GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment

After Grossly Inflating COVID Death Rates, the WHO’s Terrorist Connected Director General Tedros Now Claims Climate Change is the ‘Single Biggest Health Threat Facing Humanity’

By Joe Hoft
Published October 12, 2021 at 6:27pm
who-tedros.jpg

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Director General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, now claims that climate change is the ‘single biggest health threat facing humanity’. This proves again this man should never lead a worldwide organization of any kind.

We first noticed Dr. Tedros shortly after the COVID outbreak in China was first reported in the press. Tedros claimed COVID had a mortality rate for those who caught the virus of 3.4%, scaring the entire world. This proved to be a faulty estimate based on faulty calculations we soon discovered.

We then uncovered that Tedros was a member of the terrorist regime that controls the African country of Ethiopia, where China has invested heavily. This we suspected was the reason he appeared to always promote a pro-China narrative.

Now the WHO under Tedros has released a publication claiming climate change is the world’s most pressing issue. Breitbart reports:
In its report titled “The Health Argument for Climate Action,” the W.H.O. calls climate change the “single biggest health threat facing humanity” and calls on governments to “act to tackle the climate crisis, restore biodiversity, and protect health.”

“While no one is safe from the health impacts of climate change, they are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged,” the report asserts.

To “avert catastrophic health impacts and prevent millions of climate change-related deaths,” the world must limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, the report states, referencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The climate crisis is upon us, powered by our addiction to fossil fuels,” writes Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, W.H.O. Director-General in his foreword to the report. “The consequences for our health are real and often devastating.”
Breitbart writes:
It is remarkable that given the magnitude of the negative impact of air pollution on human health, the United Nations is spending its efforts trying to convince first-world countries to curb the emission of carbon dioxide (a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas) rather than focusing on cleaning the air in third-world countries where people are dying daily from the pollution.

In an October 7 essay in the Wall Street Journal, climate expert Bjorn Lomborg declared that working to end global warming “could hurt the poor more than help” because of its negative impact on economic development.

Malnutrition deaths “have declined dramatically over the past three decades and will continue to drop rapidly over the next three,” Lomborg noted, a phenomenon overwhelmingly driven by economic growth…

…It does not take a conspiracy theorist to wonder whether the U.N.’s exclusive interest in climate change — which has not been convincingly tied to a single death — and its relative disregard for the established killer air pollution is not tied to geopolitical and economic interests unrelated to human health.
Tedros and his WHO are at it again. Promoting devasting and erroneous information that helps China, perhaps the biggest killer these past few years when accounting for COVID and air pollution, and harms the West.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“Biden… Thinks that Climate Change is a Bigger Threat to the World than the Maoists in Beijing.” – Economist Stephen Moore

By Joe Hoft
Published October 12, 2021 at 2:55pm
biden-xi-china.jpg

The Chinese sure love Joe Biden. Every move he makes helps China and hurts the US.

Economist Stephen Moore wrote an oped at FOX News where he shared the following:
With each passing week, it looks like World War III — between America and China — is coming sooner than we think. It’s not going to be fought with bullets or aircraft carriers, although the Chinese are building up their military in an aggressive and threatening way.

This will more likely be an all-out economic war for global supremacy.
The yuan versus the dollar. The Nasdaq versus the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Meanwhile, America is asleep at the switch — at least, the Biden administration is. This is the worst possible time to be raising tax rates on American companies (Our business tax rates would be higher than China’s under President Joe Biden’s plan!), dismantling American energy (at a time when China is running 1,000 dirty coal plants with dozens more in construction), and running up the national debt (with China a major purchaser of the bonds).

Love Donald Trump or hate him, he was a president who put America first and recognized the predatory nature of the Chinese regime. He got tough with President Xi Jinping and overturned one-sided trade deals. His strategy was to do what former President Ronald Reagan did to win the Cold War: Make America tremendously prosperous by building up our strategic industries in a way that the Soviet Union or China couldn’t compete with.

The danger is that we now have a president in Biden who thinks that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than the Maoists in Beijing.

And make no mistake about it; the communists are back in charge in China. Jinping has basically announced himself to be president for life, as democracy and free elections fly out the window. China is also sprinting back to command and control fascist government and industry “cooperation.” That’s a model that will eventually implode, but as we learned from the Soviet menace, they can do a lot of damage to peace and prosperity in the meantime.
Read more at FOX News here.

As long as Biden is in charge, every US policy will continue to help China and hurt the US.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BIDEN EFFECT: US Government Expects Households to See Heating Bills Jump as Much as 54% This Winter

By Cristina Laila
Published October 13, 2021 at 2:40pm
IMG_8801.jpg
Getty Images

It will cost Americans a lot more money to keep their homes heated this winter thanks to Joe Biden.

Inflation was up 5.4% year over year in September – the highest rate in 13 years!
Prices rose 0.4% in Sept, up from 0.3% in August.

Gas, food, and goods continue to be key drivers of inflation.

Gas is up 25% under Joe Biden — the poor and middle class hurt the most.

The US government is expecting households to see their heating bills jump as experts forecast this winter to be colder than last winter.

The Associated Press reported:
With prices surging worldwide for heating oil, natural gas and other fuels, the U.S. government said Wednesday it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54% compared to last winter.
The sharpest increases are likely for homes that use propane, which account for only 5% of U.S. households, but others are also likely to see big increases.
Homes that use natural gas, which make up nearly half of all U.S. households, may spend $746 this winter, 30% more than a year ago. That could make this winter’s heating bills the highest for them since the winter of 2008-2009.

The second-most typical heating source for homes is electricity, making up 41% of the country, and those households could see a more modest 6% increase to $1,268. Homes using heating oil, which make up 4% of the country, could see a 43% increase — more than $500 — to $1,734.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Archbishop Vigano goes scorched earth on Pope Francis…
Posted by Kane on October 13, 2021 2:01 pm

View: https://youtu.be/uF8KxDeU20c
1:42 min
‘Francis is a zealous cooperator in the Great Reset’

Vigano, who is best known for exposing two major Vatican scandals during his time as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, says Pope Francis pursues the “demolition of the Church” in order to replace it with an organization of “Masonic inspiration.”

1634161158223.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXxZu0Kt7E0
12:37 min

7 Biden 'failures' that are BY DESIGN to further the GREAT RESET

Oct 13, 2021


Glenn Beck


Many describe decisions by the Biden administration’s as government ‘failures,’ but Glenn says their decisions are not ‘failures’ at all: Everything the far-left is doing today is BY DESIGN, Glenn explains. They WANT chaos, gridlock, and frustration throughout our nation because when things get SO bad, the only option left will be to ‘reset’ America. Glenn lists several examples — like rising crime due to the defund police movement — that show how the radical left purposefully is bringing America to its knees so the Great Reset can go into effect as soon as possible…
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change

WEDNESDAY, OCT 13, 2021 - 05:45 PM

We now live in a world, where bizarro headlines such as the ones below, have become a daily if not hourly occurrence:
  • *TREASURY TO STUDY IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITIES
  • *TREASURY LAUNCHES EFFORT ON CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISKS
  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE-SCENARIO ANALYSIS WILL HELP IDENTIFY RISKS
  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD HAVE PROFOUND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  • *MESTER: FED LOOKS AT CLIMATE CHANGE FROM VIEW OF RISKS TO BANKS
  • *FED IS TAKING THE RIGHT COURSE ON MONITORING CLIMATE CHANGE
  • *FED SHOULD CONSIDER CLIMATE-CHANGE RISK TO FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Now, in case someone is still confused, none of these institutions, and not a single of the erudite officials running them, give a rat's ass about the climate, about climate change risks, or about the fate of future generations of Americans (and certainly not about the rising water level sweeping away their massive waterfront mansions): if they did, total US debt and underfunded liabilities wouldn't be just shy of $160 trillion.

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, "net zero", green energy and ESG?

The reason - as one would correctly suspect - is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World, and serves as a massive primer to today's Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these...



... and handy cheat sheets...



... none of which happen to mention China's role in the "global climate change" crisis of course (after all, can't offend Beijing and lose the biggest revenue stream now can we) and comes at a very precarious time for the green cause, just when soaring energy prices around the globe as a result of the escalating global energy crisis, threatens to crush any grass roots support to fight "global warming." As report author Haim Israel writes:
This is the decade of climate action and COP26 will be the tipping point of the race to reach net zero emissions – the balance of reducing and removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. To achieve it, a transition to clean technologies in all sectors at an unprecedented pace would be required, with the steering of governments and willingness of society. This is the last decade to act. Absolute water scarcity is likely for 1.8bn people, 100mn face poverty, and 800mn are at risk from rising sea levels by 2025. Climate migration could reach 143mn from emerging markets, driven by extreme weather.
None of that is new, of course - and while it is handy to have a centralized compendium of the data, a 5 minute google search can provide all the answers that are "accepted" dogma by the green lobby.

But while we don't care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line - how much would this green utopia cost, because if the "net zero", "ESG", "green" narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.

Turns out it does. A lot, lot.

Responding rhetorically to the key question, "how much will it cost?", BofA cuts to the case and writes $150 trillion over 30 years - some $5 trillion in annual investments - amounting to twice current global GDP!

At this point the report gets good because since it has to be taken seriously, it has to also be at least superficially objective. And here, the details behind the numbers, do we finally learn why the net zero lobby is so intent on pushing this green utopia - simple answer: because it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded "investments" which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.

Consider this: the covid pandemic has so far led to roughly $30 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus across the developed world. And yet, not even two years later, the effect of this $30 trillion is wearing off, yet despite the Biden's admin to keep the Covid Crisis at bay, threatening to lock down society at a moment's notice with the help of the complicit press, the population has made it clear that it will no longer comply with what is clear tyranny of the minority.

And so, the establishment needs a new perpetual source (and use) of funding, a crisis of sorts, but one wrapped in a virtuous, noble facade. This is where the crusade against climate change comes in.

Much digital ink has been spilled on the philosophy and debate behind the green movement, and we won't bore you with the details, but we will instead focus on the very clear, and very tangible financial consequences of a world where the establishment agrees, whether with democratic support or not, to allocate $5 trillion in new capital toward some nebulous cause of "fighting global warming." Here are the highlights from Bank of America:
  • Will it be inflationary? Yes, expect 1-3% pa shock. This is for the next 30 years... over and on top of any already present inflation!
  • What are the bottlenecks? Geopolitics, climate wars and EM.
  • Do we have the resources? Nickel and Lithium are just two that could be in deficit as soon as 2024.
  • Is green technology really green? Not really (see below).
Drilling down on the absolutely staggering costs, at an estimated $150 trillion over 30 years, boosting funding sources to $5tn a year is equivalent to the entire US tax base, or 3x the COVID-19 stimulus this decade. Here are the details:
The energy transition to a net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) economy by 2050 will be a very expensive exercise, estimated by the IEA at $150tn of total investment, over a period of 30 year. At $5tn p.a, the IEA see it costing as much as the entire US tax base every year for 30 years.
Not high enough for you? Hang on then because...
BNEF has a higher estimate that the total investment needed for energy supply and infrastructure could be as high as $173tn through 2050, or up to $5.8tn annually, which is nearly three times the amount invested on an annual basis today.
Next follows the obligatory pitch from BofA which is reminiscent of a stalinist kolhoz pep talk from the 1950s, to wit:
... But it can be done, with technology, economy, markets and ESG joining forces. Exponential cost reductions in wind, solar and batteries technologies have made renewables the cheapest form of energy in areas producing >90% of global electricity. Market appetite is chipping in too. Labelled bonds and loans jumped to > $3tn this year, with $3 in every $10 of flows into global equities going into ESG, which will support climate-friendly investments, as well as funding new ones needed to further decarbonize our planet like green mining, green hydrogen or carbon capture.
We leave the best for last because at the end of the day, this was always about more debt, and more monetization, a process which by now even the shoeshine boy knows makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Only this time the world's wealthiest plan on robbing what little is left of the middle class under the guise of a noble crusade to defeat global warming... a crusade which will require over $500 billion in annual debt monetization by central banks each and every year, leading to hyperinflation in either risk assets or the broader economy, or both.

So if it sounds like "the crusade against climate change" is one giant con game meant to enrich a handful of kleptocrats here and now, while the nebulous benefits - and the all too certain debt and hyperinflation - of this revolutionary overhaul of the global economy are inherited by future generations, it's because that's precisely what it is.

Here is BofA's startling admission of the above, as excerpted from the report's Q&A on the Climate Change Conference (COP 26):
Q: What is the economic impact of net zero?
A: The inflation impact of elevated net zero funding will not be insignificant but the impact looks manageable at 1% to 3% per annum depending on central bank monetization rates, particularly if government spending is targeted and contributes to accelerate the rate of global GDP growth. The IEA also has a productive outlook for their net zero scenario, where the change in the annual growth rate of GDP accelerates by somewhere between 0.3% and 0.5% on a sustained basis over the next 10 years as a result of a shift to a green economy.
So much more QE for the next 30 years, check. What about inflation? Oh, there will be plenty of that too. As BofA admits, "green bond purchases could result in a 1% to 3% inflation p.a. shock"

To answer this question, we look at three separate cases. In our first case, the Fed, ECB and other central banks would subsidize all of the required infrastructure spending to decarbonize (translation: print the money). In a second scenario, we assume that they would absorb only half of the new bond issuance. And in a third case, we assume central banks take up only a fifth of all decarbonization spending onto their balance sheet. What is our key finding? If central banks only have to foot 20% of the bill or less, the impact of decarbonization looks fairly manageable with respect to inflation (Exhibit 108).

And just so readers know what to BofA looks "manageable" here it is: this is inflation on top of whatever inflation is already in the economy. Of course, if central banks have to "foot" 50%, 80%, or more, well... it gets much worse.



And this is where we get to the punchline: as BofA admits, it's all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history!
We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full decarbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow. Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse. True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns
And there you have it: just as covid was one giant smokescreen to "allow" central banks and Treasuries to merge and lead us to Helicopter Money and MMT, creating some $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the "Net Zero" myth is what will perpetuate this endless printing for the next 30 years, a period during which the only benefits will be bestowed upon those who benefit from QE and money printing. That would be the richest. As for everyone else, well you great grandchildren or their grandchildren may (or may not) live in a cleaner world. We really don't know, but if we don't start printing money now it will be too late.

If that sounds scarier than any religion in human history, it's because it is.

The full 114 page report, which we recommend to anyone who wants to know what is coming, is available to pro subs in the usual place.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Buchanan: Sink The New World Order Tax!

WEDNESDAY, OCT 13, 2021 - 12:10 PM
Authored by Pat Buchanan,

Last Friday, in a triumph for transnationalism, 136 nations, including the U.S., agreed to mandate a global corporate income tax for all nations that will not be allowed to fall below 15%.
“Virtually the entire global economy has decided to end the race to the bottom on corporate taxation,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who negotiated the pact.
Betraying a nervousness as to how such a minimum corporate tax, dictated by globalists, will be received in Congress, Yellen urged that it be adopted “swiftly.” Yellen is right to be nervous.


The tax proposal is a giant leap forward toward a globalism that America has rejected, and its defeat should be made a priority of libertarians, conservatives, populists and nationalists alike.

What is this “race to the bottom” that so terrifies Yellen and her globalist allies?

Simply the worldwide competition of independent nations to offer lower tax rates to entice successful companies to relocate to their shores and bring their jobs with them.

Yellen’s “race to the bottom” is as American as apple pie.

High tax rates, corporate and personal, in states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California have proven to be incentives to companies to pick up and relocate to low-tax states such as Texas and Florida.

That 15% global corporate tax rate is designed to prevent this competitive taxation, the beneficiaries of which are companies that have moved to countries such as Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. The Irish corporate tax rate is less than half of the 28% Yellen and President Joe Biden have in mind to impose on the USA.

Why would free-market and free-enterprise Republicans vote to lock into U.S. law a corporate tax rate dictated by agents of the New World Order?

To sign on to this 15% minimum tax would be to surrender our freedom of action to set our own tax rates in accordance with the values and beliefs of the party and administration the people vote into power.

Why would a great nation, especially this nation, agree to give up its freedom of action and have its surrender written into its national law and ratified by treaty?

Why forfeit a sovereign right to cut corporate taxes when and to whatever level we wish? Why deny ourselves a competitive advantage that can be gained by unilaterally cutting corporate tax rates?

Assume the rest of the world embraces this minimum corporate tax of 15% and the U.S. — to recapture and restore a manufacturing base we gave away to China — answered the world with a corporate tax rate of 7% or 8%.
Transnational companies would beat a path back to America’s door.

While globalists might be appalled, why would nationalists give up irrevocably the freedom to act?

In the Trump era, a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21% helped to create one of the great booms of the modern era, before the pandemic struck in March 2020. Earlier that year, unemployment in all categories was at record lows.

As Ronald Reagan taught, corporations do not pay taxes; they collect them.

They get them out of the revenue they receive from the customers who buy their products and services.


The corporate taxes of Ford and General Motors come out of the prices that are charged to buyers of Ford and GM cars and trucks.

And the corporate profits are a primary source of higher wages and salaries, bonuses, and the investment capital companies need to grow and create new jobs.

It is an article of faith among Republicans that lower taxes, personal and corporate, generate greater economic activity and prosperity. And that tax hikes are the ways and means by which rapacious governments consume the seed corn of an economy.

A second provision to which the 136 nations agreed is to have the profits of the world’s largest corporations reallocated to the countries where their goods are sold and services are provided, not to the countries where they are located.
“Under the agreement,” The New York Times writes, “technology giants like Amazon, Facebook and other big global businesses will be required to pay taxes in countries where their goods or services are sold, even if they have no physical presence there.”
Adds the Times:
“The separate tax aimed at the technology giants will reallocate more than $125 billion of profits from the home countries of the 100 most profitable firms in the world to the markets where they operate.”
Why would an America First party inside the USA, home country to more tech giants than any other, sign on to a plan that would transfer tax revenue away from the U.S. Treasury into the exchequers of foreign lands?

The GOP should use this moment to re-declare our independence when it comes to our internal taxation on individuals and institutions in the United States, and reassert that we will decide the proper rates here, and not subject to the veto of any other nation. The U.S. is not the EU.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Will The U.S. Be Spared From The Global Energy Crisis?

WEDNESDAY, OCT 13, 2021 - 05:00 AM
Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

U.S. natural gas prices hit a 13-year high last week as the energy crunch in Europe and Asia pushed the prices in these two regions to the highest on record. And depending on winter weather, U.S. natural gas prices do have more room to rise. But they are unlikely to follow the skyrocketing rallies of the European and UK gas prices and the price of spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Asia, analysts say.


Although the regional natural gas markets are now interconnected more than ever thanks to the LNG trade, U.S. gas prices will largely be spared the extreme volatility and record-high European and Asian prices.

The United States has a fairly adequate natural gas supply in storage ahead of the winter. This is unlike Europe, where depleted inventories and rebounding demand have created a rush to stock up for the coldest months of the year, which in turn has caused a supply crunch and record-high gas and power prices.

Moreover, U.S. natural gas production is rising slightly, while weekly injections into storage over the past month have been higher than usual for September.

Despite the record LNG prices in Asia and the handsome netbacks that U.S. exporters are getting for their LNG cargoes, the United States has a certain capacity to feed gas to its LNG export terminals. All cargoes available will be scooped up, mostly by Asia, but the infrastructure will not allow too much incremental LNG supply out of America that would have severely tightened the domestic U.S. market.

Record Global Gas Prices
Last week, natural gas prices in Europe hit a fresh record high to the equivalent of $205 a barrel of oil based on the relative value of the same quantity of energy from each source. The worsening global energy crisis sent Asia’s spot LNG prices soaring by 40 percent last Wednesday, as cargo for delivery into North Asia in November was priced at as much as $56 per million British thermal units (mmBtu)—a record high that beat the previous record from the week prior of $34.52/mmBtu.

In the turbulent global markets, U.S. natural gas prices also reacted to these mind-blowing record highs, and the benchmark Henry Hub price settled at $6.312/mmBtu on October 5—the highest level since 2008.

Since the beginning of 2021, U.S. natural gas prices have more than doubled as demand is bouncing back from the pandemic slump, and American producers are not rushing to add too much supply.

U.S. ‘Insulated’ From Global Gas Crunch, Price Spikes
However, U.S. prices—despite being now more influenced by global gas prices—primarily reflect domestic supply-demand factors and the booming global LNG demand. So, American natural gas prices are more insulated from the global spikes in gas prices, even if they have further room to rise in case of a colder winter in the United States.

“The U.S. is much more insulated from this global energy trend than the rest of the world,” Francisco Blanch, head of Global Commodities, Equity Derivatives and Cross-Asset Quantitative Investment Strategies at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told CNBC’s “The Exchange” recently.

Sure, analysts now expect U.S. natural gas prices to be higher than earlier forecasts because of the ripple effect of the global energy crunch and natural gas price rally. JP Morgan and Credit Suisse have recently raised their Q4 average price outlooks to $5.50/mmBtu and $5.75/mmBtu, respectively.

A double-digit Henry Hub price is in the cards if the winter is very cold, but a crunch similar to Europe and Asia’s is unlikely for the United States, Robert Thummel, managing director at TortoiseEcofin, told CNBC last week.

“[The U.S.] hasn’t had to rely on the rest of the world to provide its supply, and that’s really what Europe’s problem has been,” Thummel said.

In addition, U.S. LNG export capacity is not infinite, despite the nice netbacks exporters would get because of the large premium of LNG prices in Asia to the U.S. Henry Hub prices.

“You’re not going to see the U.S. to the rescue here, because there’s just not enough infrastructure on either side — on the U.S. side or the European side and most importantly on the Asian side — to solve this,” Thummel told CNBC.

Regardless of how much Asian LNG prices surge, the current capacity in the United States allows 10.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of gas to be turned into LNG. Natural gas deliveries to U.S. LNG export facilities typically average 10.0 Bcf/d - 10.5 Bcf/d, out of total U.S. dry natural gas production of around 92.3 Bcf/d.

U.S. Gas Supply More Adequate Compared To Europe, Asia Crunch
The U.S. has an adequate natural gas supply, and although the injection season between April and October has seen lower-than-average net injections into gas storage, recent weekly stock builds have exceeded the average for this time of the year.

The net injections into storage totaled 118 Bcf for the week ending October 1, compared with the five-year average net injections of 81 Bcf and last year’s net injections of 75 Bcf during the same week, EIA data showed.

This week’s weekly build is again expected to be a bit larger than the five-year average and potentially again over 100 Bcf, according to NatGasWeather.com, which also forecasts low to very low demand for this week.

U.S. natural gas prices are not entirely detached from the global energy turmoil, but America will likely be spared the skyrocketing prices elsewhere.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Pandemic Wiped Out Entire Savings Of 20% Of US Households

THURSDAY, OCT 14, 2021 - 01:29 PM
Over the weekend, we showed a staggering wealth distribution statistic cementing the US status as a banana republic: according to Fed data which breaks down the distribution of wealth according to income quintile (or 20% bucket) the middle 60% of US households by income saw their combined assets drop from 26.7% to 26.6% of national wealth as of June, the lowest in Federal Reserve data, while for the first time the super rich had a bigger share, at 27%.



While especially true for the top 1%, it is all the rich that have benefited from the Fed's generous liquidity pump at the expense of the extinction of the US middle class - as the next chart shows, over the past 30 years, 10 percentage points of American wealth has shifted to the top 20% of earners, who now hold 70% of the total. The bottom 80% are left with less than 30%.



But while we have extensively discussed the destructive impact of the Fed on the middle class - while enriching the top 1% - a view espoused recently by Stan Druckenmiller who in May called the Fed the single "greatest engine of wealth inequality" in history (to which we would also add the end of the gold standard under Nixon), some have asked what about the sub-middle class? After all one can argue (correctly) that the swing voter in the US is not in the top 1%, but rather in the bottom 50%.

Well, as we previously pointed out, the bottom 50% own just 2% of all net worth, or a paltry $2.8 trillion. What is even more sad is that the wealth of the bottom 50% is virtually unchanged since 2006, while the net worth of the Top 1% has risen by 132% from $17.9 trillion to $41.5 trillion.



But to get a sense of just how precarious the everyday existence of the lower classes is, consider the following stunning fact: Bloomberg reports that according to a poll of 3,616 adults aged 18 and older from NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health released on Tuesday, for many Americans the Covid lockdowns - with nowhere to go and nothing to do - was a time to save. But for almost 20% of U.S. households, the pandemic wiped out their entire financial cushion.

The share of respondents who said they lost all their savings jumped to 30% for those making less than $50,000 a year, the poll found. Black and Latino households were also harder hit.

Avenel Joseph, a vice president at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said many people dipped into their savings to cover child or health care expenses. “When crisis hits, or anything goes out of the norm—your child is sick, for example—you are sacrificing wages,” she said. Almost two thirds of households earning less than $50,000 a year said they had trouble affording rent, medical care, and food.

While about two-thirds of people surveyed said they received financial assistance from the government in the past few months, 44% said those programs only “helped a little.”

“We always knew there was going to be an uneven recovery,” Joseph said. “The safety net always had holes, and the pandemic ripped those holes even wider.”

Lawmakers in Congress are currently debating how much to spend on shoring up the safety net going forward.

While the staggering social divide is truly sad, and largely a byproduct of the Fed's catastrophic policies in the past decade, it does bring up an important point: while much has been said about the $2 trillion or so in excess savings created during the covid pandemic (assuming most if not all of that has not already been spent to fund the resurgent household spending in the US)...



... the reality is that the distribution of savings was also extremely skewed to benefit the wealthiest. And according to Morgan Stanley, the top 20% of US income groups benefited from two-thirds of all savings. The rest, or the "bottom 80%", retained just a third of this (debatable) $2 trillion in excess savings. Here is Morgan Stanley:
The Fed's Distributional Financial Accounts provide insight on who is holding this tremendous stock in savings:
Looking at cash holdings (checkable deposits and currency) from 1Q20-1Q21 across the income distribution shows that 65% of excess cash (cash accumulated above the 4Q19 level) is held among the top 20%, while 35% is spread across the bottom 80% (top 80% holds ~$1.4tn in excess savings and bottom 80% holds ~$800bn, Exhibit 4).


And, judging by the poll referenced above, the lower 80% have already spent most if not all of their savings!

What are the implications?
Well, higher income households that hold a tremendous amount of excess savings make up a majority of consumer spending – the top 40% income group represents over 60% of expenditures (Exhibit 5).
However, spending by higher income households is not very sensitive to income changes. This is why it is important that the lower-middle income group hold excess savings and have a steady income stream. The transition from government transfer income (unemployment insurance benefits, rebate checks, child tax credits) to labor market income is critical and is expected to support continued spending even as the fiscal impulse fades.
The Opportunity Insights credit and debit card spending tracker by income tercile shows that consumer spending among the lowest tercile has consistently been higher relative to pre-Covid than middle and higher income groups. This holds even through mid- August where we have moved past the immediate bump from rebate checks, when the $600 federal supplemental UI benefits expired last summer, and during the second and third waves of Covid (Exhibit 6).


To summarize: the rich not only got richer, but managed to save up over a trillion. Meanwhile, the "lower 80%" retained just a third of the $2 trillion in excess savings with many if not all cohorts within this segment have already spent all of their savings. As such, any optimistic GDP forecast which assumes that GDP will continue to grow in 2022 as a result of continued spending of "excess savings" by the bulk of the population, such as that done over the past weekend by Goldman (see gray bar in the chart below)...



... is terribly incorrect, for one simple reason: that many is gone, all gone. And while the rich still are holding a major portion of their "excess savings", they are far more likely to keep holding to it, or simply invest it in risk assets, which will bring absolutely no benefits to the US economy. It will however, ramp stocks even higher.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Great New Normal Purge

THURSDAY, OCT 14, 2021 - 12:05 AM
Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

So, the Great New Normal Purge has begun … right on cue, right by the numbers.

As we “paranoid conspiracy theorists” have been warning would happen for the past 18 months, people who refuse to convert to the new official ideology are now being segregated, stripped of their jobs, banned from attending schools, denied medical treatment, and otherwise persecuted.

Relentless official propaganda demonizing “the Unvaccinated” is being pumped out by the corporate and state media, government leaders, health officials, and shrieking fanatics on social media. “The Unvaccinated” are the new official “Untermenschen,” an underclass of subhuman “others” the New Normal masses are being conditioned to hate.

You can see the hatred in the New Normals’ eyes …



But it isn’t just a purge of “the Unvaccinated.” Anyone deviating from the official ideology is being systematically demonized and persecuted. In Germany, Australia, and other New Normal countries, protesting the New Normal is officially outlawed. The New Normal Gestapo is going around to people’s homes to interrogate them about their anti-New Normal Facebook posts. Corporations are openly censoring content that contradicts the official narrative. New Normal goon squads roam the streets, checking people’s “vaccination” papers.

And it’s not just governments and corporations carrying out the New Normal Purge. Friends are purging friends. Wives are purging husbands. Fathers are purging children. Children are purging parents. New Normals are purging old normal thoughts. Global “health authorities” are revising definitions to make them conform to New Normal “science.”

And so on … a new official “reality” is being manufactured, right before our eyes. Anything and anyone that doesn’t conform to it is being purged, unpersoned, memory-holed, erased.

None of which should come as a surprise.

Every nascent totalitarian system, at some stage of its takeover of society, launches a purge of political opponents, ideological dissidents, and other “anti-social deviants.” Such purges can be brief or open-ended, and they can take any number of outward forms, depending on the type of totalitarian system, but you cannot have totalitarianism without them.

The essence of totalitarianism — regardless of which costumes and ideology it wears — is a desire to completely control society, every aspect of society, every individual behavior and thought. Every totalitarian system, whether an entire nation, a tiny cult, or any other form of social body, evolves toward this unachievable goal … the total ideological transformation and control of every single element of society (or whatever type of social body it comprises). This fanatical pursuit of total control, absolute ideological uniformity, and the elimination of all dissent, is what makes totalitarianism totalitarianism.

Thus, each new totalitarian system, at some point in its evolution, needs to launch a purge of those who refuse to conform to its official ideology. It needs to do this for two basic reasons: (1) to segregate or otherwise eliminate actual political opponents and dissidents who pose a threat to the new regime; and (2) and more importantly, to establish the ideological territory within which the masses must now confine themselves in order to avoid being segregated, or eliminated.

The purge must be conducted openly, brutally, so that the masses understand that the rules of society have changed, forever, that their former rights and freedoms are gone, and that from now on any type of resistance or deviation from official ideology will not be tolerated, and will be ruthlessly punished.

The purge is usually launched during a “state of emergency,” under imminent threat from some official “enemy” (e.g., “communist infiltrators,” “counter-revolutionaries,” or … you know, a “devastating pandemic”), such that the normal rules of society can be indefinitely suspended “for the sake of survival.” The more terrified the masses can be made, the more willing they will be to surrender their freedom and follow orders, no matter how insane.

The lifeblood of totalitarianism is fear … fear of both the system’s official enemy (which is constantly stoked with propaganda) and of the totalitarian system itself.

That the brutality of the system is rationalized by the threat posed by the official enemy doesn’t make it any less brutal or terrifying. Under totalitarian systems (of any type or scale) fear is a constant and there is no escape from it.

The masses’ fear is then channeled into hatred … hatred of the official “Untermenschen,” whom the system encourages the masses to scapegoat. Thus, the purge is also a means of allowing the masses to purge themselves of their fear, to transform it into self-righteous hatred and unleash it on the “Untermenschen” instead of the totalitarian system, which, obviously, would be suicidal.

Every totalitarian system — both the individuals running it and the system, structurally — instinctively understands how all this works. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception.

Just reflect on what has happened over the last 18 months.

Day after day, month after month, the masses have been subjected to the most destructive psychological-terror campaign in the history of psychological terror. Sadly, many of them have been reduced to paranoid, anus-puckering invalids, afraid of the outdoors, of human contact, afraid of their own children, afraid of the air, morbidly obsessed with disease and death … and consumed with hatred of “the Unvaccinated.”

Their hatred, of course, is utterly irrational, the product of fear and propaganda, as hatred of “the Untermenschen” always is. It has absolutely nothing to do with a virus, which even the New Normal authorities admit. “The Unvaccinated” are no more of a threat to anyone than any other human being … except insofar as they threaten the New Normals’ belief in their delusional ideology.

No, we are way past rationality at this point. We are witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism. Not “communism.” Not “fascism.” Global-capitalist totalitarianism. Pseudo-medical totalitarianism. Pathologized totalitarianism. A form of totalitarianism without a dictator, without a definable ideology. A totalitarianism based on “science,” on “fact,” on “reality,” which it creates itself.

I don’t know about you, but, so far, it has certainly made quite an impression on me. So much so that I have mostly set aside my satirical schtick to try to understand it … what it actually is, why it is happening, why it is happening now, where it is going, and how to oppose it, or at least disrupt it.

The way I see it, the next six months will determine how successful the initial stages of the roll-out of this new totalitarianism will be. By April of 2022, either we’ll all be showing our “papers” to the New Normal Gestapo to be able to earn a living, attend a school, dine at a restaurant, travel, and otherwise live our lives, or we will have thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery. I do not expect GloboCap to abandon the roll-out of the New Normal over the longer term — they are clearly committed to implementing it — but we have the power to ruin their opening act (which they’ve been planning and rehearsing for quite some time).

So, let’s go ahead and do that, shall we? Before we get purged, or unpersoned, or whatever. I’m not sure, as I haven’t seen a “fact-check” yet, but I believe there are some commercial airline pilots in the USA who are showing us the way.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

1634268186274.png
1634268235444.png
AChinese Communist Party-linked foreign influence group sponsored a climate change conference seeking to mobilize youth advocates in America, the National Pulse can reveal.

The entity sponsoring the recent conference, the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), is part of Beijing’s “United Front” effort, which the U.S. government identifies as seeking to “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party” and “influence foreign governments to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing.”

CUSEF’s website notes that it “sponsored” the Sino-American Youth Dialogue on Climate Change, carried out in collaboration with two schools: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University.

“Co-hosted by Tsinghua University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Sino-American Youth Dialogue on Climate Change (SAYD) will be held in October 8, a month prior to COP26. The aim of the event is to offer a platform for young people from China and the U.S. to put forward ideas and suggestions for the COP26 to address climate change and sustainable development,” CUSEF explains before posing the following questions to attendees:

What should governments do to confront climate emergency?

How should businesses develop sustainability strategies to achieve net zero emissions?

What are the actions that we, as individuals, could do to reduce wastage and gas emissions?

The conference explicitly seeks to mobilize youth activists, as its theme is “making carbon neutral, youth in action.”

“Through discussions and sharing among youth delegates and field experts, the forum hopes to reach consensus on the issue and form valuable policy recommendations,” the conference’s website adds.

Among the event’s speakers were CUSEF founder Tung Chee-hwa, Chinese Communist Party officials, and presidents from both MIT and Tsinghua University. Tsinghua University’s involvement in the conference also follows the school reportedly launching cyberattacks against the U.S. government and having a “clear connection” to the Chinese government on issues of technology and national security according to the U.S. State Department.

The school is the alma mater of regime leader Xi Jinping and hosts a “Marxist” journalism school, training the next generation of Chinese state-run media propagandists with the assistance of the New York Times, CNN, and others.

“We should be committed to a firm and correct political orientation. Our School has been actively exploring the theory and practices of Marxist Journalism, namely, to applying the Marxist theory in observing the world, selecting and handling news production,” the dean’s introduction letter reads.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Soaring gas prices in Western Europe down to mistaken reliance on wind farms, Russia on track for record exports in 2021 – Putin

13 Oct, 2021 13:07

Soaring gas prices in Western Europe down to mistaken reliance on wind farms, Russia on track for record exports in 2021 – Putin

Wind Turbines in Biedesheim, Germany. © Unsplash / Karsten Würth; (inset) Vladimir Putin © REUTERS / Umit Bektas

A surge in the cost of gas which has seen bills shoot up for households and industry is down to a shortfall in electricity generation, and not because Russia is somehow squeezing supplies, President Vladimir Putin has argued.

Speaking as part of a keynote address at Russian Energy Week on Wednesday, Putin said that a fall in output from wind farms had meant electricity prices shot up, having a knock-on effect on demand for gas. Wind power makes up an increasingly large share of Europe's energy generation, particularly in the west of the continent, he went on.

“The rise in gas prices in Europe was the result of a shortage of electricity, and not vice versa,” the president insisted.

Putin went on to accuse Western leaders of “trying to cover up their own mistakes,” following a series of claims that the situation is because Russia is withholding supplies. He added that “proper analysis of the situation is often replaced by empty political slogans.”

According to the Russian president, an exceptionally long winter drained the continent's energy reserves and disrupted pricing. Now, “the invisible hand of the market” is at play, Putin said.

Contrary to Russia seeking to worsen the crisis, Putin insisted that the country could well see record levels of exports in 2021 as Moscow works to meet the growing demand. That said, though, he claimed that the Kremlin doesn't relish the prospect of shortages and that “the high price environment can have negative consequences for everyone, including producers.”

Some countries have seen gas prices rise by as much as 250% in recent days, with a knock-on effect being felt in the industry. Homeowners also face higher heating bills with winter fast approaching. Several energy companies in the UK, which has seen some of the sharpest increases, have entered into talks with the government to prevent them from potentially going bust.

Last month, Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that the state energy firm, Gazprom, is already fulfilling all of its contracts and no customers have been denied deliveries. According to him, “nobody has any grounds to claim otherwise,” and the company is making preparations to strike new deals and increase the volumes flowing westwards.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment


FWM interviews Dr Reiner Füllmich (centre). Screenshot from Rumble

Reiner Füllmich: The pandemic is a global coup d’etat

The famous lawyer Dr Reiner Füllmich speaks exclusively to Free West Media on the topic of the pandemic and the draconian measures that many countries have adopted, and how he and others will be challenging this in court.

Published: October 13, 2021, 8:19 a

Füllmich is a consumer protection trial lawyer invited to talk about his work as one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Since July 10, 2020, he has been listening to large numbers of international scientists’ and experts’ testimonies, to find answers to questions about the pandemic, being asked by people worldwide.

The irregularities that are committed in the name of public health during this pandemic has called for a firm response, he told FWM. He specializes in representing ordinary people against big companies, and he made headlines when he won cases against giants like Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank.

When examining the lockdowns, restrictions, Covid-vaccines, the PCR tests and other measures, he found that they were not supported by scientific inquiry. He described how advisors on Covid measures who are presented as “experts” in the media, are actually frauds that for example were given professorships at private universities, without having accomplished any scientific work.

In this in-depth interview, Füllmich also talked about the considerable part of the workforce in the US that have refused the jab because of fear of serious side effects. The fatalities resulting from the experimental shots are massively underreported.

His conclusion is that there are other reasons for the measures than those we are told to follow, and calls the hidden hand “Mr. Global” using the pandemic to further their own agenda. It was planned years in advance and serves only to make the already wealthy and powerful even more assertive.

Rumble video on website 1:03:02 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden’s ‘Dangerously Distracted’ Woke Pentagon Battling Climate Change Not Military Threats

Pentagon-Defense-Dept.-Army-Navy-Marine-Corps-Air-Force-Coast-Guard-65x65.jpg

Thomas Hawk via Flickr
October 14, 2021
| Paul Crespo | Government,Military | 0

ANALYSIS – With an increasingly powerful and belligerent communist China breathing down our necks, threatening to start World War III over Taiwan, Russia cyber-attacking their way into every U.S. government nook and cranny, and Afghanistan turning into a new terror base, Joe Biden’s Pentagon is laser focused on battling – Climate Change.

Rather than confront the myriad real world military threats facing America today, Biden’s obsequious Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, is ensuring our troops are “climate literate,” declaring climate change to be a “critical national security issue.”

This, according to the first plan produced by Biden’s Pentagon, signed by Defense Secretary Austin and released on Oct. 7; the Defense Department’s vaunted “Climate Adaptation Plan.”

The 32-page plan identifies numerous tasks the Pentagon will undertake to “enhance resilience to the effects of climate change” and “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

As Thomas Spoehr, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, writes in The Hill:
The plan also identifies the need to develop a “climate literate and capable workforce.” As part of that effort, it intends to integrate “climate change literacy into all its training and education efforts, from skill-specific military education to graduate training in the war colleges.” No matter that, due to a high operational tempo and time constraints, service members already struggle to learn basic warrior tasks such as ship navigation or driver’s training for armored vehicles. Climate change will likely raise to the top of an already long list of topics requiring training.
Nor are Pentagon climate adaptation efforts confined to America. The plan calls for efforts to “build partner nation capacity to respond to climate change related hazards.” As the U.S. works to assemble strong coalitions to counter Chinese and Russian hegemony, our allies can look forward to U.S. military officials mansplaining how they, too, can become “climate-literate.”

Spoehr adds:

This does not appear well-calculated to win military friends and influence allies, much less win wars. One might think the Pentagon has more pressing matters to attend to… like the Navy, which is struggling, without a defined path forward, to amass the numbers and types of ships needed to prevail in future conflicts. Or developing a clear strategy for deterring Chinese aggression.
The decision to prioritize working up a climate adaptation plan is puzzling but unfortunately not surprising. In Biden’s March 2021 Interim National Security Guidance, the topic of climate change was featured no fewer than 14 times, while the U.S. Navy or Army – subjects you might expect to see mentioned in a U.S. security strategy – received no mention whatsoever.
The Defense Department certainly does need to adapt to a changing climate. Multiple military installations are located on or near the ocean and must be hardened and made resilient. But when it comes to prioritizing efforts within the Pentagon, developing the capacity to deter military threats that pose near-term existential risks to the country must come first. China is reportedly doubling or possibly even tripling the size of its nuclear arsenal. North Korea continues to improve its ballistic missiles.
Planning how to respond to those lethal global military threats should be the number one Pentagon priority, not obsessing over the weather and greenhouse gasses.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

This is best practice for using facial recognition in law enforcement

Women walking while looking at phone

Policymakers are increasingly aware of the opportunities and risks of law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology

05 Oct 2021
  1. Lofred MadzouProject Lead, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, World Economic Forum
  2. John RiemenLead Biometric Specialist, Center for Biometrics, Netherlands Police
  3. Sébastien LouradourIndependent AI Governance Consultant,
  4. Luc GarciaFace Examiner, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)
  5. Odhran McCarthyProgramme Officer, Centre for AI and Robotics, UNICRI
  6. Maria EiraInformation and Technology Officer, Centre for AI and Robotics, UNICRI
We’re making it easier for governments to responsibly adopt AI technology


Artificial Intelligence

  • Facial recognition technology has the potential to help conduct faster investigations, bring offenders to justice and, thus, resolve, stop and prevent crimes.
  • Eventual widespread use by law enforcement agencies raises concerns over the potential risk of wrongful arrests, surveillance and human rights violations.
  • A new white paper from the World Economic Forum, in partnership with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) and the Netherlands police, offers a framework to ensure the responsible use of facial recognition technology.
  • Tests of this framework will start in January 2022.
In April 2021, the European Commission (EC) released its much-awaited Artificial Intelligence Act, a comprehensive regulatory proposal that classifies AI applications under distinct categories of risks. Among the identified high-risk applications, remote biometric systems, which include facial recognition technology (FRT), were singled out as particularly concerning. Their deployment, specifically in the field of law enforcement, may lead to human rights abuses in the absence of robust governance mechanisms.

Have you read?
Law enforcement and facial recognition technology
Across jurisdictions, policymakers are increasingly aware of both the opportunities and risks associated with law enforcement’s use of FRT. Here facial recognition refers to the process of the (possible) recognition of a person by comparing a probe image (photos or movies/stills of suspects or persons of interest) to facial images of criminals and missing persons stored in one or multiple reference databases to advance a police investigation.

On one hand, FRT has the potential to help resolve, stop and prevent crimes and bring offenders to justice. More specifically, it could be useful for various types of investigations, including finding the identity of an ATM fraud criminal, looking for a terrorist in public spaces, fighting child abuse or even finding missing persons.

On the other hand, early experience shows that without proper oversight, FRT could result in abuses of human rights and harm citizens.

In this context, striking the right balance appears difficult. Policymakers may explore various options ranging from an outright ban to the introduction of additional accountability mechanisms to limit the risk of wrongful arrests. In the US, cities such as San Francisco, Oakland and Boston have banned the use of FRT by public agencies, while the states of Washington, Virginia and Massachusetts have introduced legislation to regulate its use. In other regions, court decisions play an important role in shaping the policy agenda. The UK Court of Appeal ruled unlawful the deployment of FRT by the South Wales Police to identify wanted persons at certain events and public locations where crime was considered likely to occur.

At a more global level, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) recent report on the right to privacy in the digital age recommends governments halt the use of remote biometric recognition in public spaces in real-time until they can show there are no significant issues with accuracy or discriminatory effects. It also suggests that these AI systems must comply with robust privacy and data protection standards.

View: https://youtu.be/U15FWjOWqgQ
6:02 min

Facial recognition technology requires a robust governing structure
Despite these important developments, most governments around the world recognize the potential of facial recognition systems for national safety and security but are still grappling with the challenges of regulating FRT because crucial considerations have been largely overlooked. If we were to authorize the proportional use of FRT for legitimate policing aims, what oversight body should be in charge of assessing the compliance of law enforcement activities with human rights and following potential complaints from citizens? How might we maintain a high level of performance of the FRT solutions deployed? What procurement processes should be in place for law enforcement agencies?

To address these challenges, the World Economic Forum – in partnership with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) and the Netherlands police – has released a white paper that introduces a governance framework structured around two critical components:
  • A set of principles for action that defines what constitutes responsible use of facial recognition for law enforcement investigations by covering all relevant policy considerations;
  • A self-assessment questionnaire that details the requirements that law enforcement agencies must respect to ensure compliance with the principles for action.
As such, this initiative represents the most comprehensive policy response to the risks associated with FRT for law enforcement investigations, led by a global and multistakeholder community.

A new initiative represents the most comprehensive policy response to the risks associated with FRT for law enforcement investigations

A new initiative represents the most comprehensive policy response to the risks associated with FRT for law enforcement investigations
Image: World Economic Forum

Moving forward
This project is now entering the pilot phase. During this period, we will test the governance framework to ensure its achievability, relevance, usability and completeness. We will update it based on the observed results.

The Netherlands police force is the first law enforcement agency that has agreed to participate in the testing process. Yet, considering the sensitivity of this use case, we strongly encourage other law enforcement agencies to join us and contribute to this global effort. We also invite policymakers, industry players, civil society representatives and academics engaged in the global policy debate about the governance of facial recognition technology to join our initiative.

Once this pilot phase is completed, we will update the principles and the self-assessment questionnaire, and the final version will be published.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden-AOC.jpg

REVEALED: Democrats to create Climate Change Police Force in Senate reconciliation deal
OCT. 14, 2021 10:20 AM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP146 COMMENTS
Rep. Jim Banks from Indiana has just revealed that tucked away in the Senate reconciliation bill is 8 billion dollars to create a sort-of Climate Change police force called the Civilian Climate Corps:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1448634709915877379
1:04 min
Here’s what Banks says:
This is one of those ideas that when AOC started talking about it a few years ago, the beginnings of the Green New Deal, we all kinda laughed at it because it was so outrageous we thought this would never happen. But it’s a key part of this reconciliation bill to create a climate police department or climate militia from the federal government.
So the federal government will go hire a bunch of climate change activists and give them a badge and tell them to go out and enforce the Green New Deal mandates. Can you imagine how dangerous that would be? The American people already don’t trust federal law enforcement. When they come knocking on your door and go after you for not incorporating the key tenets of the Green New Deal in your family home, you family business, on the family farm, this is really going to get out of control.
I’m so glad that Sinema and Manchin oppose this bill because the more we learn about it, the more we realize the absolute nightmare it would be for the American people if it passes.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Us Versus Them, It’s Time for a New Lens: Seeing Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset For What It Really Is

ByBrooke McGowan
14 October 2021


FacebookTwitterEmailPinterestRedditWhatsAppMeWeTelegramWeChatShare

“Some men just want to watch the world burn,” Alfred whispered to Bruce Wayne in the iconic 2008 film The Dark Knight. Aware of the chaos and mayhem brought upon his city by the psychopath known as the Joker, the man known as Batman was keen to respond.

As he contemplated the task before him, Alfred tells Bruce a story of his time in Burma. He was working for the local government and they were trying to bribe the local tribes with precious stones, but their caravans were raided and the stones were stolen by a bandit. After months of searching, they never found anyone who had traded for the stolen stones, but happened upon a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing the precious loot away.

Bruce asks, then why steal them?

Alfred, wiser, older, and a man with many life experiences says, “Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

I submit to you that today, we are under the grasp of these types of despotic, lunatic men. There continues to be, in our normal functioning minds, this total disbelief of what we are witnessing on a mass scale. Surely “they” don’t want all of us dead. Surely “they” aren’t trying to kill off elderly, or children, or any of us; surely not.

May I also submit to you today that though that thought is a very hard one to grasp, that it is precisely the truth of this current age.

I know you’ve heard us (and other truthtellers) speak about Klaus Schwab and the Great Reset. We’ve mentioned it since February 2020, when the novel coronavirus was heading our way. It didn’t take long for the pieces from Event 201, which occurred in October 2019, to fall into place and the actual realization of a world-wide virus released upon the nations just weeks later.

You see, they simulated—war-gamed even—the very reality we are all now living.

Event 201 included controlling mass media about the virus, striking fear into every eye and ear abroad. They worked diligently to convince the world the need for a massive vaccine campaign, to include the public shaming and division that this not-a-vaccine has incited.

When we pushed back en masse, they had to step it up a notch, because psychopaths always do that. Many bought into the free donuts or lottery tickets.

Most didn’t. Resistance was unacceptable.

Stores and businesses were shut down by the thousands via government edicts; many never reopened. Amazon and Walmart—big-box stores deemed as “essential”—made millions (billions?) more than anticipated while you were stuck quarantining at home. Did anyone ever ask why/how/if Amazon was tipped off about the coming craze, given that they added over 100,000 delivery trucks to their fleet in February 2020?

We didn’t like it when we couldn’t go to concerts, fairs, venues, and some restaurants without masks or vaccines. So we adjusted and didn’t go. But now, lo this many months later, your choice to just not go somewhere is being brought to your kitchen table.

Don’t want the suicide-by-jab? You may now be fired from your employment.

The Great Reset is Hell on Earth. We need to believe the men who tell us they want us dead. We can’t keep our heads in the sand anymore. It’s an awful reality.

Years ago, Bill Gates admitted to the crowd at a Ted Talk these words:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people heading to 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

View: https://youtu.be/8BobKXkrt8M
2:52 min

He said with a straight face, and the crowd in attendance didn’t gasp. The very message itself is counterintuitive: if we do a really great job in health care (caring for people’s health?) we could lower the population (kill off massive amount of people) by 10-15%?

Orwell would be proud.

He didn’t misspeak; he says it on the regular. I can’t figure out why whomever is interviewing him doesn’t stop him in his tracks and ask for clarity. It seems it is opposite the message of “saving lives” by reducing “population growth.”

IMG_2661.png


Why can’t we get this?

IMG_2662.jpeg


Is it our own decent nature that makes us refuse to admit or accept this reality?

That other humans want demise of others? It must be. We have to shake off our traditional good-thoughts of others.

Bear in mind these facts:

IMG_2659.jpeg


Believe the words of evil men who want our harm. Open your eyes! Believe their own words!

We have to start looking at the world with this new lens, my friends. They absolutely 100%, unequivocally want us dead. And will not stop this march toward our demise until WE stop them. As Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers told us just last week: “WE ARE THE PLAN!”

It’s up to us.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

China’s Stunning Green Energy Collapse Should Come As No Surprise

zbynek-burival-V4ZYJZJ3W4M-unsplash.jpg

As reported in the FrontPageMag article “Red China Tried To Go Green, Now It’s Going Dark,” the U.S. is currently experiencing widespread supply chain disruptions caused in part by China’s disastrous renewable energy collapse, which has led to a severely crippled economy brought on by widespread power blackouts.

Democrats tout green energy as a “clean” and “renewable” source of electricity.

They also say that producing green energy has minimal impact on the environment (that’s a flat-out lie). For those who have been led to believe that green energy is “clean,” I strongly urge them to watch Michael Moore’s jaw-dropping documentary, “Planet of the Humans.”

The 2019 feature length film exposes the Democratic Party’s push for subsidized wind and solar energy for what it is: a brazen environmental hoax that causes eye-popping harm to the environment, while funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to Al Gore and other inside investors in government-backed green energy projects.

Please take the time to watch two movie trailers of Moore’s film, here and here, and then please watch the entire documentary with your family, especially if you have children or grandchildren who’ve been brainwashed with renewable energy propaganda.

Australia’s Green Energy Collapse

China is not the only country that got slammed by the green energy hoax.

A 2012 article trumpeting the alleged success of Australia’s green energy subsidies includes an image of a kangaroo back-dropped by a sun-drenched sky.

The image was used to conjure the happy thought illusion of a future filled with a limitless supply of cheap and clean renewable energy. You can see that image here.

Three years later, in 2015, the Daily Signal published an article titled “In Australia, the Green Energy Fantasy Has Collapsed.” Excerpt:

“Following in the footsteps of Germany, Spain and Italy, Australia is the latest country to veer away from the duplicitous path of green energy mandates, taxes and subsidies. Earlier this month, Reuters reported the collapse of the wind power market in Australia, causing the country’s Labor government to pull the plug on state subsidies for the renewable energy industry. Without those subsidies, investor interest evaporates.”


While renewable energy was falling flat on its face Down Under, a procession of doomed-to-fail green energy projects were launched in the U.S., where billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies funded wind and solar start-ups by politically connected allies of the Obama administration.

To gain support for what turned out to be a long trail of failed renewable energy projects, President Obama repeatedly assured American voters that the projects would not only save the planet, but would also produce an abundance of high-paying green energy jobs, the same thing that was told to voters in Australia.

Green Jobs Bull in Spain

Voters in Spain were given the same assurance. But in the birthplace of corrida de toros, government assurances that subsidized renewable energy projects would create an economic boom for the ages turned out to be a big load of green jobs bull.

According to a 2009 study at Madrid’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, promises of a green jobs bonanza proved to be pie in the sky. The study, conducted by Professor Gabriel Calzada, found that for every green job created, Spain lost 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy.

The result? Unable to remain globally competitive, Spanish manufacturers moved in droves to other countries, taking with them many of their most talented employees. With the beleaguered nation’s economy in shambles from having been saddled with stratospheric carbon taxes, unemployment soared to 26% in 2013, forcing Spain to put its green energy bull out to pasture.

Green Jobs Bull Returns to the White House

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised voters he would lead the devastated Covid economy to an epic comeback by “Building Back Better.”

How? By creating an endless stream of green energy jobs, the same bogus promise President Obama made.

Biden’s campaign website boldly stated that he would “make the largest investment in history in American innovation, including research to unlock and deploy new zero-carbon technologies for the future, and create stable, well-paying jobs across the U.S.”

Translation: Open wide, gullible Americans. You’re being fed a heaping plate of green jobs bull.

To trick voters to acquiesce to the knee buckling carbon taxes called for in the Green New Deal, President Biden is using the same renewable energy scam described in Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans.” Please be sure to watch the film and share it with your friends and family. Seeing it will forever change the way low information voters look at renewable energy.

The Elmer Gantry of Renewable Energy

Global movements that demand trillions of dollars in new taxes should be judged by the credibility of their most outspoken advocates. In the environmental arena, no one is more outspoken than Al Gore.

Few insiders have personally profited from the renewable energy scam more than the former vice president. When he left office in 2001, his net worth was estimated at $1 million to $2 million. Since then, his wealth has skyrocketed to $300 million. If the New Green Deal legislation he supports is enacted, he stands to become a billionaire.

Much of his enviable fortune has come as an inside investor in renewable energy projects that went belly-up, but not before politically connected insiders made off with millions, leaving hardworking U.S. taxpayers stuck with the bill.

Like all wealthy eco-preachers, the Elmer Gantry of Renewable Energy uses his immense wealth to indulge in lavish living. When asked by Rep. Marsha Blackburn during his 2009 testimony before Congress whether he personally profits from his advocacy of global warming, Pastor Al professed a vow of poverty: “Every penny I have made I have put into a non-profit deal, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is out of greed, you do not know me.” If you’ve never seen the tense encounter, you do not want to miss it:

View: https://youtu.be/py6yay2c0Oo
2:33 min

Turned out Rep. Blackburn knows him quite well. As the proud owner of a gargantuan green energy fortune, Pastor Al looked her squarely in the eye and denied making even a penny of profit. If every penny he makes goes into a non-profit deal, how did he end up with $300 million? The same way his alter ego pilfered money from the Lord: by concealing his true stripes.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

After Launching War On Fossil Fuels, Biden Admin Now Asking Oil And Gas Companies To Help Lower Fuel Costs

By
Mike LaChance
-October 14, 2021

Joe-Biden-speech-af.jpg


The very first thing Joe Biden did after taking office was close down the Keystone XL Pipeline.

His administration made it clear that they were going to war with energy producing companies. Now he is asking them for help.

The Biden administration knows that everyone can see how fast gas prices are rising on his watch and they’re worried.

Reuters reported:

White House asks U.S. oil-and-gas companies to help lower fuel costs -sources

Energy costs are rising worldwide, in some cases leading to shortages in major economies like China and India. In the United States, the average retail cost of a gallon of gas is at a seven-year high, and winter fuel costs are expected to surge, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Oil-and-gas production remains below the nation’s peak reached in 2019.

The talks with energy companies touched on several issues, including prices, according to a third person familiar with the discussions. The administration has been in discussions with the oil industry over limiting methane emissions in recent months.

“We are closely monitoring the cost of oil and the cost of gas Americans are paying at the pump. And we are using every tool at our disposal to address anti-competitive practices in U.S. and global energy markets to ensure reliable and stable energy markets,” a White House official said.

U.S. crude oil recently hit $80 a barrel for the first time in seven years, as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies known as OPEC+ restrict output. The White House has discussed rising prices with top OPEC producer Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.


What would you say to Biden if you ran one of these companies?


1634278806604.png

1634278755716.png

It’s just amazing.

This administration is a disaster.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"The Revenge Of The Fossil Fuels"

FRIDAY, OCT 15, 2021 - 10:50 AM
Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

What have the climate alarmists been screaming about for the past 40 years or so? Their agenda is well-known. They want to close nuclear plants; shut down coal electric generators; eliminate natural gas and oil-fired electrical plants; and substitute wind, solar and hydropower in their place.

According to the fanatics, this substitution of renewable energy sources for so-called “fossil fuels” and uranium-powered plants would reduce CO2 emissions and save the planet from the existential threat of global warming.

Everything about this climate alarmist agenda is a fraud.

The evidence that the planet is warming is slight and the effect is likely temporary with global cooling in the forecast. The contribution of CO2 emissions to any global warming is not clear and is at best unsettled science and at worst another fraud.

Most importantly, global energy demand is growing much faster than renewables can come online, meaning that oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear energy will be needed whether renewables grow or not.

Wind and Solar Won’t Cut It

Wind turbines and solar panels cannot be the backbone of a modern energy grid because they are intermittent sources. Wind turbines require continual wind and solar panels require continual sunlight. Turbines don’t produce when the wind stops. Solar panels don’t produce at night or on cloudy days.

I have firsthand experience with this because I once built the largest off-grid noncommercial solar panel array in New England. You learn quickly to do laundry, run the dishwasher and use other high-energy electrical appliances on sunny days because you’ll need to conserve your batteries through the snow and rain.

A grid can’t run on intermittent sources; it needs continuous sources of energy that only come from oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

Despite these scientific and practical hurdles, the climate alarmists have been very effective politically. Many countries such as Germany and Japan have shut down nuclear and coal plants in an effort to substitute renewables in major industrial economies.

Now the day of reckoning has arrived.

Billions of People Freezing in the Dark

China is quickly running out of electrical-generating capacity. China gets more than 50% of its electricity from coal, but it is running out of coal. China has had to lift its ban on Australian coal imports (arising from a dispute about tracing the source of the COVID outbreak) and it’s now taking as much Australian coal as it can get.

A similar situation exists in Germany where the failure of renewables to provide a reliable source of supply combined with a shutdown of nuclear plants have led to dependence on Russian natural gas.

Putin is slowly closing the taps to increase Europe’s desperation. The price of natural gas in Europe is skyrocketing. In Lebanon, the two power plants that supply 40% of that country’s electricity have shut down due to oil shortages.

There is no electricity and probably won’t be for days.

Many will die this winter as power outages spread and as heating systems fail. The global economy will also suffer due to decreased output as China and Europe both close factories in order to conserve electricity for homes.

This is what the climate alarm fanatics have produced — billions of people freezing in the dark and a slowing global economy — all in pursuit of the false dogma of global warming.

Thanks, Biden
It turns out the world still needs fossil fuels, and lots of them. “Green” energy just isn’t ready for prime time, and probably won’t be for decades.

The International Energy Agency has said that if the world hopes to meet a net-zero carbon emissions target in 2050, it should stop investing in oil, gas and coal production now.

The Biden administration, along with European leaders primarily, has sought to cripple the fossil fuel industries while incentivizing wind and solar. The result is serious underinvestment in oil and natural gas exploration.

As journalist Noah Rothman writes, you can point a finger at policymakers:
The intended consequence of these [Biden] policies was to create artificial energy scarcity and incentivize alternative fuel producers to enter the marketplace. “If you restrict the supply (of oil and gas), you alter the market and you create a better environment for more sustainable fuels,” New York University professor Max Sarinsky told The Associated Press. This was all part of the plan, to the extent there was a plan.

So yes, there’s a lot of blame to go around if… a dark, cold and scary winter materializes. No small share of that blame should be apportioned out to the central planners who sought to kneecap the existing energy market in favor of an insufficient alternative.
As our senior analyst, Dan Amoss, affirms:
If predictions of oil’s demise are off the mark by a decade or three, there will be very painful, real-world consequences in the form of underinvestment in the oil patch. Underinvestment in oil projects as oil companies chase wind and solar could lead to trade-crippling, market-crashing gasoline and diesel prices.
“This Is the Revenge of the Fossil Fuels”
The ironic part, as others have noted, is that the suppression of oil, natural gas and nuclear energy has led to a dramatic increase in the dirtiest fossil fuel of all — coal. As Bloomberg reports:
For nearly a decade, it appeared in terminal decline as investors shunned miners and European countries shut down coal-fired power plants.

And yet the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel won’t go away. Global consumption peaked in 2014, but rather than fall rapidly, as many expected, it stabilized in a gentle plateau. And now, just as the fight against climate change intensifies, it’s growing again, with the resurgence largely driven by China.
“This is the revenge of the fossil fuels,” said Thierry Bros, an energy expert and professor in Paris.

So much for the Great Reset and “building back better.”

This is just another example of how bureaucratic central planning often backfires and produces the very outcome it’s supposed to prevent. You can look to the endless five-year plans of the Soviet Union for examples.

And it’s even worse at the global level because there’s no escape valve. Countries must follow the same policies, no matter how destructive they turn out to be.

As With Vaccine Dissent, Google Bans Climate Dissent
It’s all part of the climate change hysteria that global elites have embraced. And of course, Big Tech is all too eager to suppress dissent.

The Big Tech companies have suppressed information about the widespread side effects and several thousand deaths of the experimental gene-therapy COVID vaccines. These companies have become censors.

Now they’re extending the practice to climate change…

Google is banning ads featuring content that contradict what it considers “inaccurate” information on climate change and will no longer allow ad revenue to come from them.

“Inaccurate” information includes content such as “denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.”

But as I explained earlier, the science is far from settled. The best data indicates that carbon dioxide has a limited warming effect, and that the planet may be approaching a cooling trend.

And just as Google has relied on the WHO and CDC for information about COVID and the vaccines (which have often proven disastrously wrong), Google will rely on climate information from “authoritative sources.”

In other words, from sources like the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been a major source of climate alarmism.

Unfortunately, these dangerous climate policies are having real-world consequences. I can only imagine how many people they will kill.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Europe's Energy Crisis Is A Warning Sign For America

FRIDAY, OCT 15, 2021 - 06:30 AM
Authored by Jason Isaac via The Epoch Times,

An energy crisis is rocking the world, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the 1970s. Although headlines about energy costs in faraway nations may not breach busy families’ political radar, the energy shortages and skyrocketing prices spreading across Europe and Asia are a warning sign for America.

If we allow the anti-energy, anti-prosperity climate cartel to control the political process - if Green New Deal-style policies become reality - our nation’s future will be dire indeed.

In Britain, electricity reserves could fall to as low as 4 percent of demand, with blackouts this winter all but inevitable, and petrol stations continue to sit empty.

India’s “unprecedented” coal shortage has officials warning of impending power cuts as coal plants that normally carry 15 to 30 days’ reserves—and power most of the nation—now have enough fuel for two days or less.

Even China, an energy and economic powerhouse, is being forced to halt production of everything from aluminum to soybeans, further worsening global supply chain issues and potentially threatening the world’s food supply.

And this crisis isn’t limited to countries that actively embrace fossil fuels. Even Germany, decades into its unsuccessful Energiewende transition to renewable energy and supposedly a world leader in green power, is feeling the crunch. One German power plant completely ran out of coal. All those eggs in the renewable basket still weren’t enough to insulate Germany—which, despite its bombastic commitment to wind and solar, still gets most of its energy from fossil fuels—from energy shortages and skyrocketing prices.

Germans already pay the highest electricity prices in the European Union, and residents are now warned to expect rising gas bills, too.

The consequences of these energy shortages aren’t as simple as just paying a little bit more for energy. If only it were that simple.

Britain is warning its subjects to expect not only blackouts, but also energy prices rising by as much as 30 percent. This is a steep cost for even well-to-do families, let alone low-income and fixed-income households in a nation already wracked by energy poverty. Freezing deaths are on the rise in England, where over 3,000 people die needlessly every year because they can’t afford to keep their homes at a safe temperature in the winter. Studies confirm a direct correlation between rising natural gas prices and wintertime deaths.

Brits are unfortunately learning firsthand the little-known climate fact that cold is far, far deadlier than heat. And they won’t be the last country to acquire this lesson if this energy crisis isn’t stopped.



The United States hasn’t been hit hard by this crisis, but it’s only a matter of time.

Though gas prices are high, so are the prices for everything else, and the precarious nature of our nation’s energy independence is still unknown to many.

But if our nation capitulates to pressure by climate alarmists to kill the American energy industry, we’ll be headed down the same path as Europe and Asia.

The threat doesn’t just come from political leaders
, although President Joe Biden’s continued campaign against responsible American energy producers is a major challenge.

The rise of discriminatory environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing - in which Wall Street firms make investment and lending choices based on political motivations - means many major banks no longer fund oil and gas exploration even if the investment would be lucrative. There are now half as many oil rigs operating as there were in 2018 even though the price per barrel is almost equal, largely due to financial pressure from Wall Street.

Many energy companies are unable to get the capital they need to continue operating. This doesn’t mean we stop using fossil fuels; it simply means we’re forced to import more from overseas companies that don’t share America’s environmental or human rights commitments. Ironically, the growing anti-fossil fuel campaign means we will have more pollution and more greenhouse gas emissions—but less prosperity for our nation.

The more our society penalizes American energy producers, the more challenging our country’s future will be. We have the power to give America a prosperous future, if we embrace the fuels that have helped our nation become a beacon of hope for the world.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Participants hold placards as they take part in a demonstration demanding the government take immediate action against climate change in Sydney, Australia, on Jan. 10, 2020. (Mohammed Farooq/AFP via Getty Images)

Participants hold placards as they take part in a demonstration demanding the government take immediate action against climate change in Sydney, Australia, on Jan. 10, 2020. (Mohammed Farooq/AFP via Getty Images)

VIEWPOINTS
UN Climate Change Funding to Feed Corruption Gravy Train of Developing World
Eric Louw
Eric Louw


October 15, 2021 Updated: October 15, 2021
Commentary

The U.N. climate change conference in Glasgow (COP26) is great news for corrupt governments in the developing world because it looks set to transfer huge sums of money into their hands.

Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian-born economist, has long warned the West against sending aid to Africa because of the corruption it creates.

Moyo’s book “Dead Aid” explained how foreign aid produces terrible outcomes in the developing world, such as economic laziness, cultures of dependence and rampant corruption. She argued aid was killing Africa.

Warnings by Moyo, and others, have helped reduce the flows of foreign aid to third world governments know to be kleptocracies. But that has simply meant corrupt governments have had to work harder to get the West to send them money.

How have they done this? The method that has been widely used is playing the guilt card or the victim card.

The guilt card tells Westerners they should feel guilty because European empires and colonialism allegedly exploited the third world. But, unfortunately, the left has so widely propagated this anticolonial mythology that it is becoming almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about the age of imperialism.

The victim card tells Westerners that the developing world is full of poor and starving people because villainous Western capitalists exploit them.

Unfortunately, this socialist myth has been sold to many well-meaning but naïve, liberals through journalists and celebrities, or by screening heart-wrenching and sensationalist television images.

Since well-meaning liberals lack personal experience of the third world, they have no reality against which to measure the myths fed to them by left-leaning media and educators.

Playing the guilt and victims cards have also been routinely used by leaders of multilateral organizations like the U.N. and WHO.

More recently, we have also witnessed third world leaders increasingly using China’s Belt and Road initiative to turn the foreign aid tap back on. Today’s version of great power competition has seen Western countries handing out aid to try and stop developing countries from aligning with China.

Epoch Times Photo
Chinese Leader Xi Jinping (R) with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (L) attend the 2018 Beijing Summit Of The Forum On China-Africa Cooperation – Round Table Conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Sept. 4, 2018, in Beijing, China. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

Sadly, this sort of aid is especially likely to lead to corruption—just as it did during the Cold War.

But now we are facing a new explosion of third world corruption, caused this time by the way Greens have successfully mobilized the politics of climate change. If governments in Africa and Asia get their way, the Glasgow conference on climate change will transfer huge amounts of money into their hands.

With the Glasgow summit in mind, the South African government (known for its corruption) has promised to go beyond its Paris greenhouse gas targets.

But there is a catch—along with other third world elites, South Africa expects taxpayers in the West to pay them to implement their targets.

So we see the South African government, a well-known kleptocrat regime, brazenly asking the developed world to hand over to them $269-billion to pay for proposed decarbonization projects. The South African document lodged with the U.N. said “substantial multilateral support” would be required for measures such as “a very ambitious power sector investment plan.”

So Glasgow funds will be used to fix South Africa’s broken Eskom electricity supply system, plus fix the country’s catastrophic debt-repayment problem created by Eskom’s corruption and maladministration. Eskom has been unable to supply the country with enough electricity since 2007.

Further, ending the country’s energy crisis by building giant new power plants at Medupi and Kusile failed because of corruption, looting and planning incompetence. Glasgow funds could fix all these problems, but it would also provide new corruption opportunities.

Effectively, the developing world is putting forward yet another neo-socialist wealth transfer scheme, but this one is dressed up in the language of saving the planet from climate change.

Epoch Times Photo
A woman holds a sign saying “climate change = mass murder” while people protest with a group called Extinction Rebellion in New York City on April 17, 2019. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

But the developing world says they will only help save the planet on condition that Western governments help them meet their Glasgow promises by transferring billions (if not trillions) of dollars from Western taxpayers to developing world elites so they can meet over-blown targets.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, the developing world has a record of poor governance, meaning these governments can seldom deliver on promises or targets. Even worse, developing world elites generally spend the foreign aid monies they receive to enrich themselves rather than to actually build the intended projects.

So the reality is, the U.N. climate change conference in Glasgow looks set to become just another mechanism to feed the corrupt gravy train that third world elites have been running for decades. Far from paying for green decarbonization projects, any wealth transfers flowing from Glasgow are more likely to end up buying four-wheel drives for the children of the third world elites.

To understand what is likely to happen to the $269 billion for climate change projects asked for by the South Africans, one only needs to look at what happened to their $4.3 billion COVID-19 relief funding from the IMF. One corrupt government Minister alone was involved in COVID-19 fraud valued at $10 million, while other politicians and African National Congress-aligned cronies looted another $700 million out of PPE funds.

If South Africa’s elite were even prepared to steal from funds geared to saving lives by fixing a health system shattered by COVID-19, imagine what they would do with climate change aid (where no lives are at stake).

By bringing together third world elites carrying begging bowls with Western greens which are willing to be taken advantage of, the U.N. climate change summit seems almost certain to deliver a bonanza for all those corrupt elites with a legacy of running gravy trains.

But this still begs the question; will Western governments ever learn?

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

UN Climate Conference using diesel generators to charge fleet of TESLA cars…
Posted by Kane on October 16, 2021 5:18 pm

1634422123514.png

UN Climate Change Conference Using Diesel Generators To Charge Teslas

The COP Climate Change Conference, hosted by the UK in partnership with Italy, is taking place in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12. One blogger from Brighton wrote this week that attendees from the conference will be staying at Gleneagles Hotel, where there are 20 Teslas at the hotel to shuttle people back and forth to the convention, which is about 75km.

Then, the kicker. Since the hotel only has one Tesla charging station, several diesel generators have been contracted to help recharge the Teslas overnight.

1634422230840.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Science Of Propaganda Is Still Being Developed And Advanced

FRIDAY, OCT 15, 2021 - 11:10 PM
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
We live in a far less free society than most of us think.

It looks like we’re free.
We don’t get thrown in prison for criticizing our government officials. We can vote for whoever we want. We can log onto the internet and look up information on any subject we’re interested in. If we want to buy a product we have many brands we are free to choose from.

But we’re not free. Our political systems are set up to herd people into a two-party system that is controlled on both sides by plutocrats. The news media that people rely on to form ideas about what’s going on and how they should vote are controlled by the plutocratic class and heavily influenced by secretive government agencies. Internet algorithms are aggressively manipulated to show people information which favors the status quo. Even our entertainment is rife with Pentagon and CIA influence.

How free is that? How free is your speech if there are myriad institutional safeguards in place to prevent speech from ever effecting political change?

It doesn’t matter what you’re allowed to say if it doesn’t matter what you say. It doesn’t matter if you’re allowed to call the oligarchic puppet put in office by the last fake election a dickhead. It doesn’t matter if you’re allowed to Google any information you want only to find whatever information Google wants you to find.

What is the functional difference between a regime which directly censors the internet to prevent dissent and a regime which works with Silicon Valley plutocrats to control information via algorithms and has a system in place which prevents dissent from having any meaningful impact?
There is none.

We live in a profoundly unfree society that is disguised as a free society.

Western liberal democracy is just totalitarianism dressed in drag.
And it’s only getting worse. Propaganda is a still-developing science.


Last month Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian military used the Covid outbreak as an excuse to test actual military psyop techniques on its own civilian population under the pretense of assuring compliance with pandemic restrictions.

Some excerpts:
  • “Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.”
  • “The plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, also known as CJOC, relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. The campaign called for ‘shaping’ and ‘exploiting’ information. CJOC claimed the information operations scheme was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.”
  • “A separate initiative, not linked to the CJOC plan, but overseen by Canadian Forces intelligence officers, culled information from public social media accounts in Ontario. Data was also compiled on peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings and BLM leaders.”
  • “‘This is really a learning opportunity for all of us and a chance to start getting information operations into our (CAF-DND) routine,’ the rear admiral stated.”
  • “Yet another review centred on the Canadian Forces public affairs branch and its activities. Last year, the branch launched a controversial plan that would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as to collect and analyze information from public social media accounts.”
  • “The plan would have seen staff move from traditional government methods of communicating with the public to a more aggressive strategy of using information warfare and influence tactics on Canadians.”
So they’re not just employing mass-scale psychological operations on the public, they’re testing them and learning from them.

And we can probably assume that anything which may have been learned was also shared with the government agencies of other NATO members.

In a new article titled “Behind NATO’s ‘cognitive warfare’: Western militaries are waging a ‘battle for your brain’”, The Grayzone’s Ben Norton reports on how recent NATO-sponsored discussions have explicitly advocated the need to advance the science of cognitive warfare for offensive as well as defensive purposes.

Some excerpts:
  • “NATO is spinning out an entirely new kind of combat it has branded as cognitive warfare. Described as the ‘weaponization of brain sciences,’ the new method involves ‘hacking the individual’ by exploiting ‘the vulnerabilities of the human brain’ in order to implement more sophisticated ‘social engineering.’
  • “While the NATO-backed study insisted that much of its research on cognitive warfare is designed for defensive purposes, it also conceded that the military alliance is developing offensive tactics, stating, ‘The human is very often the main vulnerability and it should be acknowledged in order to protect NATO’s human capital but also to be able to benefit from our adversaries’s vulnerabilities.’”
  • “In a chilling disclosure, the report stated explicitly that ‘the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only the military.’”
  • “The study described this phenomenon as ‘the militarization of brain science.’ But it appears clear that NATO’s development of cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate of social relationships to the mind itself.”
  • “In other words, this document shows that figures in the NATO military cartel increasingly see their own domestic population as a threat, fearing civilians to be potential Chinese or Russian sleeper cells, dastardly ‘fifth columns’ that challenge the stability of ‘Western liberal democracies.’”
  • “Naturally, the NATO researcher claimed foreign ‘adversaries’ are the supposed aggressors employing cognitive warfare. But at the same time, he made it clear that the Western military alliance is developing its own tactics.”
In a 2017 essay titled “The War on Sensemaking”, writer Jordan Greenhall made an observation that I have thought about ever since: that the science of modern propaganda has been in research and development for more than a century now, and has necessarily advanced scientifically just as much as other fields in the military have.
“In 1917, a young Edward Bernays was asked to help the American war effort by applying his uncle Sigmund Freud’s theories of the unconscious to a new German technique called ‘propaganda’,” Greenhall writes.

“The technology of war moves quickly. In the span of one and a half centuries, the last war leapt from long rifles to repeating rifles to gatling guns all the way to Little Boy. The warfighters of the current war haven’t dawdled. The wars of culture, meaning and purpose have seen innovation on an ‘exponential technology curve.’ The artisanal efforts of Bernays and Goebbels have been left far in the past by modern methods.”
Think about how many technological advancements there have been in the military over the last century. Our rulers have been refining their methods of manipulating our sensemaking abilities to their advantage throughout that entire time, and only a small minority of us have even begun to realize that that manipulation is even happening. We’re just learning to play checkers while they’re mastering 3-D chess.

I don’t have any solutions to this problem other than to spread consciousness of the fact that it is happening. Propaganda only works if you don’t understand (A) that it is happening to you and (B) how it is occurring, and a basic awareness of the fact that there’s a globe-spanning campaign to manipulate human thought to the advantage of the powerful is the first step toward having that understanding. Having the humility to understand that you yourself can be manipulated and deceived is the second step.

My hope is that humanity will transcend its psychological susceptibility to manipulation and move into a healthy relationship with mental narrative as our adapt-or-die precipice draws nearer. But time will only tell.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

California Democrats promote climate propaganda supporting Biden’s flawed “extreme heat” campaign

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Orange County Register ran an editorial by Democratic State Senator Bob Hertzberg and Assemblywoman Luz Rivas which relied on numerous flawed climate claims in support of Biden and the Democrats national “extreme heat” propaganda campaign that is debunked in WUWT articles here and here.

The Register article notes that “high temperatures” that occurred in Woodland Hills last year are examples of “extreme heat” that is increasing and caused by climate change as addressed in their comments below:

“We both proudly represent communities in the San Fernando Valley, and our neighborhoods felt the brunt of these extreme heat phenomena. Woodland Hills hit a record 121 degrees last year, the highest temperature ever recorded in Los Angeles County. These extreme heat events will only worsen, as the California Energy Commission expects the state to experience an average of 40 to 53 extreme heat days by 2050.”

“This is just one example of the direct impacts our changed climate is having on our neighborhoods. It’s not headline-grabbing like the other natural disasters our state is facing, but deaths from extreme heat exceed that of any other weather events.” No data is provided to support this supposed claim.

Apparently, Hertzberg and Rivas don’t know that climate scientists around the world have always used measurements of “temperature anomaly” not “absolute temperatures” to address national, regional and global climate temperature change trends.

All anyone needs to do is Google “temperature anomaly” to understand the significant difference between “absolute temperature” versus “temperature anomaly” measurement data that climate scientists rely upon to address climate related temperature changes as noted below.

What do temperature anomalies mean?

Temperature anomalies are useful for deriving average surface temperatures because they tend to be highly correlated over large distances (of the order of 1000 km). In other words, anomalies are representative of temperature changes over large areas and distances.

Why do we use temperature anomalies?

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

NOAA measurements of temperature anomaly data across the contiguous 48 U. S. States (Parameter: Maximum Temperature Anomaly; Time Scale: 1-Month; Months: All Months) using its most reliable USCRN temperature anomaly measurement data system establishes that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” as presented and established below using NOAA temperature anomaly data which clearly shows that the nations maximum temperature anomaly measurement data has no increasing trend and in fact has declined since temperature anomaly peaks in years 2006 and 2012.

image-53.png


NOAA maximum temperature anomaly data for the 48 contiguous states proves that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” trends and Democrat claims otherwise are unsupported by scientific data. Democrats are improperly trying to use localized-weather absolute temperature events to define national, regional and global climate temperature change behavior which is scientifically invalid.

Additionally, the Democrats alarmists claims of increasing heat waves occurring across the U.S. because of climate change are unsupported by Biden’s own EPA data which shows that the U.S. in not experiencing increased occurrences or intensity of heat waves based on EPA’s 125 years of extreme heat event trending data across the U.S. from 1895 through 2020 as shown below. (Biden’s Democrat driven climate alarmist politics drove EPA to try and conceal this data as exposed in a prior WUWT article.)

image-54.png


Additionally Democrats propaganda claims that increasing heat related death rates are occurring across the U.S. because of more heat waves (which have been shown to be false) are unsupported by EPA’s own data which shows that U.S. heat related deaths rates (underlying and contributing cause of death) are declining.

image-55.png


Even more embarrassing for the Democrat’s “extreme heat” shenanigans is that EPA data shows that cold related deaths (underlying and contributing cause of death) are increasing as shown below. Furthermore, comparing the latest year EPA rates of heat and cold related deaths in the U.S. reveals that cold related deaths are nearly twice (5.5 deaths per million versus 2.9 deaths per million) that of heat related deaths.


image-56.png


The Democrat’s deliberate concealment of extensive, long time period and highly relevant NOAA nationwide temperature anomaly measurement data as well as EPA nationwide annual heat wave index data and EPA heat and cold related death rate data while highlighting and hyping local temperature weather outcomes to attempt to justify their claim that the U.S. is experiencing increasing “extreme heat” and heat related death rates are scientifically invalid and represents nothing but climate alarmist political propaganda
The Register article goes on to hype the usual Democrat claims that California is “fighting climate change” through politically contrived schemes such as planting trees mandating electric vehicles, etc. as noted below. (The article fails to mention the state’s mandated costly $25+ billion, unreliable blackout plagued and bureaucratically onerous renewable energy schemes.)

“Urban tree planting is one of the most noticeable and beneficial actions we take as a state. Trees are our best natural first line of defense against climate change. They not only provide crucial shade to playgrounds and sidewalks to protect kids against harmful heat, they also trap carbon and help clean our air.”

“Beyond climate resiliency, we’re investing in California’s transition to clean electric vehicles. The budget provides incentives to manufacturers and buyers to make electric vehicles more affordable and accessible, while also investing in crucial infrastructure like charging stations in more communities of color.”

“California is fighting a two-front war: on one end, we’re working to cut down our carbon emissions to protect future generations, and on the other, we’re battling a climate already changed so we can protect families from its deadly effects.”

These political schemes are completely irrelevant to global energy use and emissions with this reality hidden and concealed from the state’s residents by Democrats.

The U.S. and EU who have been driving the UN IPCC climate alarmism political campaign for over 30 years have now completely lost the ability to control global energy and emissions outcomes through the IPCC’s flawed climate model contrived schemes.

In 1990 the year of the first UN IPCC climate report the world’s developed nations led by the U.S. and EU were accountable for nearly 58% of all global energy use and 55% of all global emissions. But that dominance in global energy use and emissions by the developed nations changed dramatically and completely disappeared over the next 15-year period.

The world’s developing nations led by China and India took command of total global energy use in 2007 (controlling more than 50% of all global energy use) after dominating total global emissions in 2003 (controlling more than 50% of global emissions).

In year 2020 the developing nations controlled 61% of all global energy use and 67% of all global emissions with these nations clearly on a path to further increase these commanding percentages in the future. The developing nations have no interest in crippling their economies by kowtowing to the western nation’s flawed model driven climate alarmism political propaganda campaign with the developing nations having announced to the world that they are fully committed to increased use of coal and other fossil fuels.

In year 2020 the developing nations consumed 82% of all global coal use with China alone consuming 54% of the world’s coal. China was the only nation in the world that increased both energy use and emissions in pandemic year 2020.

The U.S. and EU have not contributed to the increasing level of global emissions over the last 15 years. In fact, these nations reduced emissions during this time period by many billions of metric tons. Yet global emissions have continued to dramatically climb ever higher by many more billions of tons driven exclusively by the increased use and unstoppable growth of fossil fuel energy by the world’s developing nations.

Assertions by U.S. and EU politicians that massively costly, horrendously onerous and bureaucratically driven reductions of emissions will “fight climate change” along with bizarre claims of supporting a “net zero” future are ludicrous, disingenuous and represent nothing less than completely fraudulent proposed schemes.

California plays an absolutely irrelevant and non existent role in “fighting climate change” since any actions it takes are so minuscule (as shown below in millions of metric tons) they have no consequence at the global level where emissions continue to climb ever upward by many billions of metric tons (as shown below) driven exclusively by the world’s developing nations lead by China and India.

image-57.png


image-58.png


It’s time for the developed nations to stop their scientifically incompetent, globally irrelevant, real world inept and purely politically driven flawed climate model alarmist propaganda campaign.

For more than 4 decades the UN IPCC climate reports have emphasized the use of global monthly temperature anomaly measurement systems increasing trends to hype to the world that global CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures ever upward and demanded that global nations must damage their economies by undertaking massive renewable energy expenditures to reduce energy related CO2 emissions while destroying their availability of reliable and economic coal and natural gas energy resources.

The UK and EU are now facing severe energy reliability, availability and high out of control costs as a results of their actions toward this UN IPCC approach and yet global emissions continue to climb ever upward driven by the world’s developing nations led by China and India.

The media in the U.S. is largely ignoring the UK and EU massive energy reliability and cost debacle brought about because of excessive mandates for use of costly unreliable renewables and failure to develop and utilize their regional resources for natural gas through fracking technology.

This strategic failure has resulted in huge increases in UK and EU natural gas prices versus the U.S. (which pursued fracking technology despite objections from Democrats and achieved energy independence prior to the debacle of the Biden Presidency) as shown in the graph below.

image-59.png


The 5 major global temperature anomaly measurement systems (UAH, RSS, GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT) have all shown declining monthly temperature anomaly trends for 5+ years since early year 2016 and yet these clearly apparent anomaly declines remain unaddressed by the climate alarmist community that seems deaf and dumb to these trends as well as to the energy debacle that is now underway in the UK and EU.

Biden and the Democrats have undertaken a deliberate political campaign to ignore global “temperature anomaly” data that directly addresses climate change related temperature impacts and instead have attempted to substitute discussion of “absolute temperatures” in its place fully knowing this approach is scientifically flawed and invalid. This scientifically flawed climate alarmist political campaign has been undertaken because national, regional and global temperature anomaly measurement data trends do not support climate alarmist claims of continually increasing temperature anomaly climate change as discussed below.
The global monthly temperature anomaly measurement trends of all 5 systems (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA) are shown below with all updated through August of 2021.

image-60.png


image-61.png


image-63.png


image-64.png


image-65.png


The declining monthly global temperature anomaly measurement trends since 2016 of the UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA global temperature measurement systems reflected above are more clearly shown below for the 5+ year period from 2016 through 2021.

image-66.png


image-67.png


image-68.png


image-69.png


Additionally, the global CO2 atmospheric concentration as measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory is also shown for the period form 2016 through 2021 showing global CO2 levels have continued their upward climb during this 5+ year period while global temperature anomaly measurements have experienced declining trends unaddressed by the climate alarmist media community.

image-70.png


Biden and the Democrats are deliberately ignoring scientifically valid national, regional and global temperature anomaly data which is not supporting their climate alarmist political story of ever increasing global temperatures (as scientifically determined through use of measured temperature anomaly data systems) and instead are conducting a political campaign trying to substitute scientifically invalid absolute temperature measurement propaganda in place of well-established climate science temperature anomaly measurement data.
California Democrat politicians need to stop concealing the states massively costly but complete irrelevance in global energy and emissions outcomes that is clearly obvious to the rest of the world and instead start addressing relevant issues that have some opportunity for beneficial outcomes for the people of California.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

LATEST NEWS
Here are all the Green New Deal handouts Democrats wedged into their $3.5 trillion budget

October 17, 2021 | BPR Wire | Print Article

Thomas Catenacci, DCNF
DCNF.jpg

  • Democrats have inserted numerous provisions and subsidy programs into their $3.5 trillion budget that would benefit green energy companies and speed the transition to renewables.
  • “The whole thing is ridiculous,” Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It would be laughable except it’s not laughable because it’s going to have tremendously negative economic consequences.”
  • The budget would include a credit worth as much as $12,500 for consumers who purchase a new electric vehicle, $2,500 for electric motorcycles purchased and even $1,500 for electric bicycles, according to Ebell.
  • A key part of the budget is the $150 billion Clean Electricity Performance Program — the centerpiece of the bill’s climate agenda — which would incentivize energy companies to produce fewer emissions through a series of grants and fees.
Democrats have inserted numerous provisions and subsidy programs into their $3.5 trillion budget that would benefit green energy companies and speed the transition to renewables.

The Build Back Better Act would invest an estimated $295 billion of taxpayer money into a variety of clean energy programs in what would amount to the most sweeping climate effort passed by Congress, according to a House Committee on Energy and Commerce report. That price tag doesn’t factor in the other costly measures approved by the House Ways and Means, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Oversight and Transportation committees last month.

“This bill is crammed with green welfare subsidies, specifically for corporations and the wealthy,” House Ways and Means Ranking Member Kevin Brady told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

“They are extending and creating a whole host of green energy tax credits such as electric transmission property, zero emissions facilities and clean hydrogen,” the Texas Republican continued. “These are no longer merely tax credits, which count against the taxes you owe. These are direct pay. In effect, they’re government checks from Washington.”

The credits Brady referenced would incentivize the development of new transmission lines delivering renewable energy nationwide, reward facilities that produce zero or net negative carbon emissions and offset major costs associated with producing clean hydrogen power. But these subsidies represent a small portion of the giveaways packed into the legislation.

Overall, the bill includes major aspects of the Green New Deal, the behemoth climate legislation first proposed by progressive lawmakers in 2019. The Green New Deal has an estimated price tag of nearly $93 trillion and would cost American families as much as $65,300 per year.

‘The whole thing is ridiculous’
Democrats’ budget would include a credit worth as much as $12,500 for consumers who purchase a new electric vehicle, $2,500 for electric motorcycles purchase and even $1,500 for electric bicycles, according to Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Roughly $13.5 billion would be invested in building new electric vehicle infrastructure nationwide.

President Joe Biden recently set a goal for 50% of all vehicles purchased in 2030 to be electric. In addition, his administration said the U.S. would cut emissions 50% by 2030, have 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

“The whole thing is ridiculous,” Ebell told the DCNF. “It would be laughable except it’s not laughable because it’s going to have tremendously negative economic consequences. We can’t meet any of these targets, but in trying to do so we can do a huge amount of economic damage.”

The budget is a key cog in the president’s aggressive climate agenda and crusade against global warming which his administration has labeled a “crisis” multiple times since he took office. Days into his presidency, Biden nixed the Keystone XL pipeline permit, opened the door for sweeping regulation on fossil fuel producers and banned new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, but each executive action was met with a fierce response from states.

Since then, the president hasn’t just railed against fossil fuels, instead actively promoting renewable energy technology. His administration said Wednesday it would build seven wind farms nationwide that would have the capacity to provide enough energy to power 10 million homes by 2030.

“These technologies aren’t science fiction,” Biden remarked after a Sept. 14 tour of a National Renewable Energy Laboratory facility in Colorado. “They’re ready to be installed across the country right now.”

The Build Back Better Act would additionally implement a production tax credit for wind, solar and geothermal energy, according to Ebell. There is also an investment tax credit in the bill that would benefit developers of energy storage devices.

Clean Electricity Performance Program
Perhaps chief among the climate policies found in the Build Back Better Act is the $150 billion Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP). The program, which is the centerpiece of the bill’s climate agenda, would incentivize energy companies to produce fewer emissions through a series of grants and fees.

“The CEPP is a repackaged version of a number of green energy proposals that have been made both recently and over the years to — we used to say nudge — now it’s much more of a heavy push towards utilities generating at least 85% clean energy,” American Institute for Economic Research senior faculty Ryan Yonk told the DCNF.

If an energy supplier increases their clean output by 4% compared to the previous year, it would be eligible for a sizable grant under the CEPP, according to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Companies that don’t increase clean energy by that amount will be punished with a large fine payable to the Department of Energy.

The program mandates that companies use grants to make energy more affordable for consumers. It also prohibits them from passing program costs to consumers, but fails to outline how it would ensure price increases aren’t tied to CEPP fines.

CEPP, though, continues to face opposition from Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who could be the deciding vote for the budget, Politico reported. Manchin reportedly wants to gut much of the program and include a broader definition of “clean energy.”

However, when asked in September about whether he would sign a budget bill with fewer climate provisions, Biden said he was “for more climate measures.”

‘What’s the goal?’
“It’s not based on science. It’s not based on an overall strategic plan. It’s a lot of feel good stuff,” Republican Utah Rep. John Curtis, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, told the DCNF when asked about the budget. “What are we trying to accomplish? What’s the goal? Nobody’s articulated that.”

He noted, for example, that the U.S. falls far short of the grid capacity to handle the number of electric vehicle charging stations the budget would fund. The budget hasn’t received the support of a single elected Republican, not even Curtis, who has backed many climate policies.

The bill also fails to acknowledge the shortfalls of such a rapid transition to renewable energy, Yonk said. Many projects, such as wind and solar, are still not profitable decades after investment began pouring into renewables.

In 2020, just 12% of the energy consumed by Americans came from renewables, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Solar and wind, which account for a large fraction of renewable energy produced, are nature-dependent and can be unreliable.

While producers often tout the energy capacity of solar and wind, they produce less than half of that capacity on average, EIA data showed. A rapid shift to renewables in Europe was a catalyst in the ongoing energy crisis that has seen oil, gas and coal prices skyrocket, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Renewables require large battery storage facilities to overcome some of the problems posed by their intermittent nature, but the U.S. has a total storage power capacity of almost 2 gigawatts, according to an EIA report in August. By comparison, the U.S. consumed about 3.8 million gigawatts per hour last year.

“We really don’t know what an energy market could look like because we subsidize and regulate all the different pieces of it,” Yonk told the DCNF. “We’ve taken what could be determined by individuals making their own choices and substituted it with a political solution where the values of those who lobby — whether they be on the green side or the energy production side — are what actually determines where we get things from.”

“As a result, we get things like the production tax credit or the investment tax credit that says, ‘okay, if you do these narrow list of things, we will provide a subsidy,’” he continued.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

FOOD

Published July 7

Plant-based meat not nutritionally the same as real meat: study

Duke University researchers looked at the nutritional content of plant-based meat alternatives using ‘metabolomics’
By Jeanette Settembre | Fox News

Impossible Foods founder and CEO Pat Brown on concerns over a possible meat shortage

New concerns over global food supply chain as coronavirus interrupts U.S. meat production.

Plant-based meat alternatives may look and cook like real meat, but scientists say that the nutritional components may not be the same.

Researchers at Duke University compared 36 food samples -- 18 of widely known plant-based meat alternatives to 18 grass-fed ground beef options from a ranch in Idaho. For each sample, they measured the number of metabolites, small molecules that make up the nutrients in foods.

Plant-based meat alternatives may look and cook like real meat, but scientists say that the nutritional components may not be the same, a new study suggests. (iStock).

Plant-based meat alternatives may look and cook like real meat, but scientists say that the nutritional components may not be the same, a new study suggests. (iStock).

The study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, discovered the beef contained 22 metabolites that the plant-based substitutes did not have. The plant-based meat, meanwhile, contained 31 metabolites that meat did not include. Researchers found the largest disparities were in vitamins, amino acids and types of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids found in both food products among other variables.

Alternative meat makers mimic the look, taste and texture of meat with iron-carrying molecules from soy among other ingredients like beets and berries and ramp up the protein with soy, peas and other plant-based ingredients.

Additionally, some alternative meat products contain vitamins such as B12 to create a similar nutritional profile to real meat.

The study, however, found that several metabolites proven to be vital to human health were found either exclusively or in greater amounts of beef, including creatine, spermine, anserine, cysteamine, glucosamine, squalene, and the omega-3 fatty acid DHA, researchers said.

"These nutrients are important for our brain and other organs including our muscles," Stephan van Vliet, a postdoctoral researcher at the Duke Molecular Physiology said in a statement. "But some people on vegan diets (no animal products), can live healthy lives – that’s very clear."

Van Vilet further explained: "To consumers reading nutritional labels, they may appear nutritionally interchangeable," adding: "But if you peek behind the curtain using metabolomics and look at expanded nutritional profiles, we found that there are large differences between meat and a plant-based meat alternative."

Consumers should know real meat and alternative meat products are not "nutritionally interchangeable," Van Vilet noted.

"But that’s not to say that one is better than the other," van Vliet said in the study, adding: "Plant and animal foods can be complementary because they provide different nutrients."
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden To Meet With Pope Days Before Pitching 15% Minimum Global Tax And Climate Plan To World Leaders

MONDAY, OCT 18, 2021 - 03:12 PM

President Biden will be taking his global taxation and climate change ideas to the Pope, hours before the G20 summit in Rome later this month.

Before seeking the approval of world leaders on his plans for both, Biden may be looking to seek approval from one other major "world leader" about a global minimum tax of 15% and plans to reduce greenhouse gasses, according to Reuters.

Biden's meeting with the pope comes at a time when the church has "sought to admonish" Biden for his stance on abortion. Biden will be accompanied by his wife, the report says.

White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said: "They will discuss working together on efforts grounded in respect for fundamental human dignity, including ending the COVID-19 pandemic, tackling the climate crisis, and caring for the poor."



President Biden is also expected to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron while they are both in Rome, the report says.

Biden will also be attending the UN climate conference called COP26 in Glasgow on November 1st and 2nd. At that conference, he is expected to announce "key actions" on climate change.

The trips are supposed to signal the U.S. "re-engaging with international groups".

However, the rest of the world may have serious questions for Biden, including questions about his handling of the Afghanistan pull out and the U.S.'s carbon emission goals.

The U.S. is currently seeking to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%-52% from 2005 to 2030.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Green Policies Return The World To Coal

MONDAY, OCT 18, 2021 - 03:30 AM
Authored by Clarice Feldman via AmericanThinker.com,

There’s scarcely a place in the modern world that will not be feeling the high cost and discomfort of a shortage of energy supplies and their increasingly soaring prices. Lebanon already is. Due to a shortage of oil, the two power plants that supply 40% of that country’s electricity shut down. There is no electricity in Lebanon and will not be any for some days.


It’s an extreme case, but even the United Kingdom, the EU, the U.S., and China are running up against diminishing ability to obtain the necessary energy supplies to keep things running smoothly. Some of the shortages are due to accidents, like the cutting of an undersea cable to the UK, but most are due to green policies and stupid political choices, ironically shutting down oil and gas-fired power plants and fossil fuel exploitation and transport at the demand of the greens, who grossly overestimate both global warming and the ability of air, sun and water to take their place.

Ironically, this means coal -- the dirtiest possible fuel -- is back in huge demand,
Despite an import ban on Australian coal, China relented and has begun unloading Australian coal because of an extreme power crunch. Coal is now in demand in Europe as gas prices soar and the EU’s energy policies are in large responsible:
The ideological split will drive a wedge between the European Union, a long-time champion of a coal phaseout, and corporate interests as market conditions favour gas-to-coal switching. The switching ratio has slid in coal’s favour in the last weeks of June 2021 and judging by the current futures structure, it will stay in place until at least Q2-2022 [snip] Given the natural limitations to further coal utilization, in Germany the main interaction in the upcoming weeks will be between coal and wind. Coal-fired electricity generation rose to multi-year highs in the first weeks of September when every single day saw wind generation only a fraction of its usual strength and speed. Now, the situation has changed somewhat as wind started blowing again, dropping hard coal generation to an average generation rate of 7.5-8 GWh, still some 30-35% higher than at this time of the year in 2020.
Yet still, Germany’s travails are far from over, especially with December looming large on the horizon. According to preliminary plans, that month alone three nuclear plants will stop operating in Germany -- Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen -- with a combined (non-intermittent) capacity of 4 GW, representing the penultimate wave of nuclear phase-out closures before 2022 sees the last 3 reactors decommissioned. Such substantial capacity would need to be replaced with either coal or gas, with profitability skewed overwhelmingly towards the former. [snip]
The current coal demand surge should force the European Union to reconsider its position on coal -- as polluting as it might be, it could still help alleviate energy crunches across Europe when the situation demands it. As things stand today, the upcoming four years would see at least seven countries phasing out coal: Portugal (2021), France (2022), UK (2024), Hungary, Italy, Ireland and Greece (all 2025). As Europe has seen nine consecutive year-on-year increases in aggregate coal burns, perhaps more switching flexibility and less bans could still be the way forward.
It’s no secret that the cleanest most reliable fuel – nuclear -- was murdered by the greens. Then natural gas, the second cleanest, became their target, so now many places are desperate for coal, the dirtiest option.

Noah Rothman agrees with me -- the greens are largely responsible for the present energy crunch and its consequences:
The intended consequence of these [Biden] policies was to create artificial energy scarcity and incentivize alternative fuel producers to enter the marketplace. “If you restrict the supply (of oil and gas), you alter the market and you create a better environment for more sustainable fuels,” New York University professor Max Sarinsky told the Associated Press. This was all part of the plan, to the extent there was a plan.
So, yes, there’s a lot of blame to go around if what Friedman forecasts to be a dark, cold, and scary winter materializes. No small share of that blame should be apportioned out to the central planners who sought to kneecap the existing energy market in favor of an insufficient alternative.
Was there any point to the war on fossil fuels? Probably not. Judith Curry, one of the most reliable climate researchers, explains how even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits finally that the dire climate models off of which they were working were in substantial error. The latest report (AR6) from the IPCC indicates previous models were predicting a hotter climate than warranted.
A substantial number of the CMIP6 models are running way too hot, which has been noted in many publications. In its projections of 21st century global mean surface temperatures, the AR6 provides ‘constrained’ projections (including climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity that reasonably simulate the 20th century).

[snip] With regards to fitness for purpose of global/regional climate models for climate adaptation decision making, an excellent summary is provided by a team of scientists from the Earth Institute and Red Cross Climate Center of Columbia University:

“Climate model projections are able to capture many aspects of the climate system and so can be relied upon to guide mitigation plans and broad adaptation strategies, but the use of these models to guide local, practical adaptation actions is unwarranted. Climate models are unable to represent future conditions at the degree of spatial, temporal, and probabilistic precision with which projections are often provided which gives a false impression of confidence to users of climate change information.” (Nissan et al.)

GCMs [Global Climate Models] clearly have an important role to play particularly in scientific research. However, driven by the urgent needs of policy makers, the advancement of climate science is arguably being slowed by the focus of resources on this one path of climate modeling.

The numerous problems with GCMs, and concerns that these problems will not be addressed in the near future given the current development path, suggest that alternative frameworks should be explored. This is particularly important for the science-policy interface.
Worldwide fuel shortages and rising costs aren’t the only concerns this winter, and they aren’t the only concerns of China, whose aggressive air flights near Taiwan and marine actions in the South China Sea have unnerved many.

The CIA has been secretly training Taiwan forces to respond to any Chinese attacks.

Marines and Special Forces have been training Taiwan troops for a year.
About two dozen members of U.S. special-operations and support troops are conducting training for small units of Taiwan’s ground forces, the officials said. The U.S. Marines are working with local maritime forces on small-boat training. The American forces have been operating in Taiwan for at least a year, the officials said.

The U.S. special-operations deployment is a sign of concern within the Pentagon over Taiwan’s tactical capabilities in light of Beijing’s years long military buildup and recent threatening moves against the island.
Japan seems to be back constructing carriers to defend itself and its allies.
The situation at the top of China and the U.S. makes these aggressions very fraught with danger to the world. Xi’s efforts to deny the country’s oligarchs power have melted down its markets. Its power shortages have compelled Xi to order energy diverted from factory production to homes this winter. And this is having a ripple effect throughout the economically globalized world.
The China power crunch also risks heaping further pressure on global supply chains by pushing up prices for raw materials and essential components.

“Global markets will feel the pinch of a shortage of supply from textiles, toys to machine parts,” wrote Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura Holdings, in a note to clients on Monday. He added that the resulting supply shock will likely further push up global inflation, especially in developed markets such as the U.S. The power curbs have hit parts of China’s manufacturing bases, including those that produce semiconductor-related goods. A global shortage of semiconductors this year has already hit car makers and other industries.

Steve Cooke, managing director of Cre8tive Brand Ideas Ltd., a Solihull, England-based distributor of promotional merchandise such as branded bags, clothing, pens and computer accessories, said he relies on suppliers who source 80% of their products from China. Already this year, rising freight costs and supply-chain bottlenecks have pushed up his costs and lengthened delivery times for his customers.

He said he expects those pressures to intensify as the power crunch squeezes production.

“We rely so much on China, it’s incredible,” he said.
Over at Gates of Vienna, H. Numan has a well-considered essay on why the current situation is so dangerous to the world: China has no combat veterans and its leadership is largely people who paid for their positions. Its military equipment is just adequate, mostly reverse-engineered copies of stuff developed elsewhere.
The worldwide pandemic was caused by the CCP. The coal shortage is entirely Chinese. The CCP embargoed Australia when it asked questions about what China would do to compensate for the pandemic. They hoped to beat Australia into submission. It didn’t work, and now major industries and half the country face enormous blackouts. The winter (-20 C) has yet to come. Incidentally, the embargo also covers Australian grain. Really clever, when you already have severe food shortages.

The Chinese long-term policy is equally bad. The Belt and Road Initiative proved to be a very costly failure. For two very obvious reasons: shipping goods by rail isn’t going to replace shipping by sea.

One single container ship can carry more freight than a rail link between Beijing and Rotterdam can carry in a full year, at a much lower cost. The cutthroat negotiations and mafia tactics warned some nations not to fall for it. Sri Lanka lost a port they had build by the Chinese to the Chinese when they defaulted on payment. Piraeus in Greece and the port of Darwin are/were Chinese owned. Piraeus still is, Darwin was canceled. They even tried to buy the port of Rotterdam.

Right now China is in the same position as Germany was before starting WW2. Not enough money, and too many ambitious goals that cannot be met. There are more than enough grudges from the past that only need a little kindling before becoming a raging fire. [snip]

The problem with salami slicing is that you do get what you want, but it is very expensive and takes a very long time. And you run the real risk of losing it all. Germany sliced itself into Austria, Czechoslovakia, and lost everything when they tried to slice the Danzig corridor.

China sort of has the same problems. And it ran out of peaceful options. We’re in a very dangerous situation with Chinese characteristics.
In Europe, only tiny Lithuania has taken on China, which may force the EU’s hand on Taiwan.
On Tuesday, the 27 EU leaders gathered for a dinner that involved a discussion on EU-China relations, in which Lithuania's President Gitanas Nausėda called on his peers to send a message of "unity" in the face of China. The dinner ended up with what Borrell called "a very interesting debate."

“There is a big bipolarity between China and U.S. on one side, and on the other side there’s a multipolarity of actors," he said. "And Europeans have to act; Europeans have to create a common strategic culture to share the challenges they’re facing.”

While the EU's strategic compass is still being drawn up, one thing is clear: In facing off against Beijing, Lithuania -- population 2.8 million -- has pushed the subject of Taiwan and relations with China more prominently onto the EU’s agenda in a way that leaders in Beijing and many European capitals have been avoiding for years.

And, for the moment at least, Vilnius shows no signs of backing down.
As for the U.S. Stephen Bryen details President Biden’s puzzling mumbles about his conversation with Xi on Taiwan.
President Joe Biden, on Tuesday, October 5th, said that he had spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping and both of them had agreed to “stick to” the “Taiwan agreement.”

The only known recent conversation between Biden and Xi took place on September 9th. The “read out” provided by the White House says nothing either about Taiwan or the Taiwan agreement. So we are left rather in the dark about what transpired. Even so, given Mr. Biden’s statement about the “Taiwan agreement,” his statement is extremely worrisome.

The nature of that conversation and Mr. Biden’s description was not lost on the Taiwanese or the Japanese, so much so that the State Department moved immediately to clarify its meaning to Taiwan’s President. That would not have been necessary if the State Department was not alarmed by what President Biden said.

Japan also announced that it would come to Taiwan’s aid if Taiwan was attacked. [snip] Mr. Biden has to be put straight on U.S. policy. He should also be clear in speaking to the Chinese that their incursions by air and sea around Taiwan are unacceptable and will be met firmly by counter action by the United States. If Mr. Biden fails to do that, it will cause major problems for America’s posture in east Asia and will be damaging not only to Taiwan, but also to Japan and other U.S. friends in the region. In fact, if we do not deter China, the risk of war escalates.
Greg Gutfeld has a point. Watching Biden on energy policies and relations with China, Biden is a unifier, ”We all think he’s nuts.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
One Bank Reveals The Dismal Truth About The $150 Trillion Crusade Against Climate Change

MONDAY, OCT 18, 2021 - 08:30 PM
Last week, Bank of America sparked a firestorm of reaction amid both the pro and contra climate change camps, when it published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World (available to all ZH pro subs), and which serves as a key primer to today's Net Zero reality, if for no other reason than for being one of the first banks to quantify the cost of the biggest economic, ecologic and social overhaul in modern history.

The bottom line: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a "net zero" world over 30 years - equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments - and amounting to twice current global GDP.

Needless to say, the private sector has nowhere near the capital required to complete this investment which is why Bank of America generously estimate that all or parts of the bill would have to be footed by central banks in the form of tens of trillions in QE. And since QE is essentially debt monetization, and since $150 trillion in new debt would have devastating consequences on the economy, BofA was kind enough to share its calculation of just how inflationary this billionaire pet project would be: the "full monetization" scenario, where central banks inject $5 trillion in liquidity every year via QE for 30 years, would result in incremental 3% of inflation for a good decade. This is inflation over and above whatever is already coming down the pipeline.



Which is where we get to the punchline, because as BofA admits, the crusade against climate change, the ESG doctrine, the "Net Zero" world, whatever one wants to call it, it's all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history, one wrapped in the "noble" veneer of fighting for the most important cause in the history of civilization, but in reality it's just the biggest wealth transfer scheme in history:
We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full decarbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow.
Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse.
True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns
At this point alarm bells should be going off even among the most brain-dead progressives because for all its touted benefits, the costs are starting to emerge and - at least when it comes to the next two or three generations - they will be absolutely crushing for the middle class, while allowing the top 1% to plunder and pillage virtually all the world's assets. Think of it as the biggest mandated theft in world history, and suddenly one can understand why every private-jet setting billionaire is oh so very vocally in support of a "net zero" world.

It gets worse.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, and the hard questions like "who gets to pay for all this" are being asked, Bank of America had a follow up report in which it made it abundantly clear that "contrary to some arguments, we think climate mitigation efforts are likely to hurt growth in the next decade or so."

In his note titled "A hot take on climate change" (once again available to professional subscribers in the usual place), Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris first goes through all the familiar steps of just why it is so imperative - and noble - to do something to fight greenhouse gases (similar to what we have read for much of the early part of the 20th century, when article after article starting in 1912 lamented the catastrophe that is global warming, at least until the 1970s when the lack of actual global warming prompted "scientists" to suggest that global cooling and "a new ice age" is inevitable instead). At least the scientists could agree that it's "global something" (turns out it would really mean "global money printing"), and as Harris laid it out, this is what "scientific consensus" appears to agree on now:
  1. Human behavior is having a significant impact on climate change and climate events.
  2. Even under optimistic assumptions—such as achieving net zero emissions by 2050—the impacts will likely grow over this century.
  3. Early action is much more effective than waiting until later.
  4. Uncertainty about the exact impact is not an excuse for inaction: a wide range of outcomes means more, not less urgency in acting.
None of the above is new as the mainstream media has been bombarding its audience for the past decade with emotional platitudes and qualitative appeals as to why something has to be done.

However, as we first touched upon last week, any discussion of the economics of climate change should start and end with the fact that it is the ultimate example of “externalities”—private activities (usually for corporations who scions and shareholders are by now in the top 0.01% of global wealth) that create public costs. Indeed, as Harris writes, climate change is the ultimate externality because activity in one place impacts the whole world. The fact that climate change is global in nature and that so much of the benefit of actions accrues to everyone else has some powerful implications.
First, unlike other technology “races”, climate mitigation is more of a cooperative “game” than a competition. When countries like the US and China “compete” to develop new technologies, two points of conflict often tend to arise—a fight for market share and a fight for geopolitical superiority. By contrast, countries that develop efficient climate mitigation technologies have a strong incentive to share the benefits. If they hoard the technology, the impact on their own climate will be much smaller.
This is great... if only it weren't a pipe dream. Why? Because as the recent refusal by China's Xi Jinping - incidentally the world's largest polluter - to join his fellow "climate change crusading" world leaders at the COP26 Net Zero summit in Italy later this month, it's all one giant spectacle meant for the masses. Because if the world's largest polluter is making it clear he has no interest in actually reducing his own CO emissions, then anyone preaching some bullshit about a "cooperative game" can shove it.

Still, where Harris is somewhat correct, is in pointing out the "depressing consensus out of the climate change literature" that even if everyone cooperates, the earth will continue to warm as there are lags in the link between GHG and global warming. Indeed, under the best of outcomes—with every country hitting aggressive mid-century goals—the policy shift will mitigate, not stop the problem. Hence in BofA's view, "climate events will be a rising downside risk—of varying intensity—under almost any plausible scenario."

In other words, the net zero theater of the absurd is one where the actors' motives clearly diverge - when only a convergence from the start could make it work - yet where even a best case scenario of complete cooperation has no chance of actually stopping the problem, just mitigating it. Oh, and meanwhile, the world is set to incur some $150 trillion in costs.

Which then brings us to BofA's core assessment: will all this be good or bad for growth? Here, we find some unexpected truth...

In BofA's view, both press reports and many of the studies of climate change focus on the wrong side of the economy—the impact on aggregate demand rather than on productive capacity. For example, the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) argues that pushing toward net zero emissions would lower employment in the traditional energy sector by 5 million by 2030, but would add 14 million jobs in the clean energy sector. They also argue that “the increase in jobs and investment stimulates economic output, resulting in a net increase in global GDP to 2030.” Global GDP growth averages 0.4 higher over the 2020 to 2030 period. The downside would be that some countries would be winners and others would be losers, and that inflation - once one factors in the trillions and trillions of central bank QE needed to fund this whole crusade - could be 1-to-3% higher.

Here Bank of America disagrees, writing that by the time serious climate mitigation efforts are underway the global economy will likely be close to full employment. This will likely be the case in the US. Hence staffing up the industry means drawing workers out of the rest of the economy. At the same time, building up green energy infrastructure will require more than a doubling of investment in the sector, from roughly 2% of GDP now to a 4.5% average over the 2020-30 period. Where is that 2.5% of GDP going to come from? (spoiler alert: money printing, and everyone knows this).

Or maybe note: Harris admits that in the short run, central banks could in effect accommodate the surge in demand, allowing their economies to overheat.

Hence the IEA estimate of 1-to-3% higher inflation. However, the BofA economist disagrees with that estimate as well. If the Fed allows a permanent overshoot of economic potential, inflation will not just increase, it would trend higher. As in the 1970s there will be a feedback loop between price inflation, wage inflation and price expectations.

Translation: the "net zero" crusade against climate change really is.... the necessary and sufficient condition to trigger the hyperinflation that the world's massively indebted nations need to inflate away their debt.

But wait, there's more, because as Harris concedes next, in reality, while inflation is set to soar, climate mitigation is "also likely to slow the supply side of the economy, particularly in the ramping up phase." He explains further:
Big structural changes in the economy tend to create big transitional challenges. Workers need to move from one sector to another, some industries will boom while others shrink, and as regulations and taxes increase, capital that had been invested in producing and using dirty energy will rapidly become obsolete.
All of this means lower trend growth during the transition from a dirty to a green economy. And, as noted above, there isn't even any assurance that a transition to a green economy will ever be completed once it has begun; at best, we may be stuck in the "mitigation" phase for ever.

The highly asymmetric payoff - BofA concedes - comes in the very long-run, with the benefits accreting here and now to those who stand to reap the generosity of central bank printing, which naturally will be those who own the inflation-resistant assets such as stocks, commodities and, of course, cryptos; while the pain borne by everyone else which - sadly - means the shrinking middle and lower classes, who however are "in it for the long run", and for the benefits that a cleaner climate will (perhaps) provide their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Their generation, however, will be sacrificed at the altar of the 0.1% good. Because like every true religion, "climate change" also requires a sacrifice so a handful of chosen ones can live better.

Just the tip of the iceberg

So much for theory, what is happening on the ground? As Harris explains, the progress on policy is painfully slow as some policies continue to worsen rather than help the problem. Consider two examples. First, according to IEA, countries spend more than $400BN per year subsidizing mainly oil, but also gas and electricity consumption. In many instances there is a conflict between helping the poor and helping the environment. Second, despite what BofA calls "rising sea levels and increased hurricane activity," some countries incentivize locating houses in harm’s way through subsidized insurance and disaster relief. Almost as if the countries themselves, and certainly the Malibu beachfront billionaires, don't actually believe in - gasp - rising sea levels. Again there is a conflict between two goals—helping vulnerable people and reducing the cost of climate events.

Meanwhile, climate change and mitigation efforts already appear to be impacting the global economy. While scientists are very careful to avoid assigning a causal relationship between climate change and individual climate events - perhaps for the same reason that "science" emerged as a politically-motivated farce when reaching rash, ideologically-driven conclusions during the covid spectacle - but they point to some disturbing trends. Consider two examples highlighted by BofA: "First, data published by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the number of wildfires in the US has shown no trend from 1983 to 2020. However, when they focus only on large fires, the amount of acres burned seems to have shifted up significantly starting in about 2000. Second, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory collates studies of hurricanes and tropical cyclones. Its report is sprinkled with the usual qualifiers (medium to high confidence) but the evidence points to an increase in the intensity of storms in recent years." Dear Bank of America - this is called tortured goal seeking: squeeze the data hard enough and any pattern you want will eventually emerge.

More importantly, BofA admits that there is now evidence that climate change and mitigation play "some role" in the recent rise in energy prices (to this we would counter that not only does climate change mitigation play "some role" but that the chief reason for the global energy crisis is the idiotic push for a ESG utopia, something which we warned would happen back in June in "Will ESG Trigger Energy Hyperinflation").

But where it gets worse is that given the regulatory outlook, and the now prevailing stigma associated with any fossil fuels, investment in dirty energy capacity will be low and depend on high prices. Meanwhile green energy is not ramping up fast enough to fill the gap. Hilariously, changes in wind and rain patterns seem to have affected the supply of wind and hydro power. The same wind and hydro power that was supposed to lead the world out of its fossil fuel addiction. Because so blind were the scientists in pushing their political agenda, they failed to see what was right in front of their noses, the same way Reuters figured out last week that European and U.S. cities planning to phase out combustion engines over the next 15 years first need to plug a charging gap for millions of residents who park their cars on the street. Oops - perhaps in retrospect, the policymakers and scientists should have though of the blindingly obvious first, instead of rushing to goalseek the agenda to makes them the most monetary benefits...
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

What Biden’s “Affordable Housing” Plan Will Do To Suburbia
suburbs-gd983d2c91_1920.jpg

Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign website revealed plans for a federal takeover of local zoning laws. If enacted, the plan will force suburban jurisdictions with single-family homes and minimum lot sizes to permit construction of “affordable” high-density housing (apartments) on lots currently zoned for single-family living.

The professed purpose of the takeover is “to invest in our communities through housing by rebuilding the middle class and ensuring that this time everyone is included.” Translation: Inundate the suburbs with public housing projects.

The actual purpose of the takeover is to eviscerate Republican voting strength in the suburbs by relocating millions of government-dependent voters from America’s inner cities to suburbia.

Some elected Democrats aren’t waiting for Biden to act. Last month, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law abolishing local ordinances that call for minimum lot sizes. The new law allows up to four residential units (apartments) to be built on lots that previously were zoned for single-family housing. It’s likely but a matter of time before the Democrat-run state increases the number of apartments allowed per lot by a substantial amount.

A federal takeover of local zoning laws would wreak havoc nearly every middle class suburban neighborhood in America, including the one where I’ve lived for 44 years.

With 800 homes on half-acre-plus lots zoned for single-family living, the heavily forested subdivision I live in has a beautiful lake surrounded by a walking trail, greenbelt areas that provide habitat for deer and other wildlife, eight lighted tennis courts, and a 25-meter swimming pool, and a two-story clubhouse. One of the safest and most livable residential communities in suburban Atlanta, the subdivision is located in one of the highest rated school districts in Georgia.

When houses are put on the market, they sell quickly.

Here’s how a federal takeover of local zoning laws could affect the community where I live. Let’s say I decide to sell my house, and that federal rezoning allows up to eight apartments per lot. Let’s say I get two offers, one from a family that wants to live in the house, the other from a real estate speculator who wants to raze the house and build an 8-unit apartment building in its place. My lot would be far more valuable to the speculator, so he makes a much higher offer, and I accept. Once the apartment building is finished, my current neighbors would suddenly be living next door to eight families instead of one.

Let’s say that in subsequent years, half of the other residents in my subdivision also sell their property to a real estate speculator. That means that at some point in the future, 400 of the 800 total lots would have an 8-unit apartment building, causing the subdivision’s population density to sharply increase, from 800 families to 3,600 families.

Due to nothing more than simple economics, the same thing would happen to surrounding subdivisions, causing property values to plummet and traffic congestion to worsen significantly. The local jurisdiction would be forced to build new schools and larger water and sewer systems to accommodate higher density living.

More people would invariably result in more crime, and a once-safe residential area would become a more challenging place to raise a family. With Democrats committed to defunding the police and confiscating guns, suburban families would be virtually defenseless against street crime and home invasions.

Initial planning for a federal takeover of local zoning laws began during the latter part of the presidency of Barack Obama, who viewed the suburbs as too safe, too clean, too livable, too white, too Republican. President Trump derailed those plans, but the plans are now poised to be resurrected under Biden’s “infrastructure” bill.

Now being negotiated in Congress, the bill allocates $213 billion for what he describes as “affordable housing.” In truth, the funding would be used to salt single-family neighborhoods in suburbia with Section 8 apartment buildings. If enacted into law, federal zoning mandates will turn peaceful suburban communities into the kind of urban war zones that exist in inner city areas of every Democrat-run city in America, no exceptions.

Biden’s “affordable housing” wrecking ball will lay waste to tens of thousands of single-family suburban neighborhoods presently inhabited by middle class homeowners of all races, ethnicities and political persuasions. More details of the planned takeover of local zoning laws are described in the New York Post article, “Biden’s ‘infrastructure’ plan wages war on the suburban dream.”

A half-century of Democrat rule has decimated the quality of life in urban America. Now that Democrats control the reins of government, they intend to do the same to the suburban neighborhood where you and your family live.

But don’t despair. For some, there’s good news. You can bet everything you own there will be no high density public housing next door to the palatial mansions owned by Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Global Peasants’ Revolt
Peasants-Revolt.jpg

“The German Peasants’ War was among the most significant rebellions in modern European history. The political movements arising from the rebellion fit none of the stereotypes of Europe‘s peasant revolts. In 1524–1525 peasant armies briefly shattered the rule of countless lords, small princes, and urban governments in the southern and central parts of the Holy Roman Empire, creating the potential for revolutionary changes had the rebels’ political programs been fully realized…

…Among the socioeconomic grievances, complaints against the burdens of lordship played a prominent part. Villagers complained of high rents, dues, labor services, tithes, fees, access to common resources, and serfdom…

…Clashes over lordship itself represented the most serious source of conflict. Lords viewed their rights and privileges as legitimate and just and expected loyal subordination from their subjects. Villagers, on the other hand, tended to view lordship as a reciprocal relationship in which loyalty was offered in exchange for protection and justice. Tensions also ran high over taxes and other burdens…”

-From: Encyclopedia.com

Remind you of anything? The present, perhaps?

Now, it must be said that history, as Mark Twain said, doesn’t repeat itself. But it does rhyme.

And right now it’s rhyming.

The German Peasant’s War, as described above, was a massive conflict in the 16th Century that spanned much of central Europe, led to much bloodshed, and helped speed along the titanic shifts already enveloping much of the continent.

Sparked by high taxes, the burdens imposed on the peasantry by the ruling class, and the lords no longer fulfilling their end of the relationship, it was a war fought to a final, bitter end. Though the peasant armies lost, in the end, their efforts weren’t entirely without benefit; the lords, though they won, remained far more cautious in dealing with the peasantry.

What’s happening around the world right now, which I wrote about recently in my “Do You Hear the People Sing” article, is starting to look much the same, at least in origin.

For years, we members of the non-ruling class have duly paid taxes and suffered under the burdens of the ruling elite.

For every dollar you earn, the government takes about 30 cents, if not far more.

When you sell a stock, it’s taxed. When you sell your home, it’s taxed. When you owe your home, it’s taxed. When you buy any good, it’s taxed. Want to have a license to practice a certain trade or profession? That’s taxed. Want to start a business? Pay the shakedown money demanded by the thugs with guns. And on and on it goes…the list of taxes is longer than a list of Slow Joe’s gaffes. Oh, and if you mess up your taxes and pay too little, then they’ll come after you with everything they’ve got and charge usurious interest rates on the remaining amount supposedly due them.

But that’s just for us peasants. Joe and Co. get to create tax shelters for their speaking fees and book deals while Nancy Pelosi trades stocks based on legislation she’ll past. Somehow, the elites are never investigated like we peasants are. Except for Donald Trump and any other Florian Geyer out there.

And what do we get in return? The contemptuous elites, like the Swabian lords before them, return little to the peasants under their rule. The roads suck, our military can’t win a war, crime is rampant, the southern border is open to anyone who wants to cross it, inflation is skyrocketing, and, as anyone who dealt with the government knows, whatever “services” the elites provide us as their lazy attempt at nobless oblige are worse than those services not existing in the first place.

While I speak from an American perspective, the problems are much the same around the world; the elites provide little and demand much.

And that was before Coronavirus. Now, we peasants must get the jab and wear masks wherever we go.

In Italy, you need a “Green Pass” to work. In Australia, an authoritarian government tracks your every move to keep you locked up in your home. In America, mandates are coming.

But not for the elite! Masks weren’t worn at Obama’s birthday party! Newsom dined as California locked down. Pelosi got her hair appointment. No one wore a mask at the Met Gala, where AOC wore her infamous “Tax the Rich” dress. But the servants at those glitzy events must wear masks, of course. They’re not “sophisticated.”

Like the bond between peasant and lord in 16th Century Germany, the bond between the modern ruling class and peasantry is irreparably broken. One cannot have a healthy relationship with a contemptuous lord. Their rule no longer represents the will of the people and they are, therefore, illegitimate as rulers.

image-6.png


So the underclass is revolting.

View: https://youtu.be/Hw3jdwyalZg
1:35 min

View: https://youtu.be/v_F7UvmZLxA
6:38 min

View: https://youtu.be/SZlB7g-xDGk
2:30 min

View: https://youtu.be/qI9kOw4K6is
5:24 min

View: https://youtu.be/9EH_cKkLhhY
1:24 min

Around the world, free men and women are standing up to their incompetent overlords. Whether it’s chanting “f*** Joe Biden,” forming up in massive marches against the lockdowns, or heckling the tyrants, the underclass is standing up for its rights. Thankfully, the protests are so far mainly peaceful, but the anger and energy of the movement are still building. They must stay peaceful to stay effective; otherwise, like the German lords, the elites will have an excuse to utterly crush them.

Those brave souls standing up for their rights must go into this with their eyes wide open. Florian Geyer was the only heavy cavalry commander to side with the peasants. Trump is the only member of the ruling elite that will side with us. No help will come from those weak-kneed politicians that will always seek to compromise with other members of the ruling class, as even Creepy Ted Cruz recently showed:

image-7.png


Other than Trump, no help is coming from the corrupt, insouciant elite. Ted Cruz jetted off to Mexico when Texas was suffering. Mitch McConnell backs down faster than Joe forgets what he’s supposed to be saying. We have to fight and win on our own.

So, cheer the modern Peasant’s Revolt. We can win, unlike the Swabian peasants of the 16th Century. But only if we stick together, remember who the enemy is, and never, ever surrender. Stand for your rights!
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Glenn Beck: Did you hear Biden's Great Reset WARNING SHOT to Banks?

THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BLAZETV STAFF
October 18, 2021

It should come as no surprise that a newsworthy story receives more media coverage when released on a Monday than a Friday. The reason is in part due to a large number of news-consuming Americans checking out for the week to focus on their weekend plans rather than the news.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck shared information that President Joe Biden decided to release on Friday — when fewer people would notice — regarding the Climate Finance report. This report is marketed to Americans as "A Roadmap To Build a Climate-Resilient Economy." But Glenn believes the report to be Biden's Great Reset warning shot to banks.

In this clip, Glenn warned that if Americans don't stand together, in eight years we all indeed will own nothing. Watch the clip for the full story.

https://www.facebook.com/4db7138a-f26d-4837-8ee7-a2111464e6f1 11:59 min

Can't watch? Download the podcast here.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

THE WHITE HOUSE

BRIEFING ROOM

FACT SHEET: President Biden Directs Agencies to Analyze and Mitigate the Risk Climate Change Poses to Homeowners and Consumers, Businesses and Workers, and the Financial System and Federal Government Itself

MAY 20, 2021•STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

Agency Actions Will Better Protect Workers’ Hard-Earned Savings, Create Good Jobs, and Position America to Lead the Global Economy

Today, President Biden took action to address the serious threat that the climate crisis poses to our economy. Extreme weather related to climate change can disrupt entire supply chains and deprive communities of food, water, or emergency supplies. Snowstorms can offline entire power grids. Floods made worse by rising sea levels destroy homes and businesses. As the United States builds a modern and equitable clean energy future that creates millions of good-paying jobs and advances environmental justice, the agency actions spurred by the President’s directive today will help safeguard the financial security of America’s families, businesses, and workers from the climate-related financial risks they are already facing.

The President’s Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risk will help the American people better understand how climate change can impact their financial security. It will strengthen the U.S. financial system. And it will inform concrete decisions that the federal government can take to mitigate the risks of climate change.

From signing a loan for a new home or small business to managing life savings or a retirement fund—it is important for the American people to have access to the information needed to understand the potential risks associated with these significant financial decisions. We know that the climate crisis, whether through rising seas or extreme weather, already presents increasing risks to infrastructure, investments, and businesses. Yet, these risks are often hidden.

With so much at stake, this Executive Order ensures that the right rules are in place to properly analyze and mitigate these risks. That includes disclosing these risks to the public, and empowering the American people to make informed financial decisions.

The Executive Order will also ensure that the federal government takes concrete steps to mitigate these risks itself. Together, these steps will protect workers’ life savings, spur the creation of good-paying jobs, and help position the United States to lead the global economy.

Specifically, the Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risk will:

Develop a Whole-of-Government Approach to Mitigating Climate-Related Financial Risk. The Executive Order requires the National Climate Advisor and the Director of the National Economic Council to develop, within 120 days, a comprehensive government-wide climate-risk strategy to identify and disclose climate-related financial risk to government programs, assets, and liabilities. This strategy will identify the public and private financing needed to reach economy wide net-zero emissions by 2050 – while advancing economic opportunity, worker empowerment, and environmental mitigation, especially in disadvantaged communities and communities of color.

Encourage Financial Regulators to Assess Climate-Related Financial Risk. The Executive Order encourages the Treasury Secretary, in her role as the chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to work with Council members to assess climate-related financial risk to the stability of the federal government and the stability of the U.S. financial system. Additionally, in her role as the chair, she should work with member agencies to consider issuing a report, within 180 days, on actions the Council recommends to reduce risks to financial stability, including plans that member agencies are taking to improve climate-related disclosures and other sources of data, and to incorporate climate-related financial risk into regulatory and supervisory practices.

Bolster the Resilience of Life Savings and Pensions. The Executive Order directs the Labor Secretary to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding any rules from the prior administration that would have barred investment firms from considering environmental, social and governance factors, including climate-related risks, in their investment decisions related to workers’ pensions. The order also asks the Department to report on other measures that can be implemented to protect the life savings and pensions of U.S. workers and families from climate-related financial risk, and to assess how the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board has taken environmental, social, and governance factors, including climate-related risk, into account.

Modernize Federal Lending, Underwriting, and Procurement. The Executive Order directs the development of recommendations for improving how Federal financial management and reporting can incorporate climate-related financial risk, especially as that risk relates to federal lending programs. It also requires consideration of new requirements for major federal suppliers to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks and to ensure that major federal agency procurements minimize those risks.

Reduce the Risk of Climate Change to the Federal Budget. The Executive Order ensures that the federal government is taking steps to be fiscally responsible in response to the significant risk that unmitigated climate change poses to the federal budget through increased costs and lost revenue. The Executive Order directs that the federal government develop and publish annually an assessment of its climate-related fiscal risk exposure. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to reduce the federal government’s exposure through the formulation of the President’s Budget and oversight of budget execution.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Roadmap to Build an Economy Resilient to Climate Change Impacts

OCTOBER 15, 2021•STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

Agency Actions Will Protect Retirement Plans, Homeowners, Consumers, Businesses and Supply Chains, Workers, and the Federal Government from Financial Risks of Climate Change

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration released a comprehensive, government-wide strategy to measure, disclose, manage and mitigate the systemic risks climate change poses to American families, businesses, and the economy – building on actions already taken by the Biden-Harris Administration including just this week: a redesigned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate.gov site to better connect Americans to climate explainers, data dashboards, and classroom-ready teaching resources; the Department of Labor’s new proposed rule to safeguard life savings and pensions from climate risk; as well as the Federal Acquisition Council’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to consider greenhouse gas emissions when making procurement decisions.

This year alone, extreme weather has upended the U.S. economy and affected one in three Americans. Both international and domestic supply chains have been disrupted by climate change – whether it’s floods in China and Texas, or wildfires that have burned nearly six million acres of land, supply chains across critical industries including housing, construction, semiconductors, and agriculture have been affected, causing delays and shortages for both consumers and businesses. American families are paying the costs. Extreme weather has cost Americans an additional $600 billion in physical and economic damages over the past five years alone. Climate-related risks hidden in workers’ retirement plans have already cost American retirees billions in lost pension dollars. Climate change poses a systemic risk to our economy and our financial system, and we must take decisive action to mitigate its impacts.

By addressing the costs of the climate crisis head-on, the federal government will safeguard the life savings of workers and families, spur the creation of good-paying, union jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. economic prosperity. The roadmap makes clear that protecting the financial health of American households, deploying clean energy in United States, and building an economy from the bottom-up and the middle-out go hand-in-hand.

The Administration’s whole-of-government strategy includes six main pillars to achieve the goals of the President’s May 2021 Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risks, including several major announcements this week demonstrating concrete actions to protect American families, the federal government, and the economy from climate-related financial risk:

Promoting the resilience of the U.S.financial system to climate-related financial risks.
  • A forthcoming report from the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) will kick off the first step in a robust process of U.S. financial regulators developing the capacity and analytical tools to mitigate climate-related financial risks.
  • The Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office has launched a process to address climate-related risks in the insurance sector, with a focus on assessing the availability and affordability of insurance coverage in high-risk areas for traditionally underserved communities.
  • Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff is developing recommendations to the Commission for a mandatory disclosure rule for public issuers that is intended to bring greater clarity to investors about the material risks and opportunities that climate change poses to their investments. This rule is expected to be proposed in the coming months.
Protecting life savings and pensions from climate-related financial risk.
  • This week, the Department of Labor announced it is proposing a rule that protects workers’ hard-earned life savings by making clear that investment managers can consider climate change and other ESG factors in making investment decisions. The proposed rule – which, if finalized, would help safeguard the more than half of American workers who participate in a retirement plan through their job, representing over 140 million Americans and more than $12 trillion in retirement savings and pensions – would protect workers by making sure that retirement managers don’t turn a blind eye to climate risks and other important factors. It would also make clear that retirement managers can take important environmental, social, and governance factors into account when making investment decisions, so that workers can share in the gains that come from sustainable investments.
  • The Department of Labor is also working to protect the nearly 6.5 million participants in the Thrift Savings Plan – the largest defined-benefit contribution plan in the world – by analyzing how to further factor in climate-related risks.
Using federal procurement to address climate-related financial risk.
  • The federal government is the world’s single largest purchaser of goods and services, spending over $650 billion in contracts in fiscal year 2020 alone. This week, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council will begin the process of exploring amendments to Federal procurement regulations to require agencies to consider a supplier’s greenhouse gas emissions when making procurement decisions and to give preference to bids from companies with lower greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this work, the FAR Council published this week an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to gather information to help major Federal agency procurements minimize the risk of climate change.
  • The FAR Council is also actively exploring an amendment to federal procurement regulations that would improve the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in federal contracting and set science-based GHG targets. By identifying and mitigating climate risks through procurement, the Federal government is leading by example, deploying public procurement policy as a tool to strategically shape markets and promote a more resilient economy.
Incorporating climate-related financial risk into federal financial management and budgeting.
  • OMB, federal agencies, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board are taking steps to develop robust climate-related risk assessments and disclosure requirements for federal agencies.
  • Next year, the Fiscal Year 2023 President’s Budget will include an assessment of the Federal Government’s climate risk exposure and impacts on the long-term budget outlook, along with additional assessments.
  • In addition, agencies will further incorporate climate-related financial risk in both the Budget and agency financial reports to increase transparency and promote accountability.
Incorporating climate-related financial risk intofederal lending and underwriting.
  • The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Treasury Department are each working to enhance their federal underwriting and lending program standards to better address the climate-related financial risks to their loan portfolios, while ensuring the safety and security of communities most impacted by climate change.
  • HUD is working to meet the challenges that climate change poses to American homes, beginning by identifying options to incorporate climate-related considerations into the origination of single-family mortgages.
  • The VA, which has nearly $913 billion in loan volume outstanding to U.S. Veterans, is conducting a review of climate-related impacts to its home loan benefit program.
  • USDA is addressing climate risk in its own single-family guaranteed loan programs, with the goal of applying lessons learned across its entire range of loan programs.
Building resilient infrastructure and communities
  • This week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began the process of updating its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards to help communities align their construction and land use practices with the latest data on flood risk reduction. Through a new Request for Information, FEMA will gather stakeholder input to make communities more resilient and save lives, homes, and money through potential revisions to standards that have not been formally updated since 1976.
  • In addition, agencies have come together to build resilience from other types of more severe and extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, storms, and wildfires.
  • Also this week, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a suite of products to make the Federal government’s climate information more accessible to Americans. NOAA upgraded its website to make it easier for governments, communities, and businesses to access the data they need to prepare for and adapt to climate risks. And Federal agencies also delivered two reports that lay out a comprehensive plan to further increase open-access delivery of climate tools and services for the public.
  • More than 20 agencies released climate adaptation and resilience plans to safeguard federal investments – and taxpayer dollars – from the costs of climate change. The plans reflect President Biden’s whole-of-government approach to confronting the climate crisis as agencies integrate climate-readiness across their missions and programs and strengthen the resilience of federal assets from the accelerating impacts of climate change.
These steps will help safeguard the life savings of workers and families, spur the creation of good-paying jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. economic prosperity in the decades to come. Together, they will help usher in a new era where climate-related financial risks are thoroughly understood – where they are measured, disclosed, managed, and mitigated across the economy to the benefit of American workers, families, and businesses.
 

glennb6

Inactive
There is stupid and there is playing stupid.
I never believed that most politicians were really stupid, or they would not have be able to get elected, or stay elected. However the usually 'play' stupid, fend stupidity, and run a darn good acting game at it. And that isn't stupidity, it's actually rather clever, for them.

Now the public, and that would include far too many aware and knowledgeable people go chasing after 'politician stupid logic' with counter arguments against the stupidity. Oh how can so and so be so stupid or blind to not see that even moderate adoption of electric vehicles cannot work! These politicians are so stupid.

No - they are not stupid - it's most of the public that is stupid having been lead around on a grand snipe hunt. Nothing like getting caught up in a disingenuous argument to distract from the real game at play.

Politicians and plenty of their minions in private business KNOW full well what will work, what won't work, what will eventual bust budgets, what causes civil discord, and so on. They know it, they intend to make these things happen on purpose, and their motives are illogical and just plain evil.

For most people, evil and illogical don't compute. This sort of thinking isn't how normal people are programmed and they choose to think politicians would not think that way either.
Well well well, politicians know all this psychology and simply play stupid or ignorant in order to deflect what would otherwise be genuine retribution and revolution. It's a big CON game.

Next time you hear an argument or debate about some political action that doesn't make any sense, as the OP here shows, examine the premise of the argument. Give thought to why some TV anchor/YT jockey is actually arguing or debating when in actuality they should be standing up and calling so and so a conman to their face. Perhaps that media person is the stupid one, or worse, is intentionally playing along with the game.

Rather than getting sucked into an unwinnable argument (with someone playing an idiot), recognize what's going on and call them on it.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Stop snooping on my damn bank account… Citizens are pissed…
Posted by Kane on October 19, 2021 2:41 pm

View: https://youtu.be/ZVP7x9edvDI
1:03 min
Americans Oppose IRS Snooping on Their Bank Account

Democrats scale back IRS snooping plan

Senate Democrats on Tuesday will unveil a scaled-back version of a Biden administration IRS proposal after major backlash privacy concerns, three people with knowledge of the coming announcement said.

Initially, the Department of Treasury and Senate Democrats had proposed requiring financial institutions to provide the IRS with information on bank accounts with more than $600 in annual deposits or withdrawals.

The new proposal will instead require the provision of additional information for accounts with more than $10,000 in annual deposits or withdrawals.

The revised version of the bank reporting proposal will also weaken its scope by exempting all wage income from counting toward the $10,000 threshold withdrawal, intending to ensure it applies to only larger account holders. The Biden administration has signed off on the changes and is expected to support the new plan.
 
Top