By Cynthia Chung for the Saker Blog
Europeans are presently being told that the energy crisis they are entering, with natural gas prices now four times higher than last year, stems from a longer winter, competition with East Asian countries for gas, and problems on the supply end with delayed maintenance and less investment. These gas prices are in turn determining the price in electricity markets, since 1/5 of Europe’s electricity comes from natural gas.
According to this narrative, how do we stabilise this crisis and avoid it in the future? By accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to renewables and biofuels (often nuclear energy is not even mentioned as an zero carbon energy source).
We are told that it is the overreliance on natural gas and coal by Europeans and their slow transition to renewables and biofuels that is at the heart of this energy crisis.
This sentiment was given credence by the EU Commission in Brussels. EU Climate Czar Frans Timmermans declared in his opening remarks at the “Fit for 55” discussion on October 6, 2021:
“I want to say clearly, that had we had the Green Deal 5 years ago, we would not be in this position. Then we would have much more renewable energy of which the prices are consistently low and we would not be this dependent on fossil fuels from outside of the European Union.”
Thus, the EU has taken matters into its own hands and proposed “Fit for 55” in July 2021, a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 55% by 2030. Under an accelerated legislative process, the plans may become law in 2022.
These plans are coinciding with another EU project titled “Farm to Fork” first proposed in May 2020, and according to the European Commission site is at the heart of the European Green New Deal. It is promoted as part of the sustainable energy approach for the future, and plans to reduce C02 emissions in food production, which ironically, is what is required to feed vegetation and agriculture.
There is a lot of controversy around “Farm to Fork” because it intends to impose specific approaches to agriculture, including such technologies as genetic modification (which are to replace fertilisers which are now deemed not part of the Green Agenda since they require energy for their production).
There is a lot to go through here. Let us first start with Timmermans assertion that had the Green Deal been implemented 5 years ago, Europe would not be in the energy crisis it is in today.
The ABCs in Energy
It has become a common theme for political leaders to not accept responsibility for the consequences that their citizens are forced to live, or rather suffer, through. If we were to take Timmermans’ statement as an honest one, why then were countries pressured to downsize their non-renewable energy sources before the renewables were theoretically plentiful enough to responsibly supply energy needs?
That is, the claim that Timmermans is making is either delusional or criminally incompetent no matter which way you look at it.
Either Timmermans is delusional because renewables do not have the ability to compensate for nuclear, natural gas, and coal or he is criminally incompetent since amidst an energy crisis, he does not admit his role as EU Climate Czar for putting Europeans in such a dangerous position. He does not admit that cutting down on non-renewable energy before a sufficient capacity of renewable energy is online will cause a devastating energy crisis, a crisis that is now seriously impacting food production.
According to this Bloomberg article from January 2021, the world invested unprecedented amounts in low-carbon assets in the year 2020, a record $501.1 billion, beating the previous year by 9% despite this overlapping with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Head analyst of BloombergNEF (BNEF) reported: “Our figures show that the world has reached half a trillion dollars a year in its investment to decarbonize the energy system. Clean power generation and electric transport are seeing heavy inflows, but need to see further increases in spending as costs fall… We need to be talking about trillions per year if we are to meet climate goals.”
According to this other Bloomberg article, private equity has been in the process of ditching fossil fuels since 2017. That is, serious investment into transitioning towards green energy started 5 years ago, the magic number Timmermans referenced to as if it wasn’t actually happening.
What both graphs demonstrate is that there has been bountiful funding into “acceptable” green energy, in fact, trillions. But apparently, this is not enough before we start to see an actual payout in energy supplies.
Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada, former director of the Bank of England, and now the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, announced at COP26 that an “estimated $100 trillion of investment [would] be needed over the next three decades for a clean energy future.” That is an incredible amount of money.
There are several issues with this statement. Why does this clean energy market require such an exorbitant amount of financing? For countries that cannot afford these costs, what are they expected to do? Why are we being told that it will not be until three decades from now that we will see the energy market stabilised? And why are non-renewable energy supplies being rapidly taken down, such that nuclear will be non-existent in countries like Germany in one year’s time, if the timeline to be fully operational using green energy is 30 years from now? Where is the energy going to come from in the meantime, during this so-called transition phase?
Let us start with the exorbitant cost. A major factor to this is because these acceptable Carney approved green energies have a lower capacity factor than non-renewables, most notably than that of nuclear.
Capacity factor measures the actual generation of energy compared to the maximum amount it could potentially generate in a given period without any interruption.
Therefore, when you hear things like x number of solar plants or wind turbines can generate the same amount of energy as one nuclear plant, be weary, since they are using the maximum potential energy output (i.e. sunny all 24hrs of a day with no clouds, high winds 24/7) rather than factoring in the capacity factor. What a nuclear plant promises, it delivers. This is not the case with wind and solar, the effects of which we are seeing in Europe presently. (For those who are afraid of nuclear because of Fukushima refer here.)
Note, in the above image solar panels are shown to have a maximum capacity factor of 24.9% but that is really quite generous. Depending on the solar panel you are using, the capacity factor typically ranges from 17% to 23%. Wind also has a capacity factor that often is lower than the generous 35.4% shown above. In the case of Ontario, Canada wind energy’s capacity factor averages 27%.
What this means, is that if your country requires x GW of energy to sustain itself, and if you are using solar or wind at a capacity factor of 25%, then you would need to build 4x the number of solar or wind plants than what you would theoretically need in order to receive 100% of that promised energy output (i.e. the potential maximum energy output they use to promote their products as competitors to non-renewables).
Thus, when claims are made that solar panels are the cheapest form of energy, they are not accounting for the capacity factor, and at best the cost is actually 4x and at worst 6x what they are actually claiming on paper.
Both solar and wind also have the extra cost of battery storage and a fully functioning energy grid for periods where there is no solar and wind activity.
Energy Returned on Investment, or EROI, is the ratio of energy returned to energy invested in that energy source, along its entire life-cycle. When the number is large, energy from that source is easy to get and cheap. However, when the number is small, the energy from that source is difficult to get and expensive. The break-even number for fueling modern society is about 7.
Note here that according to EROI, solar PV and biomass do not even make the cut, you are putting more energy in than you are receiving back. As we have seen so far, nuclear is the most efficient and cost effective zero-carbon energy source.
Germany boasts of 45% gross renewable energy but this is not telling the full story. In a 2021 study, The Frauenhofer Institute estimated Germany must install at least 6-8x present solar capacity in order to reach 100% carbon free goals by 2045, with estimated costs reaching into the trillions.
The report says that the present gross 54 GW solar capacity must increase to 544 GW by 2045. That would mean a land space of 3,568,000 acres (1.4 million hectares), which is more than 16,000 square kilometers of solid solar panels across the country. This is not even including all the wind stations. Farmland and forests will be destroyed and paved, all for so-called environmentally friendly though unreliable and incredibly expensive solar and wind renewables.
In the midst of major food shortages, due to the energy crisis which has reduced fertiliser production, Europeans are also being told that they need to severely cut down on farmland to make way for the new farms of solar panels and windmills. In addition, solar panels present a very serious toxic waste situation with no readily available solutions, unlike the case of nuclear.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)’s official projections assert that “large amounts of annual waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could total 78 million tonnes by the year 2050.
Harvard Business Review reported:
“If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model, they can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than IRENA anticipates. That figure translates to around 315,000 metric tonnes of waste, based on an estimate of 90 tonnes per MW weight-to-power ratio.
Alarming as they are, these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger.”
The Harvard Business Review adds that the solar industry does not actually have a plan to deal with the massive amount of toxic waste that nations will have to deal with 10 years from now, adding that although the financial incentive for funding the production of solar panels is high, there is little “financial incentive” in figuring out what to do with the waste.
Harvard Business Review writes:
“By 2035, discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection. The economics of solar — so bright-seeming from the vantage point of 2021 — would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash.”
Thus, again there are massive hidden costs in solar panels that presently do not account for the cost of managing its own waste at astronomical prices.
But the fallbacks do not end there.
Europe and North America will require huge volumes of steel and concrete to build the expected millions of solar panels and wind farms. How are the materials steel and concrete produced? By coal and nuclear energy. Steel and concrete production is so energy intensive that solar and wind energy are not actually sufficient to produce their own parts.
Not only this, but these unreliable renewables are consuming a massive quantity of energy for their mass production, amidst an energy crisis that does not show any end in sight. Food production has already drastically decreased due to the shortage of fertiliser (that requires energy for its production). Is food production expected to continue to plummet so that we can build these massive unreliable solar and wind farms with increasingly no significant alternative energy source, other than hydro, to fall back on?
Are Europeans expected to starve for this “clean energy future”?
Fit for 55: Some Study Cases
In 2002 German nuclear power was the source of 31% of that nation’s carbon-free electric power.
In 2011 when Chancellor Merkel declared her Energiewende, to phase out nuclear in favor of renewables, 17 nuclear plants reliably supplied 25% of all electric power to the country.
Merkel’s Energiewende claimed that Germany could attain 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. However, there was never an intention that Germany would ever be self-sufficient in its energy production. The study by Martin Faulstich and the State Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) argued that Energiewende would work because Germany could contract to buy surplus, carbon-free, hydro-electric power from Norway and Sweden.
However, hydropower reserves of Sweden and Norway (after a dry and hot summer) are dangerously low coming into this winter and are operating at only 52% capacity. That means that the level of electricity exported to Denmark, Germany and most recently the UK are likely going to plummet. In addition, Sweden is contemplating shutting its own nuclear plants which provide 40% of Swedish electricity. If Sweden decides to shut down its nuclear, it will no longer be able to supply the energy needs of these other European countries. What then?
Despite all these uncertainties shaping Europe’s energy crisis, on December 31, 2021 the new German coalition government shut down 3/6 of their nuclear power plants permanently. Incredibly, they have decided to do this amidst a devastating energy crisis, such that a severe cold front could lead to power blackouts. Because of the German government’s hesitancy to use Nord Stream 2, Germany is now facing a 500% increase in the spot price of electricity compared with January 2021. The remaining 3 nuclear plants are scheduled to close by the end 2022.
Germany has also been cutting down on its coal generation. Since 2016 it has closed 15.8 GW of coal generation. To make up for the inadequacy of solar and wind energy output, Germany’s electric grid must import a massive amount of electricity from France and the Czech Republic, ironically much of it from their nuclear plants. Germany today has the highest electricity cost of any industrial nation as a result of the Energiewende.
And as of writing this paper, February 22, Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz has just announced the freezing of Nord Stream 2 as a “punishment” to Putin’s recognition of the independence of the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in formerly eastern Ukraine on February 21.
Who does Scholz think he is really punishing here?
We can now clearly see that Germany, which is the country hardest hit by the energy crisis in western Europe, was the earliest country to start its green transition.
Contrary to what Mr. Timmermans is claiming of what the situation would be if countries made the transition to green energy 5 years ago, Germany started its green transition 11 years ago and the verdict is plain for everyone to see. They are the least sovereign in their energy self-sufficiency and they are paying the highest prices for their basic energy usage.
Bizarrely, when Germany’s Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier made an investment deal with China in January 2021 around green hydrogen energy, there was criticism from the United States as to why Altmaier did not wait for Biden’s inauguration before signing such a deal!
Apparently, Germany does not have the right to decide any of its energy policies, even if they are green.
Carney’s Net Zero Banking Alliance
At COP26, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney was pleased to announce that more than 450 firms representing $130 trillion USD in assets (40% of the world’s financial assets) now belong to the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ).
Carney also announced that Michael Bloomberg would be the UN Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions and Race to Zero Ambassador.
It is in fact Carney’s approach to financing green energy that is the greatest factor in causing the price increase in non-renewable forms of energy.
Mark Carney, former director of the Bank of England, has called for a “net zero banking alliance” in which banks have agreed not to lend to producers but only to put funds into the green bubble, the carbon bubble and so on. As a result, future energy production will drop even though there are ample resources available, creating further artificial scarcity.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Mark Carney stated that private banks in the financial sector must produce a change in the plumbing of the financial system in order to push liquidity into the speculative bubble while cutting investments to the productive economy. Carney said climate change must become the “fundamental driver of every investment decision or lending decision.”
In other words, either you go along with the green program (that ignores nuclear as green) or you don’t get credit. Which is a policy that will, and is, quite predictably driving up energy prices.
This policy of Mark Carney has already caused the bankruptcy of several energy companies across Europe, and there has been no correction to this policy despite Europe being in an energy crisis.
Blackrock and other global money trusts have forced energy investment away from oil, gas and coal to buildup solar and wind. They call it ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing. ESG investment has been booming on Wall Street, the City of London, and other world financial markets ever since BlackRock CEO Larry Fink joined the Board of the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum in 2019.
ESG investing works by setting up ESG certifying companies that award ESG ratings on stock companies and financially punish those who do not comply with the ESG demands. The rush into ESG investing has made billions for Wall Street and the City of London. It has also put a damper on future development of oil, coal or natural gas for most of the world.
This is not a plan for a gradual transition to solar and wind power. This is a rapid gutting of all other energy sources before there is an ability to provide the promised energy payout we are told we will see with solar and wind, which ironically need coal and nuclear energy for their production.
At the rate that they are closing all other competing energy sources, it does not look like even the production demands for wind and solar farms can be met, there will simply be not enough energy to do anything.
The consequence of these actions should be plain for anyone to see. The goal of the UN 2030 “sustainable” energy is now crystal clear. It is a move towards population reduction on a massive scale.
Farm to Fork: The Big Brother of Agriculture
In the UN Agenda 2030, 17 sustainable goals for 2030 are outlined, including “sustainable agriculture.” However, when looked at closely, the regulations they are looking to impose will destroy a huge part of EU agriculture production and drive already rising global prices for food far higher. This “Farm to Fork” strategy is being backed by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum and is part of their proposed Great Reset.
Keep in mind that “sustainable” as defined by the UN and Davos World Economic Forum means achieving Zero Carbon emissions by 2050. It does not mean that food production will be at levels sufficient to feed people around the world, or that food prices will be affordable. It also does not mean that the foods themselves will be safe for consumption.
Europe is the world’s second most important food producer. Thus, whatever the EU becomes beholden to will have massive global effects.
In the “Farm to Fork” Agenda, they state that present food systems need to be “redesigned” in order to lower global GHG (Green House Gas) emissions, consumption of natural resources and protect biodiversity and health. Thus, “new technologies and scientific discoveries” will need to be introduced, though the details as to what sort of “technologies” and “discoveries” is being kept purposefully vague.
How are the unelected officials in Brussels planning to reduce 1/3 of GHG emissions by 2050? Very similarly to how they are dealing with the non-renewable energies. They intend to bankrupt these farmers by demanding new costly inputs to production and radical new genetic manipulated patented plants with unproven safety. In other words, the Monsanto doctrine has now become the Big Brother of Agriculture.
There are many documented cases of farmers being sued by Monsanto because a neighbouring farm was using Monsanto’s patented seeds that would at some very predictable point land on the plot of a neighbouring farm. This is what seeds do, they are dispersed by the wind. However, incredibly, Monsanto set a legal precedent whereby farmers could be sued for having Monsanto seeds growing, unbeknownst to them, amongst their crop. How is any farmer, with open farmland, supposed to protect themselves from such a predicament? They cannot. The only choice is to also purchase the exorbitantly priced and self-sterilizing Monsanto suicide seeds every year.
The extremely well-done documentary titled “Kiss the Ground” (2020), explains how Monsanto bankrupted small farmers and forced remaining farmers to predominantly adopt the Monsanto diktat which led to increasingly lower yields per annum. It was clear that the promises Monsanto claimed in revolutionising agriculture were more destructive than anything. This documentary also goes through how our understanding of C02 in the natural cycle of vegetation ecosystems and agriculture is presently severely misunderstood.
“The Cattle Site” writes referring to the findings of the EU farming union Copa and Cogeca:
“Rarely has a report [Farm to Fork] been so careful to avoid saying what it has to say: whatever the scenarios considered, the effect of these strategies will be an unprecedented reduction of EU production capacity and of its farmers’ income. The largest part of the reduction in agricultural emissions achieved through these strategies will be erased by a sustainability leakage to third countries resulting from this loss in production.
…Whatever the scenario considered, all sectors show declines in production of 5% to 15%, with the livestock sectors being the most heavily impacted. The changes in production would lead to a decrease in net export positions for cereals, pork and poultry, and to a worsening in the EU trade deficit for oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, beef, sheep and goat meat. Meanwhile, whatever the scenario, production prices show a net increase of around 10% with a negative impact for most farmers’ incomes.
However, the most important point of the report from Copa and Cogeca’s perspective is on the expected effects of this strategy: the report shows that the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies coupled with the new CAP could help in delivering a 28.4% reduction in GHG emissions from the agricultural sector by 2030. This makes some environmental NGOs say that these strategies will deliver the expected result. This is stopping halfway through the reasoning. One major finding of the report is that more than half of the expected GHG reduction in all scenarios are substituted by equivalent GHG emissions increases in third countries.”
Incredibly, the promised reduction in GHG emissions will be simply transferred over to third world countries, thus the entire premise for forcing these Draconian agricultural regulations will not even achieve its sustainable goals for 2030, let alone 2050.
That is, they are not actually planning on achieving their so-called zero carbon sustainability objectives, yet, are predictably creating a food shortage with increased prices and further centralisation of food production, by bankrupting small farmers.
Again, we see a contingent to the Green New Deal plan, when looked at more closely, is not a feasible plan, that is, there will be a breakdown before it ever reaches its proposed objectives.
Perhaps that was the point all along…
Back to the Future
In the May 1990 issue of WEST magazine, Maurice Strong (architect of UN Agenda 21, Undersecretary of UN, co-founder of the World Economic Forum, Secretary General of the June 1972 Stockholm Earth Day Conference, and trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation) gave an interview titled “The Wizard of the Baca Grande.” On the last page of this interview is written the following:
“Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future. Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime minsters, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: ‘What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?’…The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Brundtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
…Strong resumes his story. ‘The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change’… [Thus] ‘This group of world leaders,’ he continues, ‘form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse…They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets…in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?’”
Thus, the question is, are you willing to be sacrificed to the false gods of the WEF’s Green Agenda?
The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/
Lol wait timmerans finds out climate change is about the pollution of sin in relation to divine communication!
The expression on the face will be priceless!
The Leadership of Russia has foreseen the current conflict since 1999, when NATO attacked the Orthodox Christian population of Serbia, and Russia has planned for the ultimate showdown with NATO ever since.
Since 1999. Russia has:
Expelled Globalist Oligarchs plundering Russian economy.
Rebuilt the Russian economy and Russian infrastructure.
Rebuilt Russian Forces, and taken the global lead in military science.
Regained control over the Russian central bank.
Sold off all of its US assets (except Dollar cash) and bought Gold for its major international trade surplus.
Created allies all over the world, by supporting smaller Nations being attacked by the Empire.
Created a major trade deal and alliance with China, India, Iran, Syria, Kazakhstan, and several South American Nations.
Today, Russia is well prepared for financial war, Energy war, Trade war, Real war and Info war.
During this period, the west with USA in the lead:
has squandered $Trillions on the dumbing down of the western education. Globalization, Chemtrail operations, the war on Terror, Financial Crisis plunder, Color revolutions, Migrants, the Global warming Scam, The Green energy scam, Corruption of Science, Corruption of Media, Corruption of Finance, Corruption of Corporations, induction of MSM propaganda, promotion of conflict among Sexual genders, Racial groups, Religious groups, erection of the Police state, end of free speech, eradication of human rights,
This DE route of western society has been financed by print of money (called QE) by the central bank of the US, The EU, The UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.
The printed QE, is now creating hyper inflations in all western Nations, sending the population into poverty.
Today the west is bankrupt and in no condition to withstand financial war, Energy war, Trade war, Real war or even Info war.
All the west has left is a paid for MSM blaring anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, and a fact checker “Ministry of truth” censoring any facts and opposition against the Agenda 21, the planed enter of the west into middle age feudalism by recession.
Is Russia to blame for the western De route to blame on Russia?
No it is to blame on the Western Oligarchy financing their WEF Agents to control western Nations. This includes globalist agents like Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, Ursula von der Leyen, Justine Trudeau, Scott Morrison, Jacinda Ardern, and many more. These western leaders are in charge of the Public – Private partnership (Fascism) who has hijacked western democracy.
The western population must rise up and take back their human right and democracy, just as our forefathers did 100 of years ago. The generations of today who learn Gender liberation instead of History, will now be forced to repeat History, or become slaves.
Our Forefathers are turning in their graves out of disappointment.
A Dane is spot on. Agree with him and MS. Chung.
Well written, accuarte and good research too.
“Thus, the question is, are you willing to be sacrificed to the false gods of the WEF’s Green Agenda?”
The author implicitly (im)poses another question:
Are you willing to ride a nuclear tiger into eternity to pursue the modern human addiction to endless material growth?
Framing this question otherwise:
Problems can’t be solved by using the same kind of thinking that create them.
There has been no real growth in the West for almost 20 years now. It is all paid for by debt, growth has been accompanied by a threefold increase in debt globally. It isn’t growth if every dollar you grow costs almost $4 of debt. But it appears that the west likes to live in a fairyland of unctuous propaganda and false manipulated statistics. Western people will accept their fate, they are too coddled to fight and even the ‘radicalised’ youth are not ideologically driven, they are driven by envy to ‘claim’ all the things that they believe should rightfully be theirs, the iphone has replaced God to them, they demand to be buried under a 30 year mortgage where wage and debt slavery are the primary function of life. I cannot say that the west doesn’t deserve it. Permanent fear creates cowardice and servility amongst peoples certainly in the west. I think they have been on their knees for so long they don’t know what their feet look like.
I agree with all of that. The West is in an especially bad situation respective to necessary change. My basic point however was to reflect upon the question of realistic future choices, local and global, regarding material ‘development’ and its concomitantly requisite energy supply. What thresholds of ‘necessity’ might we attach to our social identity going forward from here? Must we constantly aspire to ‘more’, especially given that humans now so densely populate such a vast extent of the planet? Apparently >80% of the planet’s bio-mass is now comprised of humans and their cultivated production systems. Is this the unseeable elephant in the climate change room?
Could it be that the article’s strong advocacy toward a nuclear powered future stems from an unquestioned belief/commitment toward this production/energy growth profile as an evolved apex of human ‘being’?
Categoric change away from the current growth pathways would be immensely difficult, albeit less so with the West’s Neo-liberal order sent to the grave. However, won’t we all just return again to heading toward political conjunctions equivalent to these current ones if we continue to reflexively tread that same heavily resource dependent path of social identity?
A major component of the Green problem is that Western politicians, as a rule, have no scientific education, are mathematically illiterate and not very bright. Their sole ability, brought about by years of natural selection, is the recognition of a band wagon, and the ability to climb on it.
Case in point;
Some time ago, in the UK the media publicised, a number of serious attacks on children by dogs, and in response to the media campaign, the Government brought in the “Dangerous Dogs Act” which focused on particular breeds known to be exceptionally aggressive, e.g. Bull Terriers.
Edwina Curry, a Minister in John Major’s Government, (and, it later turned out, Major’s mistress), was prominent as a Government spokesman, and announced, “ The problem is difficult, because dogs do not have DNA like other animals”
And these people govern us.
I’m green with envy at the folding green Analina Baerbock is siphoning/banking every month from the Public Purse. That’ll only increase in the years to come as she pads her retirement portfolio with a few .Gov NGO Directorships. She’s not as dumb as she looks, even pictured in army fatigues in Lesser Ukrainia recently.
Baerbock won’t last past the next election, her banshee like Russophobia will have cost Germany dear by then. Nobody will care for the person who subjuagted German industry to vassalage of the crumbling US asylum and ruined their GDP, who costs the lives of thousands by creating an energy crisis and destroying relations with their good and reliable neighbour in Russia, replaced by the unreliable, untrustworthy, trouble causing American yolk. Germany will get about the same from that relationship as the Ukraines did and will the US fight for Germany? No, of course not. They will run. Germany like the rest of Europe has brought it on themselves.
I’ll never forget Timmermans despicable show on MH17:
He is a criminal!
My first contact with Timmermans was about Software Patents. I was in Brussels for a protest. The EU parliament voted against software patents, and Timmermans got up to the podium and told them: “If you vote against software patents, we [the EU commission] will bring them about without you.”
That’s the kind of democrat Timmermans is. That’s the kind of person we allow to have power over us.
With that many acres needed for wind farms, they will have a Migratory Bird Slush machine that will fertilize the lands beneath with their blood. They’re generating the future farmlands. Genius and forward thinking.
This stupidity will undermine their economic sectors. Hydrogen fuel and Fusion energy seem like interesting ways of energy generation for the future. The byproduct of hydrogen fuel is water. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. So don’t tell these geniuses about that! They’d seriously paint a picture that it would turn the planet into a Turkish Sauna.
Nice to see EU put their faith in the least viable forms of energy.
Orwell was right, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
The boot of stupidity.
FYI: Hydrogen is not a fuel, i.e. it’s not a natural resource that we are extracting. It’s useful as a means of energy storage, like a battery.
Slashing America’s $1 Trillion DEFENCE, hmm, Budget in half for a start would go a long way to saving a burnt out planet, and so $500 million is a piss in the ocean, only 1% of my suggested target. When you think of the fallout from these WMD’s (one going off in Yemen alone every 10 minutes ), hell, a $500 Billion per annum investment in renewables could make a serious dent in the vagaries of climate change.
As the wife was leaving for work just now, god bless her, she called upstairs, questioning why I needed the gas central heating on while lying in bed, reading Saker. I retorted, how else am I supposed to drink my beer. Door slams! Some folks eh!
You are so right WTFUD. What no one at least in the US understands is the pentagon is the largest carbon emitter in the world! Gut the dumb killing machine and the world will be greener and more people will survive to see another day. Then add to that the disgusting amount of toys americans have to have, from rider mowers for their postage size lawns to snow water Mobil’s, motor homes, 4 wheelers, 3 wheelers, dirt bikes,3-4 cars. I live in a college town and every freaking kid has a car! Then you have the massive junk food industry with massive amounts of plastic, try going a week with out plastic in the US. Not only a waste of oil but a massive waist of water. Not to mention , all that trash does to our oceans and rivers, and in the end our food sources and our own bodies! I was part of a group that fought the Geo Duck corporate farmers in Puget Sound. These guys were leasing up all the tide lands to grow Geo ducks. They destroyed the habitat for any intertidal species, like yearling salmon making there way to the ocean, and birds. The really horrid thing was they used plastic through out the process. Salt water breaks down plastic fast so when you eat WA state oysters or geoducks you are eating toxic plastic. All the product is sold to China as aphrodisiacs .this company had bought off the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party and all the big greens. They turned me into a synic. I watched over 10 years all the wildlife disappear and the plastics take their place.
I love beer for breakfast. Some beers are better than others for brekky. Since covid claimed the lives around me it has been a lifestyle of little consequences … different than a life of no consequence … You know how they throw the ball into the crowd at the end of the game when they win? That’s not allowed in bowling. I know that now.
I’m afraid that ‘Farm to Fork’ is a fascist agenda that people should not deign to respect via legal due process.
Farmers should sell direct to customers, ignore banks, supermarkets and big business and they will do just fine.
It’s only farmers who want to deal with huge conglomerates far, far more powerful than they are that will suffer.
Sell to genuine customers who respect hard work for a fair price and they will do just fine. Customers will also pay less by cutting out the middle men/women/trannies.
Revolutionary talk brother Rhys will get you into a lot of trouble. Are you in the valleys boyo? I hear Welsh farmers get paid subsidies not to grow. As if the Government couldn’t ship excess or feed the homeless or even allot a small piece of land to the poor to grow their own. Still no profit in that.
Soup Kitchens are exploding in the UK and the Americans are pressurising UK to buy their chlorinated chicken and GMO produce.
For sure in Ireland small farmers get paid a subsidy “not to cut the land” in other words not allowed to plough or sow crops to sustain themselves.This leads to a lovely scenery of patchwork green theme park type fields where German,Dutch,French,and the rest can admire the green.How much more vibrant would these scenes be adding crops .
Anyway these plans are demonic,and the land owners if any are left when money becomes worthless will have no choice but to use the land for what it was made, and given to all.I guess in Wales its a hangover from EU days?
Right you are, Rhys Jaggar.
The noise from England is of great butthurt. To my amazement, last week the Irish joined in and to my regret the Scots of all people in the House of Commons baying for greater sanctions (I’m going to personally challenge/confront those freaks over the coming days ). What ya’ll hearing in Wales from your own glorious representation?
As an Irishman I detest these morons who call themselves public representatives.The will pay dearly in future elections for their lies and warmongering, all of the whole sorry rainbow parade.Everybody here in Ireland with any sense of our violent history must surely see this exercise in imperial boot licking.
The only slight problem is that most people live in urban areas and farmers are in rural areas. So most people buy food in supermarkets and farmers sell to the supermarket buyers.
Farms also specialise – OK, you can get your apples at one farm but what about the cream, butter and meat?
And speaking of meat – how do you as a food purchaser get your lamb chops?
I do buy a fair amount from different farm shops in the UK but the price is usually higher because the food is either of higher quality or a luxury variety not sold in the average supermarket.
Just think if the U.S. had invested in rapid rail how many million cars and trucks they could have taken off from the highway but then again seeing big business buys the elected clowns we wouldn’t want to do anything to the bottom line would we.
Yeah, definitely maybe bluedogg, but just think, if you’d lost the War for Independence, you’d only be paying 10% extortion money to the British Crown and not 50% to The Federal Reserve.
rockefeller bought up all the trams and closed them down to stimulate cars and ha do ats need? petrol and oil. rockefeller owned lots of it with standard oil even after the forced break up of the monopoly or so i am led to believe
Oh we do have (relatively) high speed rail, it’s just done in the stupidest fashion. It is between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. The stops are: Batimore, MD (about 50 miles), Wilmington, DE (a stop for Sen. Biden, about 60 miles), Philadelphia, PA (about 40 miles) Trenton, NJ (maybe 30 miles), New York, NY (maybe 50 miles), New Haven, CT (60 miles), Providence, RI (maybe 90 miles), Boston, MA (50 miles). Only between Providence and New Haven does a train have a chance to reach a decent speed. It’s a waste of technology; and the brakes are constantly needing to be re-built. Chicago to St. Louis? Saint Louis to Memphis?, Saint Louis to Kansas City? Kansan City to Lincoln< NE? No way! That would make entirely too much sense.
None of this makes any sense without adding the hidden agenda of a severe depopulation of Europe (and probably) the world. If you reduce the population, the agenda might be realized.
Google the “Georgia Guide Stones” it Is all set out their with a sustainable world population of 500 million.
If one has to ‘Google’ The Georgia Guide Stones, they’re hopelessly lost at this point.
my district nurse came to dress my leg and was well up to date with boris’ parties during lockdowns and the situation with russia and ukraine and canada’s truckers, bank account confiscations etc, she had not heard of the geogia guide stones…
Long read but time well spent, I reckon. Lots to digest.
100 trillion (?USD) over 30 years sounds like an incipient scam to me. Imagine how many of the planet’s 800 million hungry people can be fed with 1 trillion a year.
Good luck Germany…and Europe. Perhaps Germany should have pondered very deeply a pertinent question VVP once asked Frau Merkel at a conference during happier times (I paraphrase): ‘You don’t want to use nuclear, don’t want to use gas, don’t want to use coal. What are you going to use? Firewood?
Having worked with UN writers and having seen how they hide in plain sight some very evil plans for the de-industrialisation (and by effect the de-population) of the World, I caution people into reading words at their primary (aka “face”) interpretation and ask they interprete at secondary or tertiary level meaning.
This is especially important with terms such as “managing climate change and contolling carbon emissions”, which I can tell you with authority means controlling all Human life and all Human activity.
“Carbon” controls = “Life” controls.
Once people begin to recognise that “Carbon Neutral” means no further industrial development and no further population growth, the rest of the weasel terms and buzz words can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted to reveal the real meaning behind them.
“Carbon Reduction” is an even worse term than “Carbon Neutral” as the only way to reduce carbon is to firstly stop producing (pretty much everything), which means de-industrialisation, which means poverty for the majority, which leads to collapsing birth rates, which ultimately leads to a reduced population (all stated goals of reducing consumption and reducing population growth).
If people carefully read UN Agenda 21, UN Agenda 2030, and the WEF programes with fresh eyes and substitute the word “Carbon” with Human life and Human activity, it is very clear that the long term plan is to collapse all industrial societies and ultimately reduce global Human population to a much lower level than it is today – which ironically will save the environment from polution / damage / over use, but not in the Human friendly way people think.
If you remmeber nothing else remember this – The UN and WEF use language in a very insidious way, and the meanings of the words are second degree, or even tertiary to the commonly excepted interpretation – but still within the excepted definitions.
For example, when I used to work with the UN writers in the early 90’s they began introducing the now ubiquitous “equality” term.
“Equality” sounds great – everyone equal, but it is not as people think with all peoples raised up and enjoying a good standard of living – no, it is a tertiary explanation which actually means “all people are brought down to a sustainable level (which means subsistance level) enjoying no real or enforcable rights other than than that of slave and slave-owner (the later part which we see in all its glory being beta tested in the West now in Canada and Australia).
The idea is to have good “Human resources” (as opposed to free Human Beings).
“Consumers” (a politically acceptable term instead of the “Useless Eaters” still sometimes used by elites) is a term now used to describe just about anyone, even farmers (who by definition are “Producers”).
“All one people” is another insidious UN term. It means “no individual races, religions, culture, or even national borders”. We see the UN (and WEF) agendas in play with mass uncontrolled migration which destroys ancient cultures (now encouraged in Europe and the US by the governments), breaks up communities, and eventually destroys national borders (see Southern US border and EU open border migration).
In a nutshell, all environmental policy from the UN is tailored for de-industrialisation and eventually a planet filled with “Human Resouces” with equal rights (none) with no common race (certainly no white people), no common culture (except that provided by the UN / WEF), and no sence of history or belonging (all borders will be destroyed and great “United Blocks and Superstates such as the “North American Union” (detailed by the UN) and of course the “Greater European Union” (the EU, parts of Russia, and the North African and Middle eastern Unio currently in the process of being created).
All of this is clearly and publically written in all UN and WEF documents – just learn to look at the words and thier interpretation and it becomes clear – especially “Carbon”, which means life.
A reduced carbon or carbon neutral world is a deinductrialised and depopulated world – when you recognise that you will see everything else is just noise(and the apparently crazy actions of Governments makes sence if following such an agenda).
Can We Feed the World?
Please listen to this video, be inspired to learn more, and then go do!
Joel Salatin – Utah Farm Conference Keynote Speech
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew 6:25)
‘the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?’
‘The group’s’ big problem is that they have transferred most of industry from the ‘West’ to Asia, and Russia and China aren’t collaborating with their plans to de-industrialize.
The only affect of their policies is to destroy Western economies while China, Russia, etc. blossom.
This is the reason for the ‘Globalist’ wars to contain Russia and China.
I live in California where rolling blackouts happen. Wind and solar do not work as promised. They have to be subsidized specifically because they don’t work. At every turn we have WEF barking out orders to the rest of humanity. It is quite obvious who the people that will be occupying the pit of hell at the end of the age.
I read a technical report that stated with Nordstream 2 gas prices would be 32% lower in Germany which is far better than watching them rise. Since one of the major investors in Nordstream 2 is BASF it is clear the world’s largest chemical company needs feedstock from Russian gas fields to stay competitive.
Germany has already lost Hoechst – Bayer has made itself a basket case with Monsanto.
Germany seems hell-bent on de-industrialisation and the Greens are enthused by high energy prices to destroy the way of life in Germany and make it more Goethe with farmhands and wagons.
I want to support your point on nuclear energy.
I know about the German situation: huge sums of tax money are used to make nuclear energy able to compete with other forms of energy.
I think Germans are pictured as tidy cold and technophiles. Germany is not able to find a suitable place to store its nuclear waste and I am pretty sure that further billions of taxmoney will be needed to decomission the nuclear plants.
In general a big topic that is not easy to tackle, I was pretty shocked about this article… A lot of misleading information in my opinion.
Cynthia you honestly think we have food shortages because fertilizer is more expensive? This is just an economic reaction. The real structural reason for every problem of our food system is that we don’t respect this planet and are working against the forces of nature instead of cooperating. Every crop we have has been developed in organic farming conditions. All ancient civilizations have toppled themselves for this very reason. Ever heard about the dust bowl(s)? I recommend a book for everyone interested “Dirt – the erosion of civilization”.
We are running out of living topsoil because of the way we farm – especially synthetic fertilizer and Pesticides.
Anyhow PV can and should be mounted on roofs not on agricultural land.
That doesn’t mean who shouldn’t criticize renewable energy, but this article of Cynthia seems to me to be out of her field of expertise.
Nevertheless the recycling of PV panels is an import issue, i couldn’t find any meaningful information about this topic in the last decade. Honestly, i think this is mainly due to the way we run our economy – almost nothing is designed to be recycled and that is a true crime to future generations.
I lose myself here…. Too many points to make.
Thanks for you work Cynthia Chung.
I really enjoyed a lot of articles from you. But this one is a disappointment for me. Gives me the feeling that i have to double check on these articles now, too.
Maybe you should try to diversify your sources if you want to continue on this very important issue.
Keep it up! Respect and Love
AadunaAfrica Wrote: Germany is not able to find a suitable place to store its nuclear waste.
My comment: That is because the 1970s Nuclear plants in Germany only uses 10% of the energy stored in the Nuclear fuel. However modern plants are able to fully use up all the nuclear fuel.
However, Nuclear energy is no longer Political Correct to develop in Germany and Sweden.
Germany and Sweden has now shut down all their nuclear plants, thus we lacks Electrical power in all of Europe when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: You honestly think we have food shortages because fertilizer is more expensive?
My Comment: Yes, global agricultural production would only be 1/3 of the current output without fertilizer. And the most active fertilizer (Nitrogen) is produced via electric energy.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: Every crop we have has been developed in organic farming conditions.
My Comment: Most of them are, but today many farmers uses genetic manipulated seed, developed by Mosanto to be Roundup resistant. These are created in laboratories (a just as crazy idea as the gene manipulating COVID injections) which will only make farmers dependent on Big Corporations.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: Ever heard about the dust bowl(s)? We are running out of topsoil because of the way we farm – especially synthetic fertilizer and Pesticides.
My Comment: Yes the dust bowels were created in the 1930s by new American Farmers, because they farmed the great Grassland (Prairie) leaving the ground bare (ploughed) during the Autumn, Winter and Spring season, thus creating topsoil erosion, leaving only sand in the ground.
Back then there were no synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, so you can’t blame them for the dustbowl.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: PV (Solar cells) can and should be mounted on roofs not on agricultural land. Nevertheless the recycling of PV panels is an import issue.
My comment: Solar panels should mainly be used in sunny areas of the globe. Here up North not so much.
If we diversify into all of the known energy sources, wherever they are the most appropriate, no one on earth has to lack energy, and we would reduce the PV problems of recycling.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: Almost nothing is designed to be recycled and that is a crime to future generations.
My comment: You are right. In Denmark during the 80 and 90, 00s we recycled so much scrap and waist, that when the recycling was privatized in the 2000s, The Private recycling companies had to import wast from Poland, in order to stay in business. However, that changed when, as part of the Globalization scheme, we started importing cheap China shit to Denmark. Now we have plenty of plastic waists to recycle.
AadunaAfrica Wrote: This article is a disappointment for me. Giving a feeling that i have to double check.
My comment: See it as an enlightening into reality. There are plenty of sane ways to support the next generations on earth in fine coexistence with nature, if we decide to get rid of a decade’s long brainwashing, and Oligarchs trying to get us into war for profits.
Wars not only eradicates our infrastructure and cities but also the knowledge our forefathers once had.
Over the many years this debate has been churning, the one source of energy that seldom if ever rates a mention is tidal power. All around the world, tides rise and fall every day with all the power of the worlds oceans driving them. And no one seems able or willing to stick a wheel into that rise and fall to generate power. Perhaps it cannot be done. I don’t know.
I do buy into the idea that both wind and solar are destined to fly into the mountain of their own waste.
Hydrocarbons are a finite resource.
We humans fancy ourselves as clever. Now might be a good time to prove it.
trompe – abundant scalable presurized isotermic air available at any water course near you… talk about hidden old tech! i even heard this was common knowledge in ancient midle east.
and lets just say that anywhere, if you dig deep enough, you have geotermic energy available.
“There are many documented cases of farmers being sued by Monsanto because a neighbouring farm was using Monsanto’s patented seeds that would at some very predictable point land on the plot of a neighbouring farm.”
This sounds like the complaint of a class action suit. Monsanto is polluting our farms with their birth defective seeds. Are there any small farmers associations? Don’t they have lawyers? This year it’s truck drivers, why not farmers too?
Drought in various places has affected food production much more than higher fertilizer costs . One lie and its click away time.
This is is a quite elaborate article, but even so is still just a fraction of this whole idiocy.
Al Gore’s world, Wakanda, Spiderman, Transformers, all crazy ideas. What an insult to Mammals! We have big brains and the ability to be tender.
People who believe such unscientific garbage should apply to some other any animal order, one dispossessed of eyes and brains.
Sorry to reply to myself. One more thing, look closely to the psychology of supporters of this zero carbon madness. They avoid people..
I don’t understand, why didn’t the farmers sue Monsanto for their parasitic seeds landing on farmer’s land?
I have an orchard planted and if some Monsanto garbage lands from hypothetical neighboring orchard they might spontaneously combust if they don’t pay indemnity.
The farmers cannot sue when Monsanto GMO seeds contaminate their lands. On the contrary, Monsanto sues any farmer found to be growing unlicensed Monsanto GMO on their land, *even if the seeds just landed by accident*.
Remember Paul Bremmer’s Coalition Provisional Authority Order 81? If you do not, here is the salient part: “the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving newly designed seeds (not the traditional ones) and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors.
Who is the “authorized U.S. distributor?” Monsanto.
Here is a thirty minute history lesson on what the term “green” really means to the Empire of Chaos:
Dahlia Wasfi: Ain’t Nothin’ Green About the Green Zone
Whenever you hear the term “green” remember that the Empire actually plans to throw its worn down human slaves into thermodepolymerization tanks and then spray the liquid on their carnivorous GMO crops.
If not GMO, chlorine or vax, by hook or by crook they’ll get you. Surrender and make it easy on yourself laddie.
At face value, this text brings up very important points, whatever Ms Chung’s “affiliations”.
EROI is the heart of the matter, in relation to the ratio required to sustain current living conditions in developped countries. The value of that ratio is still uncertain (some optimists say 5, some say higher), but scientific litterature has studied this issue since at least the beggining of the 1980s in the context of the energy crisis back then.
The bottom line is: how much energy do you need to spend to extract or get what amount of usable energy. Conventional fossil energy like has a high ratio, and unconventional O&G like in North America is most probably below 7 – i.e. it makes no sens to extract because the enthropy/energy spent (externalities and all) to do so is higher than the usable energy you get out out of the process. Actually, it only makes sens as long as you can print money without massive devaluation, like the US due to the dollar’s position as reserve currency. This is one reason why fracking never had a real chance to spread beyond North America.
Whatever your conviction about the ruling elites, or the chance that their plans succeed, or their moral depravity, the energy factor generally ignored by classical economists is a physical reality that will require a return to much, much more modest living standards from most of us in the West, unless current attempts to make nuclear fusion workable succeed. Unsurprisingly, the WEF appears to follow closely these developments.
BTW, it seems like some new generation nuclear fission reactors can be a lot less costly for the environment and the economy. But in North America, path dependency, entrenched interests and powerful lobbies have stimied these avenues up to now.
PS: fist post, big fan, no affiliation
Nice comments and opinions on an excellent piece brimming with facts, figures, stats, graphs, references with links.
I suggest you research Cynthia via the internet. Also I am stunned that you believe you nice comments and opinions are in anway deserving as a rebuttal to her well researched and detailed offering.
Every argument you mention is covered by the article you criticize dismissively. What Cynthia’s offering is a rare opportunity to for one to gain knowledge through authentic informative informal education. An excellent student would be inspired by this article to delve deeper into this Global Warming hypothesis. This what a sceptic should do verify this eloquent counter argument to the Emergency on Planet Earth orthodoxy.
If one is not is not interested in clicking the link on Fukushima but is intent to blast The Gospel like a religious fanatic, you have given people like me keen to make our own informed decisions, more determination.
This is not a popularity contest our lives are too short and precious to wasted running scared with the in-crowd.
“Europeans are presently being told that the energy crisis they are entering, with natural gas prices now four times higher than last year, stems from a longer winter…”
Ah, that would be caused by global warming.
“Monsanto set a legal precedent whereby farmers could be sued for having Monsanto seeds growing, unbeknownst to them, amongst their crop”.
That is the wrong way around. A farmer should be able to sue Monsanto and any famer using Monsanto seeds for the harm caused by Monsanto seeds trespassing on the farmer’s land.
If even one Monsanto seed lands in a farmer’s fields, that famer’s grains and other produce become irrevocably tainted and possibly unfit for human (or animal) consumption.
Therefore the farmer should be able to sue Monsanto and its customers for the entire lifetime value of his farm and its produce. Just as, for instance, someone whose face is slashed with a razor or burned with acid should be able to sue the offender for huge compensation.
New generation of nuclear reactors called “Fast Feeding Reactors” use spent nuclear fuel reducing nuclear waste significantly.
Documentary movie by Michael Moore could be an eye opener regarding the green alternative which is the scam of the century.
In the US, despite substantial government backing, nuclear has floundered. Huge delays and cost overruns, and no private company will touch the liabilities. It exists as a peaceful cover for the nuclear weapons industry. It’s not the answer.
there is a different nuclear reactor using thorium salt. its much safer and uses very little uranium to start it. the american experimental reactor was shut down at the weekend and restarted on mondays, there is some info about it on googling and documentaries. there is no massive waste radioactive substance. president nixon nixed it because the pentagon wanted plutonium for bombs. i’ve heard that the chinese were looking to do this too
Having an interest in geology and earth sciences I have taken an interest in anthropogenic global warming over the years, and have therefore tended to discount the warnings about Agenda 2030 and related issues.
But in the two years since the onset of current public health problems I have been irresistibly drawn towards these other issues and the question of population reduction, together with that slogan, “In 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy.”
There is a very real energy crisis with many areas of production in decline – the North Sea being a case in point. However, the evil intent or stupidity of the western ruling class is almost beyond belief. This article deserves to be shared widely.
Personally, i don’t think the plebs – the ones that elitists like Turdeau despise – will put up with a self-inflicted famine of food and energy.
> There are much easier ways to boil water, to produce steam, to turn turbines, to produce electricity
there’s no need to boil water if one can turn the turbine (generator) somehow
that’s why hydel power is the cheapest greenest power per unit
yes geography is a major factor for it to be viable, but when it does, it’s great
however, since the days of mesopotamia mankind has been building dams and harnessing the same thing without boiling water
2 big updates today:
1. a German minister has now stated that the halting of Nord Stream 2 is “temporary”
2. a Chinese minister, in an interview, has openly placed all the Ukraine conflict blame on the U.S., stating that it is impossible to resolve the conflict when the U.S. has been the open instigator and provocateur of the conflict, “putting gas on the fire”.
Good luck to German industry. The Japanese politicians are nowhere as stupid.
“…Europeans are also being told that they need to severely cut down on farmland to make way for the new farms of solar panels and windmills.”
Can your please help me find where is this exactly coming from?
I tried for a few hours but had no success.
Your help is much appreciated!
This is true, for several years now there has been a concerted and SECRET effort by the WEF / Bill Gates and that whole crowd, to basically purchase up farmland in the U.S. and then decommission it in accordance with 2030 agenda because they believe farmland is creating too much carbon. This is their secret plan to actually create/engineer an artificial supply and food crisis so that they can implement their NWO agenda of the old UN Agenda 21 vision.
Do a deep dive on ‘carbon capture’ and farmland, ‘carbon sequestration’ etc. You can find some info on the evil globalist plan to purchase up all the farmland of the U.S. and decommission it in order to serve 2030 agenda and basically manufacture major food shortages and artificial crisis so that they can seize more control/power with “emergency measures” just like during Covid.
“Highway to hell” is what best describes the energy and economic policies of the Green agenda. “Climate change”, “carbon”, “carbon neutrality”, “sustainable development” are the weird terms and hot-air vocabulary of an incompetent and malevolent ‘science’ closely aligned with population reduction.
sheer insanity. the people will pay the price unless they vote the idiots out. Renewables can and will be a part of the future but right now their total is less than 3% of entire global usage, why? Because they are unreliable and incapable of replacing fossil fuels or nuclear. They knew in the 80s what would happen so saying they are 5 years too late is disingenuous. These are the same psychopaths pushing the anti Russia narrative, Thankfully Russia will turn away from the west and leave them to their demise.
Firstly a disclaimer: i am not on baord with the green new deal or any greenwashing, but I am also not on board with Nuclear because of the propensity for them to be sabotaged for military or political purposes aka Chernobyl and Fukushima. There is some speculation that both these disasters were deliberate.
I think the stats used in this piece are too biased towards nuclear. Solar PV research and industrial use is artificially suppressed in my country in the sense that there is massive consumer uptake but no lessening of use of or subsidies for fossil fuels. We do not have nuclear energy in Australia and most of us don’t want it. Of course we have a mostly warm sunny climate so there is n comparison to Canada.
In addition most capitalist countries now have so called “energy regulators” what a blatant rort these organisations are. What they do is “fix” prices, mafia style and ever increasing despite massive solar energy coming on line in the past 10 years.
So I propose that in any country with the equivalent to an Energy Regulator statistics will not be honest or useful because they do not take into account the subsidies, lobbying and other suppressive measures that have been in play for a long time.
I appreciate the author’s work, however i think that underlying political biases need to be disclosed and far more thoroughly researched. Going nuclear just to be against Klaus Schwab’s green washing is not good enough. That conclusion just comes across like controlled opposition to me. Which I am sure that Cyntha is not.
for sunny countries PV should be further developed to be sustainable, of course this is possible. Its just ridiculous to go straight to plan B, the nuclear option. For cold countries it is another matter, however a lot of the world’s population do not live in cold countries, so the solutions must be more nuanced and locally appropriate.
As for farm to fork, just more of the same agricultural agenda to poison the planet. Imagine allowing pesticides for the GM crops but not fertiliser? That’s both insane and stupid. But what else is new?
the water levels in our dams was not impacted so much by dry weather as by privatized electricity producers emptied them so they could sell electricity abroad and earn money.
The dam was full until the price rised in the eu…
I live next door to one of them, the Norwegian govs worst treason the last 50yrs is privatizing our elecrtric companies.
RosAtom is building a reactor designed to burn waste from conventional nuclear light water reactors
RosAtom is building a breeder reactor
China is operating a pilot scale TMSR = Thorium Molten Salt Reactor
China is operating two 200 Mwe pebble bed Reactors
Alan Savory of the Savory Institute discovered the critical importance of ruminants in maintenance of grasslands, and this work was taken up by SARE and the Rodale Instutute and USDA as “Regenerative Agriculture. The videos I posted earlier, which you refuse to share include individuals who carried this knowledge to both Ukraine and Russia. In both countries companies were formed to grow and propagate cover crop seeds adapted their climate(s) for the purpose of enabling Russia’s drive to Organic Agriculture.
Were you to open your minds to the import of this for your beloved Russia, your mental attitude might improve.
FYI… I have relatives in Sibr… Ekaterienburg, Omsk, Shadrinsk…
I am Orthodox… not the flaming kind like Andrei… Orthodox…
Energy is an artificial commodity. It’s all about MONEY! If it were not, then they would not suppress energy technologies that would make energy freely available to all: “Thus, the 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies “in excess of 70-80%.” ”
–Invention Secrecy Still Going Strong
–Invention Secrecy Act
We work with renewable energy in Brazil. Very accurate data, observations and results. Against facts there are no arguments.
Congratulations Mrs. Cynthia!
No doubt that getting rid of oil and gas will hurt importing countries, but it will almost certainly damage producers, with USSR being one of the tops Look at the 1980s when the US raised interest rates to extraordinary levels to clamp down on skyrocketing energy prices. For more than 10 years, energy prices went nowhere, and the end of which the USSR empire collapsed. Coincidence? It’s happening again, with the biggest backers, the US, and UK, both Russia’s largest adversaries. Maybe its not the whole story, but it surely has to be part of it.