GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

[marsh]

How the British Sold Globalism to America - LewRockwell

ON APRIL 13, 1919, a detachment of fifty British soldiers opened fire on protesters in Amritsar, India, killing hundreds. The soldiers were Indians, in British uniforms. Their commander was an Englishman. When Colonel Reginald Dyer gave the order, fifty Indians fired on their own countrymen...

www.lewrockwell.com

How the British Sold Globalism To America
By Richard Poe
May 6, 2021

ON APRIL 13, 1919, a detachment of fifty British soldiers opened fire on protesters in Amritsar, India, killing hundreds.

The soldiers were Indians, in British uniforms.

Their commander was an Englishman.

When Colonel Reginald Dyer gave the order, fifty Indians fired on their own countrymen, without hesitation, and kept on firing for ten minutes.
That’s called soft power.

The British Empire was built on it.

Soft power is the ability to seduce and coopt others into doing your bidding.
Some would call it mind control.

Through the use of soft power, a small country like England can dominate larger, more populous ones.

Even the mighty USA still yields to British influence in ways most Americans don’t understand.

For more than a hundred years, we Americans have been pushed relentlessly down the road toward globalism, contrary to our own interests and against our natural inclination.

The push for globalism comes mainly from British front groups masquerading as American think tanks. Preeminent among them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Origin of the CFR
The CFR grew out of the British Round Table Movement.

In my last article, “How the British Invented Globalism,” I explained how British leaders began formulating plans for global government during the 19th century.

With funding from the Rhodes Trust, a secretive group called the Round Table was formed in 1909. It planted chapters in English-speaking countries, including the USA, to propagandize for a worldwide federation of English-speaking peoples united in a single superstate.

The Round Table’s long-term goal — as Cecil Rhodes made clear in his 1877 will — was to achieve world peace through British hegemony.

In the process, Rhodes also sought (and I quote) the “ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”

The Dominions
It turned out that Britain’s English-speaking colonies wanted no part of Rhodes’s federation. They wanted independence.

So the Round Tablers proposed a compromise. They offered “Dominion” status or partial independence instead.

Canada was to be the model. It had gained Dominion status in 1867. This meant Canada governed itself internally, while Britain ran its foreign policy. Canadians remained subjects of the Crown.

The British now offered the same deal to other English-speaking colonies.

War with Germany was expected, so the Round Tablers had to work quickly.

Britain needed to mollify the Dominions with self-rule, so they’d agree to provide troops in the coming war.

Australia became a Dominion in 1901; New Zealand in 1907; and South Africa in 1910.

Courting the United States
The United States presented a special challenge. We had been independent since 1776. Moreover, our relations with Britain had been stormy, marred by a bloody Revolution, the War of 1812, border disputes with Canada, and British meddling in our Civil War.

Beginning in the 1890s, the British waged a public relations blitz called “The Great Rapprochement,” promoting Anglo-American unity.

Scottish-born steel magnate Andrew Carnegie called openly for a “British-American Union” in 1893. He advocated America’s return to the British Empire.
British journalist W.T. Stead argued in 1901 for an “English-speaking United States of the World.”

A “Canadian” Solution for America
From the British standpoint, the Great Rapprochement was a flop.

When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, troops poured in from every corner of the Empire. But not from America. The US sent troops only in April 1917, after 2 1/2 years of hard British lobbying.

To the British, the delay was intolerable. It proved that Americans could not be trusted to make important decisions.

The Round Table sought a “Canadian” solution — manipulating the U.S. into a Dominion-like arrangement, with Britain controlling our foreign policy.

It had to be done quietly, through back channels.

During the 1919 Paris peace talks, Round Table operatives worked with hand-picked U.S. Anglophiles (many of them Round Table members), to devise formal mechanisms for coordinating U.S. and British foreign policy.

The Mechanism of Control
On May 30, 1919, the Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs (AAIIA) was formed, with branches in New York and London.

For the first time, a formal structure now existed for harmonizing U.S. and U.K. policy at the highest level.

However, the timing was bad. Anti-British feeling was rising in America. Many blamed England for dragging us into war. At the same time, English globalists were denouncing Americans as shirkers for failing to support the League of Nations.

With Anglo-American unity in temporary disrepute, the Round Tablers decided to separate the New York and London branches in 1920, for appearances’ sake.

Upon separation, the London branch was renamed the British Institute of International Affairs (BIIA). In 1926, the BIIA received a royal charter, becoming the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), commonly known as Chatham House.

Meanwhile, the New York branch became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.

After separating from Chatham House, the CFR continued working closely with its British counterpart, under a strict code of secrecy called “Chatham House rules.”

The CFR Agenda
The CFR states on its website that it “takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.” But that is untrue.

“The imprint of internationalism” is apparent on all CFR publications, notes British political scientist Inderjeet Parmar in his 2004 book Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy. Also apparent in CFR writings is a marked hostility to what the Council calls “isolationism.”

Parmar concludes that the CFR pushes two agendas:
1. Anglo-American unity
2. Globalism

These are the same goals set forth in Rhodes’s will, which called for a global Anglo-American union so powerful it would “hereafter render wars impossible…”

“The Mother Ship”
Shielded by “Chatham House rules,” the CFR has long operated in the shadows, its very existence unknown to most Americans.

Nonetheless, rumors of its power have leaked out through the years.

“Few prominent institutions in American society have been as consistently pilloried as the Council on Foreign Relations,” wrote historian Robert J. McMahon in 1985. “To conspiracy theorists on the right as well as to radical critics on the left the New York-based organization has often conjured up fears of a tiny elite malevolently pulling the strings of American foreign policy.”

In fact, the CFR’s effective control over U.S. foreign policy is no conspiracy theory, but rather a well-known fact among Beltway insiders, who have nicknamed the CFR “the real State Department.”

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted taking direction from the CFR, referring to its New York headquarters as “the mother ship.”

Speaking at the Council’s newly-opened Washington office, Clinton said, “I have often been to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

The CFR v. Trump
Candidate Trump did not share Hillary’s enthusiasm for British “advice.”

On the contrary, Trump’s policies expressly opposed British positions on climate change, open borders, rigged trade deals, and endless wars. Trump’s “America First” policy epitomized what the CFR calls “isolationism.”

It was all too much for the British and their U.S. collaborators.

The anti-Trump “Resistance” was born.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced he was running for president.

In late 2015, British eavesdropping agency GCHQ reportedly discovered “interactions” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence.

GCHQ passed on this “material” to then-CIA chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016.

An April 13, 2017 headline in the British newspaper The Guardian proudly announced, “British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia.”

The article explained, “US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation… One source called the British eavesdropping agency the ‘principal whistleblower’.”

Thus British intelligence set the stage for the phony impeachment even before Trump was elected.

Calls for Military Mutiny
Only 10 days after Trump took office in 2017, Foreign Policy magazine called for a “military coup” against the new president.

The January 20, 2017 article bore the headline, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020.” In it, law professor Rosa Brooks called for Trump’s impeachment or for his removal under the 25th Amendment.

As a last resort, said Brooks, a method might be tried “that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup…”

Foreign Policy is owned by the Graham family, whose matriarch Katharine Graham helped topple Nixon when she was publisher of the Washington Post.

The Grahams are consummate Washington insiders. They would not have called for a “military coup” without a green light from “the mother ship.”

Destabilizing America
Proof of CFR complicity came in November, 2017, when Foreign Affairs magazine echoed Foreign Policy, urging “senior military leaders” to “resist orders” by Trump, and to consider removing him under the 25th Amendment.

Foreign Affairs is the official journal of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, Foreign Affairs repeatedly accused him of mental instability, urging “military leaders” and “cabinet officers” to stand ready to oust him.

Coming from the “mother ship,” these incitements bore an unusual weight of authority. They fanned the flames of Washington rhetoric to white-hot levels, rattling the nation and establishing insurrection and coup d’etat as the “new normal” in U.S. politics.

Given the CFR’s undeniable British pedigree, the overheated rhetoric from Foreign Affairs magazine raises questions about British motivations.

Plainly Whitehall saw Trump as an existential threat. But why? Why were Trump’s quibbles over trade policy deemed so menacing to British interests as to justify military mutiny?

Neutralizing the American Threat
I believe the answer can be found in the original writings of the Rhodes group.
In his 1901 book The Americanization of the World, British journalist W.T. Stead — Rhodes’s close collaborator — argued that England had only two choices. She must merge with America or be replaced by her.

The choice was clear. Merging with the U.S. might save Britain’s place in the world. But any attempt to compete with the U.S. would only end in defeat.

By the 1890s, British leaders already knew that policing their Empire had become too costly. Granting self-rule to the Dominions saved some money, by making the Dominions responsible for their own defense. But military spending was still too high.

In 1906, British banker Lord Avebury complained that the U.S. was getting rich at Britain’s expense. While the US profited from the Pax Britannica, Britain spent 60 percent more than America on its military, to keep the world safe for business.
Today — thanks to the CFR — the situation is reversed in Britain’s favor.

Now America polices the world, while British investors get rich from the Pax Americana. British military spending is now a fraction of ours.

Given these facts, it becomes easier to understand why the British don’t want Trump upsetting the apple cart.

The New Imperialists
British elites were not content with transferring the cost of empire to America. They also wanted to retain control of imperial policy, thus having their cake and eating it too. With the help of the CFR, they have come very close to attaining this goal.

The “New Imperialist” movement in Britain seeks to rebuild the UK’s global influence, on the back of the US military. British historian Andrew Roberts announced this new movement in a January 8, 2005 article in the Daily Mail.
The headline neatly sums up their philosophy: “Recolonise Africa.”

Arguing that, “Africa has never known better times than during British rule,” Roberts bluntly called for “recolonisation.” He claimed that leading British statesmen “privately” supported this policy, but “could never be seen publicly to approve it…”

Roberts boasted that most African dictatorships would collapse at the “mere arrival on the horizon of an aircraft carrier from an English-speaking country…”
He did not say which “English-speaking country” would be expected to provide aircraft carriers for such adventures, but I’ll give you three guesses.

America’s Unfinished Revolution
More than a hundred years have passed since W.T. Stead warned that Britain must merge with America or be replaced by her. Little has changed.

British elites still face the same choice. They cannot accept an American-led world, so they must find ways to control us.

For our part, we need not accept their control.

The challenge of our generation is to break the spell of British soft power.
Let us complete the work of our unfinished revolution.

The New Imperialists Push CANZUK
Sixteen years after announcing the “New Imperialism,” Andrew Roberts and his fellow imperialists continue pushing for Cecil Rhodes’s dream of an English-speaking union.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed dated August 8, 2020, Roberts promoted the so-called CANZUK Treaty, which seeks to unite Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain in a global superstate, “able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S.” against “an increasingly revanchist China.”

As always, Roberts is making plans for us.

As usual, his plans involve getting us into wars.

British Elites Will Never Understand Us
In his 2006 book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, Roberts breezily suggests that America might be better off under a monarchy.

A monarchical government would have spared us the trauma of Watergate, he argues. A monarch would have stepped in and fired Nixon, just as Queen Elizabeth II fired Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

No need for any democratic process.

Roberts fails to consider how such royal intervention would have gone over with the “silent majority” who voted for Nixon and supported him.

MAGA v. MABA
The bottom line is, Trump sought to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by restoring our independence and self-sufficiency.

The CFR seeks to Make America British Again (MABA).

It’s that simple.

If the Trump years taught us anything, it is that MAGA and MABA don’t mix
The instant we get a president who stands up for American sovereignty, the British go loco, pushing our country to the brink of civil war.

It’s clear we cannot be “great” and “British” at the same time.

We must choose one or the other.

 

[marsh]

"Worms For Dinner?" World Economic Forum Promotes Mealworms as New Protein Source in Europe's Bid to Reduce Meat Consumption | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The World Economic Forum promoted the EU’s new plan to use mealworms in food in their bid to reduce meat consumption.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“Worms For Dinner?” World Economic Forum Promotes Mealworms as New Protein Source in Europe’s Bid to Reduce Meat Consumption

By Cristina Laila
Published May 7, 2021 at 8:23pm

The World Economic Forum promoted the EU’s new plan to use mealworms in food in their bid to reduce meat consumption.

The globalists are pushing for the peasants to eat bugs, weeds and synthetic ‘meat’ because bugs “consume fewer resources than traditional livestock.”

“Livestock around the world is responsible for around 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions relating to human activity. The need for land – whether for grazing animals or growing crops to feed animals – is “the single greatest driver of deforestation, with major consequences for biodiversity loss,” the paper says.

synthetic ‘meat’

The European Union will be using mealworms, eaten whole, or in powder form in food.

Yuck.

“The European Union (EU) has ruled that the larval stage of the Tenebrio molitor beetle, the mealworm, is safe for people to eat and it will shortly be on the market as a “novel food”” the WEF said.

Via the World Economic Forum:

Green insects
As well as being a nutritious food source, insects consume fewer resources than traditional livestock. There are, of course, many parts of the world where insects are already part of everyday diets.

Industrializing their production and consumption could open up new routes to feeding the world’s growing population and alleviating some of the environmental pressures caused by conventional agriculture.

Ensuring access to safe, healthy sources of food is a key part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) drive. From zero hunger to climate action, from ending poverty to ensuring responsible use of resources, many of the 17 SDGs relate to the food people eat, how it is grown and how it is distributed.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Meat: The Future report, keeping up with the demand for animal-derived protein could put meeting the SDGs and Paris Climate Agreement targets in jeopardy.

Currently, China is the largest producer of meat, according to the WEF’s world data:

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Energy Crisis That No One Is Talking About

SUNDAY, MAY 09, 2021 - 09:45 AM
Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

We live in a world where words are very carefully chosen. Companies hire public relations firms to give just the right “spin” to what they are saying. Politicians make statements which suggest that everything is going well. Newspapers would like their advertisers to be happy; they certainly won’t suggest that the automobile you purchase today may be of no use to you in five years.

I believe that what has happened in recent years is that the “truth” has become very dark. We live in a finite world; we are rapidly approaching limits of many kinds. For example, there is not enough fresh water for everyone, including agriculture and businesses. This inadequate water supply is now tipping over into inadequate food supply in quite a few places because irrigation requires fresh water. This problem is, in a sense, an energy problem, because adding more irrigation requires more energy supplies used for digging deeper wells or making desalination plants. We are reaching energy scarcity issues not too different from those of World War I, World War II and the Depression Era between the wars.

We now live in a strange world filled with half-truths, not too different from the world of the 1930s. US newspapers leave out the many stories that could be written about rising food insecurity around the world, and even in the US. We see more reports of conflicts among countries and increasing gaps between the rich and the poor, but no one explains that such changes are to be expected when energy consumption per capita starts falling too low.

The majority of people seem to believe that all of these problems can be fixed simply by increasingly taxing the rich and using the proceeds to help the poor.

They also believe that the biggest problem we are facing is climate change. Very few are even aware of the food scarcity problems occurring in many parts of the world already.

Our political leaders started down the wrong path long ago, when they chose to rely on economists rather than physicists. The economists created the fiction that the economy could expand endlessly, even with falling energy supplies. The physicists understood that the economy requires energy for growth, but didn’t really understand the financial system, so they weren’t in a position to explain which parts of economic theory were incorrect. Even as the true story becomes increasingly clear, politicians stick to their belief that our only energy problem is the possibility of using too much fossil fuel, with the result of rising world temperatures and disrupted weather patterns. This can be interpreted as a relatively distant problem that can be corrected over a fairly long future period.

In this post, I will explain why it appears to me that, right now, we are dealing with an energy problem as severe as that which seems to have led to World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression. We really need a solution to our energy problems right now, not in the year 2050 or 2100.

Scientists modeled the wrong problem: a fairly distant energy problem which would be associated with high energy prices. The real issue is a very close-at-hand energy shortage problem, associated with relatively low energy prices. It should not be surprising that the solutions scientists have found are mostly absurd, given the true nature of the problem we are facing.

[1] There is a great deal of confusion with respect to which energy problem we are dealing with. Are we dealing with a near-at-hand problem featuring inadequate prices for producers or a more distant problem featuring high prices for consumers? It makes a huge difference in finding a solution, if any.

Business leaders would like us to believe that the problem to be concerned with is a fairly distant one: climate change. In fact, this is the problem most scientists are working on. There is a common misbelief that fossil fuel prices will jump to high levels if they are in short supply. These high prices will allow the extraction of a huge amount of coal, oil and natural gas from the ground. The rising prices will also allow high-priced alternatives to become competitive. Thus, it makes sense to start down the long road of trying to substitute “renewables” for fossil fuels.

If business leaders had stopped to look at the history of coal depletion, they would have discovered that expecting high prices when energy limits are encountered is incorrect. The issue that really happens is a wage problem: too many workers discover that their wages are too low. Indirectly, these low-wage workers need to cut back on purchases of goods of many types, including coal to heat workers’ homes. This loss of purchasing power tends to hold coal prices down to a level that is too low for producers. We can see this situation if we look at the historical problems with coal depletion in the UK and in Germany.
Coal played an outsized role in the time leading up to, and including, World War II.



Figure 1. Figure by author describing peak coal timing.

History shows that as early coal mines became depleted, the number of hours of labor required to extract a given amount of coal tended to rise significantly. This happened because deeper mines were needed, or mines were needed in areas where there were only thin coal seams. The problem owners of mines experienced was that coal prices that did not rise enough to cover their higher labor costs, related to depletion. The issue was really that prices fell too low for coal producers.

Owners of mines found that they needed to cut the wages of miners. This led to strikes and lower coal production. Indirectly, other coal-using industries, such as iron production and bread baking, were adversely affected, leading these industries to cut jobs and wages, as well. In a sense, the big issue was growing wage disparity, because many higher-wage workers and property owners were not affected.

Today, the issue we see is very similar, especially when we look at wages worldwide, because markets are now worldwide. Many workers around the world have very low wages, or no wages at all. As a result, the number of workers worldwide who can afford to purchase goods that require large amounts of oil and coal products for their manufacture and operation, such as vehicles, tends to fall. For example, peak sales of private passenger automobile, worldwide, occurred in 2017. With fewer auto sales (as well as fewer sales of other high-priced goods), it is difficult to keep oil and coal prices high enough for producers. This is very similar to the problems of the 1914 to 1945 era.

Everything that I can see indicates that we are now reaching a time that is parallel to the period between 1914 and 1945. Conflict is one of the major things that a person would expect because each country wants to protect its jobs. Each country also wants to add new jobs that pay well.

In a period parallel to the 1914 to 1945 period, we can also expect pandemics. This happens because the many poor people often cannot afford adequate diets, making them more susceptible to diseases that are easily transmitted. In the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1919, more than 50 million people worldwide died. The equivalent number with today’s world population would be about 260 million. This hugely dwarfs the 3.2 million COVID-19 deaths around the world that we have experienced to date.

[2] If we look at growth in energy supply, relative to the growth in population, precisely the same type of “squeeze” is occurring now as was occurring in the 1914 to 1945 period. This squeeze particularly affects coal and oil supplies.



Figure 2. The sum of red and blue areas on the chart represent average annual world energy consumption growth by 10-year periods. Blue areas represent average annual population growth percentages during these 10-year periods.

The red area is determined by subtraction. It represents the amount of energy consumption growth that is “left over” for growth in people’s standards of living. Chart by Gail Tverberg using energy data from Vaclav Smil’s estimates shown in Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects, together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent years.

The chart above is somewhat complex. It looks at how quickly energy consumption has been growing historically, over ten-year periods (sum of red and blue areas). This amount is divided into two parts. The blue area shows how much of this growth in energy consumption was required to provide food, housing and transportation to the growing world population, based on the standards at that time. The red area shows how much growth in energy consumption was “left over” for growth in the standard of living, such as better roads, more vehicles, and nicer homes. Note that GDP growth is not shown in the chart. It likely corresponds fairly closely to total energy consumption growth.

Figure 3, below, shows energy consumption by type of fuel between 1820 and 2010. From this, it is clear that the world’s energy consumption was tiny back in 1820, when most of the world’s energy came from burned biomass. Even at that time, there was a huge problem with deforestation.



Figure 3. World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects and together with BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy data for 1965 and subsequent years. (Wind and solar are included with biofuels.)

Clearly, the addition of coal, starting shortly after 1820, allowed huge changes in the world economy. But by 1910, this growth in coal consumption was flattening out, leading quite possibly to the problems of the 1914-1945 era. The growth in oil consumption after World War II allowed the world economy to recover.

Natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear have been added in recent years, as well, but the amounts have been less significant than those of coal and oil.

We can see how coal and oil have dominated growth in energy supplies in other ways, as well. This is a chart of energy supplies, with a projection of expected energy supplies through 2021 based on estimates of the IEA’s Global Energy Review 2021.


Figure 4. World energy consumption by fuel. Data through 2019 based on information from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. Amounts for 2020 and 2021 based on percentage change estimates from IEA’s Global Energy Review 2021.

Oil supplies became a problem in the 1970s. There was briefly a dip in the demand for oil supplies as the world switched from burning oil to the use of other fuels in applications where this could easily be done, such as producing electricity and heating homes. Also, private passenger automobiles became smaller and more fuel efficient. There has been a continued push for fuel efficiency since then. In 2020, oil consumption was greatly affected by the reduction in personal travel associated with the COVID-19 epidemic.

Figure 4, above, shows that world coal consumption has been close to flat since about 2012. This is also evident in Figure 5, below.


Figure 5. World coal production by part of the world, based on data of BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, 2020.

Figure 5 shows that coal production for the United States and Europe has been declining for a very long time, since about 1988. Before China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, its coal production grew at a moderate pace. After joining the WTO in 2001, China’s coal production grew very rapidly for about 10 years. In about 2011, China’s coal production leveled off, leading to the leveling of world coal production.

Figure 6 shows that recently, growth in the sum of oil and coal consumption has been lagging total energy consumption.


Figure 6. Three-year average annual increase in oil and coal consumption versus three-year average increase in total energy consumption, based on a combination of BP data through 2019 from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010 and IEA’s 2020 and 2021 percentage change forecasts, from its Global Energy Review 2021.

(See remainder of article on website)

 

[marsh]

Biden’s ‘Green' Infrastructure Plan Would Actually Hurt the Environment, Top Economist Warns | Brad Polumbo

In some ways, Biden's proposal is a light version of the Green New Deal, including $10 billion to create a “Civilian Climate Corps,” $20 billion for “racial equity and environmental justice,” $175 billion for electric vehicle subsidies, and even money to make school lunches “greener.” But one...

fee.org

Biden’s ‘Green' Infrastructure Plan Would Actually Hurt the Environment, Top Economist Warns
Here's why.
Sunday, May 9, 2021

Brad Polumbo

President Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar “infrastructure” proposal is about a lot more than traditional transportation infrastructure. In some ways, it’s a light version of the Green New Deal, including $10 billion to create a “Civilian Climate Corps,” $20 billion for “racial equity and environmental justice,” $175 billion for electric vehicle subsidies, and even money to make school lunches “greener.”

But one prominent economist is warning that the supposedly “green” plan would actually backfire and leave the global environment worse off. In a new analysis, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy argues that the plan would lead to more pollution because it would push economic activity abroad to poorer countries with lower standards.

“Higher income taxes on top of the many costly labor and environmental mandates in the bill would… raise production costs in the United States,” she writes. “That would shift production of many products to other countries that have more competitive tax rates and lower production costs—but also, oftentimes, questionable environmental standards.”

In this way, Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar green spending boondoggle could actually lead to higher carbon emissions and more pollution. Moreover, an Ivy League analysis found that this plan would reduce economic growth in the long run—and growth is the key to a clean environment.

“Ultimately, we know that the best green policy is the prosperity made possible only by economic growth,” de Rugy concludes. “The wealthier we are, the more we can afford to attend to the environment. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's preferred path of more taxes, and more politically motivated spending and regulations will not just make us financially poorer; it also comes at a high cost for the environment.”

 

[marsh]

The Great Reset is not conspiracy, it's reality and it's already happening

Despite both Joe Biden and John Kerry coming out in support of The Great Reset, it is being dismissed in public as a conspiracy theory. It’s not, and it’s already happening. It is a global agenda driven by the World Economic Forum. It will convert the Western World into a socialist/communist...

www.independentsentinel.com

The Great Reset is not conspiracy, it’s reality and it’s already happening
By M. Dowling
-May 9, 2021

Klaus Schwab, the neo-Nazi

Despite both Joe Biden and John Kerry coming out in support of The Great Reset, it is being dismissed in public as a conspiracy theory. It’s not, and it’s already happening.

It is a global agenda driven by the World Economic Forum. It will convert the Western World into a socialist/communist dictatorship. It’s the EU for all, only much worse. It ends sovereignty of nations.

On June 3, 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published a press release entitled “The Great Reset: A Unique Twin Summit at the Beginning of 2021”.

The message below from the World Economic Forum is untouched and we offer no opinion. The first copy was translated in Google from German to English and the second copy is in the original German. Definitely check out the map.

You decide:
“The Great Reset” will be the subject of a unique twin summit in January 2021, which will be convened by the World Economic Forum.

• “The Big New Start” is an obligation to work together and urgently to lay the foundations of our economic and social system for a fairer, more sustainable and more resilient future.
• It requires a new social contract that focuses on human dignity and social justice and in which social progress does not lag behind economic development.
• The global health crisis has exposed longstanding ruptures in our economies and societies and created a social crisis that urgently requires decent and meaningful jobs.
• The twin summit will take place both face-to-face and virtually, connecting important global government and business leaders in Davos with a global multi-stakeholder network in 400 cities around the world for a future-oriented dialogue led by the younger generation.

The announcement of the “Big New Start” will be made today at 2:30 pm Central European Summer Time during a virtual meeting of S.K.H. made to the Prince of Wales and Klaus Schwab and can be followed here.

Geneva, Switzerland, June 3, 2020 – “The Great Reset” will be the theme of a unique twin summit in January 2021 convened by the World Economic Forum. The 51st annual meeting of the World Economic Forum will bring together world leaders from government, business and civil society as well as stakeholders from around the world in a unique configuration that includes both face-to-face and virtual dialogues.

“We only have one planet, and we know that climate change could be the next global catastrophe with even more dramatic consequences for humanity. We have to decarbonise the economy in the short remaining time window and bring our thinking and behavior back into harmony with nature bring “said Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“To secure our future and create prosperity, we must evolve our economic model and place people and the planet at the center of global value creation. If there is one crucial lesson to be learned from this crisis, it is that we are in nature must be at the center of our actions. We just can’t waste any more time, “said SKH the Prince of Wales.

“The Great Reset is a welcome realization that this human tragedy needs to be a wake-up call. We need to build more balanced, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that can cope with pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we are facing , are more resilient, “said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York.

A ‘great reset” is necessary to build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being, “added Schwab. “The global health crisis has exposed the lack of sustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. We cannot turn our backs on the grievances of racism and discrimination. We have to build our intergenerational responsibility into this new social contract to ensure that we meet young people’s expectations “.

“COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We need to ensure that the emerging technologies in the digital, biological and physical world continue to put people first and serve society as a whole by unifying all allow fair access, “he said.

“This global pandemic has shown again how interconnected we are. We need to restore a functioning system of intelligent global cooperation that is structured to meet the challenges of the next 50 years. The ‘Great Reset’ will require us to all stakeholders of global society in a community with common interests, goals and actions to integrate “, said Schwab.” We need a rethink, the transition from short-term to long-term thinking, the transition from shareholder capitalism to the responsibility of stakeholders. Environmental, social and good governance must be an appropriate part of corporate and government accountability, “he added.

This innovative summit will be a very different annual meeting, reflecting the spirit of the “Great New Start”. It will offer a unique opportunity to bring the most important global government and business leaders together in Davos in early 2021, but as part of a global multi-stakeholder summit driven by the younger generation. This will ensure that the “Big New Start” dialogue goes beyond the limits of traditional thinking and is truly forward-looking.

To this end, the World Economic Forum will bring together thousands of young people in more than 400 cities around the world (the “Global Shapers Community”) who will interact with leading figures in Davos through a powerful virtual hub network. Each of these hubs will have an open door policy to involve all interested citizens in this dialogue so that the annual meeting is open to all. In addition, global media and social media networks will mobilize millions of people and allow them to share their contributions while having access to the discussions at the annual meeting in Davos.

The announcement of the “big restart” was made by S.K.H. The Prince of Wales and Professor Schwab during a virtual meeting, followed by statements from UN Secretary General António Guterres and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.

Their statements were supported by voices from all stakeholder groups in global society, including Victoria Alonsoperez, founder and CEO of Chipsafer, Uruguay, and a Young Global Leader; Caroline Anstey, President and CEO of Pact, USA; Ajay S. Banga, Managing Director, Mastercard, USA; Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Brussels; Ma Jun, Chairman, Green Finance Committee, China Society for Finance and Banking, and member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, Managing Director, bp, United Kingdom; Juliana Rotich, Venture Partner, Atlantica Ventures, Kenya; Bradford L. Smith, President, Microsoft, USA; and Nick Stern, Chair, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, UK.

Ahead of the annual meeting, the forum will host a virtual episode, “The Great Reset Dialogues”. These dialogues are a joint initiative of the World Economic Forum and S. K. H. the Prince of Wales. “Big New Start” contributions will also be received via UpLink, the World Economic Forum’s digital platform, to collect innovations for the Sustainable Development Goals.

The following map shows the location of the hubs of the “Global Shapers Community” of the World Economic Forum: Over 420 hubs and 11,000 global shapers and alumni.

 

[vestige]

The Great Reset is not conspiracy, it's reality and it's already happening

Despite both Joe Biden and John Kerry coming out in support of The Great Reset, it is being dismissed in public as a conspiracy theory. It’s not, and it’s already happening. It is a global agenda driven by the World Economic Forum. It will convert the Western World into a socialist/communist...

www.independentsentinel.com

The Great Reset is not conspiracy, it’s reality and it’s already happening
By M. Dowling
-May 9, 2021

Klaus Schwab, the neo-Nazi

Despite both Joe Biden and John Kerry coming out in support of The Great Reset, it is being dismissed in public as a conspiracy theory. It’s not, and it’s already happening.

It is a global agenda driven by the World Economic Forum. It will convert the Western World into a socialist/communist dictatorship. It’s the EU for all, only much worse. It ends sovereignty of nations.

On June 3, 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published a press release entitled “The Great Reset: A Unique Twin Summit at the Beginning of 2021”.

The message below from the World Economic Forum is untouched and we offer no opinion. The first copy was translated in Google from German to English and the second copy is in the original German. Definitely check out the map.

You decide:
“The Great Reset” will be the subject of a unique twin summit in January 2021, which will be convened by the World Economic Forum.

• “The Big New Start” is an obligation to work together and urgently to lay the foundations of our economic and social system for a fairer, more sustainable and more resilient future.
• It requires a new social contract that focuses on human dignity and social justice and in which social progress does not lag behind economic development.
• The global health crisis has exposed longstanding ruptures in our economies and societies and created a social crisis that urgently requires decent and meaningful jobs.
• The twin summit will take place both face-to-face and virtually, connecting important global government and business leaders in Davos with a global multi-stakeholder network in 400 cities around the world for a future-oriented dialogue led by the younger generation.

The announcement of the “Big New Start” will be made today at 2:30 pm Central European Summer Time during a virtual meeting of S.K.H. made to the Prince of Wales and Klaus Schwab and can be followed here.

Geneva, Switzerland, June 3, 2020 – “The Great Reset” will be the theme of a unique twin summit in January 2021 convened by the World Economic Forum. The 51st annual meeting of the World Economic Forum will bring together world leaders from government, business and civil society as well as stakeholders from around the world in a unique configuration that includes both face-to-face and virtual dialogues.

“We only have one planet, and we know that climate change could be the next global catastrophe with even more dramatic consequences for humanity. We have to decarbonise the economy in the short remaining time window and bring our thinking and behavior back into harmony with nature bring “said Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“To secure our future and create prosperity, we must evolve our economic model and place people and the planet at the center of global value creation. If there is one crucial lesson to be learned from this crisis, it is that we are in nature must be at the center of our actions. We just can’t waste any more time, “said SKH the Prince of Wales.

“The Great Reset is a welcome realization that this human tragedy needs to be a wake-up call. We need to build more balanced, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that can cope with pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we are facing , are more resilient, “said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York.

A ‘great reset” is necessary to build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being, “added Schwab. “The global health crisis has exposed the lack of sustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. We cannot turn our backs on the grievances of racism and discrimination. We have to build our intergenerational responsibility into this new social contract to ensure that we meet young people’s expectations “.

“COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We need to ensure that the emerging technologies in the digital, biological and physical world continue to put people first and serve society as a whole by unifying all allow fair access, “he said.

“This global pandemic has shown again how interconnected we are. We need to restore a functioning system of intelligent global cooperation that is structured to meet the challenges of the next 50 years. The ‘Great Reset’ will require us to all stakeholders of global society in a community with common interests, goals and actions to integrate “, said Schwab.” We need a rethink, the transition from short-term to long-term thinking, the transition from shareholder capitalism to the responsibility of stakeholders. Environmental, social and good governance must be an appropriate part of corporate and government accountability, “he added.

This innovative summit will be a very different annual meeting, reflecting the spirit of the “Great New Start”. It will offer a unique opportunity to bring the most important global government and business leaders together in Davos in early 2021, but as part of a global multi-stakeholder summit driven by the younger generation. This will ensure that the “Big New Start” dialogue goes beyond the limits of traditional thinking and is truly forward-looking.

To this end, the World Economic Forum will bring together thousands of young people in more than 400 cities around the world (the “Global Shapers Community”) who will interact with leading figures in Davos through a powerful virtual hub network. Each of these hubs will have an open door policy to involve all interested citizens in this dialogue so that the annual meeting is open to all. In addition, global media and social media networks will mobilize millions of people and allow them to share their contributions while having access to the discussions at the annual meeting in Davos.

The announcement of the “big restart” was made by S.K.H. The Prince of Wales and Professor Schwab during a virtual meeting, followed by statements from UN Secretary General António Guterres and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.

Their statements were supported by voices from all stakeholder groups in global society, including Victoria Alonsoperez, founder and CEO of Chipsafer, Uruguay, and a Young Global Leader; Caroline Anstey, President and CEO of Pact, USA; Ajay S. Banga, Managing Director, Mastercard, USA; Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Brussels; Ma Jun, Chairman, Green Finance Committee, China Society for Finance and Banking, and member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, Managing Director, bp, United Kingdom; Juliana Rotich, Venture Partner, Atlantica Ventures, Kenya; Bradford L. Smith, President, Microsoft, USA; and Nick Stern, Chair, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, UK.

Ahead of the annual meeting, the forum will host a virtual episode, “The Great Reset Dialogues”. These dialogues are a joint initiative of the World Economic Forum and S. K. H. the Prince of Wales. “Big New Start” contributions will also be received via UpLink, the World Economic Forum’s digital platform, to collect innovations for the Sustainable Development Goals.

The following map shows the location of the hubs of the “Global Shapers Community” of the World Economic Forum: Over 420 hubs and 11,000 global shapers and alumni.
View attachment 265799

Rough

Us Kentuckians will hang togetjer.

Us and our Tennessee brothers.

God Bless Tennessee

 

[raven]

there are a few things noteworthy about any reset.
If you are part of the top 1%, the elite, you will not lose anything.
If you are the bottom 50%-80%, you have nothing to lose.

 

[marsh]

NYT: Will electric cars become an environmental catastrophe?

hotair.com

NYT: Will electric cars become an environmental catastrophe?

ED MORRISSEY May 10, 2021 6:01 PM ET

(AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Answer: Of course they will, with mining being among the many other issues in pushing to eliminate internal-combustion engines in favor of an all-electric fleet.

No one who has studied the composition of the energy-storage systems in electric cars could possibly miss the environmental dangers of such a transformation.

The most interesting point of this brief review of one potential environmental catastrophe is the media outlet raising the issue. Even if it got buried over the weekend, the fact that the New York Times raises the mining issues is significant:

The United States needs to quickly find new supplies of lithium as automakers ramp up manufacturing of electric vehicles.

Lithium is used in electric car batteries because it is lightweight, can store lots of energy and can be repeatedly recharged. Other ingredients like cobalt are needed to keep the battery stable.

But production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people, Ivan Penn and Eric Lipton report for The New York Times. Mining is one of the dirtiest businesses out there.

The NYT did a deeper dive on the specifics one day earlier in a high-profile, front-page piece that mainly hit on Friday. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” Penn and Lipton warned:

But the project, known as Lithium Americas, has drawn protests from members of a Native American tribe, ranchers and environmental groups because it is expected to use billions of gallons of precious ground water, potentially contaminating some of it for 300 years, while leaving behind a giant mound of waste.

“Blowing up a mountain isn’t green, no matter how much marketing spin people put on it,” said Max Wilbert, who has been living in a tent on the proposed mine site while two lawsuits seeking to block the project wend their way through federal courts.

The fight over the Nevada mine is emblematic of a fundamental tension surfacing around the world: Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear. Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.

That environmental toll has often been overlooked in part because there is a race underway among the United States, China, Europe and other major powers. Echoing past contests and wars over gold and oil, governments are fighting for supremacy over minerals that could help countries achieve economic and technological dominance for decades to come.

If we don’t mine it here, we will have to depend on mining elsewhere. That will be just as destructive to the global environment, plus make us dependent on the regimes that will ruthlessly extract these rare minerals. That puts us in no better position than we were when we refused to extract our own oil for our own consumption.

However, the environmental issues don’t end with mining. Manufacturing batteries is a highly toxic process, for instance, but battery disposal is even more so. Each car has its own battery, which means we’re already dealing with this, but forcing vehicles to go electric means multiplying those issues exponentially. The life cycle of the batteries will likely encourage shorter life cycles for vehicles as well, as the replacement costs of batteries might make disposal a better idea than refits.

Even more problematic is the question of energy distribution. Internal combustion engines allow for efficient production of energy within each car as needed, without needing to account for peaks and valleys in usage. Our current electric grid has become less reliable of late thanks to green-energy mandates, such as in California, where rolling blackouts are a regular summer feature before everyone’s car needs a charge from the grid. Where will the necessary energy originate to charge hundreds of millions of vehicles every day? Rather than use local internal combustion engines for power on demand, we will have to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels in less-efficient ways to provide the energy — or turn America’s vehicles into stationary statues for most of their life cycle.

Conversion to hydrogen makes more sense than conversion to electric storage systems, or even to clean-burning natural gas. Hydrogen has safety issues, and natural gas requires the kind of fracking that Biden hates but which provides a plentiful domestic supply. Every other path either requires more environmental damage, more reliance on foreign supplies, less ability for mobility, or a combination of all three. When the New York Times starts front-paging this point, perhaps even the Left will figure it out.

 

[marsh]

China Can Exploit Climate Change To 'Control Social, Political Environment,' Boasts Chinese Communist Party Adviser. - The National Pulse

A Chinese Communist Party adviser and professor identified climate change as an opportunity to “regulate and control the social, political, and economic environment,” functioning as part of China’s broader goal to expand its global power.Unearthed by The Epoch Times, the remarks come from Renmin...

thenationalpulse.com

China Can Exploit Climate Change To ‘Control Social, Political Environment,’ Boasts Chinese Communist Party Adviser.

• MAY 11, 2021
• NATALIE WINTERS

A Chinese Communist Party adviser and professor identified climate change as an opportunity to “regulate and control the social, political, and economic environment,” functioning as part of China’s broader goal to expand its global power.

Unearthed by The Epoch Times, the remarks come from Renmin University Professor Di Dongsheng, who has also worked with various Chinese Communist Party bodies including the foreign ministry and the National Development and Reform Commission.

“It can help to regulate and control the social, political, and economic environment,” Di said referencing climate change in a blog post.

The global emissions reduction agenda can boost the Chinese Communist Party economically and retains “political significance” for Beijing:

“Specific to the current international environment, the political, economic, and geostrategic differences between the major powers are getting bigger and bigger, and the climate issue is almost the only benign topic that China, the United States and Europe can sit down and discuss together in a happy manner. Therefore, actively participating in the global energy conservation and emission reduction agenda not only has economic value to us, but also has certain political significance, which will help regulate the external environment.”

 

[marsh]

Conservative European Activist Von Storch: Say "No" to The Great Reset (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Richard Abelson

Steve Bannon ally and conservative European activist Sven von Storch warns of the “Great Reset” propagated by World Economic Forum director Klaus Schwab in a new video.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Conservative European Activist Von Storch: Say “No” to The Great Reset (VIDEO)

By Richard Abelson
Published May 12, 2021 at 10:22am

Steve Bannon ally and conservative European activist Sven von Storch warns of the “Great Reset” propagated by World Economic Forum director Klaus Schwab in a new video.

“A policy to destroy the existing order is underway worldwide”, Chilean-born von Storch warned. “For the small and medium sized businesses the Merkel lockdown is a tragedy, but for „Big Tech“ and the globalists, the lockdown madness is a billion dollar profit. They secure their existing global monopoly positions. The billionaires are the biggest profiteers, while citizens lose their livelihoods.”

„Whoever does not want to wake up irreversibly in such a world in the foreseeable future (not just one day) and does not want to be a slave of this „new normality“, this new totalitarian neo-Marxist social order, must face this reality already today. We still have time to prevent it”, von Storch said. “We must stand up now and fight for our freedom, for our free world and for our civilization as we know it, in our environment and everywhere we can act. Now, today, and immediately!“

View: https://youtu.be/xn2sGBaMOgw
4:55 min

 

[marsh]

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

cnsnews.com

They Failed To Coerce Americans out of Their Cars
By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 12, 2021 | 4:15am EDT

Rural Boonsboro, Maryland is a distant suburb of Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Commuting by subway — or some other form of public transportation — and commuting by car epitomize two dramatically different lifestyles in the United States.

In the former, for example, an American might live in a high-rise building in a densely populated urban area. He rides an elevator to the street each morning and then descends via an escalator to an underground chamber, where he stands on a concrete slab until a crowded train comes along.

When he boards that train, he is likely to stand, holding the metal rail above his head to make sure he does not fall when the train lurches forward.

He hopes the coughing, sneezing person standing next to him does not have a communicable disease — but doubts it.

In a hypothetical example of the latter lifestyle, an American might walk through the door of her single-family home into a two-car garage. She gets into her four-door sedan, pushes a button to open the garage door, starts the car, turns on the air-conditioning and backs into her driveway.

She then heads down to the street, passing through a bright green lawn shaded by a massive oak.

She now turns the dashboard stereo to her favorite music.

That same morning, some other Americans would be heading to work via bus, bicycle, cab, carpool, ferryboat or even their own two feet.

So, which commute would you choose?

A recent Census Bureau report indicates the vast majority of American workers have made the same choice: They drive — by themselves — in their own cars.

According to the bureau's American Community Survey for 2019 (the year before the COVID-19 pandemic hit), there were 156,941,346 workers in the United States. Of these, 119,153,349 — or 75.9 % — drove to work alone in a car, truck or van.

Another 13,900,979 — or 8.9% — commuted to work in a carpool.

That means that 84.8% commuted in a private vehicle, either alone or in a carpool.

The next largest group of these pre-pandemic workers (8,970,800, or 5.7%) did not commute at all. They worked at home.

In fact, only 5% of American workers (7,778,444) took public transportation to work.

This included the 2.3% (3,601,403) who took a bus; the 1.9% (2,935,633) who took a subway or elevated rail; the 0.6% (921,391) who took a long-distance train or commuter rail; the 0.2% (242,776) who took a light rail, streetcar or trolley; and the 77,000 who took a ferryboat.

In addition, there were 4,153,050 workers (2.6%) who walked to work; 805,722 (0.5%) who took a bicycle; 385,756 (0.2%) who took a taxicab; and 221,923 (0.1%) who took a motorcycle. There were also 1,571,323 (1.0%) who got to work by what the Census Bureau called "other means."

Nor was the use of public transportation evenly distributed across the country.
A majority (51.1%) who commuted on public transportation lived in the Northeast. Another 21% lived in the West, while 15.1% lived in the South and 12.8% lived in the Midwest.

Within these regions, not surprisingly, public transit users were concentrated in urban areas. Indeed, 62.5% (4,842,172) of the nation's public transit commuters (7,778,444) were concentrated in just five metropolitan areas: New York (3,000,640); Chicago (584,804); San Francisco (461,832); Washington, D.C. (440,972); and Boston (353,924).

The City of New York, according to the Census Bureau report, was the only major city where a majority (2,242,092, or 55.6%) took public transit to work.

Shortly after President Barack Obama took office, as this writer pointed out in a 2010 book ("Control Freaks"), he indicated his desire to have Americans reduce their use of automobiles.

"I would like for us to invest in mass transit, because potentially that's energy-efficient," Obama said at a 2009 town hall in Fort Myers, Florida.

"The days where we're just building sprawl forever, those days are over," he said.
Then-Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood — a former Republican congressman — suggested taxing Americans for every mile they drove. But even the Obama White House rejected that idea.

Obama's Transportation Department then launched what it called the "Livable Communities Initiative."

The AARP Bulletin asked LaHood in October 2009 to "describe" what a livable community was.

"It's a community where if people don't want an automobile, they don't have to have one," LaHood explained. "A community where you can walk to work, your doctor's appointment, pharmacy or grocery store. Or you could take light rail, a bus or ride a bike."

On May 21, 2009, LaHood spoke about this plan at the National Press Club.

"Some in the highway supporters and motorists groups have been concerned by your livability initiative," the moderator asked him. "Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?"

"It is a way to coerce people out of their cars, yeah," LaHood responded.

The moderator followed up: "Speaking of, some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program saying it's an example of government intrusion into people's lives. How do you respond?"

"About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives," said LaHood.

A decade later, according to the Census Bureau report, most Americans were still driving their cars to work.

There is one word that explains why they insist on doing so: freedom.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSnews.com.

 

[marsh]

Woke Med Drama 'New Amsterdam' Warns: ‘Global Warming Is a Healthcare Emergency’

Another week, another social justice crusade

newsbusters.org

Woke Med Drama 'New Amsterdam' Warns: ‘Global Warming Is a Healthcare Emergency’

Alexa Moutevelis
May 12th, 2021 10:30 PM

Another week, another social justice crusade on the NBC medical drama New Amsterdam. This time, it’s global warming, which, according to the show, “means human suffering on a scale that we can't even imagine.”

On Tuesday night’s episode, “Pressure Drop,” Medical Director Dr. Max Goodwin’s (Ryan Eggold) announces to Dr. Lauren Bloom (Janet Montgomery), “I'm gonna fix global warming... at New Amsterdam!”

Great, another liberal cause for the do-gooder to advance and solve in one hour!
But Max discovers how difficult this is when (shocker) no one likes his ridiculous harebrained ideas, starting with limiting entire departments to one box of exam gloves a day during a pandemic "ecause global warming is a healthcare emergency" (click "expand"):

Video clip on website 1:47 min

Max: Melting polar ice caps, deforestation, temperatures are expected to rise at least ten degrees in the next century, and the people in charge of solving this can't even agree that it's real. So now it's up to us.

Mike: The radiology department?

Max: Because global warming is a healthcare emergency. Who do you think's gonna bear the brunt of unchecked wildfires, mass migration, toxic algae blooms?

Nurse 1: The radiology department?

Max: Hospitals. So here, today, together, the people in this room are gonna take up the fight against global warming. Now, I would like to debut my new flagship program... "The Gloves Are Off."

Mike: Wait, literally?

Max: Yeah, literally. Single-use latex gloves account for 20% of our medical waste. Do you know where that waste ends up, Mike?

Mike: We need to wear gloves, Dr. Goodwin.

Max: Wrong answer. On a barge, Mike. It ends up on a barge. I also would have accepted "in our oceans." So we are all gonna try something new. We are only gonna get one box of gloves per day.
Nurse 1: Per person?

Max: Wrong again. For the entire department.

Nurse 1: What about infectious patients?

Max: Well, that's why I chose radiology. Your patients are already diagnosed. Nobody needs gloves to simply walk a patient into an MRI.

Mike: But gloves are how we protect ourselves - from, you know, germs.

Max: Uh-huh. But handwashing is undeniably more effective, which is why every scrubs station and bathroom on this floor has been stocked with extra biodegradable soap. Now, who's ready to save this planet? Say it with me, guys. The gloves are... The gloves are...

Jerry: Off.'

Max: Thank you, Jerry.

Max rightly looks like a global warming fanatic, exaggerating even the worst-case scenario predictions and claiming, “It's now or, quite literally, never.” And yet he persists, throwing out one dumb idea after another that has the hospital up in arms and getting bogged down on a theoretical future catastrophe at the expense of emergencies here and now. Even his woke staff have to give him a reality check.

Video clip on website 1:27 min

Lauren: I asked you for help this morning, and you have done absolutely nothing.

Max: I've been trying to make changes all day.

Lauren: To combat climate change.

Max: Exactly.

Lauren: I asked you for help in my ED, Max.

Max: And my changes would significantly reduce your patient load.

Lauren: Years from now, not today. My ED is coding today.

Max: Okay, so when do we make changes? You tell me. We run 24/7. There's never gonna be a good time to change the lightbulbs, or try a new policy, or do anything of any consequence. We all say that we wanna fight climate change, just not like this. Do you know what "not like this" means? It means never, and never means a lot of patients. It means human suffering on a scale that we can't even imagine.

Lauren: Max.

Max: No, we can be a model for other hospitals in New York, for the country, the world if we can cement one single change.

Lauren: Enough! I am running an emergency department, not an environmental think tank. I don't care about my carbon footprint, or yours, or this hospital's. I don't care how many gloves I use, or how many syringes I toss, or my emissions. I care about the patients in this ED lining these hallways and waiting in ambulances halfway around the damn block. So stop making changes that are gonna help people a hundred years in the future, and get me more staff, more beds, and a second triage unit, so we can start helping people right now.

But, of course, Max gets the wrong message from that spiel and decides the best thing to do is "upset everyone" at the same time so it will “suck” for everybody and “we'll all hate it together.” Finally, some honesty about the climate change agenda!

Video clip on website 1:34 min

Max: I owe you an apology. I came in here this morning thinking that I could make changes without disrupting your lives. Clearly, I was wrong. So I'm gonna try something else. I'm gonna disrupt your lives on purpose. We're all in favor of change right up until the moment it makes us uncomfortable. So we're going King Solomon here. Since I can't implement any changes without upsetting someone, I'm gonna implement all of my changes at once and upset everyone.

Lauren: I didn't think it could get any worse.

Max: That's what they said about climate change. I'm asking everyone to be annoyed, inconvenienced, uncomfortable. It will unquestionably suck, but doing nothing is worse. So we'll all put up with the lightbulbs and the fewer gloves. And the surgeons will say goodbye to single-use scalpels, and the anesthesiologists will account for their greenhouse gasses. We will all dig a little deeper, and cope with a leafy salad because if we want any chance of a better future for our kids, there is only one move left: Suck it up and get it done. The only thing I can promise is that we'll all hate it together.

Lauren: Annoying, but inspired.

Max: You know, I get that a lot.

Lauren: So what ridiculous name are we calling this program?

Max: Our last chance.

In other woke news, last week, Lauren decided that suddenly, in her late 20s or early 30s, she’s a lesbian (so much for all that “born this way” propaganda and claims that the term “sexual preference” is offensive). After a week off canoodling with her new girlfriend, she becomes noticeably nicer to her staff. So, I guess the message is that straight people are uptight and a week of lesbian sex makes one a nicer person.

Can’t wait to see what new woke emergency New Amsterdam wheels in for us next week.

Conservatives Fight Back! Complain to Old Navy, Subaru and T-Mobile about their sponsorship of such ridiculous content.

 

[marsh]

Maggots must be mass-farmed to combat malnutrition, study says

Traditionally-eaten plant and animal-based foods, like meat and barely, are 'innately exposed to various acute and chronic stresses', experts at the University of Cambridge reveal in a new report.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Food of the future? Humans will have to incorporate MAGGOTS into their diets in the future to avoid malnutrition, scientists claim

• University of Cambridge experts warn of threats to plant and animal based foods
• They say other foods need to be produced at mass scale for human consumption
• These include insect larvae, mycoprotein and macro-algae such as sugar kelp

By JONATHAN CHADWICK FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:00 EDT, 13 May 2021 | UPDATED: 11:19 EDT, 13 May 2021

Humankind will have to eat maggots and other bizarre 'superfoods' to avoid malnutrition, according to a new report.

UK researchers say traditionally-eaten plant-source foods, like barley, maize, fruits and vegetables, and animal-source foods, like meat, fish and eggs, are 'innately exposed to various acute and chronic stresses'.

These include pests and disease, as well as environmental changes brought on by human-driven climate change.

The solution is to farm maggots (insect larvae) of the black soldier fly, house fly and mealworm beetle, at a mass scale for human consumption, they say.

Insects are well-known to be packed full of protein, nutrients, potassium, magnesium and three times more fatty acids than omega-3 in salmon.

They're already being sold in some supermarkets as a niche snack – but the scientists, from the University of Cambridge, say we'll have to bump up production to 'mitigate global malnutrition', one of the largest humanitarian crises.

Pictured, the bamboo worm, larvae of a moth of the family Crambidae, turned crispy by frying. The University of Cambridge experts say insect larvae could be produced at scale to avoid mass malnutrition

What are superfoods?
There is no official definition for a superfood but the word generally refers to healthy foods or ingredients which are popular and said to have many health benefits.

Some people eat superfoods because they want to slow ageing, get fitter, feel happier or boost their intelligence.

Superfoods tend to come and go in trends.

The NHS is sceptical about the benefits of eating large amounts of one superfood, and instead promotes eating a healthy, balanced diet.

10 of the most popular superfoods are:

• Blueberries
• Goji berries
• Chocolate
• Oily fish
• Wheatgrass
• Pomegranate juice
• Green tea
• Broccoli
• Garlic
• Beetroot

Source: NHS Choices

Two billion people experience food insecurity, including over 690 million people undernourished and 340 million children suffering micro-nutrient deficiencies.

The researchers believe maggots, as well as other future foods like kelp, can be more easily grown as distributed among isolated communities in remote regions with limited access to plant and animal-based foods.

'Our current food system is vulnerable,' said lead author Dr Asaf Tzachor at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge.

'It's exposed to a litany of risks – floods and frosts, droughts and dry spells, pathogens and parasites – which marginal improvements in productivity won't change.

'To future-proof our food supply we need to integrate completely new ways of farming into the current system.'

Dr Tzachor didn't give a rough date for exactly when we'll need to transform our food farming systems.

But he said 'the sooner we make the transition to future foods, the safer our diets will be' and the 'more lives we will be able to salvage from the tight grip of malnutrition'.

As well as maggots, the authors identify microalgae, including chlorella, spirulina and sugar kelp, as another promising food source.

Microalgae are tiny photosynthetic microorganisms found in both freshwater and marine aquatic systems, each only a few micrometres in size.

Already used as a a food supplement and as aquafeed for fish, they are an excellent source of amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.

Illustration from the team's report shows the current 'risk landscape' of plant-source foods (PSF) and animal-source foods (ASF) and future foods farming systems. Each bar denotes a hazard threatening a particular farming system
Recent studies report ways microalgae can be cultivated in huge photobioreactors, grown by constant source of light and carbon dioxide.
Microalgae can be sold in powder form for sprinkling on foods, as well as tablets and juices.

Also showing promise for 'risk-reduced farming' are mycoprotein – protein derived from fungi, including Fusarium venenatum.

Mycoprotein is the base of Quorn, the meat substitute product commonly found in supermarkets, and has been shown as good for building muscle.

State-of-the-art, enclosed and modular photobioreactors to produce chlorella and spirulina algae

Powder made from spirulina, a a biomass of a species of cyanobacteria (Arthrospira platensis)

Researchers say all these foods have already attracted interest as nutritious and more sustainable alternatives to traditional plant and animal-based foods.

Reservations about eating these novel foods could be overcome by using them as ingredients rather than eating them whole.

For example, pasta, burgers and energy bars can all contain ground insect larvae and processed algae, which can help reduce a reliance on grain used for flour.

You've probably already seen mycoprotein-based products on the supermarket shelves, like Quorn

The production of these 'future foods' could also change the way global food systems operate, the academics claim.

They can be grown at scale in modular, compact systems suitable for urban settings as well as isolated communities such as those on remote islands.

In an approach the researchers call 'polycentric food networks', food could be produced locally and consistently by communities – which would reduce reliance on global supply chains and cut down on air transport.

To reach their conclusions, the researchers analysed around 500 published scientific papers on different future food production systems.

The most promising, including microalgae photobioreactors and insect breeding greenhouses, reduce exposure to the hazards of the natural environment by farming in closed, controlled environments.

Elsewhere in the report, the team argue that it's dangerous to rely on food produced through conventional farming and supply systems, which are at risk of serious disruption from a variety of factors beyond human control.

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted this vulnerability, as government-imposed restrictions on travel disrupted food production and supply chains across the world.

Recent crises around the world accentuated 'the risk of hinging our diets' on plant-source foods and animal-source foods, like red meat, the authors write
Also in the last year, the world has seen other environmental challenges to food systems that could be made worse by climate change.

These include wildfires and droughts in North America, African swine fever affecting pigs in Asia and Europe, and swarms of desert locust in East Africa.
Recent crises around the world accentuated 'the risk of hinging our diets' on plant-source foods and animal-source foods, like red meat, the authors write.

'Advances in technology open up many possibilities for alternative food supply systems that are more risk-resilient, and can efficiently supply sustainable nutrition to billions of people,' said report author Catherine Richards at CSER.

'The coronavirus pandemic is just one example of increasing threats to our globalised food system.

'Diversifying our diet with these future foods will be important in achieving food security for all.'

The report has been published today in the journal Nature Food.

COULD INSECTS BE THE NEXT 'SUPERFOOD'?
Edible insects have been touted as the next 'superfood', with the creepy crawlies packed full of protein, nutrients, potassium, magnesium and three times more fatty acids than omega-3 in salmon.

Insects contain more than twice as much protein per 100g as meat and fish, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Crickets are the most widely cultivated insects for the human diet across the world and are considered the ‘gateway bug’ for people who choose to eat insects.

They, along with other insects are touted as highly nutritious and much better for the planet - environmentally and financially - than traditional livestock, due to the comparatively efficient rate at which they convert feed into body mass.

The global population is predicted to top nine billion by 2050, putting enormous pressure on the environment, conventional food sources and farming techniques. Insects could help meet demand for food.

Plenty of people in non-Western countries already eat insects regularly. They are very efficient at converting vegetation into edible protein and full of vitamins and minerals.

Previous studies have found that four crickets provide as much calcium as a glass of milk, and dung beetles, by weight, contain more iron than beef.

Farming insects generates one-tenth of the methane produced by farming traditional meat sources, and it uses comparatively little water, making the process better for the environment.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJa584PPm-E&feature=emb_rel_end
5:22 min

 

[marsh]

This Is The Only Question We Need To Ask Supporters of Climate Change Policies - The Blue State Conservative

There is only one question we need to ask of the elites: Why should commoners behave as if the world is ending when the elites and power brokers do not? The earth’s temperature is changing. This is an indisputable fact, both in measuring data and using common sense. Of course it’s changing...

thebluestateconservative.com

This Is The Only Question We Need To Ask Supporters of Climate Change Policies

• Parker Beauregard
• May 14, 2021

There is only one question we need to ask of the elites: Why should commoners behave as if the world is ending when the elites and power brokers do not?

The earth’s temperature is changing. This is an indisputable fact, both in measuring data and using common sense. Of course it’s changing. Despite what is reported by the mainstream media, most legitimate conservatives do not question the idea of the earth’s temperature going through warming and cooling periods. For those that do, they absolutely deserve the scorn and ridicule heaped on them. Indeed, actual climate deniers sound about as unintelligent as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on any given issue.

The real issue of climate change should not be focused on the scientific debate, but rather on the policy debate. This shouldn’t be a difficult distinction to make. Then again, nothing political in the twenty-first century is allowed to be easy. Given that the left applies the epithet of “racist” to every white person or “Uncle Tom” to every black person that doesn’t unquestionably parrot the latest talking points, it should come as no surprise that anyone who even pauses to think about environmentalism’s cataclysmic consequences is considered a climate denier. In the left, paradoxically, there are only binary political realities. Applied to sex, which actually is comprised of just two options, suddenly binary is bad. Welcome to the leftist world of power and chaos.

Meteorologists can’t accurately predict if a rainstorm will cancel my tee time for the following morning; nomadic hunter-gatherers once crossed an exposed landbridge due to lower ocean levels; and, at various times the earth has either been a giant ice planet or an entirely tropical planet; and, in 5 billion years the sun will envelope the earth in celestial immolation. Nature is doing its thing with or without us.

To believe mankind is responsible for any apocalyptic changes requires a religious fanaticism, along with a sense of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism on orders of magnitude. Moreover – and this is the root of my appeal – it relies on a suspension of belief that those most equipped to deal with the crisis will magnanimously leverage their wealth, power, and influence for the greater good. How have Greta Thunberg or John Kerry made your life better as they jet set around the world, visiting lands only dreamt about by the vast majority of the world’s population? Do they appear to be abiding by calls for restrictions of fossil fuel consumption? They will be able to weather any rising fuel costs to travel, heat and cool their homes, and pay for rising food premiums. Will you?

I am asking a single question for anyone that has set aside their Bible for H. Res.109 as opportunities to clarify their position on central issues of legislative proposals. Again, the issue at hand is not the denial of omnipresent climate change. The issue – the veritable crux of the issue – is whether or not these policies make any sense at all in preserving life and liberty, or do any general good at all.

Here it is: Do you think the elites and the super wealthy will ever change their polluting habits?

In 2019, John Kerry was questioned why he had to take a private jet to Iceland in order to receive an award for being a climate hero or something stupid like that. His response makes Hillary Clinton look relatable. He was quoted as saying: “The only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle…the time it takes me to get somewhere, I can’t sail across the ocean. I have to fly, meet with people and get things done.” He’s apparently never heard of the internet.

The insufferable Meghan Markle also once made a preposterous comment related to climate action that “nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference” – right before she flew a private jet to Ibiza. A comparison by the BBC of that flight, which was accompanied by a cozy visit to Nice, France, showed that Markle’s self-righteousness produced “more than six times an average Briton’s yearly emissions, or 111 times those of a person in Lesotho.”

Private airplane use is not the only form of elitist “do as I say, not as I do” nonsense. After leaving office, former president Barack Obama purchased a beachfront mansion for $15 million. He might be a great con artist, but he is not stupid. Does anyone really think that Obama would drop so much money in real estate if he truly expected the values to drop or the ocean to smother it a la Atlantis? One thing is for sure: If I expected the coastal cities to be deluged by rising tides in twelve years, I would be buying property in the Rocky Mountains. Perhaps he is just confident in his policies; in 2008, after securing the nomination for Democrat candidate for president, he declared that one day people could remember him fondly as “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” In the Old Testament, only God could start and end the Great Flood. Add Obama to the list of supernatural forces that can also stem natural cycles of terrestrial heating.

Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fortune just bought 60 acres on a Hawaiian island. This adds to additional holdings that he has been acquiring since 2014. Not that long ago, Zuckerberg was testifying under oath in Congress that “Climate change has emerged as a key priority in Facebook’s quest to stomp out misinformation, a complicated effort that involves policing user posts while simultaneously defending free speech.” Is he worried or not worried about climate change disasters? At least Obama could drive inland in the event of tidal devastation.

Finding examples of climate fraud, be they Kerry and Markle’s quotes or Obama and Zuckerberg’s land holdings, was akin to pulling a random name out of a hat. Let’s also never forget that Al Gore said we’d be out of ice caps and polar bears by now. There is an endless deluge of hypocritical actions by those most vocal about climate change policy. Hollywood stars and starlets live in amenitized homes with carbon footprints for my lifetime. How many wealthy elites vouch for climate change policy while flying in private jets to Davos and other luxury resorts. They know we have Zoom and Google Hangouts, right?

So here is the follow-up question to the one offered earlier: Why should you and I have to sacrifice our relative comfort and ambitions in the name of the climate change gods while the self-ordained – the elites, the wealthy, the politicians – don’t have to at all? When gas prices rise, as they already have under Biden policies, it is obvious who suffers from that and who hardly notices. John Kerry will continue flying and just write off the higher fuel costs. His bottomline won’t even notice. You and I, on the other hand, will pay more to commute to work, heat our homes, and feed our families. Is this a fair trade? Hell, forget fair altogether. Is it a moral trade?

Climate policy will inevitably and inarguably reduce the standard of living of all poor and middle-class Americans. Geologically speaking, we are all on this planet for a split second. It does not even make sense to choose a lifestyle in which we choosingly self-inflict privation. We live in the richest country in the world. Poverty today entails home ownership, car ownership, smartphone use, internet, television, air conditioning, heat, food choices, and so much more. Are we ready to sacrifice all of that at the altar of climate change policy while our overlords continue living lavishly?

Again, there is no denying that the climate is changing. However, instead of asking how much we should erode freedom, liberty, and comfort, the only question we should be asking is: Who cares? Humanity will adapt to whatever happens. Viewed another way, we know for certain that a dystopian nightmare will soon follow if we allow for unchallenged climate policies to reign. What good is a potentially and marginally greener earth if we aren’t here to enjoy it?

Seeking to improve the ecological system is a worthy endeavor. However, it is preposterous to watch well-meaning low- and middle-income naifs prance against Big Oil and industries reliant on fossil fuels while the “rules for thee but not for me” crowd continues soaking up luxury and comfort. Do their actions suggest they care even one iota for the environment – or for you?

If you believe they do, your head is so far up in the clouds that John Kerry’s jet might fly right into it.

 

[marsh]

It's the Right Thing to Do: John Kerry Admits Poisonous Solar Panels Are Made in China by Uyghur Slaves (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

John Kerry spoke before Congress this week about his green energy plan to move American manufacturing to China for a junk product made by slave labor.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

It’s the Right Thing to Do: John Kerry Admits Poisonous Solar Panels Are Made in China by Uyghur Slaves (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published May 14, 2021 at 1:55pm

John Kerry spoke before Congress this week about his green energy plan to move American manufacturing to China for a junk product made by slave labor.

John wants to save the world — via cheap slave laborers.

It’s the right thing to do.

During questioning, John Kerry admitted the solar panels are being made by the Uyghur slaves.

How do these people sleep at night?

Via NotTheBee.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392495717395144707

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1392495717395144707
2:00 min

 

[marsh]

View: https://youtu.be/ioy1bO7aEFQ
9:55 min

Tucker [Carlson] warns: This is the Green New Deal … Biden tanking economy on purpose for his Great Reset…

Tucker: They did this on purpose
•May 11, 2021


Fox News

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host examines rising gas and commodity prices and the mainstream media's coverage

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Is Silence Falling in the Mineshaft?

Military officers from two leading democracies have been viciously attacked for warning their fellow countrymen about existential threats. The officers’ critics claim these leaders ought to remain silent denying fellow citizens of th...

www.americanthinker.com

May 14, 2021
Is Silence Falling in the Mineshaft?
By Robert Maginnis


Military officers from two leading democracies have been viciously attacked for warning their fellow countrymen about existential threats. The officers’ critics claim these leaders ought to remain silent denying fellow citizens of their judgment about the crises before it’s too late.

One hundred and twenty-four retired American generals and admirals published an open letter (May 12th) that begins “Our nation is in deep peril.” Retired U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, President Barack Obama’s former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed the letter alleging it “hurts the military and… the country” and contains Republican Party “talking points.”

Retired U.S. Army Major General Joe Arbuckle agreed that “Retired generals and admirals normally do not engage in political actions.” But he rejects the critics, claiming “the situation facing our nation today is dire and we must speak out in order to be faithful to our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Across the Atlantic, a cohort of French officers warned in two open letters their country was heading for “disintegration” and “civil war.” The first of two letters by 23 retired generals (April 21) earned a rebuke from Gerald Darmanin, France’s interior minister, who called the officers’ appeal a “crude maneuver” by the far right. The letters were endorsed by Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally, a conservative political party, and a candidate for the presidency next year.

There are at least two ways for citizens to view these rare expressions of public concern from military officers. One is to dismiss them as political hacks as did Mullen and Darmanin, and the other is to embrace their warnings like the idiom of the canary in a coal mine. A singing canary is a good indicator of the build-up of a deadly gas in the mine. Once the bird is weakened by the gas, it stops singing and the miners know to quickly exit the shaft.

Both officers’ warnings ring true for a growing majority of French and American citizens as evidenced by recent polling. Six in ten Americans say the United States is on the wrong track and similarly, 73 percent of Frenchmen agree their nation has lost its way.
The American officers warn “the will of the people” and our constitutional republic are at risk because of election integrity and the fact that the Democratic Party is “welcoming socialists and Marxists” that threaten “our historic way of life.”

Those officers indicate the Biden administration launched a “full-blown assault on our constitutional rights” and employed excessive population controls such as lockdowns and censorship. Other issues mentioned in their letter include open borders, cooperating with our Chinese enemy, re-engaging in the flawed Iran nuclear deal, using our military as a political pawn around the U.S. Capitol building, and ignoring the rule of law in some cities.

The French officers claim their nation is heading for “civil war” at the hands of Islamists and leftists. They demand President Emmanuel Macron stop the “Islamization” of France.

A second letter (May 7th) endorsed by up to a couple of thousand active French officers claimed France’s “survival is at stake” if more isn’t done to stop the rot. “Some of us lost their comrades,” wrote the Frenchmen. “They gave their lives to destroy the Islamism to which you make concessions on our soil.”

That letter called French politicians cowards for failing to address the issues with the Muslim population. They continued, “We have seen our suburbs abandoned, accommodation to crime. We have suffered attempts to exploit us by numerous religious communities, for whom France signifies nothing – nothing but an object of sarcasm, contempt, even hatred.”

The active-duty officers denounced Macron as a traitor for collaborating with Islam much like the Vichy French collaborated with the Nazi occupation of France during World War II.

Both the American and French officers raise legitimate concerns about their governments, which reflect majority views across their respective countries. However, the pregnant question raised by critics is: Should military officers in a democratic state go public with their criticism?

Critics like Professor Peter Feaver of Duke University acknowledge the officers have “relevant experience that renders their opinions especially worthy.” However, Dr. Feaver writes that these officers lack expertise in a number of issues such as election procedures and “to pretend otherwise is to inch along the path patrolled by coup-prone officers in unstable democracies.”

The professor labels the officers’ letter a “primal scream by several scores of older Republican men who are angry” with the electorate that chose Joe Biden for president. Then Feaver concludes: “They are entitled to believe untruths…”

The professor stretches his analysis too far. Today’s officers are among the best educated and most experienced in political affairs of any cohort of Americans, which includes self-righteous college professors, but he’s not alone.

The late Samuel Huntington, an esteemed American political scientist and former Harvard professor, endorsed the view that military officers ought to be silent about political issues. Huntington wrote “Politics is beyond the scope of military competence… The military officer must remain neutral politically.”

What’s not at issue is that active-duty military personnel are public servants that provide society with a specific set of services. However, they are also among the most experienced patriots (both active and retired) and like most citizens can look across their political landscape and see problems that don’t require special discernment, whether it be chaos associated with the Islamization of France or the assault on American civil liberties by the Biden administration.

These officers -- American and French -- are simply calling attention to clear failings of elected officials – Macron and Biden – who appear to abrogate their constitutional duties and reject democratic values to protect their citizens. Uniquely, these citizen soldiers with decades of leadership under the most difficult of circumstances across the world understand better than most the cost of freedom and how this corrupted world works, and most of all they understand threats when they see them within their own countries.

Their voice warrants outsized attention and not the unwarranted criticism of those who lack experience and are subject to their own political bias.

We should listen to such warnings on both sides of the Atlantic because they are indeed like the canary in the democratic coal mine and should be heeded by citizens concerned about the direction of our respective countries.

Never forget – canaries stop singing when danger arises, but when senior military leaders -- active and retired -- start singing, they are warning of danger.

 

[marsh]

STUDY: Nearly Half of Key Solar Panel Component Comes From Uyghur Forced Labor. - The National Pulse

Nearly half of a key component used for solar panels – polysilicon – comes from Uyghur forced labor operations under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.The investigation by Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) found that roughly 45 percent of polysilicon is obtained from Xinjiang province...

thenationalpulse.com

STUDY: Nearly Half Of Key Solar Panel Component Comes From Uyghur Forced Labor.

• MAY 15, 2021
• NATALIE WINTERS

Nearly half of a key component used for solar panels – polysilicon – comes from Uyghur forced labor operations under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.

The investigation by Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) found that roughly 45 percent of polysilicon is obtained from Xinjiang province, including the world’s four biggest panel manufacturers relying on the Uyghur-produced compound.

The 69-page report bases its evidence on numerous sources documented in more than 300 endnotes, including official Chinese government figures outlining the “placement” of 2,600,000 “minoritized” citizens in jobs in farms and factories in Xinjiang. Among the firms identified as using forced labor are Daqo New Energy, GCL-Poly Energy, TBEA, and Jinko Solar.

“The downstream companies that are potentially affected by forced labor span the globe,” concludes lead author Laura T. Murphy, Professor of Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery at SHU’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice.

READ: Scribd doc.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

A Timeline Of "The Great Reset" Agenda

SATURDAY, MAY 15, 2021 - 08:30 PM
Authored by Tim Hinchliffe via GlobalResearch.ca,

Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a Great Reset of the world order in three simple steps:

1. Announce your intention to revamp every aspect of society with global governance, and keep repeating that message
2. When your message isn’t getting through, simulate fake pandemic scenarios that show why the world needs a great reset
3. If the fake pandemic scenarios aren’t persuasive enough, wait a couple months for a real global crisis to occur, and repeat step one

It took Schwab and the Davos elite about six years to watch their great reset ideology grow from a tiny Swiss seed in 2014 to a European super-flower pollinating the entire globe in 2020.

The so-called “Great Reset” promises to build “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.

“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)

So, in May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic — dubbed “Clade X” — to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with such a crisis.

A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October, 2019.

Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.

And a few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:

• Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
• The collapse of many industries
• Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
• A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
• Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
• The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
• A global lack of personal protective equipment
• The breakdown of international supply chains
• Mass unemployment
• Rioting in the streets
• And a whole lot more!

After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a “Great Reset” in June of this year.

Was it excellent forecasting, planning, and modeling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic, or was there something more to it?

Timeline
Below is a condensed timeline of events that tracks the Great Reset agenda that went from just a “hope” in 2014 to a globalist ideology touted by royalty, the media, and heads of state the world-over in 2020.

2014-2017: Klaus Schwab calls for Great Reset and WEF repeats message
Ahead of the 2014 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Schwab announced that he hoped the WEF would push the reset button on the global economy.

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

View: https://youtu.be/RAjYAXYGPuI
2:45 min

The WEF would go on to repeat that message for years.

Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”

• 2014: WEF publishes meeting agenda entitled “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.”
• 2015: WEF publishes article in collaboration with VOX EU called “We need to press restart on the global economy.”
• 2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
• 2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”

Then in 2018, the Davos elites turned their heads towards simulating fake pandemic scenarios to see how prepared the world would be in the face of a different crisis.

2018-2019: WEF, Johns Hopkins & Gates Foundation simulate fake pandemics
On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.

The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario (video below).

The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.

“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

View: https://youtu.be/sJ1x8SlNxj0
1:37:34 min

Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.

During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”

View: https://youtu.be/AoLw-Q8X174
11:46 min

Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.

“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.

“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”

Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.

The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.

One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.

“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.

“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.

“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”

Sound familiar?

Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.

Big tech companies have also deployed the same content suppression tactics during the 2020 US presidential election — slapping “disputed” claims on content that question election integrity.

2020: WEF declares ‘Now is the time for a Great Reset’
After calling for a great reset in 2014, the Davos crowd repeated the same ideology for a few more years before pivoting towards simulating faux pandemic scenarios.

A few months after the WEF established that nobody was prepared to deal with a coronavirus pandemic, the WHO declared there was a coronavirus pandemic.

All of a sudden! the great reset narrative that the WEF had been nurturing for six years, found a place to pitch its tent in the “new normal” camp.

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future,” Schwab declared on June 3, 2020.

And that’s where we’re at today.

• The Davos elites said they wanted a global reset of the economy many years ago
• They role-played what would happen if a pandemic were to occur
• And now they’re saying that the great reset ideology is the solution to the pandemic, and it must be enacted quickly

The great reset is a means to an end.

Next on the agenda is a complete makeover of society under a technocratic regime of un-elected bureaucrats who want to dictate how the world is run from the top down, leveraging invasive technologies to track and trace your every move while censoring and silencing anyone who dares not comply.

 

[TammyinWI]

"Worms For Dinner?" World Economic Forum Promotes Mealworms as New Protein Source in Europe's Bid to Reduce Meat Consumption | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The World Economic Forum promoted the EU’s new plan to use mealworms in food in their bid to reduce meat consumption.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“Worms For Dinner?” World Economic Forum Promotes Mealworms as New Protein Source in Europe’s Bid to Reduce Meat Consumption

By Cristina Laila
Published May 7, 2021 at 8:23pm

The World Economic Forum promoted the EU’s new plan to use mealworms in food in their bid to reduce meat consumption.

The globalists are pushing for the peasants to eat bugs, weeds and synthetic ‘meat’ because bugs “consume fewer resources than traditional livestock.”

“Livestock around the world is responsible for around 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions relating to human activity. The need for land – whether for grazing animals or growing crops to feed animals – is “the single greatest driver of deforestation, with major consequences for biodiversity loss,” the paper says.

synthetic ‘meat’

The European Union will be using mealworms, eaten whole, or in powder form in food.

Yuck.

“The European Union (EU) has ruled that the larval stage of the Tenebrio molitor beetle, the mealworm, is safe for people to eat and it will shortly be on the market as a “novel food”” the WEF said.

Via the World Economic Forum:



Currently, China is the largest producer of meat, according to the WEF’s world data:
View attachment 265532

No way. Not good for me, but good for thee, instead, globalists.

 

[TammyinWI]

From post 405 . . .420 hubs and 11,000 global shapers and alumni. <-----appropriate numbers for all of this.

Just because "they" have planning this for a long time doesn't mean they will succeed. I continue to pray against unholy alliances, the plans of the evil ones, and that the darkness will be exposed, while us "useless eaters" wake up en masse, and not help these weasels with their evil schemes. Also, that what the globalists are trying to do to all of us will be deflected and put back onto them instead. Amen.

 

[TammyinWI]

The content of post #420: how appropriate. 'cause that is what time it is. Definitely time to reset the clock!

 

[marsh]

As Doomsday Predictions Fizzle, Climate Crowd Joins on Lockdown Bandwagon

As dire warnings about the hastening effects of climate change fall by the wayside, some eco-warriors are hopping on the lockdown bandwagon.

www.westernjournal.com

Commentary

New York State Democratic Sen. John Liu attends a peaceful protest and gathering to call on Congress to pass the "THRIVE "Act plan their route in Union Square on April 7 in New York City. (Michael Loccisano - Green New Deal Network / Getty Images)
As Doomsday Predictions Fizzle, Climate Change Crowd Finds a New Way to Force Their Views on Normal People


Grant AtkinsonMay 15, 2021 at 12:54pm

A short time ago, climate activists were claiming that the world had just a year left to exist if climate change was not properly addressed. As those dire predictions fall by the wayside, some eco-warriors are hopping on a new bandwagon.

According to The Guardian, a new report from Nature Climate Change suggests that the world would need the equivalent of a COVID-19 lockdown every two years to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6bn tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1bn and 2bn tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement,” The Guardian reported.

They added that many countries were already starting to cut emissions before the pandemic, but that was not enough to please the woke mob.

“Since lockdowns were eased in many countries last year, there have been strong signs that emissions will rise again to above 2019 levels, severely damaging the prospects of fulfilling the Paris goals,” they reported.

There seems to be a pretty strong implication in that sentence that if the world effectively stayed locked down, that would cause carbon emissions to be cut on a scale that would please these activists.

Of course, Corinne Le Quéré, the lead author of the study, is smart enough to know that the prospect of locking the world down every two years is not likely to gain much support. That’s why she says that an equivalent drop in emissions needs to be reached “by completely different methods.”

Could it be that the stated goals of the Paris Climate Agreement involve cuts in carbon emissions that are much too drastic? Neither Le Quéré nor The Guardian felt the need to address that possibility.

Even if Le Quéré is not actively arguing for lockdowns, it seems odd that she would author a study suggesting that the equivalent of a worldwide lockdown is needed every two years. At the very least, she is indirectly painting the lockdowns in a positive light.

Eco Watch went even further in their article about the study. They basically suggested that the lockdowns were a win-win for slowing the virus spread and cutting emissions.

“Lockdown measures to stop the spread of the coronavirus pandemic had the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by around seven percent, or 2.6 billion metric tons, in 2020,” it reported.

The phrase “added benefit” implies that the lockdowns had multiple positive benefits. In the United States, states that locked down did not see significantly lower death rates than those that remained open. This suggests that lockdowns may not have done much to “stop the spread.”

No matter how the establishment media attempts to spin it, headlines such as Forbes’ declaring “World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals” are inherently pro-lockdown.

That same article from Forbes later admits that “researchers wrote the lockdowns will not yield lasting improvement because the measures had little effect on the larger fossil fuel-based infrastructure that sustains the global economy.”

If that is the case, why are they out there writing headlines that subtly suggest the lockdowns were necessary to slow climate change? It is misleading at best, and outright lying at worst.

In an interview with The Guardian, Le Quéré inadvertently admitted the real motive of these climate activists.

“We have failed to understand in the past that we can’t have tackling climate change as a side issue. It can’t be about one law or policy, it has to be put at the heart of all policy,” she said.

“Every strategy and every plan from every government must be consistent with tackling climate change.”

That is truly an outrageous statement, and The Guardian publishes it without batting an eye. Le Quéré is saying that every decision that any government makes must be consistent with her own views in order to supposedly save the world from its own destruction.

This is the real reason that eco-warriors attempt to dishonestly paint climate change as an existential crisis. If Americans believe that climate change is a life-or-death situation, they are much more likely to support radical policies that promise to address it.

The left wants to push their radical ideas on climate in any way possible. This could include spending billions of dollars on a “Civilian Climate Corps” or subtly advocating for worldwide lockdowns. No matter the economic or psychological cost, they believe that their views always take precedence.

 

[marsh]

Savior of GM? Democrats' rhetoric on infrastructure raises fears Biden harbors anti-car agenda

Vice President Kamala Harris and Transportation Secretary Buttigieg supported an all-out ban on the sale of gas and diesel vehicles as candidates for president.

justthenews.com

Savior of GM? Democrats' rhetoric on infrastructure raises fears Bide

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: May 17, 2021 - 9:15am

Some of the rhetoric from Democratic lawmakers this week, coupled with policy positions touted by Biden administration officials, has raised concerns that President Biden might be adopting an anti-car agenda, despite his personal connection to the auto industry.

Biden's father was a car salesman and the former vice president was a prominent supporter of the 2008 General Motors bailout. The federal government ultimately lost $11.2 billion on the bailout, but Biden and former President Obama have argued that it saved the American auto industry from collapse during the Great Recession.

In January, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg suggested a vehicle miles traveled fee that would tax drivers for the amount of miles they drive as a way to pay for Biden's infrastructure plan. He later said that proposal was off the table, but the funding mechanism for Biden's $2.25 American Jobs Plan is still not solidified. The plan has not been drafted into formal legislation yet.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will lead the effort to win passage of Biden's infrastructure proposal in the House, said on Thursday that the plan that passes will have people "out of their cars with more mass transit."

Biden's infrastructure plan will "reduce automobile usage, but also we're investing in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure" in a bid to "get at climate change," Democratic D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said Wednesday.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Buttigieg supported an all-out ban on the sale of gas and diesel vehicles as candidates for president. Hybrid vehicles that don't need to be plugged in for charging would be covered by such a ban. California's two Democratic senators want Biden to formally set an end date for the sale of vehicles with gas or diesel engines in the U.S.

Toyota President Akio Toyoda has warned that moving toward fully electric vehicles could make vehicles unaffordable for the average person. Some consumers do not see electric cars as a viable option. A January 2021 survey shows that consumers are worried about the distance range of electric vehicles as well as long recharging times.

Biden's jobs plan includes a $174 billion investment to "win the EV market," according to the White House fact sheet about the proposal.

"It will give consumers point of sale rebates and tax incentives to buy American-made EVs, while ensuring that these vehicles are affordable for all families and manufactured by workers with good jobs," reads the fact sheet. "It will establish grant and incentive programs for state and local governments and the private sector to build a national network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030, while promoting strong labor, training, and installation standards."

The infrastructure proposal would also use the funding for electric school buses and electric U.S. Postal Service vehicles.

According to the White House outline, Biden's plan would "replace 50,000 diesel transit vehicles and electrify at least 20 percent of our yellow school bus fleet through a new Clean Buses for Kids Program at the Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the Department of Energy."

Just the News asked the American Petroleum Institute about some of the recent statements from Democratic lawmakers about cutting automobile usage in the U.S.

"Any new federal vehicle investments and requirements should be balanced, allowing market flexibility to meet consumer needs, smart efficiency and environmental goals," said API Vice President of Downstream Policy Ron Chittim. "There is no one-size-fits-all vehicle or mass transit option that meets every consumer requirement. The nation would benefit from a balanced approach that protects consumer choice and supports innovative technologies — including those using natural gas and oil — to drive environmental progress and a more sustainable transportation future."

 

[marsh]

Joe Biden: "The Future of the Auto Industry is Electric" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden traveled to Dearborn, Michigan on Tuesday to visit the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Joe Biden: “The Future of the Auto Industry is Electric” (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published May 18, 2021 at 1:54pm

Joe Biden traveled to Dearborn, Michigan on Tuesday to visit the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center.

Biden promoted his highly unpopular $2 trillion infrastructure bill that has nothing to do with infrastructure that includes $174 billion to develop electric vehicles.

Idiot Biden toured the plant with a face mask on.


Ford unveiled a new electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck during Biden’s Tuesday visit.

Ford’s CEO Jim Farley said the F-150 Lightning will be able “to power your home during an outage, it’s even quicker than the original F-150 Lightning performance truck; and it will constantly improve through over-the-air updates.”

“The future of the auto industry is electric,” said Biden.

VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1394717175420792834

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1394717175420792834
2:16 min

Earlier this month it was reported that one in five electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas-powered because of the inconvenience of charging.

It only takes a few minutes to fill up a gas tank, yet some electric vehicles need several hours of charging to drive 35 miles.

Charging electric vehicles is a total “hassle” say 20% of EV owners surveyed between 2012 and 2018 so they’re going back to gas, researchers found.

The Biden Admin and the Marxists in California are trying to force electric vehicles onto American citizens through “infrastructure” plans and executive orders.

Electric vehicles cost between $50,0000 to $300,000 and they take HOURS to fully charge the battery.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Tightening Noose Or Widening Gyre Of The Woke Revolution?

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021 - 04:40 PM
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,

I expect the Great Reset to fail. Completely.


I also expect the Great Reset unleashes chaotic forces no one can control.

Honestly, it’s already done so. Look around the headlines today and you can see all the strings pulled by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum but you can also see the uncontrolled events which reverberate as consequences.

I think the little conflict between Israel and Hamas, soon-to-be Hezbollah, qualifies, so does the growing protests against ‘vaccine passports’ over a virus that just replaced the flu in its actual effects.

Alistair Crooke recently pointed this out in a piece titled “The Tightening Circle of Replacement Politics.”

One wing to this ‘bird’ is evident in a powerful and (controversial) monologue delivered by Tucker Carlson, a leading (conservative) American political commentator, that is devoted to explaining just why one U.S. party is importing a new electorate to dilute, and replace, the existing U.S. electorate – and has been doing so for a decades. It is the dominating impulse within U.S. politics, Carlson avers; It is ‘replacement politics’.

Replacement politics is nothing new. Obama used zip code targeting to flood Minneapolis with Somalis. Now they are represented by one in Congress while the city has been ground zero for the abdication of responsibility by local government at the direction of the WEF.

Replacement politics has also morphed pretty quickly, thanks to the race-baiting during Obama’s first two terms, into the corporate/government (or do I repeat myself) program known as the Woke Revolution. The radicalization of maleducated twentysomethings into literal black bloc wearing Brown Shirts was always part of this plan.

And the more the Biden Obama administration pushes policies to make life in the U.S. less ordered, the more their ranks can swell regardless of the puppet masters’ wishes. Things like this take on a life of their own. Such is the politics of envy and hate.

The Replacement Killers
Replacement politics been carefully nurtured with money, training and organization. And the effects of it will be with us long after it burns itself out.

It’s also been pursued aggressively in Europe. Remember Saint Angela Merkel?



She started this process, under the demands of Schwab and George Soros, after Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blew up Syria and North Africa, quaintly termed the “Arab Spring” and millions across those regions flooded Europe.

Since then Merkel has been flip-flopping back and forth, her political fortunes in Germany ebbing and flowing based on how she reacts to shifting poll numbers over this very issue, immigration.

If it weren’t for Trump being in the White House I’d almost believe the Coronapocalypse would have been sprung on us if only to save Merkel’s political career until this year’s Bundestag elections, which now look like the increasingly neoconservative Green party will win.

This is an outcome created through the manipulations and machinations of the WEF and their dutiful servant Merkel, who has used the Greens to set policy through their presence across the Bundesrat (German Upper House) for years now. Now they’re likely to become the dominant party in the next German government, if the polls are anything close to correct.

The thing to try and assess at this point is how much control do Schwab and Co. still have? Because from where I’m sitting and looking at history, these things always spiral out of control. W.B. Yeats’ image of ‘the widening gyre’ in his poem The Second Coming rings true here and there is precious little anyone can do to control the chaos once it starts.

That’s what chaos is, after all, by definition.

Crooke rightly points out that Mao’s Cultural Revolution quickly got away from him and became an absolute mess which eventually had to be put down. He agrees with me that the ‘fabulist’ program of the Great Reset both from a domestic and foreign policy perspective across Europe and the U.S. will fail.

And it will most likely fail. The stresses imposed on U.S. societal cohesion by the launch of the woke cultural revolution may prove too great. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, launched by Mao (as part of his 1966 purge of Party rivals), very quickly devolved into a decentralized, semi-chaotic movement of Red Guards, students and other groups who shared ideas and programs, but who acted quite independent of the Party’s central leadership.

Hollywood Vice
For me, the best way to assess what’s happening and whether we’ve reached Peak Woke or not is in entertainment. Artists are the ones most open to shifts in the cultural landscape.

The good ones get there first, while the propagandists fulminate and seek to block them from having influence. The early indicators are that the stresses caused by ‘going woke’ are forcing major brands to shift course quickly lest they lose their audience.

From a culture war perspective Woke-a-Cola had to backtrack on its ‘be less white’ training. Disney had to do the same thing. Both are feeling the pinch in their bottom line. Coke will never recover. Disney will because they didn’t completely destroy Star Wars.

Disney’s other major property, Marvel Studios, is thin gruel, culturally and iconographically, and therefore ultimately irrelevant. It was always beatniks, hippies and unrestrained Spiritual Boomerism in four colors.



Star Wars matters to the generation on the cusp of taking political power from Schwab’s Boomers. It’s why the anxiety over Disney taking it over was stoked cynically by the big tech firms to divide the fan base. I put nothing past these people. They screwed with the Major League Baseball All-Star Game for pity’s sake. You don’t think they wouldn’t go after a cultural touchstone for a generation like Star Wars?

With two good guys who have deep storytelling chops now effectively running Lucasfilm, Dave Filoni and John Favreau, Star Wars will regain ‘the high ground’ in the culture war over the next decade.

The other big fight is happening over DC’s pantheon of heroes. There is such internal division within Time-Warner over the direction of DC Comics’ film universe that Warner Bros. and Warner Media are literally fighting a civil war in the trade press. It’s part of what’s driving today’s $43 billion merger between AT&T and Discovery which will split off the whole mess, including CNN and HBO, making a pure media company under the direction of Jason Kilar, who greenlit The Snyder Cut of Justice League in the first place.

That’s how much Warner Bros. executives hate Zack Synder and the basic message of his DCEU films. Chaos is bad, men need to be strong and unite against madmen who are irredeemable.

Management are furious by the runaway success, across the globe, of his version of 2017’s Justice League. It’s glorious, by the way. This movie touched a deep nerve with a lot of people, especially in China (330 million views in the first 7 days), and whose release, in and of itself, feels like an inflection point. Snyder’s DC films aren’t woke, they are archetypal. The more this story about how Waner Bros’ execs screwing Snyder over gets out, the worse it looks for them and the more momentum the fans have to get stories they want, not the stories the powers want to give them.

DC’s icons are, like Star Wars, real mythology and the soulless woke (I would just say ‘commie’) hacks that run Warner Bros. have never known what to do with them because good stories don’t fit the replacement politics agenda. Hollywood is being overrun by Chinese influence looking to tear down our mythologies and the backlash against that as people have begun demanding something better. But the rejection of the Oscars, the cancellation of the Golden Globes, and the rejection of the narcissistic back-slapping of Hollywood by itself are telling you where this is headed.

It’s early days in this, but watch these developments carefully. In the culture war business, timing is everything. Maybe 2017 was the wrong time for Snyder’s Justice League, but 2021 was obviously right. Just like 2017 was the wrong time to release The Last Jedi to anxious Star Wars fans.

Qualitative Tightening
Which brings me back to the tightening noose/widening gyre of replacement politics. Because today there is no coming back from what Schwab et.al. have unleashed. BLM and Antifa have given rise to the very race war they said they were fighting against. Black on ‘XXX ‘violence is rising in ugly ways and when the culture war bus turns back the other way everyone will get runover — BLM and, unfortunately, those blacks that didn’t support it.

In any ideologically-possessed movement there is no purity test too stringent to weed out the uncommitted. Purity tests are themselves gyres of increasing intolerance. This is what Mao learned the hard way.

To me, Schwab and his Davos Crowd realize now they stepped out from the shadows too early and are in damage control mode. But their Brown Shirts will turn on them too. They sense this shift as the political situations across Europe turn ugly in places like France, where they have no answer to the failing of President Macron and the French military leaders, despite neocon bloviating to the contrary, being proud and capable men of honor who won’t put up this for too much longer.

Even as Davos tries to hold onto the power they’ve engineered for their insane Climate Change agenda, the heartland of their woke agenda is boiling over and turning away from them. There is policy inertia, however, we won’t overcome easily and this sets the stage for the chaos of the next decade.

So, today Bill Gates is being thrown to the #MeToo sharks as chum hoping that will satisfy our revenge over vaccines that make people sick and don’t stop COVID. Tomorrow it will be Dr. Anthony Fauci for his covering up the origins of COVID-19.

The Woke Revolution will turn on AOC as quickly as they’re turning on Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi. Give it another year of BLM/Antifa violence on anyone not them and they’ll be the ones storming the Capitol and they won’t stand around taking pictures and walking within the roped-off areas like the Trump Domestic Terrorists did on January 6th.

Unleashing chaos and believing you can control it is the ultimate in hubris. But those the gods seek to destroy first make mad.



A theme that plays very well in Snyder’s depiction of Lex Luthor in the unfairly maligned Batman v. Superman – Dawn of Justice. A film sabotaged by its own studio for political and philosophical reasons under feckless leadership.

Kind of like the U.S. and Europe today, right?

But, more importantly, it’s also a film that shows us clearly what will happen when a madman like Schwab is thwarted, when his carefully crafted plan falls apart because at the moment of peak madness we are reminded of our shared humanity.

He unleashes Doomsday, saying, “If man cannot kill god, then the devil will do it!”

This is the thing I fear the most, the refusal of men like Schwab to realize when they’ve lost one war and stoke another, turning the tightening noose of replacement politics into an intentional gyre which consumes everyone. It’s been clear to me for more than a year that no matter what happens in the U.S. politically over the next two years, a weaker U.S. means a world where old enmities are let loose, humanity’s darkest impulses encouraged and there aren’t enough people willing to put out the fires.

 

[marsh]

After Fisker Automotives Lost Taxpayers Tens of Millions, Top Investors Turn to Proterra

A prominent player behind an Obama-era electric car investment that lost taxpayers $139 million is a top investor in Proterra, the politically connected electric bus manufacturer repeatedly promoted by the Biden administration.

freebeacon.com

Beneficiaries of Obama admin's failed green investments stand to profit under Biden

Getty ImagesCollin Anderson• May 19, 2021 5:00 am

A prominent player behind an Obama-era electric car investment that lost taxpayers $139 million is a top investor in Proterra, the politically connected electric bus manufacturer repeatedly promoted by the Biden administration.

Venture capital behemoth Kleiner Perkins—led by chairman John Doerr—will hold up to 9.3 percent of Proterra shares once the company goes public in a $1.6 billion merger, according to SEC documents. President Joe Biden has publicized the company on multiple occasions following the merger announcement, going as far as touring a Proterra factory to tout his proposed $45 billion government investment in "clean, zero-emissions buses."

Doerr's involvement in a green energy company favored by Biden is nothing new.

The billionaire investor in 2009 landed a spot on former president Barack Obama's economic advisory board after donating thousands to the Democrat's campaign. Just months later, the administration approved a $529 million government loan to Fisker Automotive, an electric car manufacturer that considered Doerr's firm a "significant investor." Then-vice president Biden announced Fisker's plan to build cars in his home state of Delaware, promising a resurgence of "American manufacturing." The company went on to produce its vehicles in Finland and declared bankruptcy within years of receiving the taxpayer funds.

Nearly a decade after Fisker's taxpayer-funded failure, Biden is again heaping praise on green technology companies backed by major campaign donors and administration officials. In addition to Doerr—who steered at least $100,000 to Biden's campaign—three hedge fund partners who helped raise millions for Biden hold major financial stakes in Proterra. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm also holds up to $5 million in Proterra stock and served on the company's board for nearly four years.

Biden's overt promotion of Proterra has already drawn parallels to the Obama administration's green energy investment snafus. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said Biden's decision to "heavily promote a business where his energy secretary holds a multimillion-dollar stake" could be "even worse than Solyndra." The solar panel company, much like Fisker, went bankrupt after receiving a $535 million loan from the Obama administration. Biden unveiled the loan during a 2009 speech, promising that the "unprecedented investment" would lay the "foundation for long-term growth in the 21st-century economy."

Neither the White House nor Kleiner Perkins returned requests for comment.

Doerr's political influence in the Obama administration went far beyond his role on the economic council. According to a 2013 House Oversight Committee hearing, Doerr positioned himself as an "outside adviser" to Obama on the administration's "green energy spending strategy." He also "talked regularly" with Jonathan Silver, who led the Obama Department of Energy's loan program office. The pair held a meeting in May 2011, shortly before the department quietly froze Fisker's loan due to the company's failure to meet government benchmarks. Around the time of the freeze, Doerr emailed Silver to ask if the administration official could "suggest a time to talk."

Fisker's subsequent 2013 bankruptcy filing revealed a long list of politically connected creditors—including Hunter Biden. While it is unclear if the president's son invested in Fisker or merely made a deposit on a car he did not receive, Hunter's business partners—Christopher Heinz and Devon Archer—held stakes in Fisker through multiple investment firms.

The list of creditors also included former vice president Al Gore, who has served as a partner at Kleiner Perkins since 2007. Gore has since praised Biden's pledge to cut carbon emissions, and his climate-focused nonprofit—the Climate Reality Project—is urging Congress to "build upon" Biden's "investments in green infrastructure."

Granholm also has a history of diverting taxpayer funds to failed energy companies. As governor of Michigan, she sent $10 million to A123 Systems, an electric battery manufacturer that supplied Fisker and received nearly $250 million from the Obama administration. A123 Systems declared bankruptcy in 2012 and was sold to Wanxiang, a Chinese firm that also purchased Fisker following its bankruptcy proceedings.

In addition to Proterra, the Biden administration in April promoted Evgo, an electric charging station company whose chief commercial officer served on a fundraising group that supported the president's campaign. Biden's proposed infrastructure package includes $15 billion to build 500,000 charging stations across the country.

Proterra is in the "final stages" of going public and will meet with its partner company—ArcLight Clean Transition Corp.—in June to finalize the deal, according to a Friday press release.

 

[marsh]

Biden's War on Single-Family Homeowners

The president wants to put the federal government in charge of zoning.

patriotpost.us

BETSY MCCAUGHEY / MAY 19, 2021

Biden’s War on Single-Family Homeowners
The president wants to put the federal government in charge of zoning.

If you saved your money and bought a house in the suburbs, your investment and lifestyle are under attack. President Joe Biden is pushing to end single-family zoning. The biggest item in Biden’s infrastructure bill, now being negotiated with Congress, is $213 billion he claims will increase affordable housing. Biden wants to put the federal government in charge of zoning and distribute apartment buildings throughout single-family home neighborhoods.

That $213 billion is nearly twice the spending on roads and bridges. It will change towns everywhere and torpedo the American dream of a house with a patch of lawn.

Biden’s plan should be called “hypocrisy housing.” Its backers are hypocrites. Biden himself owns a four-acre lakefront home in upscale Greenville, Delaware, where there is absolutely no public housing, affordable housing or rentals that accept housing vouchers. And don’t expect any to be built next door to the Bidens.

Biden has always had a passion for stately homes and swanky addresses, even buying a 10,000 square foot mansion that once belonged to the DuPont family. Not exactly the image of “Middle-Class Joe.”

Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband own a $5 million gated home on a street of expensive single-family homes in Brentwood, California. That reeks of privilege.

President Barack Obama launched his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program in 2015 to ensure that every neighborhood includes housing for low-income buyers and renters and public transportation.

Yet, for their own family, the Obamas bought an $11.75 million Martha’s Vineyard mansion on 29 waterfront acres. Martha’s Vineyard is critically short of affordable housing, according to a public report, but that didn’t stop them.

These politicians love single-family zoning and exclusivity for themselves, but not for the rest of us. The poster person for this hypocrisy is avowed Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the Black Lives Matter activist who purchased a home in exclusive Topanga Canyon, part of Los Angeles.

The U.S. has a housing shortage. But many municipalities are already dealing with it. They don’t need Washington, D.C., strong-arming local decision-makers.

That’s what Biden’s plan does. The bill creates a gigantic pot of taxpayer funds to hand out to towns that surrender self-rule.

That’s a mistake. Local control is vital. Towns can take into account the availability of public transportation, school capacity and proximity to employment. Uncle Sam has no clue.

Advocates for federal control argue that if anyone can afford a neighborhood, everyone should be able to afford it. That means locating apartment clusters even way out on country roads. Bus routes and bus shelters would have to be built. Roads have to be widened to accommodate traffic, and sewers and water lines are needed. Say goodbye to country living.

Advocates for abolishing zoning mock suburbanites for worrying about home values. But for most people, their home is their biggest investment, and they waited years to afford it.

Local control allows them to be part of the solution. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is pushing to end single-family zoning, while her opponents warn that increasing density will strain schools and transportation and require cutting down the “tree canopy” over the city’s older neighborhoods. Atlantans will decide.

Other communities are building in-town housing for young working people and seniors while allowing homeowners to build accessory apartments for extended family or renters.

Biden’s proposals to make housing affordable are laughable. He calls for “putting union-building trade workers to work” to “save families money.” Right, as if mandating union-only labor has ever been a money saver.

Instead, he should remove the tariff on lumber. Costs are up 300% in a little over a year.

Biden is also proposing a first-time homebuyer’s tax credit of up to $15,000 that buyers can receive at time of purchase, rather than when they file taxes. Paying people to buy homes will push up housing prices. The same way federal college aid and loans have pushed up tuitions.

Biden’s plan won’t expand the American dream. It’s what will kill it.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQIoneP9h6A
48:06 min
We'll Own Nothing and Be Happy? The Great Reset of American Property | Glenn TV | Ep 110
•Premiered 111 minutes ago


BlazeTV

WATCH more Glenn TV at: https://blazetv.com/glenn The Biden administration (and the Left overall) takes none of its cues from the U.S. Constitution. One of President Biden’s latest attempted power-grabs — the announcement that the U.S. will seek to waive intellectual property protections for the COVID-19 vaccines and release their secrets to the world — is truly disturbing. Innovation and intellectual property rights are in America’s DNA and have made us who we are today. But this may be only the beginning. The World Economic Forum once predicted that by 2030 under the Great Reset, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” Glenn reveals how Biden’s latest plans, under the guises of supporting public health and solving climate change, threaten not just your intellectual property, but your personal property as well. Then, inventor-turned-congressman Rep. Thomas Massie details his fight to protect your property rights against what’s to come.

 

[marsh]

Report: ‘Unsustainable’ Suburban America Contributes to Climate Change

The iconic American suburban neighborhoods that attract families looking for safe and prosperous areas have been targeted in recent years.

www.breitbart.com

Report: ‘Unsustainable’ Suburban America Contributes to Climate Change

39

AP Photo/Gerry Broome
PENNY STARR19 May 2021224

The iconic American suburban neighborhoods that attract families looking for safe and prosperous areas have been targeted in recent years – first from those who believe zoning is a racist tactic to keep certain people out of the neighborhoods.

And now a report from the left-leaning Brooking Institute is claiming that the “unsustainable” nature of the suburbs means they must be transformed in the name of preventing climate change.

The Brooking Institute report touts President Joe Biden’s “ambitious and necessary” goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission to 50 percent of the amount emitted in 2005 by 2030, with even bigger reductions by 2050.

Brookings, citing a New York Times report, said reaching Biden’s climate change goals with require “systems-level changes across every sector of the economy.”
The Brooking Institute report continues:

But there’s a problem. The administration’s high-level strategy skimmed over a central driver of our climate crisis: unsustainable land use practices. Simply put, the United States cannot reach its GHG reduction targets if our urban areas continue to grow as they have in the past. After decades of sprawl, the U.S. has the dubious honor of being a world leader in both building-related energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled per capita. Making matters worse, lower-density development also pollutes our water and requires higher relative emissions during the initial construction.

That leaves the country with no choice: We must prioritize development in the kinds of neighborhoods that permanently reduce total driving and consume less energy.

Such human-centered neighborhoods have the added benefit of helping us adapt to climate impacts, improve public health, and promote access to activities. Encouraging their development should be a central part of any national climate resilience strategy.

This won’t be an easy task. Fundamentally changing where and what we build requires new ways of planning and investing in our communities. Since the federal government doesn’t directly control local land use, changing where we live and how we get around will require buy-in from states and local governments that manage zoning and other regulations, real estate developers who lead construction, and the finance industry that underwrites it all. With little time to waste, the U.S. must begin testing and scaling policy levers than enable a more resilient approach to regional development.

The Brookings report discusses several areas where climate change can be addressed, including replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy like wind and solar.

But then it gets to the nitty gritty of the problem with suburbia — people have to drive cars, electric or not, to get from home to work and home again. The report states:

Car-dependent neighborhoods lock us in to a baseline of harmful emissions while creating other climate impacts in the process. While earlier neighborhood models were built around mass transit such as streetcars and at distances friendly for walking and cycling, newer neighborhoods frequently design all real estate to accommodate the automobile.

The Brookings report claims that low-density neighborhoods “require more physical capital per person” and manufacturing building materials such as concrete, asphalt, and piping adds to climate change.

The report says that “car-dependent development” and zoning that doesn’t allow high-density housing “incentivizes less energy efficient building designs.”

This includes single family homes, which “miss out on the energy efficiencies of shared walls.”
The report proposes two solutions to force changes in American neighborhoods:

• Use market principles to send climate-sensitive price signals. Real estate developers, lenders, and households will make more resilient investment decisions if they understand the climate-related costs of their decisions and bear some brunt of the financial impact. For example, charging higher mortgage interest rates or increasing insurance premiums could steer development away from sensitive areas. It also works in reverse, as federal or state incentives could encourage more resilient development patterns, such as conserving land and incorporating greener designs.
• Use statutory authorities to scale policy adoption. The federal government doesn’t directly control land use, but it has several policy levers to influence it, including flooding and disaster insurance, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending rules, the location and quality of transportation investments, and environmental permitting laws. Federal rules—whether done through a carrot or stick approach—can push states, fragmented metropolitan areas, real estate developers, and households to act in predictable, sustainable ways.

“We need to undo decades of bad habits, returning to traditional people-centered neighborhood designs and incorporating forward-looking building technologies that promote more sustainable and equitable living. It’s a generational lift—and time is running out, the report concludes. “Statements of intent are important signals, and don’t cost politicians much.

It’s imperative that our national leaders start naming land use challenges when they discuss our climate future. But we can’t afford to stop there. America needs federal leadership to test ideas and scale solutions. Land use may be local, but our climate future is shared.”

 

[vestige]

Report: ‘Unsustainable’ Suburban America Contributes to Climate Change

The iconic American suburban neighborhoods that attract families looking for safe and prosperous areas have been targeted in recent years.

www.breitbart.com

Report: ‘Unsustainable’ Suburban America Contributes to Climate Change

39

AP Photo/Gerry Broome
PENNY STARR19 May 2021224

The iconic American suburban neighborhoods that attract families looking for safe and prosperous areas have been targeted in recent years – first from those who believe zoning is a racist tactic to keep certain people out of the neighborhoods.

And now a report from the left-leaning Brooking Institute is claiming that the “unsustainable” nature of the suburbs means they must be transformed in the name of preventing climate change.

The Brooking Institute report touts President Joe Biden’s “ambitious and necessary” goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission to 50 percent of the amount emitted in 2005 by 2030, with even bigger reductions by 2050.

Brookings, citing a New York Times report, said reaching Biden’s climate change goals with require “systems-level changes across every sector of the economy.”
The Brooking Institute report continues:






The Brookings report discusses several areas where climate change can be addressed, including replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy like wind and solar.

But then it gets to the nitty gritty of the problem with suburbia — people have to drive cars, electric or not, to get from home to work and home again. The report states:

The Brookings report claims that low-density neighborhoods “require more physical capital per person” and manufacturing building materials such as concrete, asphalt, and piping adds to climate change.

The report says that “car-dependent development” and zoning that doesn’t allow high-density housing “incentivizes less energy efficient building designs.”

This includes single family homes, which “miss out on the energy efficiencies of shared walls.”
The report proposes two solutions to force changes in American neighborhoods:

• Use market principles to send climate-sensitive price signals. Real estate developers, lenders, and households will make more resilient investment decisions if they understand the climate-related costs of their decisions and bear some brunt of the financial impact. For example, charging higher mortgage interest rates or increasing insurance premiums could steer development away from sensitive areas. It also works in reverse, as federal or state incentives could encourage more resilient development patterns, such as conserving land and incorporating greener designs.
• Use statutory authorities to scale policy adoption. The federal government doesn’t directly control land use, but it has several policy levers to influence it, including flooding and disaster insurance, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending rules, the location and quality of transportation investments, and environmental permitting laws. Federal rules—whether done through a carrot or stick approach—can push states, fragmented metropolitan areas, real estate developers, and households to act in predictable, sustainable ways.

“We need to undo decades of bad habits, returning to traditional people-centered neighborhood designs and incorporating forward-looking building technologies that promote more sustainable and equitable living. It’s a generational lift—and time is running out, the report concludes. “Statements of intent are important signals, and don’t cost politicians much.

It’s imperative that our national leaders start naming land use challenges when they discuss our climate future. But we can’t afford to stop there. America needs federal leadership to test ideas and scale solutions. Land use may be local, but our climate future is shared.”

Bullshit

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The US Is Not Ready For An All-Electric Future

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021 - 01:30 PM
Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The setting of a net-zero target by the Biden Administration was the first step toward decarbonization of the energy system and industry. But having a target is the easiest part of America’s energy transition. Now comes the much more difficult part of making all those proposals and ideas for a greener future work.



Emissions reduction, decarbonization of the U.S. power grid by 2035, and increased electrification in the transportation and buildings sectors will require an enormous amount of investment from industry as well as government support.

The challenges will be not only to raise trillions of U.S. dollars of investment—the sooner the better—but also to change consumer perception about electric vehicles (EVs) and space heating, for example, as well as persuade communities to host exponentially growing solar and wind power generating facilities.

The U.S. is woefully unprepared to handle “the electrification of everything,” as Amy Myers Jaffe, a research professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, describes the drive to electrify transportation and buildings and parts of industry in The Wall Street Journal.

Increased electrification in all sectors will need huge investments in the electric grid, in battery storage to back up renewable power generation, in charging points for EVs, and in technologies such as green hydrogen to help those technologies to reach maturity and cost efficiency enough to start replacing fossil fuels.

President Biden’s climate policies may be a start, but the planned and proposed federal funding is just a fraction of what America would need if it were to decarbonize the power grid by 2035, slash emissions from the transportation and buildings sectors, and reach the net-zero economy-wide target by 2050.

Net-Zero America Needs At Least $2.5 Trillion Over The Next Decade
Moreover, major investment decisions must be taken now, and investments need to start pouring in decarbonization initiatives and grid resilience now if the U.S. wants to have a modernized grid capable of handling exponential growth in electrification in the coming decades.

“Building a net-zero America will require immediate, large-scale mobilization of capital, policy and societal commitment, including at least $2.5 trillion in additional capital investment into energy supply, industry, buildings, and vehicles over the next decade relative to business as usual,” Princeton University said in its Net-Zero America report, a two-year research effort charting pathways toward net zero.

The Biden Administration targets a carbon pollution-free electricity sector no later than 2035. This in itself is a huge challenge considering that natural gas accounted for the largest share of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation in 2020, at 40.3 percent, with fossil fuels at 60.3 percent share, also due to coal’s 19.3-percent share of the power mix.

The U.S. also targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels in 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050.

Transportation and electricity are the largest greenhouse gas-emitting sectors in America, with 29 percent and 25 percent of all emissions, respectively, as per Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data. Industry accounts for 23 percent, and the commercial and residential sector makes up 13 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Slashing emissions in the transportation, electricity generation, and residential sectors will require much more electricity consumption. This, in turn, will need an updated and upgraded electricity grid capable of handling an exponential growth in electricity demand.

Electricity Demand Set To Soar In Strong Electrification Push
According to the Princeton University study, end-use demand for electricity in the scenarios with high electrification in all sectors is set to nearly double by 2050, driven by the pace of electrification of transportation and heating.

“Electrification of vehicles and space and water heating will increase electricity demand and require upgrades to electricity distribution networks,” the authors of the study noted.
If U.S. electricity generation is not ready to handle increased solar and wind power generation with energy storage backups, the irony of the ‘green transition’ would be that instead of low-carbon electricity, it could be fossil fuels that would support the grid amid soaring electricity demand if EV adoption and buildings electrification accelerate strongly.

Electricity Transmission Systems May Need To Triple By 2050
Princeton University’s research found that the United States will need to expand its electricity transmission systems by 60 percent by 2030, and may need to triple it by 2050 to handle the high-electrification pathway to net-zero America.

“The current power grid took 150 years to build. Now, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to build that amount of transmission again in the next 15 years and then build that much more again in the 15 years after that. It’s a huge amount of change,” Jesse Jenkins, assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, said, commenting on the study.

Energy Storage Essential For Carbon-Free Electricity Generation
On top of enormous investments in the grid, America will also need much more investments in battery energy storage to support power generation that is largely reliant on renewable energy sources. The U.S. energy storage market is booming, with the fourth quarter of 2020 setting a new record for U.S. storage, according to Wood Mackenzie.

“With continuing storage cost declines and growing policy support and regulatory reform in states and the federal government, energy storage is on an accelerating trajectory to enable a resilient, decarbonized, and affordable electric grid for all,” said Jason Burwen, Interim CEO at the U.S. Energy Storage Association.

Still, batteries are a long way from supporting grid reliability.

In the aftermath of the Texas Freeze, which once again exposed inadequacies in U.S. electrical transmission systems in extreme events, Jim Robb, CEO of regulatory authority North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), told NBC News in an interview:

“For batteries to play the ultimate backup system, we’re so far away from that it’s not funny.”

 

[marsh]

Kamala wants to change everything… The Great Reset is finally here…

They aren’t even trying to hide it — The Great Reset 2021 Here’s the full speech

citizenfreepress.com

Kamala wants to change everything… The Great Reset is finally here…
Posted by Kane on May 20, 2021 4:15 pm

View: https://youtu.be/a3R7qDZ9Rc8
.20 min
They aren’t even trying to hide it — The Great Reset 2021

View: https://youtu.be/oOpaI3pxBtU
10:09 min
Here’s the full speech

 

[marsh]

Biden administration starts negotiations for a global minimum tax at 15% rate

The Treasury Department proposed a 15% global minimum corporate tax rate during meetings with officials from other countries.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Biden administration starts negotiations for a global minimum tax at 15% rate

by Zachary Halaschak, Economics Reporter |
May 20, 2021 03:41 PM


The Treasury Department proposed a 15% global minimum corporate tax rate during meetings with officials from other countries.

The 15% figure is lower than anticipated and was pitched this week to negotiators from two dozen countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Treasury Department announced on Thursday.

The administration said that U.S. representatives who attended the tax negotiations underscored to the other representatives that 15% is a “floor” to start the dialogue “and that discussions should continue to be ambitious and push that rate higher.”

“Treasury was heartened by the positive reception to its proposals and the unprecedented progress being made towards establishing a global corporate minimum tax,” the Treasury said in a readout about the meetings.

The proposed "floor" rate is still higher than the corporate tax rate of some countries, including Ireland, which has a 12.5% rate. It is worth noting that Ireland is not a member of the steering committee handling the negotiations through the OECD. Hungary, which has a corporate income tax rate of only 9%, has also bucked the notion of a global minimum tax.

Companies in the United States pay a 21% corporate tax rate, a number that was lowered from 35% as part of then-President Donald Trump's tax cuts. The Biden administration has proposed hiking the 21% domestic rate to 28% as a way to pay for the president's $2.3 trillion infrastructure package, although the proposal has been met with strident opposition among Republicans and business groups.

Separately, the Biden administration has proposed doubling to 21% the tax on Global Intangible Low Tax Income, known as GILTI, a provision of the Trump tax overhaul that is meant to ensure that foreign earnings of U.S. multinational companies are taxed at a rate of at least 10.5%.

The administration has been advocating for reform of the global tax system in order to prevent a "race to the bottom," which it says has resulted in lower and lower taxes as countries compete for business. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen contends that a global minimum tax would help prevent tax rates from falling.

"Treasury made clear that a global corporate minimum tax rate would ensure the global economy thrives based on a more level playing field in the taxation of multinational corporations, and would spur innovation, growth, and prosperity while improving fairness for middle class and working people," the department said in a news release.

 

[marsh]

Hunter Biden’s ‘Spy Chief of China’ Partner Calls US Climate Demands ‘Meaningless.’ - The National Pulse

Patrick Ho – Hunter Biden’s business partner whom he dubbed the “spy chief of China” – insisted that China “has nothing to be apologetic about” regarding climate change and pollution.The remarks come from a blog post written by Ho, who appears multiple times in Hunter’s e-mails, as the pair...

thenationalpulse.com

Hunter Biden’s ‘Spy Chief Of China’ Partner Calls US Climate Demands ‘Meaningless.’

• MAY 20, 2021
• NATALIE WINTERS

Patrick Ho – Hunter Biden’s business partner whom he dubbed the “spy chief of China” – insisted that China “has nothing to be apologetic about” regarding climate change and pollution.

The remarks come from a blog post written by Ho, who appears multiple times in Hunter’s e-mails, as the pair inked million-dollar business contracts. Ho served as the chairman of CEFC China Energy during his work with the president’s son, before being indicted by the Justice Department for “schemes to bribe top officials for business advantages.”

Ho’s writings appear to confirm a sentiment that many Americans outside the Biden White House share: just 15 percent of Americans believe China will “help fight climate change.”

While President Biden insists the Chinese Communist Party will follow through on its climate promises, hosting several events and dispatching climate envoy John Kerry to China, Ho posits that “China Has Nothing to Be Apologetic About!” concerning the environment.

What’s more, the blog post came just one week after Kerry’s climate-focused visit to China.

“Compared to what one might understand from everyday media reporting, these figures paint a very different picture of China’s responsibility for climate change. Saying that China is the world’s largest emitter is meaningless and misleading,” Ho writes. “China’s responsibility for climate change is far less than what is regularly implied in mainstream media,” he continues.

While deflecting blame for China’s emissions, Ho asserts that the USA needs to “assume and resume their share of responsibility.”

“The reality is that China’s responsibility for climate change is not as simple as “biggest emitter.”

A more comprehensive analysis reveals that the Chinese people have contributed far less to climate change than the people of many other countries; more importantly, it also shows the great sacrifices they have already made in mitigating the problem,” he adds before concluding: “The rest of the world is now being asked to exhibit the same kind of leadership. The answer awaits in Washington.”

 

[marsh]

Ingraham warns of coming ‘climate lockdowns’…

View: https://youtu.be/GD_cdkKDYWc
9:04 min

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Greta Crestfallen After 'World's Largest Iceberg' Turns Out To Be Part Of Normal Cycle

FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2021 - 07:15 AM
It was inevitable that climate change warrior Greta Thunberg would be tweeting about an enormous ice slab nearly the size of Majorca, one of Spain's Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean, calved off an Antarctic ice shelf and was spotted by satellites this week.



The only reason Thunberg would be covering such a topic is that the finger-shaped iceberg is approximately 1,668 square miles in size and has been declared as the world's largest iceberg. This would allow her to amplify her climate change fight and press her Twitter following and politicians alike that action is needed to be taken now.

Named A-76, the iceberg broke off the Ronne ice shelf into the Weddell Sea earlier this week, according to the European Space Agency.

However, Alex Brisbourne, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, who New Scientist quoted, said the area where A-76 broke away from Antarctica's Ronne ice shelf "is not an area that is undergoing any significant change because of global heating. The main message is it's part of a natural cycle."

Whoops, Thunberg... So science says climate change, not at fault??

Here's a comparison of A-76 versus Majorca.

As for trajectory, there's no telling where A-76 could be headed. Last year, we noted A-68 was headed for the island of South Georgia but eventually disintegrated.

"It's big enough to influence the ocean, and the salinity of the ocean. Depending on the trajectory, it could be as significant as A-68a," said Brisbourne.

Even Thunberg's followers called her out for the misinformation:

"I've great respect for you @GretaThunberg and what you're doing but sometimes you risk alienating yourself and the message when giving incorrect info. As Tim has quoted and has been reported according to the science this is not related to climate change," said one Twitter user.

 

[marsh]

Abp. Viganò offers considerations on the Great Reset - LifeSite

It is our duty to uncover the Great Reset's deception, because the same deception may be attributed to all the other assaults that have sought to nullify the work of Redemption and establish the tyranny of the Antichrist.

www.lifesitenews.com

Abp. Viganò offers considerations on the Great Reset
It is our duty to uncover the Great Reset's deception, because the same deception may be attributed to all the other assaults that have sought to nullify the work of Redemption and establish the tyranny of the Antichrist.

Tue May 18, 2021 - 1:44 pm EST

Great ResetShutterstock
By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

May 18, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — I offer heartfelt thanks to dear Professor Massimo Viglione, who wanted to invite me to take part — remotely so to speak — in the conference he has organized as President of the Confederation of the Triarii. I also extend my warmest greetings to each of the illustrious participants in this event. Please allow me to express to you my profound esteem and my fervent thanks for your courageous testimony, for the enlightening contributions and the tireless commitment you have not ceased to display in the most pressing and incisive way, beginning in February of last year. I encourage you not to retreat and not to disarm in this deadly battle that we are called to fight in this fatal hour of history as never before.“Be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of his power. Clothe yourselves in the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the spirits of evil that dwell in the high places. Take up therefore the armor of God, so that you may be able to resist on the day of evil and remain standing after having endured all trials” (Eph 6:10-13). The brief reflection I am about to offer you is in some manner a shortened preview of my presentation at the Venice Summit which will take place on May 30, organized by Professor Francesco Lamendola, in which some of you will participate.
***
When Stalin decided in 1932 to eliminate millions of Ukrainians in the genocide of Holodomor, he planned a famine by seizing food supplies, forbidding commerce, prohibiting travel, and censoring those who reported the facts. This crime against humanity, recently recognized as such by many nations around the world, was conducted with methods not unlike those that have been adopted during the so-called “emergency pandemic” as part of the Great Reset.

A Ukrainian peasant could have asked: “Why doesn’t Stalin send provisions, instead of forbidding shops to open and forbidding travel? Doesn’t he realize that he is making everyone starve to death?” Yet an observer who was not influenced by communist propaganda would have responded to him: “Because Stalin wants to eliminate all the Ukrainians, and he is blaming a famine he knowingly caused for this purpose.” The peasant who asked the question would have committed the same error as many today who, in the presence of an alleged pandemic, ask why governments have pre-emptively undermined public health, weakened national pandemic plans, forbidden effective cures, and administered harmful if not deadly treatments.

Furthermore, they are now forcing citizens — using the blackmail of perpetual lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and unconstitutional “green passes” — to submit to vaccines that not only do not guarantee any immunity, but rather involve serious short-term and long-term side effects, as well as further spreading more resistant forms of the virus.

Looking for any logic in what we are told by the mainstream media, government officials, virologists, and so-called “experts” is practically impossible, but this enchanting unreasonableness will disappear and turn into the most cynical rationality if we only reverse our point of view. That is, we must renounce thinking that our rulers are acting with our good in mind, and more generally we must stop believing that those who speak to us are honest, sincere, and motivated by good principles.

Of course, it is easier to think that the pandemic is real, that a mortal virus exists that is killing millions of victims, and that our leaders and doctors should be appreciated for the effort they have made in the face of an event that caught all of them unprepared; or that the “invisible enemy” has been effectively defeated by the amazing vaccine which the pharmaceutical companies, with the purest humanitarian spirit and without any economic self-interest, have produced in record time. And then there are the relatives, friends, and colleagues who look at us as if we are crazy, calling us “conspiracy theorists” or — as a certain conservative intellectual has begun to do with me — they will accuse us of exasperating the tones of a debate which, if moderated, they say, would help us to better understand the terms of the matter. And if our friends also attend our parish, we will hear them say that even Francis has recommended the vaccines, which Professor So-and-So has declared to be morally acceptable even if they are produced with aborted fetuses, since — he admonishes us — those who today criticize the COVID vaccine accept other vaccines that have been administered up until now, even if those, too, were also obtained with abortions.

The lie seduced many, even among conservatives and traditionalists themselves. We too, at times, find it difficult to believe that the traders of iniquity are so well-organized, that they have succeeded in manipulating information, blackmailing politicians, corrupting doctors, and intimidating businessmen in order to force billions of people to wear a useless muzzle and consider the vaccine as the only way to escape certain death. And yet all it takes is one read through the guidelines that the WHO wrote in 2019 — regarding the “Covid-19” that was still to come — to understand that there is a single script under a single direction, with actors who stick to the part assigned to them and a claque of mercenary journalists who shamelessly distort reality.

Let us observe the entire operation from the outside, trying to identify the recurring elements: the unconfessability of the criminal design of the elite, the need to cloak it with acceptable ideals, the creation of an emergency situation for which the elite have already planned a solution that would otherwise be unacceptable. It could be an increase in funding for weapons or a tightening of controls such as happened immediately after the attack on the Twin Towers, the exploitation of Iraq’s energy resources with the pretext that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons, or the transformation of society and work in the wake of a pandemic. There is an always an excuse behind these actions, an apparent cause, something false that hides reality, a lie; in short: a fraud.

Lying is the trademark of the architects of the Great Reset of the last few centuries: the Protestant pseudo-reformation, the French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, the Russian Revolution, the two World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Revolution of 1968, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Each time, if you notice, the apparent reasons for these revolutions never corresponded to the real one.

In this long series of Great Resets organized by the same elite of conspirators, not even the Catholic Church has managed to escape. Think about it: What did the liturgists of the Council tell us when they wanted to impose the reformed Mass on us? That the people did not understand, that the liturgy had to be made understandable in order to allow for a greater participation of the faithful. And in the name of that prophasis, of that false pretext, they did not simply translate the Apostolic Mass into the vernacular, but instead they invented a different Mass altogether, because they wanted to cancel the primary doctrinal obstacle to ecumenical dialogue with the Protestants, indoctrinating the faithful into the new ecclesiology of Vatican II.

Like all frauds, those that are hatched by the devil and his servants are based on false promises that will never be kept, in exchange for which we give up a certain good that will never be restored to us. In Eden, the prospect of becoming like gods led to the loss of friendship with God and to eternal damnation, which only the redemptive Sacrifice of Our Lord was able to repair. And Satan also tempted Our Lord, lying as usual: “I will give you all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, because it has been placed in my hands and I give it to whomever I will.
If you will prostrate yourself before me, all this will be yours” (Lk 4:6-7). But nothing that Satan offered to Our Lord was really his, nor could he give it to whomever he wanted, least of all to the One who is Lord and Master of all. The temptation of the devil is based on deception: What can we ever expect from the one who is “a murderer from the beginning,” “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).

With the pandemic, little by little they told us that isolation, lockdowns, masks, curfews, “live-streamed Masses,” distance-learning, “smartworking,” recovery funds, vaccines, and “green passes” would permit us to come out of the emergency, and, believing in this lie, we renounced the rights and lifestyles that they warned us would never return: “Nothing will be the same again.” The “new normal” will still be presented to us as a concession that will require us to accept the deprivation of freedoms that we had taken for granted, and accordingly we will compromise without understanding the absurdity of our compliance and the obscenity of the demands of those who command us, giving us orders so absurd that they truly require a total abdication of reason and dignity. At each step there is a new turn of the screw and a further step towards the abyss: If we do not stop ourselves in this race towards collective suicide we will never go back.

It is our duty to uncover the deception of this Great Reset, because the same deception may be attributed to all the other assaults that over the course of history have sought to nullify the work of Redemption and establish the tyranny of the Antichrist. Because, in reality, this is what the architects of the Great Reset are aiming for. The New World Order — a name which significantly echoes the conciliar Novus Ordo — overturns the divine cosmos in order to spread infernal chaos, in which everything that civilization has painstakingly constructed over the course of millennia under the inspiration of Grace is overturned and perverted, corrupted and cancelled.

Each of us must understand that what is happening is not the fruit of an unfortunate sequence of chance occurrences, but corresponds rather to a diabolical plan — in the sense that the Evil One is behind all this — which over the centuries pursues a single goal: destroying the work of Creation, nullifying the Redemption, and cancelling every trace of Good on the earth. And in order to obtain this, the final step is the establishment of a synarchy in which command is seized by a few faceless tyrants who thirst for power, who are given over to the worship of death and sin and to the hatred of Life, Virtue, and Beauty because in them shines forth the greatness of that God against whom they still cry out their infernal “Non serviam.” The members of this accursed sect are not only Bill Gates, George Soros, or Klaus Schwab, but also those who for centuries have been plotting in the shadows in order to overthrow the Kingdom of Christ: the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, and those who today have formed an alliance with the highest levels of the Church, using the moral authority of the Pope and Bishops to convince the faithful to get vaccinated.

We know that the lie is the emblem of the devil, the distinctive sign of his servants, the hallmark of the enemies of God and the Church. God is Truth; the Word of God is true, and He Himself is God. Speaking the Truth, shouting it from the rooftops, uncovering the deception and its creators is a sacred work, and no Catholic — nor anyone who has still preserved a shred of decency and honor — may shrink from this duty.

Each of us was thought of, desired, and created in order to give glory to God and to be part of a great design of Providence: from all eternity the Lord has called us to share with Him in the work of Redemption, to cooperate in the salvation of souls and the triumph of Good. Each of us today has the possibility of choosing to take sides either with Christ or against Christ, either to fight for the cause of Good or to become an accomplice to the workers of iniquity. The victory of God is most certain, as is the reward that awaits those who make the choice to enter the battle on the side of the King of kings, and the defeat of those who serve the Enemy is also certain, as is their eternal damnation.​

[Remainder of article on website Abp. Viganò offers considerations on the Great Reset ]

 

[marsh]

California to Require Uber, Lyft Drivers to Transition to Electric Vehicles in Latest Climate Change Mandate | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Electric vehicles are so desired that they have to be mandated.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

California to Require Uber, Lyft Drivers to Transition to Electric Vehicles in Latest Climate Change Mandate

By Cristina Laila
Published May 22, 2021 at 11:28am

Electric vehicles are so desired that they have to be mandated.

California will require ridesharing companies Uber and Lyft to transition to electric vehicles by 2030 in the state’s latest climate change mandate.

90% of ridesharing miles must take place in electric vehicles according to California’s new rule.

Who is going to pay for this? The officials won’t say, but we know the burden will fall on the driver/taxpayer.

Uber and Lyft drivers are low-income earners and won’t be able to afford an electric vehicle.

Electric vehicles cost between $50,0000 to $300,000 and they take HOURS to fully charge the battery.

MarketWatch reported:

The California Air Resources Board on Thursday approved the new rules, which means Uber Technologies Inc. UBER, -1.03% and Lyft Inc. LYFT, +0.69% will need to ensure that most of their drivers transition to EVs in this decade. The next step is for the California Public Utilities Commission to finalize how the rules will be implemented.

The remaining question is who will pay. Despite their approval of the measure, the board members said Thursday they are extremely concerned about low-income drivers having to bear the majority of the costs and expressed the need to continue to collect information on how this will affect them.

Uber and Lyft consider their drivers independent contractors, and the drivers own or rent their vehicles. The companies, which are unprofitable but valued at billions of dollars, want the state to share the costs by providing incentives. The bill, as estimated by the Union of Concerned Scientists, could total $1.73 billion, which it also forecast could cost the companies 4 cents a mile.

Electric vehicles are expensive and charging them is a total hassle.

One in five electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas-powered because of the inconvenience of charging.

It only takes a few minutes to fill up a gas tank, yet some electric vehicles need several hours of charging to drive 35 miles.

Charging electric vehicles is a total “hassle” say 20% of EV owners surveyed between 2012 and 2018 so they’re going back to gas, researchers found.