Women warm to warmism in an alliance for clean cookstoves 5

This is by Ileana Johnson Paugh and comes from Canada Free Press:

I bet you did not know that we had an Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues. I did not realize that global women existed. I did not know that we had a czarina to represent third world female population’s interests in our administration. The post was created by President Obama on April 6, 2009.

Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, traveled to Durban, South Africa to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in order “to highlight the critical and largely untapped potential of women to combat climate change.” Who knew that women were so powerful that they could affect climate change!

As I read this brief report, I envisioned billions of dollars washing down the proverbial drain with the blessing of an eager administration to re-distribute our “socially unjust” and “unfairly earned, evil capitalist” wealth.

Ambassador-at-Large Melanne Verveer mentioned studies that have shown that women “are on the frontline of, and suffer disproportionately from, the impacts of climate change.” As I googled women’s suffering from the impact of climate change, I found no such studies.

Ambassador-at-Large Verveer states that women are a “powerful force for finding solutions to climate change across the board, including areas of agriculture, sustainable forest management, and energy access.” Because “a small minority of women farmers have access to land tenure (Food and Agriculture Organization report and we know how reliable UN reports are),” women’s potential to combat climate change is limited.”

Who knew that the simple act of owning land could combat climate change?

Using a generic statement, “studies have shown,” without mentioning any studies, Ambassador-at-Large Verveer states, “women with right to property are significantly more capable of investing in climate-smart agricultural productivity.” I had no idea that such a practice existed in agriculture, “climate-smart productivity.” It seems that there is no end to the leftist push to justify UN schemes to milk more funds from the United States in order to enrich the coffers of third world dictatorships.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines “climate-smart productivity” as “conservation agriculture, integrated pest management, agroforestry, and sustainable diets.”

This type of agriculture promoted by FAO “sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation) while enhancing the achievement of national food security development goals.” …

Ponderous jargon characterizes left-wing official-speak. A special torment of our time, all too “sustainable”.

According to Ambassador-at-Large Verveer’s report, “women have untapped potential for increasing energy access, which directly relates to climate change.” In case you are confused, the report continues, “3 billion people globally still rely on traditional cookstoves and open fires to prepare food for their families.” Since women are responsible for cooking and collecting fuel, the resulting smoke exposure causes an “estimated two million premature deaths annually, with women and children being most affected.” She follows that it “puts women at risk of gender based violence.”

What does climate change have to do with gender based violence? Would less gender based violence decrease climate change? If we were to cook less and eat raw food, would that alter climate change? …

I am trying to understand this climate change contorted logic. Humans use stoves to cook and that causes climate change; females collect wood to burn in the stoves to prepare food and they contribute to climate change; smoke exposure causes premature deaths but women and children are most affected. I still cannot figure out how it causes gender-based violence; I am still scratching my head.

But as Whatsisname said: Arguing with a woman is like trying to crack an egg on a pillow.

Ambassador-at-Large Vermeer suggests that we have to “build a global market for clean cookstoves” because they impact the climate through “greenhouse gases and short-lived particles such as black carbon.” In her opinion, if women were integrated into the supply chain of clean cookstoves, new economic development opportunities would be created for women. She follows with a quote by Secretary Clinton that “women create a multiplier effect in local communities because they disproportionately spend more of their earned income on food, healthcare, home improvement, and schooling.”

Now I am totally lost. The Ambassador-at-Large Verveer introduces more variables to the role of women in combating climate change: food, healthcare, home improvement, and schooling, without really explaining how it all ties in with her flawed hypothesis. Since she references two more UN organizations, Feed the Future and the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, it is important to note that the Global Alliance is a “private-public UN initiative to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat climate change by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions.”

The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, which was launched on September 21, 2010 in Washington, D.C., has 240 partners and the following founders: German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Government of Norway, Peru, Morgan Stanley, Shell, Shell Foundation, the Netherlands, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of State., Environmental Protection Agency, and the United Nations Foundation.

The United States is in the platinum donor category with $5 million dollars, Department of Energy, EPA, Department of State are in the gold donor category with $1-5 million each, along with socialist European nations such as bankrupt Spain and Ireland, the World Bank, and other UN affiliates.

The Department of Energy is awarding “Clean Biomass Cookstove Technologies” grants of $100,000 and $750,000 at a time when our country is broke, unemployment is at an all time high, taxpayers are unhappy, and the administration is demanding that we reduce our consumption of energy.

The “science” provided under the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves consists of two articles, one published in Le Monde by Bertrand d’Armagnac on November 13, 2011 and another published in Bloomberg by Jonathan Alter on November 24, 2011. Both cross-reference World Health Organization data that 2 million people die annually from smoke inhalation, more than malaria, TB, and AIDS combined. Apparently the fuel, wood, dung, makeshift charcoal, and agricultural waste, are directly responsible for 2 million deaths, particularly in women and children. These third world dictatorships are incapable of running their countries, feeding, sheltering, and caring for their people properly. It is mind boggling and highly suspicious that they can keep such accurate disease and death rate data.

I am not disputing the fact that people have died throughout history from unsanitary and unhealthy living conditions. We have waged education wars to improve living conditions and spent trillions of dollars to alleviate poverty around the world, yet we do not seem to be any closer today than we were in the beginning. The corrupt governments have stolen the money and personally enriched themselves instead of improving their citizens’ living conditions. To continue this pattern is absolute madness.

Ambassador-at-Large Verveer is very proud of “our efforts to build on the gender equality and women empowerment language in the Cancun agreements.” It seems that lip service is quite an accomplishment as long as the “language on gender balance related to the composition of the board of the new Green Climate Fund, the Standing Committee, and the Adaptation Committee” are in line with the UN Agenda. …

*

We have quoted Dr Ileana Johnson Paugh a number of times with appreciation.

We compliment her on not being a woman like Melanne Verveer. (See our post Of adults and women, September 4, 2010)

We’d bet that she – as Margaret Thatcher once said of herself – owes nothing to feminism.*

Or “women’s studies”. Pseudo disciplines like  “women’s studies” are exercises in self-inflicted-wound-licking. If Isaac Newton had concentrated on “scientist studies” instead of science, we might never have had the Enlightenment.

 

*Feminism: a fake cause; a division of Victimology; a sustained gripe by Western women belonging to the most privileged class in human history.  

  • As a male who minored in women’s studies, I must comment on this article.

    The history of feminism posits that the movement occurred in three
    separate waves of influence, the last of which is ongoing. “First-wave
    feminism”, which I prefer to call the “women’s rights movement”, was a
    19th century campaign to see basic recognition of females as equals
    before the law as well as talented individuals in their own right. These
    women actually endured significant hardships and harsh jail sentences
    simply to earn their voting rights: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady
    Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and many others serve as the heroes of this era.
    I express my full support for these efforts since it did not take overt
    partisan tones and more importantly addressed a legitimate issue
    regarding the treatment of adult female humans.

    Second-wave feminism is essentially Leftism under the banner of
    “liberating women”, focusing less on the official political designation
    of women in lieu of attempting to change widespread attitudes about
    women in the realms of family life and sexuality. Very much a
    countercultural response to the typical 1950s nuclear family of a
    stay-at-home mom and a working dad, it attempted to flip this dynamic on
    its head to assert not just the equality of women, but their autonomy
    too (especially regarding reproductive rights). To me, individualism
    obviates these claims by achieving many of the same goals, but without
    that conspicuous taste of a left-wing agenda.

    Third-wave feminism is still in the process of emerging, but from what I
    understand, it takes a broader view of female leverage as a significant
    economic factor in a globally connected marketplace. Females
    increasingly receive competitive college degrees and business positions
    which males once monopolized, and a great number of products
    increasingly attract a mostly-female market. This last wave also
    popularized the term “Girl Power” to associate estrogen with strength.
    While I have little to say about this as feminism, I
    wish any individual who possesses considerable talent success in the
    marketplace and freedom from the caprices of nattering bureaucrats,
    regardless of her sex.

    I shall share more of my knowledge, impressions, and experiences in later comments.

    • Liz

      Exactly – the rights of the individual should be the goal – not the victimhood of any group. It’s sad how women, like so many other groups, are being manipulated to further agendas – fake causes, for sure.   

  • Liz

    Reading this conjures up a picture of Professor Umbrage dressed in her fuzzy pink outfit, gleefully carrying out the decrees of the Ministry of Magic…

  • Anonymous

    Feminism may also be defined as a vehicle used by a select few for their ambitions without application to women at large. In other words, there have been many occasions where a coordinated effort to correct an occasion of abuse specifically toward a single woman or several but the “NOW Crowd” ignores it because it does not fall into the category of serving the “crowd” or, and this is more often the case, it is from a woman/group of women that do not adhere to the Left/Liberal mindset of the NOW group.

    Although I am not an Atheist, I am satisfied to see this Conservative venue. Until now, I was not aware of its existence but saw the comment in Dr. Paugh’s comment section of Canada Free Press and decided to come here and check it out.

    • Jillian Becker

      Welcome, No Crud. 

      Yes, feminism is a lefty rave. 

      If you’re a Christian you may be interested in – or outraged by? – our series of essays on the early history of Christianity. Three posted, several more to come. Put “St. Paul” into our search slot to find them.