “focused on tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, securing food systems, promoting equity in conservation, and advancing public and private capital for better environmental outcomes.” ”
“The Nature Conservancy is tackling the dual threats of accelerating climate change and unprecedented biodiversity loss.”
World Wildlife Fund: Our vision is to build a future where people live in harmony with nature. To fulfill this mission, we work to protect and restore the biodiversity that supports all life on Earth. Reduce humanity’s environmental footprint. Ensure sustainable use of natural resources to support current and future generations. [emphasis the Globe]
The Environmental Defense Fund says, “Climate change is built on historical injustices and inequalities, so our solutions to climate change must center on justice.” states.
…including the Rocky Mountain Institute, a “501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to fundamental improvements in America’s energy practices.”
The Rocky Mountain Institute proposes “carbon-free buildings,” or all-electric buildings. They say, “Commercial buildings consume more than 35 percent of the electricity generated in the United States and underperform at every level. It’s too expensive for people.”
Rocky Mountain Institute’s Carbon Free Building Program states:
we must:
Build only zero carbon buildings
Renovate 5% of buildings each year
Ensure electrical appliances and efficient equipment
The Rocky Mountain Institute claims they are “advancing technological, policy, and regulatory solutions to accelerate the transition to all-electric buildings.”
Rocky Mountain Institute’s RMI Carbon-Free Power Program states:
we must:
Expand your clean energy portfolio
Build a clean, competitive, modern grid
Make utilities champions of clean energy
Natural gas does not fit into this model.
And these radical environmental groups are colluding with academia to create a crisis because they can’t get public buy-in on their climate change plans.
In other words, it’s a collision between “climate change and the mental health crisis.”
The Globe reported in December 2023 that the city of Sacramento is developing a plan to electrify all buildings in the city, making it an all-electric city under the title of “Climate Change Prevention and Adaptation Plan.” The national goal is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. ”
That is a bureaucratic way of saying we will remove your gas stove and gas heater for your own benefit. Then there are gas water heaters, gas barbecues, and gasoline cars.
In January 2022, the Globe reported that California aims to become the first state to ban natural gas space heaters, water heaters, and furnaces by 2030. This is the policy of the California Air Resources Board, which is comprised solely of appointees of the governor.
One of the footnotes mentions Rocky Mountain Research Institute.
Even more worrying is that, like many Chinese studies, the World Health Organization is named in the study.
“In September 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission unanimously resolved to eliminate subsidies for new gas line extensions starting in July 2023. Additionally, the CPUC voted to eliminate subsidies for new gas line extensions starting in July 2023,” city documents state. “We have adopted a new framework for planning the maintenance and retirement of gas distribution.” infrastructure. “
I remember when natural gas was clean energy.
Returning to the Imperial College London study, it was argued that:
“Groups that are already affected by social inequalities, such as people who already have mental illness.”
Since when did mental illness become a “social inequality”?
A study by Imperial College London reveals the plan.
“The good news is that there is still an opportunity to turn this from a vicious cycle to a virtuous one. Actions to address climate change will go further than currently expected to prevent or reduce negative impacts on mental health. It will bring you great profits. It is not yet considered in policies and budgets.
for example, Burning fossil fuels causes climate change and poor air qualityTherefore, reducing fossil fuels will reduce a) climate change, b) the mental health effects of rising temperatures, and c). The mental health effects of poor air quality. This kind of behavior is building a more just society (which itself is essential for improving mental health and well-being), people in poorer areas are more likely to be affected by poor air quality associated with the burning of fossil fuels, for example. Furthermore, when individuals take action to cope with and respond to climate change, it may also protect their mental health 25-27. Policy response Therefore, multiple benefits, win-win opportunities, or “co-benefits” can be created. By leveraging common solutions to the dual challenges of climate change and mental health. ” [emphasis the Globe]
There is a lot of money in the evil behind these plans, and the goal is actually power and control achieved through manufactured energy scarcity.
“Researchers are trying to develop global mental health indicators that can be linked to weather and climate data, for example. lancetThe “Countdown to Health and Climate Change” is a collaboration of experts from more than 50 academic institutions and United Nations agencies, reports Nature.com.
If you’re still not convinced, try these additional headings:
Growing environmental anxiety: Scientists wake up to the mental health toll of climate change
Creating cities that are mental health friendly for youth and young adults
I’m a climatologist.This is how I deal with climate change grief