GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

[marsh]

The Wind Power Scam…

Excellent segment as Tucker exposes the ugly truth about wind energy

citizenfreepress.com

The Wind Power Scam…
Posted by Kane on October 26, 2021 12:14 pm

View: https://youtu.be/Y4tOAI5qMaI
6:49 min
Excellent segment as Tucker exposes the ugly truth about wind energy

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

The True Feasibility Of Moving Away From Fossil Fuels

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 10:10 PM
Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

One of the great misconceptions of our time is the belief that we can move away from fossil fuels if we make suitable choices on fuels. In one view, we can make the transition to a low-energy economy powered by wind, water, and solar. In other versions, we might include some other energy sources, such as biofuels or nuclear, but the story is not very different.


The problem is the same regardless of what lower bound a person chooses: our economy is way too dependent on consuming an amount of energy that grows with each added human participant in the economy. This added energy is necessary because each person needs food, transportation, housing, and clothing, all of which are dependent upon energy consumption. The economy operates under the laws of physics, and history shows disturbing outcomes if energy consumption per capita declines.

There are a number of issues:

• The impact of alternative energy sources is smaller than commonly believed.
• When countries have reduced their energy consumption per capita by significant amounts, the results have been very unsatisfactory.
• Energy consumption plays a bigger role in our lives than most of us imagine.
• It seems likely that fossil fuels will leave us before we can leave them.
• The timing of when fossil fuels will leave us seems to depend on when central banks lose their ability to stimulate the economy through lower interest rates.
• If fossil fuels leave us, the result could be the collapse of financial systems and governments.

[1] Wind, water and solar provide only a small share of energy consumption today; any transition to the use of renewables alone would have huge repercussions.

According to BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy data, wind, water and solar only accounted for 9.4% 0f total energy consumption in 2017.



Figure 1. Wind, Water and Solar as a percentage of total energy consumption, based on BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Even if we make the assumption that these types of energy consumption will continue to achieve the same percentage increases as they have achieved in the last 10 years, it will still take 20 more years for wind, water, and solar to reach 20% of total energy consumption.

Thus, even in 20 years, the world would need to reduce energy consumption by 80% in order to operate the economy on wind, water and solar alone. To get down to today’s level of energy production provided by wind, water and solar, we would need to reduce energy consumption by 90%.

[2] Venezuela’s example (Figure 1, above) illustrates that even if a country has an above average contribution of renewables, plus significant oil reserves, it can still have major problems.

One point people miss is that having a large share of renewables doesn’t necessarily mean that the lights will stay on. A major issue is the need for long distance transmission lines to transport the renewable electricity from where it is generated to where it is to be used. These lines must constantly be maintained.

Maintenance of electrical transmission lines has been an issue in both Venezuela’s electrical outages and in California’s recent fires attributed to the utility PG&E.

There is also the issue of variability of wind, water and solar energy. (Note the year-to-year variability indicated in the Venezuela line in Figure 1.) A country cannot really depend on its full amount of wind, water, and solar unless it has a truly huge amount of electrical storage: enough to last from season-to-season and year-to-year. Alternatively, an extraordinarily large quantity of long-distance transmission lines, plus the ability to maintain these lines for the long term, would seem to be required.

[3] When individual countries have experienced cutbacks in their energy consumption per capita, the effects have generally been extremely disruptive, even with cutbacks far more modest than the target level of 80% to 90% that we would need to get off fossil fuels.

Notice that in these analyses, we are looking at “energy consumption per capita.” This calculation takes the total consumption of all kinds of energy (including oil, coal, natural gas, biofuels, nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewables) and divides it by the population.

Energy consumption per capita depends to a significant extent on what citizens within a given economy can afford. It also depends on the extent of industrialization of an economy. If a major portion of industrial jobs are sent to China and India and only service jobs are retained, energy consumption per capita can be expected to fall. This happens partly because local companies no longer need to use as many energy products. Additionally, workers find mostly service jobs available; these jobs pay enough less that workers must cut back on buying goods such as homes and cars, reducing their energy consumption.

Example 1. Spain and Greece Between 2007-2014



Figure 2. Greece and Spain energy consumption per capita. Energy data is from BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy; population estimates are UN 2017 population estimates.

The period between 2007 and 2014 was a period when oil prices tended to be very high. Both Greece and Spain are very dependent on oil because of their sizable tourist industries. Higher oil prices made the tourism services these countries sold more expensive for their consumers. In both countries, energy consumption per capita started falling in 2008 and continued to fall until 2014, when oil prices began falling. Spain’s energy consumption per capita fell by 18% between 2007 and 2014; Greece’s fell by 24% over the same period.

Both Greece and Spain experienced high unemployment rates, and both have needed debt bailouts to keep their financial systems operating. Austerity measures were forced on Greece. The effects on the economies of these countries were severe. Regarding Spain, Wikipedia has a section called, “2008 to 2014 Spanish financial crisis,” suggesting that the loss of energy consumption per capita was highly correlated with the country’s financial crisis.

Example 2: France and the UK, 2004 – 2017
Both France and the UK have experienced falling energy consumption per capita since 2004, as oil production dropped (UK) and as industrialization was shifted to countries with a cheaper total cost of labor and fuel. Immigrant labor was added, as well, to better compete with the cost structures of the countries that France and the UK were competing against. With the new mix of workers and jobs, the quantity of goods and services that these workers could afford (per capita) has been falling.



Figure 3. France and UK energy consumption per capita. Energy data is from BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy; population estimates are UN 2017 population estimates.

Comparing 2017 to 2004, energy consumption per capita is down 16% for France and 25% in the UK. Many UK citizens have been very unhappy, wanting to leave the European Union.

France recently has been experiencing “Yellow Vest” protests, at least partly related to an increase in carbon taxes. Higher carbon taxes would make energy-based goods and services less affordable. This would likely reduce France’s energy consumption per capita even further. French citizens with their protests are clearly not happy about how they are being affected by these changes.

Example 3: Syria (2006-2016) and Yemen (2009-2016)
Both Syria and Yemen are examples of formerly oil-exporting countries that are far past their peak production. Declining energy consumption per capita has been forced on both countries because, with their oil exports falling, the countries can no longer afford to use as much energy as they did in the past for previous uses, such as irrigation. If less irrigation is used, food production and jobs are lost. (Syria and Yemen)



Figure 4. Syria and Yemen energy consumption per capita. Energy consumption data from US Energy Information Administration; population estimates are UN 2017 estimates.

Between Yemen’s peak year in energy consumption per capita (2009) and the last year shown (2016), its energy consumption per capita dropped by 66%. Yemen has been named by the United Nations as the country with the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” Yemen cannot provide adequate food and water for its citizens. Yemen is involved in a civil war that others have entered into as well. I would describe the war as being at least partly a resource war.

The situation with Syria is similar. Syria’s energy consumption per capita declined 55% between its peak year (2006) and the last year available (2016). Syria is also involved in a civil war that has been entered into by others. Here again, the issue seems to be inadequate resources per capita; war participants are to some extent fighting over the limited resources that are available.

Example 4: Venezuela (2008-2017)



Figure 5. Energy consumption per capita for Venezuela, based on BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy data and UN 2017 population estimates.

Between 2008 and 2017, energy consumption per capita in Venezuela declined by 23%. This is a little less than the decreases experienced by the UK and Greece during their periods of decline.

Even with this level of decline, Venezuela has been having difficulty providing adequate services to its citizens. There have been reports of empty supermarket shelves. Venezuela has not been able to maintain its electrical system properly, leading to many outages.

[4] Most people are surprised to learn that energy is required for every part of the economy. When adequate energy is not available, an economy is likely to first shrink back in recession; eventually, it may collapse entirely.

Physics tells us that energy consumption in a thermodynamically open system enables all kinds of “complexity.” Energy consumption enables specialization and hierarchical organizations. For example, growing energy consumption enables the organizations and supply lines needed to manufacture computers and other high-tech goods. Of course, energy consumption also enables what we think of as typical energy uses: the transportation of goods, the smelting of metals, the heating and air-conditioning of buildings, and the construction of roads. Energy is even required to allow pixels to appear on a computer screen.

Pre-humans learned to control fire over one million years ago. The burning of biomass was a tool that could be used for many purposes, including keeping warm in colder climates, frightening away predators, and creating better tools.

Perhaps its most important use was to permit food to be cooked, because cooking increases food’s nutritional availability. Cooked food seems to have been important in allowing the brains of humans to grow bigger at the same time that teeth, jaws and guts could shrink compared to those of ancestors.

Humans today need to be able to continue to cook part of their food to have a reasonable chance of survival.

Part 1 of 2

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 2

Any kind of governmental organization requires energy. Having a single leader takes the least energy, especially if the leader can continue to perform his non-leadership duties. Any kind of added governmental service (such as roads or schools) requires energy. Having elected leaders who vote on decisions takes more energy than having a king with a few high-level aides. Having multiple layers of government takes energy. Each new intergovernmental organization requires energy to fly its officials around and implement its programs.

International trade clearly requires energy consumption. In fact, pretty much every activity of businesses requires energy consumption.

Needless to say, the study of science or of medicine requires energy consumption, because without significant energy consumption to leverage human energy, nearly every person must be a subsistence level farmer, with little time to study or to take time off from farming to write (or even read) books. Of course, manufacturing medicines and test tubes requires energy, as does creating sterile environments.

We think of the many parts of the economy as requiring money, but it is really the physical goods and services that money can buy, and the energy that makes these goods and services possible, that are important. These goods and services depend to a very large extent on the supply of energy being consumed at a given point in time–for example, the amount of electricity being delivered to customers and the amount of gasoline and diesel being sold. Supply chains are very dependent on each part of the system being available when needed. If one part is missing, long delays and eventually collapse can occur.

[5] If the supply of energy to an economy is reduced for any reason, the result tends to be very disruptive, as shown in the examples given in Section [3], above.

When an economy doesn’t have enough energy, its self-organizing feature starts eliminating pieces of the economic system that it cannot support. The financial system tends to be very vulnerable because without adequate economic growth, it becomes very difficult for borrowers to repay debt with interest. This was part of the problem that Greece and Spain had in the period when their energy consumption per capita declined. A person wonders what would have happened to these countries without bailouts from the European Union and others.

Another part that is very vulnerable is governmental organizations, especially the higher layers of government that were added last. In 1991, the Soviet Union’s central government was lost, leaving the governments of the 15 republics that were part of the Soviet Union. As energy consumption per capita declines, the European Union would seem to be very vulnerable. Other international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, would seem to be vulnerable, as well.

The electrical system is very complex. It seems to be easily disrupted if there is a material decrease in energy consumption per capita because maintenance of the system becomes difficult.

If energy consumption per capita falls dramatically, many changes that don’t seem directly energy-related can be expected. For example, the roles of men and women are likely to change. Without modern medical care, women will likely need to become the mothers of several children in order that an average of two can survive long enough to raise their own children. Men will be valued for the heavy manual labor that they can perform. Today’s view of the equality of the sexes is likely to disappear because sex differences will become much more important in a low-energy world.

Needless to say, other aspects of a low-energy economy might be very different as well. For example, one very low-energy type of economic system is a “gift economy.” In such an economy, the status of each individual is determined by the amount that that person can give away. Anything a person obtains must automatically be shared with the local group or the individual will be expelled from the group. In an economy with very low complexity, this kind of economy seems to work. A gift economy doesn’t require money or debt!

[6] Most people assume that moving away from fossil fuels is something we can choose to do with whatever timing we would like. I would argue that we are not in charge of the process. Instead, fossil fuels will leave us when we lose the ability to reduce interest rates sufficiently to keep oil and other fossil fuel prices high enough for energy producers.

Something that may seem strange to those who do not follow the issue is the fact that oil (and other energy prices) seem to be very much influenced by interest rates and the level of debt. In general, the lower the interest rate, the more affordable high-priced goods such as factories, homes, and automobiles become, and the higher commodity prices of all kinds can be.

“Demand” increases with falling interest rates, causing energy prices of all types to rise.



Figure 6.

The cost of extracting oil is less important in determining oil prices than a person might expect. Instead, prices seem to be determined by what end products consumers (in the aggregate) can afford. In general, the more debt that individual citizens, businesses and governments can obtain, the higher that oil and other energy prices can rise. Of course, if interest rates start rising (instead of falling), there is a significant chance of a debt bubble popping, as defaults rise and asset prices decline.

Interest rates have been generally falling since 1981 (Figure 7). This is the direction needed to support ever-higher energy prices.



Figure 7. Chart of 3-month and 10-year interest rates, prepared by the FRED, using data through March 27, 2019.

The danger now is that interest rates are approaching the lowest level that they can possibly reach. We need lower interest rates to support the higher prices that oil producers require, as their costs rise because of depletion. In fact, if we compare Figures 7 and 8, the Federal Reserve has been supporting higher oil and other energy prices with falling interest rates practically the whole time since oil prices rose above the inflation adjusted level of $20 per barrel!



Figure 8. Historical inflation adjusted prices oil, based on data from 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, with the low price period for oil highlighted.

Once the Federal Reserve and other central banks lose their ability to cut interest rates further to support the need for ever-rising oil prices, the danger is that oil and other commodity prices will fall too low for producers. The situation is likely to look like the second half of 2008 in Figure 6. The difference, as we reach limits on how low interest rates can fall, is that it will no longer be possible to stimulate the economy to get energy and other commodity prices back up to an acceptable level for producers.

[7] Once we hit the “no more stimulus impasse,” fossil fuels will begin leaving us because prices will fall too low for companies extracting these fuels. They will be forced to leave because they cannot make an adequate profit.

One example of an oil producer whose production was affected by an extended period of low prices is the Soviet Union (or USSR).



Figure 9. Oil production of the former Soviet Union together with oil prices in 2017 US$. All amounts from 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

The US substantially raised interest rates in 1980-1981 (Figure 7). This led to a sharp reduction in oil prices, as the higher interest rates cut back investment of many kinds, around the world. Given the low price of oil, the Soviet Union reduced new investment in new fields. This slowdown in investment first reduced the rate of growth in oil production, and eventually led to a decline in production in 1988 (Figure 9). When oil prices rose again, production did also.



Figure 10. Energy consumption per capita for the former Soviet Union, based on BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy data and UN 2017 population estimates.

The Soviet Union’s energy consumption per capita reached its highest level in 1988 and began declining in 1989. The central government of the Soviet Union did not collapse until late 1991, as the economy was increasingly affected by falling oil export revenue.

Some of the changes that occurred as the economy simplified itself were the loss of the central government, the loss of a large share of industry, and a great deal of job loss. Energy consumption per capita dropped by 36% between 1988 and 1998. It has never regained its former level.

Venezuela is another example of an oil exporter that, in theory, could export more oil, if oil prices were higher. It is interesting to note that Venezuela’s highest energy consumption per capita occurred in 2008, when oil prices were high.

We are now getting a chance to observe what the collapse in Venezuela looks like on a day- by-day basis. Figure 5, above, shows Venezuela’s energy consumption per capita pattern through 2017. Low oil prices since 2014 have particularly adversely affected the country.

[8] Conclusion: We can’t know exactly what is ahead, but it is clear that moving away from fossil fuels will be far more destructive of our current economy than nearly everyone expects.

It is very easy to make optimistic forecasts about the future if a person doesn’t carefully examine what the data and the science seem to be telling us. Most researchers come from narrow academic backgrounds that do not seek out insights from other fields, so they tend not to understand the background story.

A second issue is the desire for a “happy ever after” ending to our current energy predicament. If a researcher is creating an economic model without understanding the underlying principles, why not offer an outcome that citizens will like? Such a solution can help politicians get re-elected and can help researchers get grants for more research.

We should be examining the situation more closely than most people have considered. The fact that interest rates cannot drop much further is particularly concerning.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Oil Prices Will Remain High For Years To Come

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 09:30 PM
By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

Six years after former BP chief executive Bob Dudley said that “the industry needs to prepare for lower for longer,” a growing number of major investment banks now expect “higher for longer” oil prices.


Rebounding global oil consumption amid tight supply—contrary to some forecasts last year that indicate demand may have peaked or was close to its peak—as well as years of underinvestment in new supply following the 2015 crash, have prompted Wall Street banks to raise significantly their projections for oil prices in the short and medium term.

Oil prices have hit multi-year highs in recent days, with WTI Crude at its highest since 2014 and Brent Crude at the highest level since October 2018.

Even after the latest rally, prices still have headroom to rise further, many major investment banks believe.

Goldman Sachs, for example, sees Brent hitting $90 per barrel at the end of this year, up from $80 expected earlier. The key driver of Goldman’s higher forecast is global oil demand recovery amid still a weaker supply response from non-OPEC+ oil producers.

The investment bank also sees sustained higher oil prices in the coming years.

Fundamentals warrant higher oil prices, and the bank’s forecast for the next several years is $85 a barrel, Damien Courvalin, Head of Energy Research & Senior Commodity Strategist at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC earlier this month.

Oil demand will set record highs next year and the year after that, and we need to see a ramp-up in investment, he said.

“We’re facing potential multi-year deficits and the risk of significantly higher prices,” Courvalin told CNBC.

RBC Capital Markets is also bullish on oil prices in the medium term.

“We maintain the view that we have held all year - that the oil market remains in the early days of a multi-year, structurally strong cycle,” RBC analyst Michael Tran said in a note in mid-October carried by Reuters.

Last week, Morgan Stanley raised its long-term oil price outlook up by $10 per barrel to $70. BNP Paribas expects oil prices at nearly $80 a barrel in 2023, Bloomberg notes.

UBS expects oil prices “to remain well supported into next year,” with the market staying tight at least until the first quarter of 2022, due to the lowest inventories in OECD since 2015, only gradual easing of the OPEC+ cuts, and oil demand hitting 100 million barrels per day (bpd) in December 2021.

“While demand is expected to increase as well next year, additional OPEC+ and US production should result in a balanced oil market. With more OPEC+ members struggling to increase production in line with the group’s plans, its additions in 2022 will likely be only a fraction of the currently intended 3.76mbpd increase, which should prevent an oversupplied market, in our view,” Giovanni Staunovo, Dominic Schnider, and Wayne Gordon wrote on Friday.

“So bearing all of this in mind, we now expect Brent to trade at USD 90/bbl in December and March, before leveling off to USD 85/bbl for the rest of 2022,” UBS’s analysts added.

Beyond 2022, oil prices are likely to remain structurally higher as oil demand will continue to rise while new supply would lag consumption growth, primarily due to five years of underinvestment and the pressure on oil majors to cut emissions and investments in new supply, analysts say.

Global annual upstream spending needs to increase by as much as 54 percent to $542 billion if the oil market is to avert the next supply shortage shock, Moody’s said earlier this month.

“Our analysis demonstrates that upstream companies will need to increase their spending considerably for the medium term to fully replace reserves and avoid declines in future production,” Moody’s Vice President Sajjad Alam said.

The oil industry is “massively underinvesting” in supply to meet growing demand, which is set to return to pre-COVID levels as soon as the end of 2021 or early 2022, Greg Hill, president of U.S. oil producer Hess Corp, said at the end of September.

Last year, global upstream investment sank to a 15-year low of $350 billion, according to estimates by Wood Mackenzie from earlier this year.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Green Energy: A Bubble In Unrealistic Expectations

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 07:30 PM
Authored by David Hay via Everegreen Gavekal blog,

“You see what is happening in Europe. There is hysteria and some confusion in the markets. Why?…Some people are speculating on climate change issues, some people are underestimating some things, some are starting to cut back on investments in the extractive industries. There needs to be a smooth transition.”

- Vladimir Putin (someone with whom this author rarely agrees)
“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens.”

– John Maynard Keynes (an interesting observation for all the modern day Keynesians to consider given their support of current inflationary US policies, including energy-related)

Introduction
This week’s EVA provides another sneak preview into David Hay’s book-in-process, “Bubble 3.0” discussing what he thinks is the crucial topic of “greenflation.” This is a term he coined referring to the rising price for metals and minerals that are essential for solar and wind power, electric cars, and other renewable technologies.

It also centers on the reality that as global policymakers have turned against the fossil fuel industry, energy producers are for the first time in history not responding to dramatically higher prices by increasing production.

Consequently, there is a difficult tradeoff that arises as the world pushes harder to combat climate change, driving up energy costs to painful levels, especially for lower income individuals.

What we are currently seeing in Europe is a vivid example of this dilemma.

While it may be the case that governments welcome higher oil and natural gas prices to discourage their use, energy consumers are likely to have a much different reaction.


Summary

• BlackRock’s CEO recently admitted that, despite what many are opining, the green energy transition is nearly certain to be inflationary.
• Even though it’s early in the year, energy prices are already experiencing unprecedented spikes in Europe and Asia, but most Americans are unaware of the severity.
• To that point, many British residents being faced with the fact that they may need to ration heat and could be faced with the chilling reality that lives could be lost if this winter is as cold as forecasters are predicting.
• Because of the huge increase in energy prices, inflation in the eurozone recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices on the Continent that are the equivalent of $200 oil.
• It used to be that the cure for extreme prices was extreme prices, but these days I’m not so sure. Oil and gas producers are very wary of making long-term investments to develop new resources given the hostility to their industry and shareholder pressure to minimize outlays.
• I expect global supply to peak sometime next year and a major supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand returns to normal.
• In Norway, almost 2/3 of all new vehicle sales are of the electric variety (EVs) – a huge increase in just over a decade. Meanwhile, in the US, it’s only about 2%. Still, given Norway’s penchant for the plug-in auto, the demand for oil has not declined.
• China, despite being the largest market by far for electric vehicles, is still projected to consume an enormous and rising amount of oil in the future.
• About 70% of China’s electricity is generated by coal, which has major environmental ramifications in regards to electric vehicles.
• Because of enormous energy demand in China this year, coal prices have experienced a massive boom. Its usage was up 15% in the first half of this year, and the Chinese government has instructed power providers to obtain all baseload energy sources, regardless of cost.
• The massive migration to electric vehicles – and the fact that they use six times the amount of critical minerals as their gasoline-powered counterparts –means demand for these precious resources is expected to skyrocket.
• This extreme need for rare minerals, combined with rapid demand growth, is a recipe for a major spike in prices.
• Massively expanding the US electrical grid has several daunting challenges– chief among them the fact that the American public is extremely reluctant to have new transmission lines installed in their area.
• The state of California continues to blaze the trail for green energy in terms of both scope and speed. How the rest of the country responds to their aggressive take on renewables remains to be seen.
• It appears we are entering a very odd reality: governments are expending resources they do not have on weakly concentrated energy. And the result may be very detrimental for today’s modern economy.
• If the trend in energy continues, what looks nearly certain to be the Third Energy crisis of the last half-century may linger for years.

Green energy: A bubble in unrealistic expectations?
As I have written in past EVAs, it amazes me how little of the intense inflation debate in 2021 centered on the inflationary implications of the Green Energy transition. Perhaps it is because there is a built-in assumption that using more renewables should lower energy costs since the sun and the wind provide “free power”.

However, we will soon see that’s not the case, at least not anytime soon; in fact, it’s my contention that it will likely be the opposite for years to come and I’ve got some powerful company. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, a very pro-ESG* organization, is one of the few members of Wall Street’s elite who admitted this in the summer of 2021. The story, however, received minimal press coverage and was quickly forgotten (though, obviously, not be me!).

This EVA will outline myriad reasons why I think Mr. Fink was telling it like it is…despite the political heat that could bring down upon him. First, though, I will avoid any discussion of whether humanity is the leading cause of global warming. For purposes of this analysis, let’s make the high-odds assumption that for now a high-speed green energy transition will continue to occur. (For those who would like a well-researched and clearly articulated overview of the climate debate, I highly recommend the book “Unsettled”; it’s by a former top energy expert and scientist from the Obama administration, Dr. Steven Koonin.)

The reason I italicized “for now” is that in my view it’s extremely probable that voters in many Western countries are going to become highly retaliatory toward energy policies that are already creating extreme hardship. Even though it’s only early autumn as I write these words, energy prices are experiencing unprecedented increases in Europe. Because it’s “over there”, most Americans are only vaguely aware of the severity of the situation. But the facts are shocking…

Presently, natural gas is going for $29 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) in Europe, a quadruple compared to the same time in 2020, versus “just” $5 in the US, which is a mere doubling. As a consequence, wholesale energy cost in Great Britain rose an unheard of 60% even before summer ended. Reportedly, nine UK energy companies are on the brink of failure at this time due to their inability to fully pass on the enormous cost increases. As a result, the British government is reportedly on the verge of nationalizing some of these entities—supposedly, temporarily—to prevent them from collapsing. (CNBC reported on Wednesday that UK natural gas prices are now up 800% this year; in the US, nat gas rose 20% on Tuesday alone, before giving back a bit more than half of that the next day.)

Serious food shortages are expected after exorbitant natural gas costs forced most of England’s commercial production of CO2 to shut down. (CO2 is used both for stunning animals prior to slaughter and also in food packaging.)

Additionally, ballistic natural gas prices have forced the closure of two big US fertilizer plants due to a potential shortfall of ammonium nitrate of which “nat gas” is a key feedstock.

*ESG stands for Environmental, Social, Governance; in 2021, Blackrock’s assets under management approximated $9 ½ trillion, about one-third of the total US federal debt.



With the winter of 2021 approaching, British households are being told they may need to ration heat. There are even growing concerns about the widespread loss of life if this winter turns out to be a cold one, as 2020 was in Europe. Weather forecasters are indicating that’s a distinct possibility.

In Spain, consumers are paying 40% more for electricity compared to the prior year. The Spanish government has begun resorting to price controls to soften the impact of these rapidly escalating costs. (The history of price controls is that they often exacerbate shortages.) Naturally, spiking power prices hit the poorest hardest, which is typical of inflation whether it is of the energy variety or of generalized price increases.

Due to these massive energy price increases, eurozone inflation recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices that are the equivalent of $200 per barrel oil. This is consistent with what I warned about in several EVAs earlier this year and I think there is much more of this looming in the years to come.

In Asia, which also had a brutally cold winter in 2020 – 2021, there are severe energy shortages being disclosed, as well. China has instructed its power providers to secure all the coal they can in preparation for a repeat of frigid conditions and acute deficits even before winter arrives. The government has also instructed its energy distributors to acquire all the liquified natural gas (LNG) they can, regardless of cost. LNG recently hit $35 per million British Thermal Units in Asia, up sevenfold in the past year. China is also rationing power to its heavy industries, further exacerbating the worldwide shortages of almost everything, with notable inflationary implications.

In India, where burning coal provides about 70% of electricity generation (as it does in China), utilities are being urged to import coal even though that country has the world’s fourth largest coal reserves. Several Indian power plants are close to exhausting their coal supplies as power usage rips higher.

Normally, I’d say that the cure for such extreme prices, was extreme prices—to slightly paraphrase the old axiom. But these days, I’m not so sure; in fact, I’m downright dubious. After all, the enormously influential International Energy Agency has recommended no new fossil fuel development after 2021—“no new”, as in zero.

It’s because of pressure such as this that, even though US natural gas prices have done a Virgin Galactic to $5 this year, the natural gas drilling rig count has stayed flat. The last time prices were this high there were three times as many working rigs.

It is the same story with oil production. Most Americans don’t seem to realize it but the US has provided 90% of the planet’s petroleum output growth over the past decade. In other words, without America’s extraordinary shale oil production boom—which raised total oil output from around 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 13 million barrels per day in 2019—the world long ago would have had an acute shortage. (Excluding the Covid-wracked year of 2020, oil demand grows every year—strictly as a function of the developing world, including China, by the way.)

Unquestionably, US oil companies could substantially increase output, particularly in the Permian Basin, arguably (but not much) the most prolific oil-producing region in the world. However, with the Fed being pressured by Congress to punish banks that lend to any fossil fuel operator, and the overall extreme hostility toward domestic energy producers, why would they?

There is also tremendous pressure from Wall Street on these companies to be ESG compliant. This means reducing their carbon footprint. That’s tough to do while expanding their volume of oil and gas.

Further, investors, whether on Wall Street or on London’s equivalent, Lombard Street, or in pretty much any Western financial center, are against US energy companies increasing production. They would much rather see them buy back stock and pay out lush dividends. The companies are embracing that message.

One leading oil and gas company CEO publicly mused to the effect that buying back his own shares at the prevailing extremely depressed valuations was a much better use of capital than drilling for oil—even at $75 a barrel.

As reported by Morgan Stanley, in the summer of 2021, an US institutional broker conceded that of his 400 clients, only one would consider investing in an energy company! Consequently, the fact that the industry is so detested means that its shares are stunningly undervalued. How stunningly? A myriad of US oil and gas producers are trading at free cash flow* yields of 10% to 15% and, in some cases, as high as 25%.

In Europe, where the same pressures apply, one of its biggest energy companies is generating a 16% free cash flow yield. Moreover, that is based up an estimate of $60 per barrel oil, not the prevailing price of $80 on the Continent.

*Free cash flow is the excess of gross cash flow over and above the capital spending needed to sustain a business. Many market professionals consider it more meaningful than earnings.

Therefore, due to the intense antipathy toward Western energy producers they aren’t very inclined to explore for new resources. Another much overlooked fact about the ultra-critical US shale industry that, as noted, has been nearly the only source of worldwide output growth for the past 13 years, is its rapid decline nature.

Most oil wells see their production taper off at just 4% or 5% per year. But with shale, that decline rate is 80% after only two years. (Because of the collapse in exploration activities in 2020 due to Covid, there are far fewer new wells coming on-line; thus, the production base is made up of older wells with slower decline rates but it is still a much steeper cliff than with traditional wells.)

As a result, the US, the world’s most important swing producer, has to come up with about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of new output just to stay even.

(This was formerly about a 3 million bpd number due to both the factor mentioned above and the 2 million bpd drop in total US oil production, from 13 million bpd to around 11 million bpd since 2019). Please recall that total US oil production in 2008 was only around 5 million bpd. Thus, 1.5 million barrels per day is a lot of oil and requires considerable drilling and exploration activities.

Again, this is merely to stay steady-state, much less grow.

The foregoing is why I wrote on multiple occasions in EVAs during 2020, when the futures price for oil went below zero*, that crude would have a spectacular price recovery later that year and, especially, in 2021. In my view, to go out on my familiar creaky limb, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet! With supply extremely challenged for the above reasons and demand marching back, I believe 2022 could see $100 crude, possibly even higher.

Part 1 of 3

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 3

*Physical oil, or real vs paper traded, bottomed in the upper teens when the futures contract for delivery in April, 2020, went deeply negative.

Mike Rothman of Cornerstone Analytics has one of the best oil price forecasting records on Wall Street. Like me, he was vehemently bullish on oil after the Covid crash in the spring of 2020 (admittedly, his well-reasoned optimism was a key factor in my up-beat outlook). Here’s what he wrote late this summer: “Our forecast for ’22 looks to see global oil production capacity exhausted late in the year and our balance suggests OPEC (and OPEC + participants) will face pressures to completely remove any quotas.”

My expectation is that global supply will likely max out sometime next year, barring a powerful negative growth shock (like a Covid variant even more vaccine resistant than Delta). A significant supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand recovers and exceeds its pre-Covid level. This is a view also shared by Goldman Sachs and Raymond James, among others; hence, my forecast of triple-digit prices next year. Raymond James pointed out that in June the oil market was undersupplied by 2.5 mill bpd. Meanwhile, global petroleum demand was rapidly rising with expectations of nearly pre-Covid consumption by year-end. Mike Rothman ran this chart in a webcast on 9/10/2021 revealing how far below the seven-year average oil inventories had fallen. This supply deficit is very likely to become more acute as the calendar flips to 2022.



In fact, despite oil prices pushing toward $80, total US crude output now projected to actually decline this year. This is an unprecedented development. However, as the very pro-renewables Financial Times (the UK’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) explained in an August 11th, 2021, article: “Energy companies are in a bind. The old solution would be to invest more in raising gas production. But with most developed countries adopting plans to be ‘net zero’ on carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier, the appetite for throwing billions at long-term gas projects is diminished.”

The author, David Sheppard, went on to opine: “In the oil industry there are those who think a period of plus $100-a-barrel oil is on the horizon, as companies scale back investments in future supplies, while demand is expected to keep rising for most of this decade at a minimum.” (Emphasis mine) To which I say, precisely!

Thus, if he’s right about rising demand, as I believe he is, there is quite a collision looming between that reality and the high probability of long-term constrained supplies. One of the most relevant and fascinating Wall Street research reports I read as I was researching the topic of what I have been referring to as “Greenflation” is from Morgan Stanley. Its title asked the provocative question: “With 64% of New Cars Now Electric, Why is Norway Still Using so Much Oil?”

While almost two-thirds of Norway’s new vehicle sales are EVs, a remarkable market share gain in just over a decade, the number in the US is an ultra-modest 2%. Yet, per the Morgan Stanley piece, despite this extraordinary push into EVs, oil consumption in Norway has been stubbornly stable.

Coincidentally, that’s been the experience of the overall developed world over the past 10 years, as well; petroleum consumption has largely flatlined. Where demand hasn’t gone horizontal is in the developing world which includes China.

As you can see from the following Cornerstone Analytics chart, China’s oil demand has vaulted by about 6 million barrels per day (bpd) since 2010 while its domestic crude output has, if anything, slightly contracted.



Another coincidence is that this 6 million bpd surge in China’s appetite for oil, almost exactly matched the increase in US oil production. Once again, think where oil prices would be today without America’s shale oil boom.

This is unlikely to change over the next decade. By 2031, there are an estimated one billion Asian consumers moving up into the middle class. History is clear that more income means more energy consumption. Unquestionably, renewables will provide much of that power but oil and natural gas are just as unquestionably going to play a critical role. Underscoring that point, despite the exponential growth of renewables over the last 10 years, every fossil fuel category has seen increased usage.

Thus, even if China gets up to Norway’s 64% EV market share of new car sales over the next decade, its oil usage is likely to continue to swell. Please be aware that China has become the world’s largest market for EVs—by far.

Despite that, the above chart vividly displays an immense increase in oil demand.

Here’s a similar factoid that I ran in our December 4th EVA, “Totally Toxic”, in which I made a strong bullish case for energy stocks (the main energy ETF is up 35% from then, by the way):

“(There was) a study by the UN and the US government based on the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gasses Induced Climate Change (MAGICC). The model predicted that ‘the complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and by less than one fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100.’ Say again? If the world’s biggest carbon emitter on a per capita basis causes minimal improvement by going cold turkey on fossil fuels, are we making the right moves by allocating tens of trillions of dollars that we don’t have toward the currently in-vogue green energy solutions?”

China's voracious power appetite increase has been true with all of its energy sources.

On the environmentally-friendly front, that includes renewables; on the environmentally-unfriendly side, it also includes coal. In 2020, China added three times more coal-based power generation than all other countries combined.

This was the equivalent of an additional coal planet each week. Globally, there was a reduction last year of 17 gigawatts in coal-fired power output; in China, the increase was 29.8 gigawatts, far more than offsetting the rest of the world’s progress in reducing the dirtiest energy source. (A gigawatt can power a city with a population of roughly 700,000.)

Overall, 70% of China’s electricity is coal-generated. This has significant environmental implications as far as electric vehicles (EVs) are concerned.

Because EVs are charged off a grid that is primarily coal- powered, carbon emissions actually rise as the number of such vehicles proliferate. As you can see in the following charts from Reuters’ energy expert John Kemp, Asia’s coal-fired generation has risen drastically in the last 20 years, even as it has receded in the rest of the world. (The flattening recently is almost certainly due to Covid, with a sharp upward resumption nearly a given.)



The worst part is that burning coal not only emits CO2—which is not a pollutant and is essential for life—it also releases vast quantities of nitrous oxide (N20), especially on the scale of coal usage seen in Asia today. N20 is unquestionably a pollutant and a greenhouse gas that is hundreds of times more potent than CO2.

(An interesting footnote is that over the last 550 million years, there have been very few times when the CO2 level has been as low, or lower, than it is today.)

Some scientists believe that one reason for the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice in recent decades is due to the prevailing winds blowing black carbon soot over from Asia. This is a separate issue from N20 which is a colorless gas. As the black soot covers the snow and ice fields in Northern Canada, they become more absorbent of the sun’s radiation, thus causing increased melting. (Source: “Weathering Climate Change” by Hugh Ross)

Due to exploding energy needs in China this year, coal prices have experienced an unprecedented surge. Despite this stunning rise, Chinese authorities have instructed its power providers to obtain coal, and other baseload energy sources, such as liquified natural gas (LNG), regardless of cost. Notwithstanding how pricey coal has become, its usage in China was up 15% in the first half of this year vs the first half of 2019 (which was obviously not Covid impacted).



Despite the polluting impact of heavy coal utilization, China is unlikely to turn away from it due to its high energy density (unlike renewables), its low cost (usually) and its abundance within its own borders (though its demand is so great that it still needs to import vast amounts).

Regarding oil, as we saw in last week’s final image, it is currently importing roughly 11 million barrels per day (bpd) to satisfy its 15 million bpd consumption (about 15% of total global demand). In other words, crude imports amount to almost three-quarter of its needs. At $80 oil, this totals $880 million per day or approximately $320 billion per year. Imagine what China’s trade surplus would look like without its oil import bill!

Ironically, given the current hostility between the world’s superpowers, China has an affinity for US oil because of its light and easy-to-refine nature. China’s refineries tend to be low-grade and unable to efficiently process heavier grades of crude, unlike the US refining complex which is highly sophisticated and prefers heavy oil such as from Canada and Venezuela—back when the latter actually produced oil.

Thus, China favors EVs because they can be de facto coal-powered, lessening its dangerous reliance on imported oil. It also likes them due to the fact it controls 80% of the lithium ion battery supply and 60% of the planet’s rare earth minerals, both of which are essential to power EVs.

However, even for China, mining enough lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, aluminum and the other essential minerals/metals to meet the ambitious goals of largely electrifying new vehicle volumes is going to be extremely daunting.

This is in addition to mass construction of wind farms and enormously expanded solar panel manufacturing.

As one of the planet’s leading energy authorities Daniel Yergin writes: “With the move to electric cars, demand for critical minerals will skyrocket (lithium up 4300%, cobalt and nickel up 2500%), with an electric vehicle using 6 times more minerals than a conventional car and a wind turbine using 9 times more minerals than a gas-fueled power plant. The resources needed for the ‘mineral-intensive energy system’ of the future are also highly concentrated in relatively few countries. Whereas the top 3 oil producers in the world are responsible for about 30 percent of total liquids production, the top 3 lithium producers control more than 80% of supply.

China controls 60% of rare earths output needed for wind towers; the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70% of the cobalt required for EV batteries.”

 

[marsh]

Part 3 of 3

As many have noted, the environmental impact of immensely ramping up the mining of these materials is undoubtedly going to be severe. Michael Shellenberger, a life-long environmental activist, has been particularly vociferous in his condemnation of the dominant view that only renewables can solve the global energy needs. He’s especially critical of how his fellow environmentalists resorted to repetitive deception, in his view, to undercut nuclear power in past decades. By leaving nuke energy out of the solution set, he foresees a disastrous impact on the planet due to the massive scale (he’d opine, impossibly massive) of resource mining that needs to occur. (His book, “Apocalypse Never”, is also one I highly recommend; like Dr. Koonin, he hails from the left end of the political spectrum.)

Putting aside the environmental ravages of developing rare earth minerals, when you have such high and rapidly rising demand colliding with limited supply, prices are likely to go vertical. This will be another inflationary “forcing”, a favorite term of climate scientists, caused by the Great Green Energy Transition.

Moreover, EVs are very semiconductor intensive. With semis already in seriously short supply, this is going to make a gnarly situation even gnarlier. It’s logical to expect that there will be recurring shortages of chips over the next decade for this reason alone (not to mention the acute need for semis as the “internet of things” moves into primetime).

In several of the newsletters I’ve written in recent years, I’ve pointed out the present vulnerability of the US electric grid. Yet, it will be essential not just to keep it from breaking down under its current load; it must be drastically enhanced, a Herculean task. For one thing, it is excruciatingly hard to install new power lines. As J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest has written: “Grid expansion can be a hornet’s nest of cost, complexity and NIMBYism*, particularly in the US.” The grid’s frailty, even under today’s demands (i.e., much less than what lies ahead as millions of EVs plug into it) is particularly obvious in California. However, severe winter weather in 2021 exposed the grid weakness even in energy-rich Texas, which also has a generally welcoming attitude toward infrastructure upgrading and expansion.

Yet it’s the Golden State, home to 40 million Americans and the fifth largest economy in the world, if it was its own country (which it occasionally acts like it wants to be), that is leading the charge to EVs and seeking to eliminate internal combustion engines (ICEs) as quickly as possible. Even now, blackouts and brownouts are becoming increasingly common. Seemingly convinced it must be a role model for the planet, it’s trying desperately to reduce its emissions, which are less than 1%, of the global total, at the expense of rendering its energy system more similar to a developing country. In addition to very high electricity costs per kilowatt hour (its mild climate helps offset those), it also has gasoline prices that are 77% above the national average.

*NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard.

While California has been a magnet for millions seeking a better life for 150 years, the cost of living is turning the tide the other way. Unreliable and increasingly expensive energy is likely to intensify that trend. Combined with home prices that are more than double the US median–$800,000!–California is no longer the land of milk and honey, unless, to slightly paraphrase Woody Guthrie about LA, even back in the 1940s, you’ve got a whole lot of scratch.

More and more people, seem to be scratching California off their list of livable venues.

Voters in the reliably blue state of California may become extremely restive, particularly as they look to Asia and see new coal plants being built at a fever pitch. The data will become clear that as America keeps decarbonizing–as it has done for 30 years mostly due to the displacement of coal by gas in the US electrical system—Asia will continue to go the other way. (By the way, electricity represents the largest share of CO2 emission at roughly 25%.)

California has always seemed to lead social trends in this country, as it is doing again with its green energy transition. The objective is noble though, extremely ambitious, especially the timeline. As it brings its power paradigm to the rest of America, especially its frail grid, it will be interesting to see how voters react in other states as the cost of power leaps higher and its dependability heads lower. It’s reasonable to speculate we may be on the verge of witnessing the Californication of the US energy system.

Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, please be aware the IEA (International Energy Agency) has estimated it will cost the planet $5 trillion per year to achieve Net Zero emissions. This is compared to global GDP of roughly $85 trillion.

According to BloombergNEF, the price tag over 30 years, could be as high as $173 trillion. Frankly, based on the history of gigantic cost overruns on most government-sponsored major infrastructure projects, I’m inclined to take the over—way over—on these estimates.

Moreover, energy consulting firm T2 and Associates, has guesstimated electrifying just the US to the extent necessary to eliminate the direct consumption of fuel (i.e., gasoline, natural gas, coal, etc.) would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion. Again, taking into account how these ambitious efforts have played out in the past, I suspect $29 trillion is light. Regardless, even $18 trillion is a stunner, despite the reality we have all gotten numb to numbers with trillions attached to them. For perspective, the total, already terrifying, level of US federal debt is $28 trillion.

Regardless, as noted last week, the probabilities of the Great Green Energy Transition happening are extremely high. Relatedly, I believe the likelihood of the Great Greenflation is right up there with them.

As Gavekal’s Didier Darcet wrote in mid-August: ““Nowadays, and this is a great first in history, governments will commit considerable financial resources they do not have in the extraction of very weakly concentrated energy.” ( i.e., less efficient) “The bet is very risky, and if it fails, what next?

The modern economy would not withstand expensive energy, or worse, lack of energy.”

While I agree this an historical first, it’s definitely not great (with apologies for all the “greats”). This is particularly not great for keeping inflation subdued, as well as for attempting to break out of the growth quagmire the Western world has been in for the last two decades. What we are seeing in Europe right now is an extremely cautionary case study in just how disastrous the war on fossil fuels can be (shortly we will see who or what has been a behind-the-scenes participant in this conflict).



Essentially, I believe, as I’ve written in past EVAs, we are entering the third energy crisis of the last 50 years. If I’m right, it will be characterized by recurring bouts of triple-digit oil prices in the years to come. Along with Richard Nixon taking the US off the gold standard in 1971, the high inflation of the 1970s was caused by the first two energy crises (the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution). If I’m correct about this being the third, it’s coming at a most inopportune time with the US in hyper-MMT* mode.

Frankly, I believe many in the corridors of power would like to see oil trade into the $100s, and natural gas into the teens, as it will help catalyze the shift to renewable energy. But consumers are likely to have a much different reaction—potentially, a violently different reaction, as I noted last week.

The experience of the Yellow Vest protests in France (referring to the color of the vest protestors wore), are instructive in this regard. France is a generally left-leaning country. Despite that, a proposed fuel surtax in November 2018 to fund a renewable energy transition triggered such widespread civil unrest that French president Emmanuel Macron rescinded it the following month.

*MMT stands for Modern Monetary Theory. It holds that a government, like the US, which issues debt in its own currency can spend without concern about budgetary constraints. If there are not enough buyers of its bonds at acceptable interest rates, that nation’s central bank (the Fed, in our case) simply acquires them with money it creates from its digital printing press. This is what is happening today in the US. Many economists consider this highly inflationary.

The sharp and politically uncomfortable rise in US gas pump prices this summer caused the Biden administration to plead with OPEC to lift its volume quotas.

The ironic implication of that exhortation was glaringly obvious, as was the inefficiency and pollution consequences of shipping oil thousands of miles across the Atlantic. (Oil tankers are a significant source of emissions.) This is as opposed to utilizing domestic oil output, as well as crude from Canada (which is actually generally better suited to the US refining complex). Beyond the pollution aspect, imported oil obviously worsens America’s massive trade deficit (which would be far more massive without the six million barrels per day of domestic oil volumes that the shale revolution has provided) and costs our nation high-paying jobs.

Further, one of my other big fears is that the West is engaging in unilateral energy disarmament. Russia and China are likely the major beneficiaries of this dangerous scenario. Per my earlier comment about a stealth combatant in the war on fossil fuels, it may surprise you that a past NATO Secretary General* has accused Russian intelligence of avidly supporting the anti-fracking movements in Western Europe. Russian TV has railed against fracking for years, even comparing it to pedophilia (certainly, a most bizarre analogy!).

The success of the anti-fracking movement on the Continent has essentially prevented a European version of America’s shale miracles (the UK has the potential to be a major shale gas producer). Consequently, the European Union’s domestic natural gas production has been in a rapid decline phase for years.

Banning fracking has, of course, made Europe heavily reliant on Russian gas shipments with more than 40% of its supplies coming from Russia. This is in graphic contrast to the shale output boom in the US that has not only made us natural gas self-sufficient but also an export powerhouse of liquified natural gas (LNG).

In 2011, the Nord Stream system of pipelines running under the Baltic Sea from northern Russia began delivering gas west from northern Russia to the German coastal city of Greifswald. For years, the Russians sought to build a parallel system with the inventive name of Nord Stream 2. The US government opposed its approval on security grounds but the Biden administration has dropped its opposition. It now appears Nord Stream 2 will happen, leaving Europe even more exposed to Russian coercion.

Is it possible the Russian government and the Chinese Communist Party have been secretly and aggressively supporting the anti-fossil fuel movements in America? In my mind, it seems not only possible but probable. In fact, I believe it is naïve not to come that conclusion. After all, wouldn’t it be in both of their geopolitical interests to see the US once again caught in a cycle of debilitating inflation, ensnared by the twin traps of MMT and the third energy crisis?

*Per former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasumssen: Russia has “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

Along these lines, I was shocked to listen to a recent podcast by the New Yorker magazine on the topic of “intelligent sabotage”. This segment was an interview between the magazine’s David Remnick and a Swedish professor, Adreas Malm. Mr. Malm is the author of a new book with the literally explosive title “How To Blow Up A Pipeline”. Just as it sounds, he advocates detonating pipelines to inhibit fossil fuel distribution.

Mr. Remnick was clearly sympathetic to his guest but he did ask him about the impact on the poor of driving energy prices up drastically which would be the obvious ramification if his sabotage recommendations were widely followed. Mr. Malm’s reaction was a verbal shrug of the shoulders and words to the effect that this was the price to pay to save the planet.

Frankly, I am appalled that the venerable New Yorker would provide a platform for such a radical and unlawful suggestion. In an era when people are de-platformed for often innocuous comments, it’s incredible to me this was posted and has not been pulled down. In my mind, this reflects just how tolerant the media is of attacks on the fossil fuel industry, regardless of the deleterious impact on consumers and the global economy.

Surely, there is a far better way of coping with the harmful aspects of fossil fuel-based energy than this scorched earth (literally, in the case of Mr. Malm) approach, which includes efforts to block new pipelines, shut existing ones, and severely restrict US energy production. In America’s case, the result will be forcing us to unnecessarily and increasingly rely on overseas imports. (For example, per the Wall Street Journal, drilling permits on federal land have crashed to 171 in August from 671 in April.

Further, the contentious $3.5 trillion “infrastructure” plan would raise royalties and fees high enough on US energy producers that it would render them globally uncompetitive.)

Such actions would only aggravate what is already a severe energy shock, one that may be worse than the 1970s twin energy crises. America has it easy compared to Europe, though, given current US policy trends, we might be in their same heavily listing energy boat soon.



Solutions include fast-tracking small modular nuclear plants; encouraging the further switch from burning coal to natural gas (a trend that is, unfortunately, going the other way now, as noted above); utilizing and enhancing carbon and methane capture at the point of emission (including improving tail pipe effluent-reduction technology); enhancing pipeline integrity to inhibit methane leaks; among many other mitigation techniques that recognize the reality the global economy will be reliant on fossil fuels for many years, if not decades, to come.

If the climate change movement fails to recognize the essential nature of fossil fuels, it will almost certainly trigger a backlash that will undermine the positive change it is trying to bring about. This is similar to what it did via its relentless assault on nuclear power which produced a frenzy of coal plant construction in the 1980s and 1990s. On this point, it’s interesting to see how quickly Europe is re-embracing coal power to alleviate the energy poverty and rationing occurring over there right now - even before winter sets in. When the choice is between supporting climate change initiatives on one hand and being able to heat your home and provide for your family on the other, is there really any doubt about which option the majority of voters will select?

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Fink Flip-Flops: Fears Social Unrest From Short-Termist Anti-Fossil-Fuel Furore

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 11:35 AM

Having virtue-signaled his way around the world for the last 18 months or more, expounding omnisciently at the need for lowly peasant folk to divest their internal combustion engines, switch to EVs, embrace renewables (at whatever cost), and stop investing in fossil fuels, BlackRock's Larry Fink is suddenly seeing the massive hole in his, and Davos Man's, cunning plan to 'greenwash' the world.



The problem is simple - this anti-fossil-fuel virtue-signaling is leading to global energy shortages so severe they could cause social unrest.

As Blackstone Inc. co-founder Stephen Schwarzman warned this week at a conference in Saudi Arabia:

“We’re going to end up with a real shortage of energy,” he said.

“And when you have a shortage it’s just going to cost more and it’s probably going to cost a lot more. And when that happens you’re going to get very unhappy people around the world, in the emerging markets in particular.”

As Bloomberg reports, Schwarzmann's comments were echoed by Larry Fink, who said there’s a high probability of oil soon reaching $100 a barrel, especially with many governments and investors pushing back against investments in fossil fuels.

“Inflation, we are in a new regime,” said Fink, chairman of BlackRock Inc, the world’s biggest asset manager.

“There are many structural reasons for that. Short term policy related to environmentalism, in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons, has created energy inflation and we are going to be living with that for some time.”

This is quite a flip-flop back to reality for the BlackRock boss who devoted his annual letter to investors to explain that climate change has now put us “on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance,” reportedly marking a watershed moment in climate history.

Fink said in the letter that he would demand companies whose shares it holds disclose their plans to achieve net zero emissions, enabling BlackRock to then divest from polluting companies in its actively managed funds - which represent about a tenth of its assets - if they did not improve.

“I believe that the pandemic has presented such an existential crisis - such a stark reminder of our fragility - that it has driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully and to consider how, like the pandemic, it will alter our lives,” Fink wrote.

“No issue ranks higher than climate change on our clients’ lists of priorities.”

Well, a year later, with energy costs at record highs and shortages everywhere amid both post-COVID demand acceleration and supply-based issues due in large part to ESG-driven fossil-fuel investment contraction (that was pioneered proudly by Fink), the situation is not the Green Utopia he imagined.

Surging energy prices are currently playing out across the globe, with several European countries facing soaring energy bills amid a rise in commodities such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Gas prices rose by more than 35 percent in September amid lower supplies of natural gas and a surge in demand as pandemic-hit economies around the world reopen, prompting fears that there is simply not enough gas stored up for the winter if temperatures were to be particularly cold in the northern hemisphere. Lackluster output from Europe’s windmills and solar farms and maintenance work taking nuclear generators and other plans offline have also contributed to the energy price hike.

It now appears Fink is taking a more stoic perspective, realizing that pleasing the Gretas and AOCs of the world in the short-term with words and actions has severe real-world implications on peoples' lives

“We’re not focusing on long-term solutions, we’re not trying to change the world in a granular basis,” said Fink.

“We have these visions we could go from a brown world and we could wake up tomorrow there’d be a green world. That is not going to happen.”

And if that was not enough, we remind readers that neither China nor Russia will be attending COP26... thus making the climate change conference a total waste of time and money (and carbon credits for all those jets).

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

"Transitory" Shortages & Inflation Are Actually Your Quality Of Life Being Stolen Right Before Your Eyes

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 06:30 AM
Submitted by Quoth the Raven at QTR's Fringe Finance,

There’s no doubt our country has all of a sudden slipped into the most precarious state we’ve been able to readily confirm with our own two eyes in decades.

We are suffering from runaway inflation, we have a monstrous labor shortage, and products we normally would have abundant access to are missing from store shelves. The country doesn’t produce anything anymore, we have doubled our Central Bank’s balance sheet in under two years and the money supply has gone parabolic.


Source: Minn Post

And engineering solutions for these issues requires correctly identifying where the problem is coming from to begin with. It appears we can either go one of two directions when we try to deduce the cause of these issues.

The first direction we can go in is to point to monetary and fiscal policy and look at their direct effects on the state of the country and our economy. This, I believe, is the pragmatic approach to solving the issues our nation faces.

The second direction, according to a new Washington Post op-ed, is apparently to blame and shame ourselves for being greedy and assuming that we ever deserved such a quality of life to begin with.

The Post recently published a piece called "Opinion: Don’t rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes”, which put this argument on the table, basically telling people to shut up and be thankful for the little they have.

While normally I embrace the idea of being humble and thankful no matter how much or how little you have access to, the Post’s opinion piece brings an interesting concept into the foreground that I want to examine: what I am calling “the quality of life con”.

Let’s have a look at what the op-ed, written by award winner Micheline Maynard, argues. Maynard’s website notes that prior to working at the Washington Post, she worked for The New York Times and NPR.


Micheline Maynard, via michelinemaynard.com

In the op-ed, a photo of empty store shelves - very similar to the ones I used to effectively make my argument that the U.S. is turning into a third world country - accompanies an argument that it’s “time for some new, more realistic expectations,” as “Americans’ expectations of speedy service and easy access to consumer products have been crushed like a Styrofoam container in a trash compactor.”

"American consumers, their expectations pampered and catered to for decades, are not accustomed to inconvenience," the op-ed states.

Its a convenient argument to make now, since when I make this “anti-comfort” argument about the importance of having a recession/depression and the Fed not stepping in the way every time those very same pampered consumers feel a little bit of financial unease, it is the left that casts me away as a conspiracy theorist and lunatic for advocating ushering in discomfort. Now, all of a sudden, because their policies brought on discomfort, the narrative changes to “lets all stop being so pampered all the time”.

"Rather than living constantly on the verge of throwing a fit, and risking taking it out on overwhelmed servers, struggling shop owners or late-arriving delivery people, we’d do ourselves a favor by consciously lowering expectations," the piece says.

While I agree with not taking out our rage on service workers, like bartenders and servers - I was one for more than a decade and can tell you firsthand it doesn’t accomplish anything - this continues to fall under the “simply don’t be a dick” ruleset, and has nothing to do with “consciously lowering expectations” for our quality of life across the board.


Source: New Westminster Record

And this segues nicely into my discussion about what I have called “the quality of life con.”

Seeing the left finally address our quality of life marks an interesting paradox for them. Often, I have argued that our quality of life deteriorating is one of the hidden gears that turns in the background as a result of rising inflation and poor monetary policy in our country.

Quality of life needs to be talked about loudly because it can (and will) be whittled away at without being noticed until, one day, you wake up and your quality of life is much poorer than it was years ago. This is akin to the “weighted blanket theory” case against the Federal Reserve I made on YouTube earlier this year: it falls on you slowly, and you don’t notice it until it’s too late.

On a day by day basis, quality of life can be washed away by things like shrinkflation, higher prices, and exactly what Maynard is arguing for in her op-ed: lowered expectations.

The convenient thing about lowered expectations is it makes it easier to not notice when your quality of life is being stolen from you. And I say “stolen” because if you are a normal productive, taxpaying member of the country, you would assume that your quality of life should improve or at least hold steady.

After all, that is what most of the point of productivity as a part of capitalism is. It is what has gotten us from black and white televisions with two channels to 100 inch plasma screen TVs playing whatever we want, on demand from the internet, in the course of just a couple of decades.

And it seems to be that everyone can agree in unison - both the left and the right - that we all want our quality of life to improve. We measure the success of our country by things like GDP, infant mortality rate and life expectancy, all numbers that tend to improve as our quality of life improves.

I have made the argument that quality of life is a very subjective measure that is difficult to wrap our heads around, and this is why cultural Marxists in our country think that they can implement time-tested destructive ideologies, but will still be able to walk around with their iPhones and their Starbucks lattes in the years following their successful overthrow of capitalism.

They don’t understand that their quality of life will not remain the same under such policies.


Source: Socialist Appeal

But because there is no real way to measure or model quality of life on a minute-by-minute basis in most households, and because the left doesn’t seem interested in looking at history for the answer, quality of life becomes this subjective gray area that can be used as a dumping ground for ideological screw-ups when convenient and, in the case of this WaPo op-ed, as a lever to try to get the American public to accept the consequences of the failed policies that led us to inflation and product shortages to begin with.

Again, I think it is appropriate to always be thankful and humble about what we have, but we should stand firm in the expectation that we want our quality of life to continue to progress instead of regress.

The left swears that socialism and Marxism are the best ways to help those in our country and outside of our country who are in need. But the truth is we can best help the rest of the world - and humanity as a whole - by ensuring that our own two feet are firmly planted in the ground first, and that our quality of life remains, at worst, steady. This is why, on an airplane, they ask you to put on your mask first before helping others with their masks.

And so, without even knowing that she was doing it, the author of this op-ed is using quality of life as a dumping ground to try and divert the consequences of insane monetary and fiscal policy.

She’s also bringing to the foreground a concept that, if we paid more attention to it, could help us understand far more deeply why our policies are flawed to begin with.

The point is we should not be happy about the fact that the country is devolving before our eyes, we should not accept the theft of our savings via inflation and we should keep a keen eye on our collective quality of life as a country.

After all, quality of life is what decades of rugged productive individuals in this country fought for at war and worked for back home.

I think my point is best made through Maynard’s own words.

Very likely unaware of some of the historical analogues she was making, she wrote:

"The other day I found myself carrying home a loaf of bread in my bare hands because the bakery had run out of bags. Back when we didn’t know how good we had it — circa 2019 — I might have been annoyed by the inconvenience. Now I was just glad the bakery was still in business."

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Nationalism To Confront Globalism In Glasgow

TUESDAY, OCT 26, 2021 - 05:00 AM
Authored by Pat Buchanan,

“Extraordinary, isn’t it? I’ve been hearing all about COP,” said the queen to the duchess of Cornwall.

“Still don’t know who is coming. … We only know about people who are not coming. … It’s really irritating when they talk but they don’t do.”

Queen Elizabeth II was expressing her exasperation at the possible number of no-shows at the U.K.’s coming climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

Among the absentees may be Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose country generates more carbon dioxide than the U.S. and EU combined.

Behind the queen’s exasperation, however, lies a political reality.

Nations like China are discovering that meeting goals for cutting carbon emissions can stall economic growth to where the regime itself is at peril.

Forced to choose between what is best for the country now and what is better for mankind in some indeterminate future, leaders are putting the needs of the nation today over the call of the world of tomorrow.

As the countdown to Glasgow proceeds, China’s energy situation is described by The New York Times:

“China’s electricity shortage is rippling across factories and industries, testing the nation’s status as the world’s capital for reliable manufacturing. The shortage prompted the authorities to announce on Wednesday a national rush to mine and burn more coal, despite their previous pledges to curb emissions that cause climate change.

“Mines that were closed without authorization have been ordered to reopen. Coal mines and coal-fired power plants that were shut for repairs are also to be reopened. Tax incentives are being drafted for coal-fired power plants. … Local governments have been warned to be more cautious about limits on energy use that had been imposed partly in response to climate change concerns.”

Earlier this year, Beijing had pledged to stop building coal-fired power plants outside China. But at home, Beijing is going all-out to mine and burn coal to keep the world’s greatest manufacturing plant producing and the world’s largest labor force employed.

Forced to choose between fighting climate change and preventing a possible recession or depression, Xi is unapologetically putting China first.

Nor is China the only Asian economic power grappling with an energy shortage. India, the world’s third-largest producer of carbon emissions after China and the U.S., is facing a potential power crisis.

Coal accounts for 70% of India’s electricity generation. Yet, 4 in 5 of its 135 coal-fired power plants have critically low levels of coal inventory. With its economy picking up, New Delhi is going to be in the market for more coal to burn.

Lectures about carbon emissions are likely to go unheeded.

In Europe, wholesale electricity prices have increased 200% since 2019, a result of surging natural gas costs driven by high demand in Asia and lower-than-expected deliveries from Russia.

Most EU countries rely on gas-fired power stations to meet electricity demand.

Some 40% of that gas comes from Russia. With completion of the Nord Stream II pipeline, German and EU dependence on Russian gas is going to rise.

Is Russia, rich in fossil fuels that are still in demand, and the world’s fourth-largest producer of carbon dioxide, likely to placidly accept watching its customers move away from Russian coal, oil and gas to solar and wind?

On Friday, U.S. oil prices hit a seven-year high amid a surge in global demand and a supply crunch induced by OPEC. West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. oil benchmark, climbed to $82 a barrel. Gas prices followed.


Oil is at its highest price since OPEC launched its price war against U.S. shale producers. In November 2014, OPEC stunned world oil markets by refusing to curb production amid soaring shale output.

Crude prices went into free-fall as OPEC sought to drive the higher-cost U.S. producers out of the market.

Such economic nationalism raises a relevant question:

Why would OPEC nations that depend on oil exports for much of their national income champion a worldwide abandonment of the fossil fuel sales upon which their regimes’ survival depends?

In brief, world demand for coal, oil and natural gas is surging, as are prices, just as the climate conference, whose goal is to reduce and eventually eliminate the burning of coal, oil and gas, is about to meet in Glasgow.

Will nations such as China, India and Russia be willing to forgo the coal, oil and gas upon which 80% of the world’s power plants currently depend, to be replaced by windmills and solar panels?

At the insistence of Sen. Joe Manchin, the heart of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — a program to replace U.S. coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy by steadily increasing taxes on the former and subsidies for the latter — will apparently be dropped from the $3.5 trillion budget bill.

Prediction: In the long run, nationalists fighting to meet near-term needs of their constituents and countries are likely to prevail over the globalists who profess to be serving all of mankind.

 

[marsh]

[COMMENT: Extremely long, but very important article -
“It has been said by scientists and doctors that the Green Pass has no medical significance in itself but serves to force people to get vaccinated. Instead, I think we must say the opposite: that the vaccine is a means of forcing people to have the Green Pass. That is, a device that allows individuals to be monitored and tracked, an unprecedented measure.” [emphasis mine]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Public Health Or Private Wealth? How Digital Vaccine Passports Pave Way For Unprecedented Surveillance Capitalism

MONDAY, OCT 25, 2021 - 11:50 PM
Authored by Jeremy Loffredo and Max Bluemnthal via TheGrayZone.com,

The titans of global capitalism are exploiting the Covid-19 crisis to institute social credit-style digital ID systems across the West...



The death by starvation of Etwariya Devi, a 67-year-old widow from the rural Indian state of Jharkhand, might have passed without notice had it not been part of a more widespread trend.

Like 1.3 billion of her fellow Indians, Devi had been pushed to enroll in a biometric digital ID system called Aadhaar in order to access public services, including her monthly allotment of 25kg of rice. When her fingerprint failed to register with the shoddy system, Devi was denied her food ration. Throughout the course of the following three months in 2017, she was repeatedly refused food until she succumbed to hunger, alone in her home.

Premani Kumar, a 64-year-old woman also from Jharkhand, met the same demise as Devi, dying of hunger and exhaustion the same year after the Aadhaar system transferred her pension payments to another person without her permission, while cutting off her monthly food rations.

A similarly cruel fate was reserved for Santoshi Kumari, an 11-year-old girl, also from Jharkhand, who reportedly died begging for rice after her family’s ration card was canceled because it had not been linked to their Aadhaar digital ID.

These three heart-rending casualties were among a spate of deaths in rural India in 2017 which came as a direct result of the Aadhaar digital ID system.

With over one billion Indians in its database, Aadhaar is the largest biometric digital ID program ever constructed. Besides serving as a portal to government services, it tracks users’ movements between cities, their employment status, and purchasing records. It is a de facto social credit system that serves as the key entry point for accessing services in India.

Having branded Aadhaar’s creator, fellow billionaire Nandan Nilekani, as a “hero,” initiatives backed by tech oligarch Bill Gates have long sought to bring the “Aadhaar approach to other countries.” With the onset of the Covid-19 crisis, Gates and other mavens of the digital ID industry have an unprecedented opportunity to introduce their programs into the wealthy countries of the Global North.

For those yearning for an end to pandemic-related restrictions, credential programs certifying their vaccination against Covid-19 have been marketed as the key to reopening the economy and restoring their personal freedom. But the implementation of immunity passports is also accelerating the establishment of a global digital identity infrastructure.

As the military surveillance firm and NATO contractor Thales recently put it, vaccine passports “are a precursor to digital ID wallets.”

And as the CEO of iProove, a biometric ID company and Homeland Security contractor, emphasized to Forbes, “The evolution of vaccine certificates will actually drive the whole field of digital ID in the future. So, therefore, this is not just about Covid, this is about something even bigger.”

For the national security state, digital immunity passports promise unprecedented control over populations wherever such systems are implemented. Ann Cavoukian, the former privacy commissioner of Ontario, Canada has described the vaccine passport system already active in her province as “a new, inescapable web of surveillance with geolocation data being tracked everywhere.”

For tech oligarchs such Bill Gates and neoliberal institutions such as the World Economic Forum, digital ID and digital currency systems have already enabled the extraction of unbelievable profits in the Global South, where hundreds of millions of people remain “unbanked” and therefore outside the sphere of electronic payments systems.

Now, with grassroots protest building against an exclusionary regime of vaccine passports, the captains of global capitalism are campaigning with more urgency than ever to bring digital ID to the West.

For these elite interests, the digitization of immunity passports represent a critical tool in a long-planned economic and political transformation.

“With no Covid Pass, my wife and I are banished from society”
Across the globe, the certification of vaccination against COVID-19 is already a requirement to participate in daily life.

In Indonesia, COVID-19 vaccines are mandatory, and those who refuse may face fines or be refused access to public services. In Greece, residents must present immunity to work in or enter bars, theaters, and other indoor public spaces.

France has similarly required residents to carry a health pass for access to all restaurants, bars, trains, and any venue accommodating more than 50 people, a decision that has stoked widespread protests throughout the country. The socialist French former presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon has blasted the new restrictions as “absurd, unfair and authoritarian.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424730996738568195

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1424730996738568195
.17 min

Italy has mandated its Green Pass for all workers, threatening them with termination from jobs and suspension of pay. Italy also requires the pass to use Italian public transit. Scenes of private security over-enforcement of the Green Pass and the exclusion of Italy’s elderly from vital services have already begun to go viral on social media.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450135279222902791

View: https://twitter.com/christian_fsi/status/1450135279222902791?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1450542096956461057%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fpublic-health-or-private-wealth-how-digital-vaccine-passports-pave-way-unprecedented
.32 min

Restrictions for Lithuanians who are not double vaccinated or unable to demonstrate recent prior infection from Covid-19 represent some of the harshest in the world. They are banned from restaurants, all non-essential stores, shopping centers, beauty services, libraries, banks or insurance agencies, universities, inpatient medical care, and train travel.

Gluboco Lietuva, a self-described “Lithuanian father” who has refused vaccination, stated on Twitter: “With no Covid Pass, my wife and I are banished from society. We have no income. Banned from most shopping. Can barely exist.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441691330825031680

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1441691330825031680
1:33 min

Four out of ten Canadian provinces currently require citizens to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to enter indoor public venues like restaurants and theaters. All federal public servants and some other workers must be vaccinated to keep their jobs.

The government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also requires all air travelers and interprovincial train travelers to be vaccinated. Canada’s Alberta province took the measures a step further this September when it announced that those who cannot prove full COVID vaccination will no longer be allowed to socialize indoors in groups of more than 12.

In Israel, meanwhile, only those who have received three doses can work or shop indoors and go to restaurants; citizens who received two shots over six months ago are now considered unvaccinated. This rule has consolidated what even the New York Times has deemed a “two-tier system for the vaccinated and unvaccinated … raising legal, moral and ethical questions.”

In the US, President Joe Biden is “moving forward with vaccination requirements wherever [he] can.” Biden, who declared that his “patience is wearing thin” with unvaccinated Americans, recently announced new federal requirements mandating that about 80 million Americans – including all those who work at companies with more than 100 employees – must either be vaccinated or get tested for COVID-19 weekly.

Biden has also mandated that those working at facilities which receive Medicare or Medicaid must show proof of immunity to keep their jobs. According to AP, President Biden is considering proof of immunity for interstate travel, a restriction his former public health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, has clamored for.
In the state of Colorado, the UCHealth hospital system has announced that it will not allow organ transplants to be performed on unvaccinated patients, prompting some to travel to Texas for life-saving procedures.

New York City offers a glimpse of the program in store for the rest of the country. The city’s “Key to NYC” requirement, which went into effect September 13, requires proof of vaccination to work at or attend indoor dining, indoor fitness, and entertainment venues like museums, stadiums, arcades, and theaters.



“If you want to participate in our society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” Mayor De Blasio stated. “[New York City] is a miraculous place literally full of wonders … if you’re un-vaccinated, unfortunately, you will not be able to participate.”

COVID-related mandates could be permanent
While outlets like CNN have referred to vaccine passports as a “useful, temporary measure,” it is increasingly evident that the proof of immunity restrictions imposed on Western populations may not go away any time soon.

Australia’s New South Wales Ministry of Health Dr. Kerry Chant has stated that citizens “need to get used to being vaccinated with COVID vaccines for the future… it will be a regular cycle of vaccination and revaccination.”

Albert Bourla, CEO of the Pfizer corporation that has seen its stock skyrocket during the pandemic, remarked that the “most likely scenario” is coronavirus vaccine shots mandated on an annual basis.

As a February Nature headline read, “the coronavirus is here to stay.” Or, as Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Emergency Program, put it: it is “very, very, unlikely” that COVID-19 will ever go away.

“Eradicating this virus right now from the world is a lot like trying to plan the construction of a stepping-stone pathway to the Moon,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “It’s unrealistic.”

“This is our life from now, in waves,” Israel’s Coronavirus Czar, Salman Zarka, acknowledged.

Already, Zarka has prepared plans to mandate a fourth dose for Israelis.

COVID mandates to be digitally enforced
While a state-mandated treadmill of boosters may seem unappealing to many, if not outright hellish, for others the nightmare presents the opportunity of a lifetime. As early as May 2020, only seven weeks after the pandemic was declared, US tech billionaire Bill Gates predicted that “eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Now, over a year later, a growing number of local and national governments require some form of digital proof of vaccination or natural immunity against COVID-19.

Those who want to travel to Canada, for example, are required to download an app that verifies the vaccination status of incoming travelers. The government also plans to introduce a federal, Canada-wide digital vaccine passport in the coming months.

When the European Union (EU) opened up to foreign tourists this summer, it introduced a “Digital COVID Certificate” which granted entry to those vaccinated against COVID-19, those who have had a negative test, or those who recently recovered from an infection. Its proposed “Digital Green Certificate” has been branded as a means to facilitate safe free movement inside the EU during the pandemic.

The government of France is partnering with a biometric technology company called IDEMIA to “make it easier for its citizens to prove their identity and complete online transactions using a smartphone.” The new app will “enable French citizens to place their national electronic identification cards [introduced to France as a COVID-19 response in August 2021] … on the back of their smartphones and have their identity instantly confirmed.” IDEMIA is also helping France certify travelers immunity data with their Health Travel Pass suite.

The US is still accepting paper vaccination records, and President Biden has insisted no national app is in the works. However, seven U.S. states (California, New York, Louisiana, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii) have already implemented apps certifying vaccination against COVID-19 and have various degrees of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in place.

Part 1 of 4

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 4

ImmunaBand, a wearable wristband, whose company mission is “to bring the world a little closer in a time of the COVID-19 pandemic and for you to demonstrate to the world your vaccination status,” has also been approved by New York City as proof of vaccination.


“In typical American fashion, the US government is relegating the creation of digital vaccination certifications to the private sector,” stated the non-profit Data & Society.

Indeed, behind the push for digital vaccine passports is a coterie of supra-national neoliberal institutions guided by oligarchic tech industry donors.

Elite corporate interests behind digital COVID passports
Mega-corporations, international finance institutions, and billionaire-backed private foundations have played a vital role in lobbying for and implementing digital immunity passports.

The burgeoning global health passport system has been coordinated under the umbrella of the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO). However, this institution is so intertwined with wealthy private interests it can hardly be characterized as a “public” health body.

As former WHO director Margaret Chan told filmmaker Lilian Franck, “only 30 percent of my budget is predictable funds. The other 70 percent, I have to take a hat and go around the world to beg for money. And when they give us the money, [it] is highly linked to their preferences, what they like.”

Chief among those private funders is the second wealthiest man in the world, Bill Gates, and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which happens to be the second largest donor to the WHO.


Bill Gates with World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom

The Gates Foundation recently helped fund a WHO paper providing “implementation guidance” for proof of vaccination certifications across the world. The authors crafted the paper alongside the Rockefeller Foundation and with guidance from several high-level representatives of the World Bank.

According to Foreign Affairs, “few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the WHO are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.” Or, as other sources told Politico in 2017, “Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s.”

Also at the forefront of the shift to digital credentials is the World Economic Forum (WEF). “The Forum is involved in the WHO task force to reflect on those [vaccine credential requirements] standards and think about how they would be used,” reads a May WEF article.

On paper, the WEF (also known as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it is an international network of some of the wealthiest and most influential people on the planet. The Forum positions itself as the thought leader of global capitalism.

The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the global ruling class.

Each year, hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives, and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become the major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”

In 2017, German economist and WEF founder Klaus Schwab introduced the concept of “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” with the title of the book he published that year. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) denotes the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced,” according to Schwab.

For him, the 4IR is the “merging of the physical, digital and biological worlds.”

Schwab has even said that the 4IR will inevitably veer into trans-humanism, or human genome editing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434964287437541380

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1434964287437541380
1:31 min

In January 2021, several WEF partners, including Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, and several other “heavyweights,” announced a partnership to launch the Vaccine Credential Initiative (VCI) to develop digital immunization authentication tools, according to Forbes.

Aiming to institute a single “SMART Health Card” for the world, the VCI intends for its SMART Health Cards to be recognized “across organizational and jurisdictional boundaries.”

In the US, some states are already deploying the SMART Health Cards developed by the VCI. These SMART Health Cards have laid the basis for a de-facto national standard for vaccine credentials.

“If enough states embrace the technology, it could become a de facto nationwide standard and relieve the Biden administration of having to lay out federal requirements for domestic purposes,” Politico noted.



The latest version of Apple’s iOS, iOS 15, even includes SMART Health Card support.

As of today, those who received a vaccine in California, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, Virginia, or certain counties in Maryland can obtain a SMART Health Card from the state.

In most other states, a SMART Health Card is available to those who were vaccinated at one of more than 17,100 CVS, Walgreen’s, or Rite Aid pharmacy chains nationwide.

“More states, pharmacies, and health systems will begin issuing SMART Health Cards very soon,” promises the site of the Commons Project, one of the founders of the VCI initiative.

Commons Project CEO Paul Meyer happens to be a WEF “young leader.”


Commons Project CEO and World Economic Forum Young Leader Paul Meyer

In India, tech oligarchs use digital ID to force social credit on rural poor, spawning exclusion and even death

In 2015, The Gates Foundation provided seed money to a Yale School of Public Health project that would become known as Khushi Baby. Now a non-profit, Khushi Baby makes microchip-equipped necklaces for a child to wear at all times to track their vaccination status and establish continuous monitoring from their first immunizations through adulthood. The non-profit says it is now using data from over 35,000 villages in India to create algorithms that “predict health outcomes for mothers and children.”


From the website of KhushiBaby.org

In 2016, IDEMIA, the security firm now working with the French government on vaccination and identity verification, designed the microchip-equipped necklaces. The necklaces have been used to track health data for 13 million people in India since the beginning of the pandemic.

These programs have been marketed by corporate consultants as essential tools for improving equality and inclusion in the Global South. “Digital identification is key to inclusive growth,” claimed McKinsey, the global consulting firm, in 2019.

“Something like 1 billion people could be more financially included and participative,” said Mike Kubzansky, managing partner of Ebay founder and media mogul Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network during a WEF panel exploring how “Digital Identification Provides a Significant Opportunity for Value Creation.”

Like Gates, Omidyar is heavily invested in the advancement of digital ID and currency systems through his Omidyar Network, which collaborates with the World Economic Forum on the Good ID initiative.



A closer look at the push for “inclusion” by corporate behemoths reveals their altruistic language as little more than public relations cover for raw profit motives, resulting in marginalization and even death for many of those roped into their digital ID systems.

Besides serving as the staging ground for the Khushi Baby venture, India has become a laboratory for digital tracking and identity systems. With support from Western capitalist outfits like the Gates Foundation and the World Bank, the country has become the site of the world’s largest digital ID database, known as Aadhaar.

The Aadhaar system is named for a 12 digit number that serves as a proof of identity and address, among other markers, anywhere in India. To date, a whopping 1.3 billion Indians have been enrolled in the system, making it the largest biometric ID database ever constructed. It contains iris scans and fingerprints from both hands of each user. The technology for this system was provided by none other than the French security firm IDEMIA.

Nandan Nilekani, creator of the Aadhar digital ID system, with Bill Gates
Aadhaar was implemented in 2014, the year that the free marketeering, tech-centric Narendra Modi entered the prime minister’s office. Its creator, tech billionaire Nandan Nilekani, has been branded “the Bill Gates of Bangalore,” celebrated by globalization enthusiasts like Thomas Friedman, and hailed by none other than Gates as an altruistic “hero.” Gates’ foundation has collaborated with Nilekani through its “Co-impact” project alongside billionaire eBay co-founder Jeffrey Skoll’s Skoll Foundation.

“Aadhaar is a huge asset for India,” effused Gates in a 2019 interview with the Indian network Times Now. “The fact that you can make digital payments and open a bank account so easily, India is a leader in that. There are huge benefits in being able to get digital government money to the beneficiary.”

But behind the neoliberal spin, Nilekani’s Aadhar digital ID system has wreaked havoc on the lives of India’s most vulnerable and stigmatized populations.

In the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand, a wave of deaths took place in 2017 when impoverished citizens were cut off from government-subsidized food rations by the Aadhaar system. In several cases, aging widows were denied rice for several months because the system rejected their fingerprint scans.

View: https://youtu.be/KoVynNOBKFs
1:59 min

Around the same time, three brothers died of starvation after they failed to properly register with Aadhaar and were subsequently denied rations for six months. The same cruel fate was visited on the Kumari family, which was unable to obtain an electronic Aadhaar ID, lost its ration card, and saw its 11-year-old daughter, Santoshi, die of hunger.

 

[marsh]

Part 3 of 4

“Many people in Jharkhand have been victims of similar deprivation of food entitlements during the last few months,” reported India’s Scroll. “The main reason is that Aadhaar-based biometric authentication is now compulsory in about 80% of ration shops in the state.”

According to Scroll, a random sample of 18 villages where biometric authentication was compulsory found that a staggering 37% of cardholders were unable to buy their food rations.

Besides making Aadhaar the key to obtaining government services, the Modi government has integrated data collected by Aadhar to establish a “360-degree database” that “automatically track when a citizen moves between cities, changes jobs, or buys a new property,” according to the Huffington Post.

When Covid-19 first reached India in early 2020, Nilekani proposed employing Aadhar as the basis for an anti-Covid vaccination and tracking program. “We must ensure that everybody gets a digital certificate with the date of vaccination, name of the vaccine and through which vendor and at what location,” he declared in 2020.

Unsurprisingly, Nilekani’s system of mass surveillance has proven much more effective at harvesting data than it has been at protecting it. In 2018, the Indian Tribune newspaper was able to purchase the personal information of nearly every Aadhaar user through anonymous sellers over WhatsApp. The process took only 10 minutes and cost about $6 USD, the paper reported.



The system’s serial breaches of privacy even prompted some HIV-positive Indians to drop out of antiretroviral treatment programs that require the Aadhaar card. Though the Aadhaar is said to be voluntary, individuals with HIV have complained to Indian media that they were pressured into enrolling into the ID program, and had been threatened with the loss of medical services.

US privacy advocates have pointed to digital national identity programs like Aadhaar as gargantuan surveillance tools that establish the basis for a social credit system.

Addressing the US House Committee on Financial Services in July 2021, Elizabeth Renieris of Notre-Dame’s Technology Ethics Lab warned, “The Aadhaar number in India is able to track your activity across all facets of your life, from employment to healthcare, to school, to pretty much everything you do. You can’t retain autonomy over specific domains of your life. You can’t separate your personal and professional reputation. You can’t have this kind of contextualized personal identity. I think that’s really problematic.”

“We must avoid building digital identity systems and infrastructure in a way that further expands and entrenches the surveillance state, as does the national identity system in India,” Renieris continued.

But it is the all-encompassing social credit aspect of Aadhaar that has made Gates so fond of the system.

Addressing India’s top policy makers in 2016, the world’s second wealthiest man declared, “Over time, all of these transactions create a footprint and so when you go in for credit, the ability to access the history that you’ve paid your utility bills on time, that you’ve saved up money for your children’s education, all of those things in your digital trail, accessed in an appropriate way allow the credit market to [score the risk properly].“

ID4D expands digital ID to track more human activity than ever
In 2016, the Gates Foundation ponied up funding for a World Bank project called the Identity for Development (ID4D) Initiative for the declared purpose of bringing the “Aadhaar approach to other countries.”

To date, the World Bank has invested $1.2 billion into the ID4D initiative, with the official aim of creating “identification systems using 21st Century solutions.”

Among the four financial partners that established the initiative were two familiar Big Tech-backed operations: The Gates Foundation and The Omidyar Network, along with Australian Aid and UK Aid. According to the World Bank, the Gates Foundation’s “catalytic contributions” in particular transformed the project from an idea to a functional World Bank initiative.



Aadhaar’s Nilekani currently sits on the ID4D Initiative advisory council.

According to the World Bank, ID4D “promote the use of digital ID systems for free movement and service delivery, by creating linkages across systems that allow users to authenticate themselves for key services such as receiving social transfer payments, completing financial transactions, and crossing borders.”

Promotional materials frame this venture as a humanitarian cause centered on helping poor women and making sure ”unbanked” individuals (those without a bank account) such as refugees and migrants are included in the modern economy.

Yet a closer look at the initiative’s backers and their agenda reveals a longstanding goal of the captains of global capitalism: creating a digitally centered identity system that enables powerful public and private institutions to track more human activity than ever.

“Digital ID … can be leveraged by government and commercial platforms to facilitate a variety of digital transactions, including digital payments,” explains the World Bank.

In an August 2021 white paper, the World Bank called on African nations to achieve a “single digital market” and loosen regulations on digital infrastructure to lower the risk for investors. The paper revealed the real intentions behind the World Bank’s push for a closure to the digital divide: opening up the continent for foreign investment. “Government regulation,” the paper declared, “needs to smoothen the path to digital transformation in the region.”



“By accelerating Africa’s digital transformation, businesses can reap the benefits,” the World Economic Forum (WEF) proclaimed in a 2020 article titled, “Africa has the potential to boost global growth.”

“There will […] be lucrative opportunities in Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia … a good bet for companies seeking to enter new markets,” the WEF advised.

As the World Economic Forum recently wrote, “COVID-19 has highlighted the advantages of creating a digital economy.” Yet the advantages the group speaks of will likely fall on the side of its stakeholders.

Partners of the World Economic Forum’s “Platform for a Good Digital Identity ” include the biometric ID firm Accenture, Amazon, Barclays Bank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Bank, Mastercard, the biometric technology firm Simprints, and the credit giant, Visa.

The initiative’s stakeholders represent the key beneficiaries of a biometric ID system imposed on the Global South, with Western multinational financial firms functioning as the gateway for its inhabitants to participate in the global economy.

The WEF has also made clear that the “end goal” of its agenda is expanding the model it established in India until every person in the world holds a unique digital ID.

In an article titled “Digital ID is the Catalyst of Our Digital Future,” Mohit Joshi, a WEF ‘young leader,’ argued that “governments should use [Aadhaar] to streamline the delivery of services and payments, and massively increase financial inclusion.”

In a separate paper, however, the WEF conceded that the new digital system will not necessarily provide users with the liberation they have been promised: “Fourth Industrial Revolution digital identity will determine what products, services, and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us,” the WEF stated.

ID2020 leverages vaccinations to push “beyond dystopian” digital ID’s and payments

Back in 2016, Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), Microsoft, Accenture and the Rockefeller Foundation established a new consortium to provide digital ID certificates to infants when they receive their routine immunizations. They called it ID2020, incidentally naming it for the year that a global pandemic would be declared.

ID2020 says it is “dedicated to spearheading a global digital biometric identity standard,” and claims Digital IDs will lead to “financial independence.”




Partners in the ID2020 initiative include the credit card giant Mastercard and Simprints, a biometric technology firm supported by the US Agency for International Development, a traditional front organization for US intelligence.


From video of USAID’s May 2018 introduction of biometric data at refugee settlements in Uganda

Mastercard’s ‘community pass’ project aims to capture the biometrics of 30 million individuals in remote parts of Africa over the next three years and issue them a Mastercard Community Pass biometric smart card, which will in turn provide Africans with a digital biometric identity and a digital bank account.

ID2020 is currently operating in Bangladesh, where it administers biometric enrollment and digital ID to infants when they receive routine immunizations. GAVI CEO Seth Berkely has said he plans to expand the program across the underdeveloped world, working with mega-corporations such as Facebook and Mastercard to tie vaccination status to a biometric identification system.

“Eighty-nine percent of children and adolescents without identification live in countries supported by Gavi,” Berkley stated. “We are enthusiastic about the potential impact of this program not just in Bangladesh, but as something we can replicate across Gavi-eligible countries.”

With the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic in March 2020, an unprecedented opportunity arrived for the forces advancing digital IDs. As Andrew Bud, the CEO of biometric tech company and Department of Homeland Security contractor iProov, enthused, “The evolution of vaccine certificates will actually drive the whole field of digital id in the future. So, therefore, this is not just about Covid, this is about something even bigger.”

By the following year, ID2020 and the USAID-partnered biometric ID firm, Simprints, had leveraged funding from Gates Foundation to publish an article entitled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery: An Opportunity to Set Up Systems for the Future.” The authors argued that COVID-19 vaccines in the Global South could be used as a “potential lever” to deliver digital biometric IDs.



They went on to admit that such digital biometric systems would stay in place long after the COVID-19 pandemic was over, and would be exploited for an array of purposes after the rollout: “Biometrics have the advantage of being agnostic to use case,” the co-authors wrote, “meaning they can connect different systems during or even after rollout.”


From Simprints.com

Elizabeth Renieris of the Notre Dame-IBM Tech Ethics Lab resigned from a technical advisory role on ID2020, citing “risks to civil liberties” after the initiative teamed up with tech giants to design COVID immunity passports backed up by experimental blockchain technology.

Renieris went on to denounce the burgeoning ID system as a civil liberties nightmare: “The prospect of severely curtailing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals through ill-thought-out plans for ‘immunity passports’ or similar certificates, particularly ones that would leverage premature standards and a highly experimental and potentially rights-infringing technology like blockchain, is beyond dystopian.”

Digital ID mavens prey on the global poor
While linking a digital biometric ID to individuals’ finances is almost certain to exclude masses of people, and has even killed some by cutting impoverished citizens off from government services, predatory financial and credit institutions see the technology as the perfect means for capitalizing on untapped and developing markets.

 

[marsh]

Part 4 of 4

A September 2021 report by BankservAfrica, the largest automated digital payments clearinghouse in Africa, which is headed by former executives at MasterCard, VISA, and IBM, urged South Africa to adopt a biometric digital ID system.



The report proclaimed, “The time has come for consumers, investors, and the private and public sectors to work collectively to achieve the common goal of enabling a robust, secure, and trusted digital identity for South Africa.”

BankServAfrica’s digital payment platform is currently being tested in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania with financial support from the World Bank, USAID, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has shown just how critical a digital ID is,” BankServAfrica’s Chief Business Officer insisted.

BankservAfrica’s report argued that a robust biometric digital ID system will help South Africa achieve “simpler FICA [credit score] processes” and “a fair, transparent, competitive, sustainable, responsible, efficient and effective consumer credit market.”

But behind the lofty neoliberal rhetoric deployed by the financial industry lies a sordid record of profiteering and privacy invasion on a massive scale.

In 2007, Vodafone and Safaricom launched mPesa, a system that allows users to digitally deposit, withdraw, transfer, and pay with money. The project was “able to make credit and growth capital available to millions of people who have never had access to credit before,” according to Areiel Wolanow, who led the team that designed and built the credit scoring engine for mPesa in Kenya.

But a study by economist Alan Gibson revealed that it was the financial sector – not the rural population of the Global South – that truly benefited from mPesa.

Meanwhile, the living conditions of the system’s mostly impoverished participants failed to improve at all:

“What is indisputable is that the supply-side of the finance market has benefited greatly from the last ten years. Banks’ sales have increased by 2.5 times and profits by 3.5 times, with profit margins also increased; the inclusion years have undoubtedly been good years for the banks. This apparent contrast between conspicuous supply-side success and a still-poor economy … raises questions on the role of the finance sector. In particular, it begs questions on who/what it is there to serve, and on the incentives that drive behavior.”

In a further indictment of supposedly “inclusive” digital payment schemes, the Review of African Political Economy found that “the bulk of this [mPesa] value does not go to the poor. Rather, such fintech is very clearly designed to hoover up value and deposit it into the hands of a narrow global digital-financial elite that are the main forces behind the fintech revolution.”

Despite the evidence of widening inequality, Bill Gates – whose foundation spends hundreds of billions of dollars promoting digital financial services for the poor – gushed praise for mPesa.

“M-Pesa is an excellent program,” Gates effused on Twitter in one of several tweets hailing the digital payments system.

Gates linked to an article promoting the program by NPR, the US public broadcaster which has received upwards of $17.5 million from Gates while producing hundreds of articles praising the tech billionaire and his initiatives around the world.

Back in the US, meanwhile, Gates’ ID2020 campaign has collaborated with the forces advancing a system that registers Americans’ vaccination status with the same corporation that calculates their financial credit score.

The US credit industry and digital immunity ID outfits collaborate on “huge opportunities for the commercial sector”
In Illinois, residents are currently required to verify that they have received the COVID-19 vaccine through an online portal called Vax Verify which will work in concert with Chicago’s soon-to-be-implemented vaccine passport.

To register their proof of vaccination, Illinois residents must turn to Experian, the world’s leading credit score service.

Already, the Vax Verify portal is facing backlash for providing inaccurate vaccine status information. It is also the subject of serious security concerns given Experian’s record of breaches that leaked the personal data of millions of citizens from Brazil to South Africa.

Further, the online portal requires that any resident with a freeze on their credit must unfreeze it with Experian before registering a vaccination.

“Using Experian is definitely one of the worst [vaccine passports] I’ve seen yet,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Director of Engineering Alexis Hancock commented to Yahoo News.

After Illinois became the first US state to forge a formal relationship between vaccine certifications and Experian, Illinois Congressman and financial industry darling Bill Foster introduced legislation that would foist a digital biometric ID onto the entire American population.

The Improving Digital Identity Act of 2021, introduced by Foster in July, calls for the public sector, and particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to work with the private sector to develop a new biometric digital ID infrastructure for the United States.

In November 2020, the Gates-sponsored ID2020 provided an online forum for Foster to promote his bill. During the event, the congressman advocated for a “trusted biometric digital immunity certificate system” while explaining that his bill would obtain biometrics from every citizen so private corporations could then “leverage” it to generate enormous profits.


Rep. Bill Foster headlined the Gates-backed ID2020’s November 2020 webinar

“Once the government has [taken] those fairly serious biometrics from you – there will be huge opportunities for the commercial sector to leverage that,” he said. “And to try to get this all started, I introduced the ‘Improving Digital ID Act.’”

Banking and credit card companies are among the many “commercial sectors” that Foster’s bill will benefit through digital biometric IDs. The bill plainly states that the corporate ID system will give “under-banked and unbanked individuals better access to digital financial services,” cloaking the opening of markets for finance giants in the same woke language that ID4D and ID2020 employ.

But as tech oligarchs and their partners in the financial and national security industries leverage the coronavirus epidemic to institute a lucrative apparatus of digital monitoring, dissent is erupting in the countries where vaccine passports have begun to exclude millions.

Protests erupt against vaccine passports and “people who have very little to do with parliament”

In New York City – ground zero of the US vaccination passport roll-out – where over 80 percent of all Covid social distancing arrests were conducted against Black residents in 2020, simmering tensions boiled over when three Black diners initiated a brawl with staff at Carmine’s, an Upper West Side restaurant that prevented them from dining without their vaccination proof.

The incident spurred condemnation from a local Black Lives Matter chapter, which accused city authorities of exploiting mask mandates and vaccine passports to exclude and incarcerate Black residents. “What we are seeing here is the NYPD and restaurants using vaccination proof as a reason to discriminate against Black people,” declared BLM activist Kimberly Bernard.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441419048659652608

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1441419048659652608
1:45 min

France has been the site of some of the world’s largest protests against the vaccine passport system imposed under the watch of former banker and President Emanuel Macron. On August 14, over 210,000 people took to the streets in over 200 protests across France against the nascent biomedical security regime.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446827350902157323

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1446827350902157323
.33 min

Puncturing the corporate media’s pigeonholing of the demonstrators as far-right shock troops, France’s Le Monde described them as “alone, coupled up, here with their family or friends, of all ages, white, Black, employed, retired, some vaccinated, others who refuse to get the shot.”

French journalist Pauline Bock noted that in her country, “the only trade that’s exempt from mandatory vaccination — the police — will be the one to make sure everyone else obeys. The policy is ripe for authoritarian misuse.”

In Italy, meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister and former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has mandated that all employees of both public and private businesses produce a Green Pass proving vaccination in order to enter their place of work.

The Green Pass vaccine passport system has already excluded unvaccinated individuals from restaurants, gyms, as well as trains, buses and domestic flights across the country. Official government numbers show the pass has failed to increase vaccine uptake.

With the expansion of the Green Pass to places of work, Italians have risen up in some of the largest protests the world has seen against the nascent biosecurity regime.

On October 9, hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into Italian streets from Rome to Trento to voice their rejection of Draghi’s policy. In Rome, where police repressed peaceful demonstrators with batons and riot shields, a group of about 20 far-right hooligans attacked a local union office while police stood by.

Interior Minister Carlo Sibilia exploited the incident to claim that “neo-fascist groups hide behind the so-called anti-vaxxers.”

The secretary of a faction of Italy’s Communist Party, Marco Rizzo, who has condemned the passport system as “a discriminatory, divisive tool that pits one against the other,” cast suspicion on the incident.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448223563660529665

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1448223563660529665
.31 min

In an October 10 statement, Rizzo warned that the incident of “fascist violence” the day before played directly into the hands of the neoliberal government, and questioned whether a new “strategy of tension” was in play. The communist leader was referring to the Italian state’s covert weaponization of far-right militants during the 1970’s “years of lead” to foment violence and neutralize Marxist organizations.

The demonstrations have now spread to the port city of Trieste, where union dock workers have refused to offload goods until the Green Pass is revoked. On October 18, Italian police attempted to break the workers’ strike with water cannons, tear gas, and heavy repression.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448223563660529665

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1448223563660529665
.31 min

Two days before anti-Green Pass protests exploded across Italy, the renowned philosopher Giorgio Agamben appeared before the Italian Senate’s Constitutional Affairs Commission to issue a dramatic statement of opposition to the Green Pass.

Agamben is most famous for his concept of Homo Sacer, or bare life, in which an individual is stripped of rights and reduced to their biological essence in an extra-legal regime justified by war or other emergencies. When Italian authorities declared the first lockdown in March 2020, the philosopher applied the theory to his own country’s heavy-handed restrictions.

“The defining feature…of this great transformation that they are attempting to impose is that the mechanism which renders it formally possible is not a new body of laws, but a state of exception – in other words, not an affirmation of, but the suspension of constitutional guarantees,” the philosopher explained in the foreword to his collection of 2020 writings on Covid-19, “Where Are We Now: The Epidemic As Politics,”

In his remarks before the Italian Senate, Agamben pointed to a sinister agenda behind the official rationale for vaccine passports: “It has been said by scientists and doctors that the Green Pass has no medical significance in itself but serves to force people to get vaccinated. Instead, I think we must say the opposite: that the vaccine is a means of forcing people to have the Green Pass. That is, a device that allows individuals to be monitored and tracked, an unprecedented measure.” [emphasis mine]

The philosopher concluded his address by taking aim at the supra-national forces – Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and Rockefeller Foundation, among others – determined to impose a system of digital identification and high-tech social credit as much of the human population as possible.

“I believe that in this perspective,” Agamben warned, “it is more urgent than ever for parliamentarians to consider the political transformation underway, which in the long run is destined to empty parliament of its powers, reducing it to simply approving – in the name of bio-security – decrees emanating from organizations and people who have very little to do with parliament.

View: https://youtu.be/_IWO9unA3BE
7:07 min

 

[marsh]

Scarcity Breeds Panic. Panic Breeds Chaos. Chaos Breeds the Need to Be Controlled.

Editor's Commentary: One of the most important realities we're facing as a publication is that the important information we disseminate

truthbasedmedia.com

Scarcity Breeds Panic. Panic Breeds Chaos. Chaos Breeds the Need to Be Controlled.

by J.G. MARTINEZ
October 26, 2021

Editor’s Commentary: One of the most important realities we’re facing as a publication is that the important information we disseminate needs to be easily digestible. As much as I would prefer to get into philosophical discussions about cultural rot, economic theory, or infusing conservatism into our policy platforms, we’re in the middle of a war in which the truth is being brutalized. For this reason, our various news sites have focused primarily on breaking reports and tangible cause-effect scenarios that are happening in real-time.

With that said, the article below by J.G. Martinez is a must-read in its entirety. He analyzes the current circumstances in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Venezuela and points to the trends between our supply chain woes and the manufactured energy crises that are popping up across the globe. It’s not our standard content as it dives into theoretical societal responses, but sometimes it’s good to take a step back from what’s happening now and explore what could be happening in the near future.

What we’ve learned from the actions of the powers-that-be in recent months is that they’re bent on establishing control mechanisms to be exerted against the world’s population. Even in the United States, once known as the land of the free and home of the brave, we’re seeing the seeds planted for martial law.

Diminished access to food, water, housing, and fuel is a preparatory gambit designed to normalize scarcity. They don’t want to fix our supply chain crisis. They want people to start reacting to it as negatively as possible.

When the people get desperate, chaos ensues. This chaos will become the predicate for a suspension of the 2nd Amendment, and when that happens we will see society crumble almost overnight. This is our current trajectory, but I’d like to believe we can change it. I have to believe that, and so should you, even if deep down you may feel like it’s futile. As long as we keep fighting we have a chance to reverse this. It’s when we throw up our hands and accept our fate that it can become a reality. Know this: If and when chaos ensues, there will be many, perhaps most, who WANT to be controlled. Here’s Jose’s article…

The Familiar Patterns of Slow-Burning Societal Control
Recently, after watching the news, I detected some patterns in the slow-burning societal control happening around the world. The global food and fuel scarcities are oddly familiar. I have also begun to monitor what has been happening in the UK. Maybe the causes are different. However, the result, a disruptive effect on the food chain supply, is the same.

Disclaimer: this is my humble vision of the worst-case scenario. It may not necessarily go that way, and we can’t allow ourselves to lose hope for a much brighter future. After all, as preppers, we saw it coming, and we prepared for it.

First, a preamble…
Some of us have made our living by detecting patterns. It’s hard not to do it when you already see them everywhere. Metallurgists have a special kind of training in materials science. For example, we learn that a minimal change in an alloy or composite material completely changes the properties it exhibits. Add a few parts per million of alloy compounds (known as “doping” elements) and the mechanical resistance of the material will be much higher.

Thus, we have to associate these small changes in the microstructure with the large-scale properties that make the alloys suited for their intended purpose.

Corrosion resistance, mechanical resistance, wear resistance, and so on. We train a lot for this: it’s an entire process that goes through the microscopic identification, chemistry, posterior heat treatments, etc. We have a very developed ability to understand how some things in the “micro-world” work and associate it to the “macro-world.”

Why this entire preamble?
Because the latest news of the fuel scarcity in the UK and the surge of domestic violence in Australia is, for me, the definitive proof of societal control in progress.

And, it is seemingly going “under the table” in the big picture. Furthermore, it’s happening in Australia, supposedly a “first world” nation, and people seem to be unaware and utterly ignorant about it.

On US soil, the elite are taking over the farming land, aka the entire food supply, to make society bend the knee in the near future. Is it a “coincidence” that this wealthy guy, who comes with an “interesting” precedent of population growth control, owns more than 269,000 acres of farmland across 18 states farmland? Some of that farmland produces onions, carrots, and the potatoes used to make McDonald’s French fries.

And, of course, there is the vast fuel scarcity in Venezuela, one of the wealthiest countries in the world (as in “land/resources,” not as in “societies.”)

So, why am I concerned enough to launch myself in full-time research and write an article?

Because I have a strong gut feeling of what comes next
And I don’t want that for anyone because it’s the plain, regular, just-like-you-and-me people who will pay the toll. Not the politicians. Not the corrupted, paramilitary armed forces, private armies led by psychos whose loyalty they have bought. It’s the thousands of uninformed, clueless, nerdy, harmless Jose-like guys who will end up in line for food to feed his kids. Kids who are going to be screwed in the coming decades if this continues.

What I see coming is Crime, Inc. using the government tools of the developed Western world to become police states in practice. And, if that happens, the world as a whole is screwed.

Stop sitting so close to the screen!
Everybody knows what happens when we sit too close to the screen back in the day of the old movies. In the 50s or 60s (at least in Venezuela), you were barely able to see anything if you arrived late. (There were no numbered seats! Those were things of the developed countries)

I am using this to try to explain the situation. It’s happening, but under the radar, and people don’t see it yet. Most of them are sitting too close to the screen and can’t see anything.

Why do I find the above-mentioned wealthy guy’s behavior so suspicious regarding the farm landing purchasing at a steady rhythm? Easy:

1. Using “shell” companies seems to be covering something. I know a bit of how this works: they must keep management somehow independent to avoid monopoly laws, lower taxes, maybe get company benefits for local companies that bigger national firms will not be able to get, and so on. However, it looks like someone hopes to avoid the public from noticing—no Bueno.
2. Remember what happened the last time this person was involved with a company with a high impact on public health worldwide? Let me remind you: A disease spread throughout the world and gave the world’s governments an invaluable opportunity to treat their citizens like cattle.

Which is the lesser of two evils: an aggrupation of corporations or the government?

In this article: Food Insecurity in Advanced Capitalist Nations: A Review, we have scholars attempting to convince people that an aggrupation of greedy corporations is behind ALL the recent global events. Instead of analyzing the much more evident and palpable example of a leftist regime gone rogue in South America. That leftist regime made ALL of its citizens (including THIS ONE) get in line for a food handout controlled by armed military personnel.

The scholarly authors of the above mentioned laughable fiasco are “sociologists.”

If they can produce something useful, I am yet to see it. My experience with these scholars in Venezuela is a sad one.

The odds of this aggrupation existing are quite high. However, (as I step back and visualize the big picture), that group is most assuredly aligned with an alliance of politicians with ties to commies. And that alliance has been going on for at least the last 55 years. These agents insist on drawing to the world, in a desperate attempt, to keep going on with the Cold-War-Binary-thinking of “capitalism-socialism/communism duality.

I do not see things like that anymore. There are just crime-sponsoring states and the other ones.

So what are the patterns of slow-burning societal control detected?

The pattern I’m detecting here is getting the people used to scarcity and submission by force if they protest.

They won’t get people’s favorite corp-owned business in a heartbeat. (Like taking their donuts, coffee, and ready-to-eat salads that rely on a JOT chain supply.) I sense a strong, shady influence behind all this, making slow-motion changes until it’s too late for people to realize what happened. It’s the communist Fabianist way to re-engineer societies slow and steady. Chinese rulers used these methods, one technique after the other.

I’ve concluded that the UK fuel chain supply disruption is just a test balloon to measure people’s reactions. The reasons may be temporary, but this doesn’t matter. The iron hand with soiree glove will strengthen the grip slowly until citizens worldwide are subject to the domination program.

However, what seems to be much worse is the small-scale farmer excluded from coordinated supply chains. “Globalization” works as long as there is fuel to power the tractors and ships and turbines to power the refrigerators. Don’t forget about peak oil and what we know of the electrification process, though.

What do you think about slow-burning societal control?
If the food and fuel shortages continue to worsen, sheep will be happy to get in line for a bag of bread, some milk, and maybe fruit. Hopefully, they never have to experience much taller, stronger, and aggressive soldiers (with limited vocabulary who never remove their masks) guarding the lines.

Do you see similarities in how this is going down around the world? Do you see the patterns of slow-burning societal control too? What similarities and differences stand out most to you?

 

[marsh]

Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Turned COVID-19 Vaccine Whistleblower Issues Dark Warning of Mass ‘Depopulation’ - Big League Politics

Dr. Michael Yeadon is pulling no punches.

bigleaguepolitics.com

Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Turned COVID-19 Vaccine Whistleblower Issues Dark Warning of Mass ‘Depopulation’

Shane Trejo |
Oct 26, 2021

Former Pfizer chief scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon, who has emerged as a prominent whistleblower against the COVID-19 vaccine regime, has issued a dark proclamation for what is to come now that the technocracy is taking shape.

Yeadon wrote of what is to come on his Telegram channel considering major tech monopolies would never allow him to spread his message on their tightly-controlled propaganda platforms.


“The world economy has been reshaped, destroying big chunks of the aspirational middle classes as well as their predecessors. Billions of people are somewhere between unstable & clinically insane. Lockdown, masks, business closures. Immunity, PCR, vaccines, all lies or severely misleading takes on everything,” he wrote.

“The worst part, from my perspective, has been the Soviet level of propaganda, suppression & censorship. Not only main / legacy media but almost the entire internet is controlled by perpetrators,” Yeadon added, before asking: “Where is this all going?”

Yeadon believes that this is all headed toward a massive depopulation plan, which has long been speculated as being the capstone of the new world order.

“There’s a large group who genuinely don’t know what’s going on, a growing number of whom are stirring uneasily. They sense it doesn’t all add up. They won’t be initiators but could be recruited by an alternative narrative that’s not only plausible but true,” he wrote.

“Some others know we’ve suffered a global coup d’etat but are pinning their hopes on an outcome that just enforces restrictions. That’s just wishful thinking.
Consider the ambition of this as well as it’s costs & risks. I don’t believe the return on that can be as limited as restricting our freedoms to fly, eat meat, to drive & to whack on the heating whenever we want,” Yeadon continued.

“So I’m with the catastrophists who think depopulation is by far the most likely. It’s depressing, because despite 18 months of attempts to point out the myriad obvious untruths being told, coupled recently with mass scale injuries & deaths, the lies continue thick & fast,” he added.

Yeadon concluded his rant by admitting his fear of what is to come and pleading with his supporters to help him get his message out to the masses. Only time will tell if his dark predictions come to pass, with a globalist elite hell bent on achieving their great reset.

 

[marsh]

DIABOLICAL: Bill Gates Digital ID Will Control Your Life 33:38 min


DIABOLICAL: Bill Gates Digital ID Will Control Your Life
The Jimmy Dore Show Published October 27, 202

 

[Ozarkian]

DIABOLICAL: Bill Gates Digital ID Will Control Your Life 33:38 min


DIABOLICAL: Bill Gates Digital ID Will Control Your Life
The Jimmy Dore Show Published October 27, 202

This should be a must watch.

 

[marsh]

Socialist Pope 'Red Francis' Claims Capitalism Causes Starvation - Doesn't Understand that Economic Freedom Is Essential for True Political Freedom | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The current Socialist Pope ‘Red Francis’ shared a message recently promoting his socialist beliefs. This wasn’t the first time.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Socialist Pope ‘Red Francis’ Claims Capitalism Causes Starvation – Doesn’t Understand that Economic Freedom Is Essential for True Political Freedom

By Joe Hoft
Published October 27, 2021 at 8:45am

The current Socialist Pope ‘Red Francis’ shared a message recently promoting his socialist beliefs. This wasn’t the first time.

Red Francis issued an edict condemning capitalism.

Communist Pope ‘Red Francis’ Issues Radical Edict Condemning Capitalism Using St. Francis as His Prop

Pope Red Francis hated President Trump while ignoring that this same president brought prosperity to the poor and middle class.

DISGRACEFUL! Pope Francis Compares US President Trump to King Herod Who Slaughtered Baby Boys During the Time of Christ

So it comes as no surprise that the Pope claims the capitalist market focuses only on economic profit and the reduction of food.

Red Francis tweeted:

The fight against hunger demands we overcome the cold logic of the market, which is greedily focused on mere economic profit and the reduction of food to a commodity, and strengthening the logic of solidarity. #WorldFoodDay

The great economist Milton Friedman wrote that freedom requires capitalism:

On the one hand, “freedom” in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so “economic freedom” is an end in itself to a believer in freedom. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

Red Francis has obviously never read anything by Milton Friedman.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

US Coal Stockpiles Slump To Two Decade Low As Power Plant Demand Surges

WEDNESDAY, OCT 27, 2021 - 06:30 PM

One of the biggest ironies this year is the transition from fossil fuel generation to green energy has created a global energy crisis that is forcing the U.S., among many other countries, to restart coal-fired power plants ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter. Coal is roaring back this fall but supplies are not catching up with demand.

According to Bloomberg, US coal supplies dropped to 84.3 million tons in August, the lowest level since 1997.



As of August, about a quarter of all US power generation was derived from coal. As winter approaches, coal-fired power plants will become a more significant percentage of all U.S. power generation.



Power plants are expected to burn 19% more coal this year because soaring natural gas prices have made it uneconomical to produce power. In return, this is forcing generators to burn through coal reserves much quicker and has caught coal producers off guard who cannot bring new coal to the market.



"The ability for the producers to respond is not what the utilities thought it was," Paul Lang, CEO at Arch Resources Inc., said during a conference call Tuesday. "It just doesn't exist anymore."

Weeks ago, Ernie Thrasher, CEO of Xcoal Energy & Resources, the largest U.S. exporter of fuel, said demand for coal will remain robust well into 2022. He warned about domestic supply constraints and power companies already "discussing possible grid blackouts this winter."

He said, "They don't see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand," adding that 23% of utilities are switching away from gas to burn more coal. There are not enough coal miners to rapidly increase mining output.



Joe Craft, CEO for Oklahoma-based miner Alliance Resource Partners L.P., warned Monday, "coal stocks for customers are at critically low levels."

Inventory declines came on very quickly as the global energy crisis emerged this year. Stockpile trends were well in line for the first half of the year, but stockpiles began to drop as soon as July rolled around.

S&P Global Market Intelligence data shows Central Appalachia coal prices have surged 39% since the start of the year to $75.50 a ton due to supply constraints.

Matt Preston, director of North American coal markets research for Wood Mackenzie Ltd., said total U.S. inventories could slump by 50 million tons by the end of the year:

"Stockpiles are coming down very rapidly," Preston said. "If we have a cold winter, and there has been lots of talk that there could be a cold winter, we could see some issues."

With natgas, coal, and oil prices all soaring is a clear signal the green energy transition will take decades, not years. Walking back fossil fuels for unreliable clean energy has been a disaster in Asia and Europe. It could soon cause trouble in the U.S. These power-hungry continents are scrambling to source fossil fuel supplies as stockpiles are well below seasonal trends ahead of cooler weather.

Suppose La Niña conditions produce cooler weather trends in certain parts of the world. In that case, especially, Asia, Europe, and the U.S., coal demand could continue to increase, which would benefit Peabody Energy Corporation's share price.



So far, Peabody's earnings have tripled as coal roars back under a Biden administration.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

A Global Oil Shortage Is Inevitable

WEDNESDAY, OCT 27, 2021 - 04:50 PM
Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

• While oil and gas companies come under pressure to reduce production, the world’s thirst for new supply is only growing
• Without a significant uptick in investment, demand for oil and gas will surpass supply in the not-so-distant future
• This disconnect between the political desire for less fossil fuels and the global hunger for fossil fuels could drive the price of oil up to $100

Chronic underinvestment in new oil supply since the 2015 crisis and the pressure on oil and gas companies to curb emissions and even “keep it in the ground” will likely lead to peak global oil production earlier than previously expected, analysts say.

This would be a welcome development for green energy advocates, net-zero agendas, and the planet if it weren’t for one simple fact: oil demand is rebounding from the pandemic-driven slump and will set a new average annual record as soon as next year.

The energy transition and the various government plans for net-zero emissions have prompted analysts to forecast that peak oil demand would occur earlier than expected just a few years ago. However, as current investment trends in oil and gas stand, global oil supply could peak sooner than global oil demand, opening a supply gap that would lead to increased volatility on the oil market, with spikes in prices, and, potentially, structurally higher oil prices by the middle of this decade and beyond.

Supply Could Peak Before Demand

“On current trends, global oil supply is likely to peak even earlier than demand,” Morgan Stanley’s research department wrote in a note this week carried by Reuters.

“The planet puts boundaries on the amount of carbon that can safely be emitted. Therefore, oil consumption needs to peak,” analysts at Morgan Stanley said.

The problem with the world is that oil consumption - wishful thinking, investor pressure, and all - is not peaking. Nor will it peak until the end of this decade at the earliest, according to most estimates.

OPEC expects global oil demand to continue to grow into the mid-2030s to 108 million barrels per day (bpd), after which it is set to plateau until 2045, as per the cartel’s latest annual outlook.

Some other analysts expect peak demand at some point in the late 2020s.
Investment in new supply, however, is severely lagging global oil demand growth.

Demand is growing again after the 2020 COVID crisis and, contrary to some expectations from early 2020 that the world’s oil consumption would never return to pre-pandemic levels, demand is currently just a few months away from hitting and exceeding those levels.

Supply Gap Is Looming In Just A Few Years
Supply, on the other hand, looks constrained beyond the OPEC+ deal horizon.

New investment last year slumped to a decade-and-a-half low. Last year, global upstream investment sank to a 15-year low of $350 billion, according to estimates by Wood Mackenzie from earlier this year.

Investment is not expected to materially pick up this year, either, despite $80 oil. That’s because supermajors stick to capital discipline and pledge net-zero emission targets, part of which some of them plan to reach by curbing investment and developments in non-core little-profitable new oil projects.

U.S. shale, for its part, is not rushing this time to “drill themselves into oblivion,” as Harold Hamm said in 2017, as American producers look to finally reward shareholders after years of plowing cash flows into drilling and chasing production growth.

Considering that oil demand will still grow, at least for a few more years, underinvestment in new supply would be a major problem in the medium and long term.

Despite the energy transition, demand will not just vanish, and new supply will be needed for years to come to replace declining production and reserves.

The oil industry will need massive investments over the next 25 years in order to meet demand, according to OPEC. The industry will need cumulative long-term upstream, midstream, and downstream oil-related investments of $11.8 trillion by 2045, OPEC says.

Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive at France’s TotalEnergies, said at the Energy Intelligence Forum this month that oil prices would “rocket to the roof” by 2030 if the industry were to stop investments in new supply, as some scenarios for net-zero by 2050 suggest. “If we stop investing in 2020, we leave all these resources in the ground ... and then the price will rocket to the roof. And even in developed countries, it will be a big issue,” Pouyanné said.

$100 Oil Is No Longer An Outrageous Prediction
A triple-digit oil price is no longer an outrageous prediction as it would have been in early 2020.

Francisco Blanch, global head of commodities and derivatives research at Bank of America, expects oil to hit $100 by September 2022, or even earlier if this winter is much colder than expected.

Demand is coming back, while we have seen severe underinvestment in supply the last 18 months, Blanch told Bloomberg at the end of September.

“The underinvestment problem cannot be solved easily, and at the same time we have surging demand,” he said.

“We are moving into a straightjacket for energy, we don’t want to use coal, we want to use less and less gas, we want to move away from oil,” Blanch told Bloomberg.

While oil is unlikely to sit at triple digits for a sustained period of time, underinvestment has become “a multi-year problem” for the industry, Blanch noted.

Even if oil doesn’t stay at $100 a barrel, a supply crunch down the road would nevertheless move the floor under oil prices higher and lead to unsustainable price spikes. As much as climate activists want a stop to investment in new supply, the industry and the world cannot afford it because oil demand continues to grow.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Mayhem & Madness: Authoritarian Monsters Wreak Havoc On Our Freedoms

WEDNESDAY, OCT 27, 2021 - 10:50 PM
Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.”
- They Live

We are living in an age of mayhem, madness and monsters.

Monsters with human faces walk among us. Many of them work for the U.S. government.

What we are dealing with today is an authoritarian beast that has outgrown its chains and will not be restrained.



Through its acts of power grabs, brutality, meanness, inhumanity, immorality, greed, corruption, debauchery and tyranny, the government has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, disease, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.

We have let the government’s evil-doing and abuses go on for too long.

We have bought into the illusion and refused to grasp the truth.

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

We’re living in two worlds: the world we see (or are made to see) and the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing; pandemic lockdowns (both mental and physical), real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation; and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers, disease, etc.).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens.

Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly.

The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.
Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

As the Bearded Man warns in John Carpenter’s film They Live: “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”

In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age or Carpenter’s other dystopian films.

Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.

Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.

In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.
In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.

In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.

In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite.

All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.”

Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance.

They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Injustice is growing. Inequality is growing.

Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he delivers a wake-up call for freedom. As Nada memorably declares, “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.”
In other words: we need to get active.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.
If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Biden's Climate Financing Plan Won't Help Climate, But Will Push Country To Totalitarianism: Experts

WEDNESDAY, OCT 27, 2021 - 10:10 PM
Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times,

The Biden administration’s plan to impose a slew of financial regulations in order to counter climate change would end up having little impact on reducing global temperatures. But the measures would be quite effective at hurting economy, expanding government authority, and moving the country toward totalitarianism, according to several experts.


Biden’s plan, sketched out in a recent “roadmap” White House report, would infuse projections on climate change into decisions across the financial industry (pdf). Applying for a mortgage or other loans? The bank would consider the “climate risk” of underwriting it. Taking out an insurance? “Climate risk” would play into your premium. Putting money into a pension or investment fund? The fund managers would be free to consider “climate risk” in deciding where to invest your money. Buying stocks on your own? Public companies would need to divert part of their attention to explaining “climate risks” they face. Applying for a government contract? Prepare to justify your carbon footprint.

In some areas, the administration combines climate change with a lineup of other issues. The Labor Department, for example, plans to allow pension fund fiduciaries to consider “ESG”—environmental, social, and governance—criteria in investment decisions. Aside from “climate-related financial risk,” such criteria would also include “racial and economic justice considerations” and “sustainability.”

The Biden plan received praise from progressive environmental groups.

“The strategy released by the White House today lays critical groundwork for fulfilling President Biden’s promise to tackle the threats that climate change poses to our economy,” Sierra Club fossil-free finance campaign manager Ben Cushing said in an Oct. 15 statement.

Yet, estimating what changes in climate will or won’t cost to a particular business years into the future is far from exact science, the experts warned.

Impact on Global Temperatures?
While many climatologists agree that Earth’s changing climate will cause serious damage to people, such as through more severe weather events, the scientific modelling that guides their warnings offer a broad range of estimates that are based on a number of assumptions. Economists then make further assumptions on how these scenarios from climate models could affect the economy, and then how the economy would respond, followed by how the government would respond, and how the economy would respond to the government response etc.

“The evaluation of such ‘risks’ would be largely arbitrary given that the ‘correct’ assumptions are very far from obvious,” said Benjamin Zycher of pro-market think tank American Enterprise Institute, in Senate testimony earlier this year.

If companies are to perform a serious evaluation of such risks, “the level of detail and the scientific sophistication that would be needed to satisfy such a requirement” would lead to reports spanning “thousands of pages, with references to thousands more” and would still end up “deeply speculative,” he said.

David Burton of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank predicted much the same regarding climate risk disclosures.

Companies would need to “develop climate modeling expertise, the ability to make macroeconomic projections based on these models, and then make firm-specific economic assessments based on these climate and economic models,” he said in a June letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Meanwhile, government regulators would need to develop capacity to police these disclosures. As of now, federal agencies engaged in financial regulation have nowhere near the expertise to tell genuine climate science from high-flown gobbledygook, both experts indicated.

“The premise that this ‘disclosure’ requirement would facilitate improved decision making by investors in the financial sector is difficult to take seriously,” Zycher said.

Chances are that companies won’t actually try to genuinely guess what their risks from climate may be, Zycher suggested.

“The Federal Reserve and financial institutions will be driven to adopt assumptions (or to retain consultants who will do so), minimizing the degree to which their analyses might subject them to political attacks, adverse regulatory actions, and litigation,” he said.

Companies are likely to adopt whatever climate effect assumptions are endorsed by the government, such as through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), he suggested.

“They thus will be led toward analytic homogeneity, yielding a very real danger of an artificial ‘consensus’ among financial institutions regardless of the actual evidence, and perhaps largely inconsistent with it,” he said.

The impact of all such efforts on climate, even in the most optimistic scenario, would amount to virtually nothing, he suggested.

“If we apply the Environmental Protection Agency climate model … net-zero U.S. GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions effective immediately would yield a reduction in global temperatures of 0.104 degrees C by 2100,” he said.

That’s not to say such measures would have no impact at all, however.

Cost of the Plan
Mandating all sorts of climate assessments would obviously cost money, the experts pointed out.

“There is little doubt that these costs will amount to billions of dollars,” Burton said. “The expenses associated with generating this verbiage will harm investors by reducing shareholder returns.”

The rules will produce a whole class of climate consultants and compliance specialists who will use part of their paychecks to lobby for continuance of the rules, he said.

Such rules would also make finance operations more opaque, the experts noted.

As of now, public companies already have to disclose all facts “material” to their business, which means facts likely to affect a reasonable investor’s decision to act or not to act. If climate risks are indeed material, there’s no need for new rules as companies are already obligated to disclose them, Burton said.

“A requirement, whether formal or informal, that climate ‘risks’ be incorporated into the business decisions of financial institutions would weaken the materiality standard for disclosures by those institutions,” he said.

Such disclosures would further insulate management of public companies from responsibility—an area where they’re already coming up short, he argued.

“In large, modern corporations, there is a separation of ownership and control.

There is a major agent-principal problem because management and the board of directors often, to varying degrees, pursue their own interest rather than the interests of shareholders,” he said.

So far, management can usually get away with their behavior as long as it has kept the company in the black. Mandating climate disclosures would enable them to use progress toward “largely unquantifiable” climate goals as an excuse for worse financial performance, he said.

Political Power
The new rules would also be quite effective at making the government more totalitarian, several scholars noted.

“This is all about the application of political power,” said William Anderson, professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland.

He told The Epoch Times that the policy of stripping the oil industry, in particular, of capital would cause further disruptions to supply chains and cause worsening inflation, depressing Americans’ living standard. The government and political activists would then turn around and “blame capitalism.”

“It would take a while to turn the United States into Venezuela, but it can be done.”

Michael Rectenwald, former NYU professor and authority on corporate socialism, predicted the ESG disclosures would serve to signal one’s ideological compliance, similar to how shop owners in socialist countries would plaster their stores with political slogans, as described in the famous essay “Power of the Powerless” by former Czech President Václav Havel.

“Either don the right symbolics (the party slogans, or in this case, ESG index score) or face the consequences,” Rectenwald told The Epoch Times via email.

“Incidentally, this accords with my arguments regarding what I have called ‘corporate socialism.’”

“While approved corporate ‘stakeholders’ are not necessarily monopolies, the effect of the ESG index is the vesting of as much capital in these corporations as possible, while eliminating producers deemed either unnecessary or inimical. ESG scores work to eliminate competition.”

Despite the administration’s talk of helping underprivileged communities, some of the experts pointed out that large corporations are the best positioned to deal with such climate regulations.

“There is no doubt that these rules will have a disproportionate adverse impact on small issuers since regulatory costs do not increase linearly with size,” Burton told The Epoch Times via email.

Just as the administration proceeds to pour trillions of debt dollars into the climate effort, many of the largest corporations are predicting a windfall from the climate push.

A 2018 survey of Fortune 500 companies by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) found the 81 American companies that provided financial estimates expected a total of less than $56 billion in physical losses from climate change, such as from more severe weather. They estimated another more than $54 billion in losses from “transition risk,” such as government regulations and changes in consumer behavior. Yet they expected more than $450 billion in climate-related “opportunities.” Even fuel companies predicted they’ll end up net beneficiaries of the climate push (pdf).

The Government Approach
Some experts indicated that it’s not just the specifics of Biden’s plan, but the whole idea of fighting climate change through government fiat that is misguided.

The government has a poor track record of addressing long-term problems such as climate change, said Mark Thornton, economist with the classical liberal Mises Institute.

“These are types of issues which are wholly unsuited to the political process,” he told The Epoch Times.
“The market is really best suited to deal with this.”

He referred to an upcoming research paper looking at energy efficiency developments that shows “the inducement to energy efficiency was started with the oil crisis” of the 1970s and organically produced “very significant technical efficiency because it’s aimed at economic efficiency,” he said.

One the other hand, he said, the paper shows that “shorter term mandates have not been effective—that you’re putting in too many resources to get the types of results that you’re really trying to generate.”

Anderson concurred.

“How does the government work? It sets deadlines. It says, ‘Ok, by this year, we’re going to have this. We’re going to start moving resources this way.’ Well, economies don’t work like that.”

It well may be that electric cars, for example, will become cheaper than gas-powered ones, but it’s very expensive to push technology forward by mandate, Thornton noted. In fact, the mandate may redirect resources from a plethora of other innovation avenues that may offer an altogether different solution to cleaner transportation.

Government intervention also tends to work differently in practice than on paper, Thornton pointed out.

“Once you get these things started, we don’t know where they go, except they typically get worse,” he said.

The National Flood Insurance Program, for instance, was supposed to discourage people from building houses in flood-prone areas. In reality, it often does the opposite, subsidizing flood insurance for people who decide to live in a flood zone, according to a report by the left-leaning Brookings Institution. The government has spent tens of billions over the program’s existence since 1968 in major part to provide cheap flood insurance to well-off homeowners in coastal areas. A quarter of the explicitly subsidized policies went to vacation homes, one study found.

The same pitfalls would apply to attempts to plan the economy around the climate goals, Thornton suggested.

“We don’t have enough knowledge or information to know how all these things are going to work out.”

Biden’s climate finance plan “is a monument to that ignorance,” he said.

 

[marsh]

What Will It Mean for the Global Economy When the Price of Oil Soars to $200 per Barrel?

Editor's Commentary: There shouldn't be an oil shortage. In fact, the United States should be perfectly positioned to be a

truthbasedmedia.com

What Will It Mean for the Global Economy When the Price of Oil Soars to $200 per Barrel?

by MICHAEL SNYDER
October 27, 2021

Editor’s Commentary: There shouldn’t be an oil shortage. In fact, the United States should be perfectly positioned to be a net exporter of oil based on a continuation of the abundance created during the Trump era. Instead, we’re looking to import as much as possible, which is a challenge considering the worldwide supply chain and infrastructure issues that have been manufactured at the same time the Biden-Harris regime turned us into an OPEC-dependent nation once again.

This is just another reason we know with a near certainty that the goal is for the economy to crash, Modern Monetary Theory to be implemented, and the Green New Deal to become the monstrous control mechanism draining the nation until the globalists can completely wipe us out. The article below by Michael Snyder dives into the oil aspect, but read it knowing that this is one of several components that are driving us towards The Great Reset. Here’s Michael…

If you haven’t been paying attention, you will want to start watching the price of oil again. Just before the financial crisis of 2008, the price of oil briefly shot up to 140 dollars a barrel, and experts agree that a very high price for oil would definitely unsettle financial markets now. Unfortunately, it appears to be inevitable that the price of oil will go much higher.

Large financial institutions have become extremely hesitant to fund any projects that would “pollute the environment”, and governments around the world have made it extremely difficult for those that produce traditional forms of energy to expand operations. Globally, there is a major push to bring in “the new green economy”, but “the new green economy” cannot provide the energy that we need. Meanwhile, the demand for energy continues to grow all over the globe on a daily basis. What this means is that all forms of traditional energy are going to become a lot more expensive.

At this moment, the price of oil is over 80 dollars per barrel, and many are anticipating that it will soon hit 100 dollars per barrel. When Russian President Vladimir Putin was recently asked about the price of oil, this is how he responded…

After the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) recently crossed $80 per barrel, Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked whether it could reach $100. He replied “That is quite possible.” Given Russia’s dependence on revenue from its oil exports, he was probably smiling when he said it.

100 dollar oil wouldn’t be much of a shock, but what about 20o dollar oil? Not too long ago, a team of JPMorgan analysts suggested that we could actually see it happen…

“We believe the evolution of coal prices might reflect supply, demand, cost of capital and energy transitioning issues for all fossil fuels, and it would certainly be possible that oil prices will follow the same pattern (inflation adjusted for oil, that would be in a $150-200/bbl range),” wrote a team of JPMorgan Chase & Co. strategists led by Marko Kolanovic.

Virtually all forms of economic activity require power, and so if the price of oil doubles or triples from current levels that is going to push all prices much higher than they are now.

Some have suggested that we could increasingly switch to other forms of traditional energy if the price of oil becomes too oppressive, but that is not likely to happen due to the widespread shortages that we are witnessing.

For example, supplies of natural gas have never been tighter than they are at this moment. In South Dakota, residents are being warned that their natural gas bills could potentially double this winter…

“The natural gas industry is experiencing shortages in supply while also seeing an increase in overall natural gas demand. As a result, homeowners should expect to see higher natural gas bills this winter,” said PUC Chairman Chris Nelson. “South Dakota’s regulated natural gas utilities, including MidAmerican Energy Co., Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., and NorthWestern Energy, are currently projecting bill increases for residential customers of at least 50% to 100% compared to the bills seen between November and February of the 2020-2021 heating season,” he explained.

The current natural gas shortage is the result of a number of factors. High demand due to increased exports of liquefied natural gas and increased natural gas usage for electric generation along with low production due to hurricanes have led to low storage inventories heading into the peak heating season.

We don’t have enough propane either. In fact, we are being openly warned of a major “inventory shortage” in the months ahead…

Total US propane stocks concluded the annual summer build season well below the previous five-year average, fueling longstanding concerns among market participants of an inventory shortage coinciding with colder temperatures ushering in the annual increase in winter demand.

In the old days, we could always count on there being plenty of coal, but now that has changed too. At this point, we are being told that the amount of coal our power plants have on hand is the lowest ever measured “in records going back to 1997”…

Coal stockpiles at U.S. power plants plunged to the lowest in at least 24 years as electricity generators burn the fuel faster than miners can dig it out of the ground.
Inventories fell to 84.3 million tons in August, according to government data released Tuesday. That’s the lowest in records going back to 1997, when Bill Clinton was beginning his second term as U.S. president.

Many Americans don’t realize that coal is still extremely important to our economy. According to an article posted on Zero Hedge, coal still accounts for about one-fourth of all U.S. power generation…

As of August, about a quarter of all US power generation was derived from coal. As winter approaches, coal-fired power plants will become a more significant percentage of all U.S. power generation.

Power plants are expected to burn 19% more coal this year because soaring natural gas prices have made it uneconomical to produce power. In return, this is forcing generators to burn through coal reserves much quicker and has caught coal producers off guard who cannot bring new coal to the market.

In all my years, I have never seen a time when supplies of oil, natural gas, propane and coal all became extremely tight simultaneously. If we get to a point where there are severe energy shortages for an extended period of time, that is going to be absolutely disastrous for our economic system.

And of course things are already not going very well for the U.S. economy. In fact, Gallup just found that 68 percent of all Americans believe that the economy is “getting worse”…

The share of Americans saying the economy is getting worse climbed from 63 percent in September to 68 percent in October, Gallup reported Wednesday.

This was not a case of partisan politics. Democrats and Republican views of the economy were essentially unchanged in October, according to Gallup. What happened was the percentage of independents who say economic conditions are getting worse soared nine points from 63 percent to 72 percent.

Needless to say, all of this is perfectly setting the stage for the sort of epic economic meltdown that I have been warning about. The price of oil will soon hit 100 dollars a barrel, but that won’t be the end of the world. But when it hits 150 dollars a barrel, Wall Street and the mainstream media will definitely be freaking out. And when it hits 200 dollars a barrel, it will officially be time to panic about the economy.

The world must have energy to function, and supplies of energy are going to get tighter and tighter in the months ahead. We have been warned that this energy crunch was coming for decades, and now it is here. I hope that you are prepared for what is going to happen next, because it isn’t going to be pretty.

 

[vector7]

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

JUST IN - Vatican abruptly cancels live broadcast of Biden meeting Pope without explanation (AP)

Biden is scheduled to meet Pope Francis at the Vatican on Oct. 29, soon after he arrives in Italy to participate in the G-20 Summit.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453713227267911685

View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1453713227267911685?t=gpy2Yy7uxKZGUetvQU4wng&s=19

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720251611312138

View: https://twitter.com/InformationTap/status/1453720251611312138?t=E_KzqURAQGWE05sZ8iot8w&s=19

 

[marsh]

TIME Magazine… Where have I heard this before…

Last chance, last call, imminent danger, has to happen now, the world is ending, there is no turning back. TIME cover photo shows empty chairs next to Biden in front of a post-apocalyptic d…

citizenfreepress.com

TIME Magazine… Where have I heard this before…
Posted by Kane on October 28, 2021 1:41 pm

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453678566768525315

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1453678566768525315
.15 min

Last chance, last call, imminent danger, has to happen now, the world is ending, there is no turning back. TIME cover photo shows empty chairs next to Biden in front of a post-apocalyptic doomsday scene.

 

[marsh]

Build Back Blunder is Welfare cradle to grave…

A new set of illustrations released by the Biden administration to tout his Build Back Blunder campaign.

citizenfreepress.com

Build Back Blunder is Welfare cradle to grave…
Posted by Kane on October 28, 2021 10:18 am



A new set of illustrations released by the Biden administration to tout his Build Back Blunder campaign.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjYhhzieLE8
48:07 min

Build Back BANKRUPT: How Biden’s Climate Agenda Will Financially RUIN You | Glenn TV | Ep 148

Premiered 21 hours ago


BlazeTV

[COMMENT: As a previous article observed, we are witnessing our standard of living decline in daily real time.]

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Energy Demand Destruction Will Lead To Global Recession, Tellurian Chairman Warns

THURSDAY, OCT 28, 2021 - 10:00 PM

One month ago, Goldman said that the one thing that could accelerate the resolution of Europe's energy crisis was plain, simple "demand destruction" - i.e., a plunge in demand due to prices that were too high until the reduced demand leads to less supply and a lower price. Specifically, Goldman estimated "that the potential capacity for gas-to-oil substitution could be larger should gas rally further, of up to 1.35 mb/d in power and 0.6 mb/d in industry (in Asia and Europe), although such a large demand boost would prove too large for the oil market to absorb, leading to a spike in prices to in turn achieve oil demand destruction, the ultimate solution to widespread energy scarcity."


There is just one problem with this: "demand destruction", i.e., forcible shutdown of manufacturing facilities has direct cost on output.

And as Charif Souki, Executive Board Chairman at U.S. LNG developer Tellurian, said at the online IEF gas forum, the demand destruction that results from high natural gas prices could lead to global recession.

“We are dealing not with a gas crisis, the gas is simply the leading horse, but we are dealing with an energy crisis”

Echoing what Goldman said a month ago, Souki said that the first manifestation of demand destruction is a switch from one fuel to another.

“But if all fuels become too expensive then you ask people to start changing their lifestyles, start driving less, turning off the lights more often, not putting the air conditioning on, not heat your home."

“My great fear is the lack of planning is going to lead us to global recession.” He also added that having adequate gas storage is “critical” as is investment in infrastructure.

Pointing out the obvious, he also said that current oil prices at about $85/bbl for oil and the equivalent of $200 for gas, are not sustainable.

“Eventually, after the winter, gas prices will come back down to a more reasonable level. But at the same time oil prices will continue to increase to a more reasonable level, in order to find an equilibrium.”

Translation: the recent blind (and stupid) push for ESG at all costs, has not only not led to a viable ESG output equilibrium - that won't be achieved for years if not decades - but the price shock that has already been triggered thanks to the "greens" who has forced fossil companies to shrink spending on existing and new capacity, will be directly responsible for the next big recession.

Which, paradoxically, makes sense: after all, it is hardly a secret that the Fed will have no choice but to do even more QE after the next downturn (in fact, the only question traders should be asking today is not whether the current yield curve collapse suggests a recession is coming - of course it is - but how forceful the Fed's response will be). And with Bank of America estimating that some $150 trillion in spending will have to be paid out to enable the "net zero" reality (as discussed in "Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change") much if not all of which will have to be monetized via global QE.

As such the recession that the ESG fanatics trigger will be just the catalyst that greenlights the next $150 trillion in global QE that cements the coming Great Reset to every aspect of modern civilization.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Doug Casey: Why The Carbon Hysteria Is A Huge Threat To Your Personal Freedom And Financial Wellbeing

THURSDAY, OCT 28, 2021 - 08:20 PM
Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Western countries are leading the charge in restructuring their economies around the issue of climate change. They’re committed to a comprehensive agenda to “decarbonize” their economies by 2050.
What’s your take on this?


Doug Casey: To sum it up in one word, it’s insane. In two words, it’s criminally insane.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the overwhelmingly major fuel source was wood. After that, we went to coal, which was a big improvement in density of energy and economics. Then, we went to oil, another huge improvement in energy density and economics.

These things happened not because of any government mandates but simply because they made both economic and technological sense. If the market had been left alone, the world would undoubtedly be running on nuclear. Nuclear is unquestionably the safest, cheapest, and cleanest type of mass power generation. This isn’t the time to go into the numerous reasons that’s true. But if nuclear had been left unregulated, we’d already be using small, self-contained, fifth-generation thorium reactors, generating power almost too cheap to meter. The world would already be running on truly clean green electricity.

Instead, time, capital, and brainpower have been massively diverted to so-called “ecological” power sources—mainly wind and solar—strictly for ideological reasons. The powers that be want to transition the whole world to phony green energy, like it or not.

I’m all for green energy in principle. There’s no question that solar and wind are worthwhile and effective for select applications—generally small, isolated, special locations where conventional fuel is inconvenient or too costly. The efficiency of solar has been tremendously improved over the last few decades, as has wind efficiency. But neither make any sense for mass base-load power in industrial economies.

With further technological advances, they may become more economic someday. Perhaps people will eventually put large collectors in high Earth orbit and microwave the power down to the surface. There are all kinds of sci-fi possibilities. But right now, “green” is just a nice word for “stupid,” “ideological,” or “government-sponsored.”

Doing things the green way takes power away from the markets, which is where people vote with their dollars. It instead places power in the hands of ideologues and bureaucrats.

In brief, wind and solar are being promoted at the very time, nuclear and fossil fuels are being damned. It’s the opposite of what should be happening and a very bad trend from every point of view.

Put me down as liking the birds and the bunnies as much as anyone else, but I’m anti-green. Anyway, ecofreaks don’t really care about the birds and the bunnies so much. That’s just a veneer. They actually just hate people and really want them to disappear. At a minimum, they want to control them. And the great global warming/anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is a great way to do it.

International Man: As a part of this agenda, the US, the EU, and OECD countries plan to phase out oil, gas, and other fuels, replacing them with zero or low carbon sources of energy.

What kind of disruptions could we see as the transition is made to energy sources that may not be as reliable?

Doug Casey: Lots of disruptions, many of them both huge and currently unanticipated. The US has 330 million people. Why should decisions for hundreds of millions be made by bureaucrats and political hacks in Washington, DC?

Why should they be the ones who decide what kind of power should or should not be used? That’s a question that nobody asks. People simply assume that that’s the way it should be and largely do as they’re told. They never stop and consider that governments have set progress back immeasurably over history.

The main products of government are wars, pogroms, confiscations, taxes, regulations, and the like.

Oil companies like Shell and BP are talking about getting out of the oil business.

Oil companies and their employees and investors are looked down upon as the destroyers of the world. Nobody in polite society wants to admit that they’re in the oil business.

Before you drill an oil well anywhere in the world, it’s necessary to ask permission from one or more government entities. In the Western world, where the public has been captured by the notions of PC and ESG, governments are loath to issue drilling permits. Drillers don’t want to drill because costs are artificially high, and any profits will be subject to discouraging taxes.

Expect oil production to drop in the West. Throughout the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, more oil was discovered than was being used. Reserves went up. But that’s no longer the case. It’s not because the oil isn’t there; it’s because it’s too politically incorrect to look for it and exploit it.

Furthermore, scientists, engineers, and investors are staying away from anything to do with fossil fuels. You can plan on both fuel shortages and much higher costs. Markets are being subverted and are becoming ever more politicized.

In addition, so-called “green technologies” aren’t really green. They just seem green on the surface. Giant windmills and solar farms rely on massive amounts of fossil fuels and metals to be manufactured and installed. They have limited lifespans, and they must be disposed of. Not only can’t they provide mass quantities of power consistently, but they all show losses, even after-tax benefits disguise them. That destroys capital. They’re not signs of progress but monuments to waste and destruction. We’re going to have huge disruptions in the energy markets in the years to come, and since the whole world runs on energy, it’s really serious.

International Man: Broadly speaking, is the new climate change “crisis” an invitation for more government intervention in the world?

Doug Casey: Yes. It’s like inviting a vampire into your house.

For many decades, kids have been indoctrinated with ideas about counterproductive conservation and Greenism. Comic books, schoolbooks, teacher’s lectures, television—you name it—present the earth as being under attack from the forces of darkness. Mankind—especially the scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs—are shown exploiting and raping Mother Nature and her natural resources. They’re presented as evil.

Bronowski’s Ascent of Man has been subverted into a battle of good versus evil, where all the values have been turned upside down. The problem has permeated society, and it’s even worse in the education system.

St. Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Jesuits, and Vladimir Lenin, who founded the USSR, both said words to the effect of “If you can indoctrinate a child during his early years, you’ve basically set his direction of thinking for life.” They were right.

Government is always presented as noble, wise, and forward-thinking. It’s presented as the savior stepping in to stop the evil producers.

It is one of a number of false and horribly destructive memes stalking the earth today like spectres. The increasing belief in government as a magic solution to problems decreases the average person’s standard of living tremendously and creates all kinds of distortions throughout society. It’s turned the study of economics into a pseudoscience, and its incursions into science are discrediting the idea of science itself.

In fact, the two big hysterias plaguing the world right now both center on the State involving itself in science—or at least scientism. One is COVID, a relatively trivial flu blown out of all proportion. The other is AGW, anthropogenic global warming, which was relatively recently rechristened as climate change.

In my view, both will eventually be completely debunked and discredited.

But if you run counter to the narrative on either of them right now, you’ll be canceled, fired, and/or ostracized.

It’s very much like what happened to Galileo when he ran counter to the prevailing wisdom of the Middle Ages. They don’t actually burn books anymore, but only because books today are mostly electronic. But they do the equivalent of that on places like Google and Twitter.

There’s an excellent chance that these people will discredit the very idea of science because they’ve wrapped themselves in the veil of science. Or, more precisely, what’s become known as “The Science.” They’re creating something much more serious than just another economic disaster.

International Man: This trend seems to be growing in momentum.

For example, Google Flights now prominently displays the carbon emissions of each flight it lists.

Is that a small first step toward charging individuals for the carbon they emit?

Doug Casey: I can assure you that I pay no attention whatsoever to the amount of carbon that I may be burning on a plane or anywhere else. It’s part of a psychological war the Left is waging, using guilt and shame as weapons. It’s another indication of the lockstep, the groupthink, that people are subjected to today.

Life on this planet is based on carbon. The element itself is indestructible and essential, but it’s been transformed into a deadly enemy in the mind of the public. But if you deny that it’s destroying the earth, then you’re committing heresy. It’s like denying the existence of God in the Middle Ages. Hating carbon and worshipping “The Ecology” have become tenets of a secular religion.

A new carbon tax will be implemented. It’s definitely in the cards. Most people will stupidly roll over and say, “Yes, this is for the good of the planet.
It’s a tax we should all pay.”

Of course, governments and the powers that be always want more resources directed towards themselves. In a time when governments are bankrupt and can only generate more money for themselves by printing it, it’s an absolute certainty that the next tax will have a patina of righteousness. A carbon tax on individuals, as well as companies, checks all the boxes.

International Man: Will carbon credits become a new government-created “commodity” that corporations and individuals will be forced to purchase?

Doug Casey: Without question, it’s a clever way to turn a tax into something that looks like an asset, an investment.

Look, this is all about politics and money, but disguised as a religious movement, which is quite clever. There’s no question that Greenism is being promoted as a new religion.

Christianity is a dead duck in Europe, and it’s dying in North America. But people need some type of religion, a replacement for Christianity, to hold on to.

People will be encouraged to treat their taxes as tithes to wash away their sins against Mother Nature—much the way they tithed the church to expunge their sins in the Middle Ages. It’s an exact analogy. They’ll buy “carbon credits” as an analog for building cathedrals and monasteries.

As an economist, as well as someone who reads a lot of science, I think it’s ridiculous and destructive. The whole anti-carbon, carbon sequestration, and Greenism thing is a political hysteria promoted by people who like to control other people. I’m completely opposed to carbon credits or carbon taxes from that point of view.

But when I put on my speculator’s hat, I’m all for it. There are companies being formed to cleverly capitalize on all this destructive nonsense. It’s still very early days, and the public will pile into the space with a combination of religious fervor and fin de siècle greed. I expect a massive bubble in the space. I’m all for bubbles—if I can buy in early.

A speculator is a cynic, not a philanthropist—although I hasten to add that most philanthropists are hypocrites. It’s a pity that the vast majority of people have been totally brainwashed by Greenism, and carbon stocks are a great way to turn the lemon into lemonade.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

What To Expect From The COP26 Climate Summit

THURSDAY, OCT 28, 2021 - 03:40 PM
Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

• The COP26 climate summit has been touted as one of the most important international events for the past few years.
• The summit will attempt to create a plan of action to tackle climate change and reduce global emissions.
• This discrepancy between what the UN believes needs to be done to rein in climate change and what countries are prepared to do is the biggest challenge that COP26 attendees would need to tackle.

The COP26 climate summit is set to begin next Sunday in Glasgow. The summit has been touted as one of the most important international events for the past few years—an event where world leaders will attempt to come up with a concerted effort to reduce emissions. But there are multiple factors working against the summit's success.

As many as 25,000 delegates are expected to attend the summit that will last for two weeks as world leaders try to agree on a range of issues covering what needs to be done to bring emissions under control and how we are going to pay for it. The principal aim of the meeting is to tailor a mechanism for implementing the goals of the Paris Agreement with a view to containing global temperature rises to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times.

Climate change has been identified by a number of international agencies, multinational businesses, and environmental organizations as the biggest threat to humankind at the moment, so urgent action is needed. The point of COP26 is to define the steps of this action and how it will be taken. However, it may well fall short of expectations.

Just days before the summit begins, the BBC uncovered documents that showed some nations have lobbied for changes in the latest report of the International Panel on Climate Change that made some alarming conclusions about the state of the planet's climate as a result of human activity and called for urgent changes to our way of life to contain the adverse changes.

According to the report, which cited leaked submissions on the report from various nations, some of these insisted on the IPCC downplaying the urgency of climate action. Nations that made such remarks included Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Australia, the BBC said.

One Australian official, for example, rejected the IPCC's call for the shutdown of all coal-fired power generation capacity globally. As the world's biggest coal exporter, Australia's position is quite understandable. India, one of the world's largest consumers of the fossil fuel, is also against the elimination of coal generation capacity, too, by the way. So is China, although it has not stated it explicitly but rather through action: last year alone, China started the construction of more coal-fired power plants than the rest of the world retired.

China is a good example of why, for all the good intentions and strong ambition, COP26 may fail to deliver. The country's government has repeatedly said it is committed to a lower-emission future, even announcing a 2060 deadline to become a net-zero economy. Yet recently, Beijing has changed its tune amid the energy crunch that had it ordering utilities to do whatever it takes to secure energy for the winter.

Earlier this week, the Chinese cabinet announced measures aimed at tacking emissions and achieving net-zero status by 2060 but added a significant stipulation: that the government "manage the relationship between pollution reduction and carbon reduction and energy security, industrial supply chain security, food security and normal life of the people," as quoted by Reuters.

In this context, it is probably significant that China's President, Xi Jinping, will not be attending the COP26 summit, as reported earlier this month.
This may yet change, but the announcement certainly made a splash.

Then Moscow said President Vladimir Putin won't be attending the Glasgow event, either.

Another big polluter, India, has demands about the distribution of energy transition financing, arguing that the wealthy developed countries—themselves not insignificant polluters—must help poorer developing nations such as India on their way to net-zero. The wealthy countries themselves are not so eager to fund the transition of other nations, which sets the scene for a challenging two weeks in Glasgow.

Even the most passionate proponents of the energy transition seem to have tempered their expectations, according to a Times magazine report. The report cited U.S. climate envoy John Kerry as saying "there will be a gap" between the commitments attendees are expected to make at the summit and actual commitments necessary to make the 1.5-degree scenario happen.

Even British PM Boris Johnson who immortalized himself earlier this month by telling the UN General Assembly that "it's easy to be green" now says the talks will be "extremely tough", after last month estimating the chance of wealthy countries fulfilling their climate aid promises at "six in 10".

This discrepancy between what the UN believes needs to be done to rein in climate change and what countries are prepared to do is, by all means, the biggest challenge that COP26 attendees would need to tackle. Yet another problem has also emerged recently: not all countries will be represented at the summit because of the high costs. According to Time, critics of the event have noted that many developing countries and non-profits simply cannot afford the cost of attending the summit, which apparently involves building and manning pavilions like an expo.

That the Paris Agreement sets ambitious targets has been clear for a long time. Yet with every new report on climate change, these targets sound increasingly urgent and vital. Hitting them, however, will be far from easy as it would require a lot of dramatic adjustments to the global economy. It is because of the nature of these adjustments and the fact that most countries' national interests are at odds with these adjustments that COP26 may fail to live up to the great expectations placed on it.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Skimpflation, Shrinkflation, & The Rising Rebellion Of Workers And Consumers

THURSDAY, OCT 28, 2021 - 06:30 AM
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

While Corporate America is focusing on preserving its precious profits, its customers and workforce are rebelling by walking away.

We all see shrinkflation on a daily basis: the 16 ounce container is now 13 ounces, the breakfast cereal box is now so narrow it topples over, and so on.

More subtly, the quality of ingredients is also diminishing: sharp-eyed consumers note that salt, sugar and "artificial flavors" are increasingly used to mask the decline of quality as producers scrape the bottom of the barrel to eke out a profit.

A recent NPR article proposes another form of untracked inflation: Skimpflation, the decline of services as prices march higher. Meet Skimpflation: A Reason Inflation Is Worse Than The Government Says It Is (via C.A.).

The article notes that skimpflation isn't just a reflection of greedy corporations squeezing consumers to fatten profits (cough, Disney, cough)--Skimpflation is a direct result of the workforce declining to take jobs in which they are treated as chattel.

The article mentions the wholesale decline of service that traces back to the shortage of labor: long waits, spotty maid service (hey pal, you try lifting those super-jumbo mattresses to tuck in sheets all day long for garbage-level pay), the demise of breakfast buffets and Disneyland's still-defunct tram service (entry prices have soared, but never mind--you have to come here, right, because we brainwashed your kids, so pay up and shut up because you have to pay, there is no way out.)

As I have been saying for some time, labor has been devalued and denigrated for decades, most recently in my conversation with Max Keiser.

In an economy obsessed with measuring money, economists focus on pay and benefits, as if those metrics are all that matters. What about being valued, having some say about one's work, being respected for one's efforts and earning dignity, not just rapidly depreciating dollars? None of those realities ever enter mainstream economics, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's not just low pay that makes work wretched, it's being treated as an object owned by the employer. Exploitation comes in many flavors, and they all taste bad.

There's another factor left out of economists' obsession with counting dollars: the public is increasingly unhinged, and those having to deal with the public are paying an increasingly steep price. Flight attendants are being assaulted, workers are being threatened, cussed out, etc. Who wants a job where someone seeking to vent their rage can unload on an employee?

Labor's quiet rebellion is feeding a self-reinforcing feedback loop of collapse: Corporate America, so accustomed to treating its workforce like donkeys--just load on more work--has responded to labor shortages by increasing the workload of those still on the job, burning out the remaining employees in the process.

This Darwinian feedback--those willing to stay on the job are soon crushed by overwork and screaming customers-- increases the pressure on managers to cut services and load more work on whomever is left as the sole means of meeting management's relentless demands for more sales and profits as the means to do so fall off a cliff.

The Financial Nobility's answer--give the super-wealthy more trillions--isn't trickling down to the real world. Conjuring money out of thin air while changing absolutely nothing in the real-world economy is not going to force workers to take chattel jobs which only get more oppressive with each passing day.

Imagine the berobed noble being driven down from the castle to address his army of indebted serfs and you have a snapshot of Corporate America: oh how sweet and endearing the noble's false phrases of appreciation, and then the whip comes out.

It's not just the workforce that's rebelling--consumers will eventually rebel, too. The solution to corporate scrimping on service is to simply stop giving them money. Don't wait in line for diminished products, don't book the room or flight, do something better (and more satisfying) with your time and money.

The returns on trying to make all this go away by giving another trillion or three to the super-rich are diminishing fast. Quiet Rebellion leads to mass exodus which leads to a death-spiral of diminishing spending, debt and the quantity and quality of goods and services, because the Prime Directive is increase profits or you're gone.



While Corporate America is focusing on preserving its precious profits, precious stock market bubble and even more precious billionaires, its customers and workforce are rebelling by walking away. Good luck wooing them back with declining quality in both jobs and products. While we glorify self-glorifying, supremely arrogant billionaires, the economy is quietly collapsing beneath the rah-rah cheerleading narrative. Reduce the purchasing power of wages for 45 years as you load on more work and eventually the banquet of consequences is served: Hey Mr. Billionaire, take this job and your rocket and shove it.

 

[marsh]

W.H.'s McCarthy on Regulation Increasing Oil and Gas Prices: 'We're Going to Use' Regulation

On Thursday's broadcast of MSNBC's "Hallie Jackson Reports," White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy responded to concerns that increased regulations will cause increased gas and oil prices by stating "There's a place for" regulation and "We're going to use it." McCarthy also touted...

www.breitbart.com

W.H.’s McCarthy on Regulation Increasing Oil and Gas Prices: ‘We’re Going to Use’ Regulation

IAN HANCHETT28 Oct 2021487

Video on website 6:09 min

On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hallie Jackson Reports,” White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy responded to concerns that increased regulations will cause increased gas and oil prices by stating “There’s a place for” regulation and “We’re going to use it.” McCarthy also touted hearings with oil executives on Capitol Hill as “a day of reckoning” for the oil and gas industry.

Host Hallie Jackson asked, “[T]hat big oil hearing on Capitol Hill, significant, frankly, historic that they’re all coming together. There’s this sort of — argument that you’ve heard some Republicans make that more regulations could lead to higher gas and oil prices, etc. I wonder how you respond to that and your reaction to what you have been able to see so far related to this hearing that is still ongoing, by the way.”

McCarthy responded, “Yeah, well, this is basically a day of reckoning, I think, for the oil and gas sector. Because for many decades, they denied climate change.

And now that we’re, every day, seeing the wildfires, the droughts, the floods, the heat stress, people are no longer listening to that or tolerating it. So, they can’t get away with that anymore. They have to get serious about delivering clean energy and electricity to the people in this country, and they have to stop with the deception and move into this decade and help us make the transition to clean energy so that we can win the 21st century here. So, there’s no more hiding climate change. There’s no more climate deniers. This is just about who wins the future, and whoever addresses climate in the smartest way, which we intend to do, is going to be the big winner.”

Jackson then asked, “So, to Republicans who argue, hey, more regulations could mean consumers, Americans pay more on stuff, you say?”

McCarthy answered, “Well, what I would say is there’s room for regulation. But this package, this framework that the president is looking at is all about investments. It’s not about penalties. It’s all about how we use our economic muscle to move forward and, again, win the jobs of today and the jobs of the future. So, they can talk about regulation all they want. There’s a place for it.

We’re going to use it. Because there’s opportunities that can’t be captured otherwise. But right now, if you look at this framework, you don’t see regulations and rules. You see opportunity after opportunity.”

 

[marsh]

Byron Donalds rocks the House… This is outstanding…

Florida congressman Byron Donalds is a rising star — Don’t skip the first 2 minutes “How do we ever expect to beat China on the world stage when we’re cutting our nec…

citizenfreepress.com

Byron Donalds rocks the House… This is outstanding… [Hearing with energy producers]
Posted by Kane on October 28, 2021 10:11 pm

View: https://youtu.be/L1tsUkiFrx0
5:08 min
Florida congressman Byron Donalds is a rising star — Don’t skip the first 2 minutes

“How do we ever expect to beat China on the world stage when we’re cutting our neck when it comes to energy production while they are burning more coal, burning more oil, they’re increasing their emissions and they’re not showing up in Scotland.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453774478119424004

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1453774478119424004
2:10 min

 

[marsh]

GOP warns climate ‘youth patrols’ buried in Biden agenda, shows what that might look like

The Oversight Committee Republicans signaled a warning about President Joe Biden’s agenda and posted an embarrassing video in hopes of crushing leftist hearts and painting Democrats in […]

www.bizpacreview.com

GOP warns climate ‘youth patrols’ buried in Biden agenda, shows what that might look like

October 28, 2021 | Frank Bojazi | Print Article

The Oversight Committee Republicans signaled a warning about President Joe Biden’s agenda and posted an embarrassing video in hopes of crushing leftist hearts and painting Democrats in a terrible light.

OCR claimed that tucked away in Biden’s massive spending package is a call for ‘youth patrols’ to assumingly police climate change offenders. The idea of using “youth patrols” was experimented in several US cities in 1970 as a means to quell racial tension.

According to the Office of Justice Programs:

THE MINORITY YOUTHS WHO SERVED ON THE PATROLS DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. BOTH POLICE AND PATROL MEMBERS WERE SUSPICIOUS OF EACH OTHER, BUT DURING THE TENSE PERIOD OF 1967 TO 1968, BOTH SIDES KEPT THEIR EMOTIONS UNDER CONTROL AND THE TWO GROUPS WORKED TOGETHER QUITE WELL. THE PATROLS ALSO OPENED UP COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN GHETTO RESIDENTS AND THE WHITE POWER STRUCTURE.

The experiment, at the time, concluded that the peer pressure exerted by the youth groups was an effective way to combat violence.

But these are different times.

According to OCR, this is what today’s ‘youth patrol’ might look like:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453447189309558789

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1453447189309558789
.30 min

With years of Antifa violence, riots, doxxing, censoring, and historical monuments being torn down in the name of “justice”, it’s hard to get excited about the Democrat Party doling out taxpayer funds to the ‘youth groups’ of their choosing.

But, it gets worse.

Congressman Cliff Bentz backed the same claim and made a similar case against Democrats. Bentz said, “The Dem $3.5 trillion bill props up the Green New Deal w/ $630 billion at expense of US businesses, farms, & families through higher costs & prices. The bill would create a Citizens Climate Corps & Climate Youth Patrol by funneling tax dollars to out-of-work climate activists.”

Grover Norquist mentioned the youth patrol in September and wrote, “$3.5 billion for the Green New Deal youth patrol: A make-work program for jobless climate activists. At a time when small businesses cannot find willing workers, the Democrat bill shovels $3.5 billion of your money so DC bureaucrats can create something called the “Civilian Climate Corps” – a make-work program for young climate activists.”

In the end, it’s one more gigantic red flag hidden in Biden’s crushing agenda. Because make no mistake about it, there’s a large sector of today’s youth that hasn’t been taught the importance of individual liberty and freedom, and they’ve got plans for America.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453605707467542532

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1453605707467542532

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

COVID-19: Moderna Gets Its Miracle

FRIDAY, OCT 29, 2021 - 12:15 PM
Authored by Whitney Webb via Unlimited Hangout,

COVID-19 erased the regulatory and trial-related hurdles that Moderna could never surmount before. Yet, how did Moderna know that COVID-19 would create those conditions months before anyone else, and why did they later claim that their vaccine being tested in NIH trials was different than their commercial candidate?



In late 2019, the biopharmaceutical company Moderna was facing a series of challenges that not only threatened its ability to ever take a product to market, and thus turn a profit, but its very existence as a company. There were multiple warning signs that Moderna was essentially another Theranos-style fraud, with many of these signs growing in frequency and severity as the decade drew to a close. Part I of this three-part series explored the disastrous circumstances in which Moderna found itself at that time, with the company’s salvation hinging on the hope of a divine miracle, a “Hail Mary” save of sorts, as stated by one former Moderna employee.

While the COVID-19 crisis that emerged in the first part of 2020 can hardly be described as an act of benevolent divine intervention for most, it certainly can be seen that way from Moderna’s perspective. Key issues for the company, including seemingly insurmountable regulatory hurdles and its inability to advance beyond animal trials with its most promising—and profitable—products, were conveniently wiped away, and not a moment too soon. Since January 2020, the value of Moderna’s stock—which had embarked on a steady decline since its IPO—grew from $18.89 per share to its current value of $339.57 per share, thanks to the success of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Yet, how exactly was Moderna’s “Hail Mary” moment realized, and what were the forces and events that ensured it would make it through the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) process? In examining that question, it becomes quickly apparent that Moderna’s journey of saving grace involved much more than just cutting corners in animal and human trials and federal regulations. Indeed, if we are to believe Moderna executives, it involved supplying formulations for some trial studies that were not the same as their COVID-19 vaccine commercial candidate, despite the data resulting from the former being used to sell Moderna’s vaccine to the public and federal health authorities. Such data was also selectively released at times to align with preplanned stock trades by Moderna executives, turning many of Moderna’s highest-ranking employees into millionaires, and even billionaires, while the COVID-19 crisis meant economic calamity for most Americans.

Not only that, but—as Part II of this three-part series will show, Moderna and a handful of its collaborators at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seemed to know that Moderna’s miracle had arrived—well before anyone else knew or could have known. Was it really a coincidental mix of “foresight” and “serendipity” that led Moderna and the NIH to plan to develop a COVID-19 vaccine days before the viral sequence was even published and months before a vaccine was even considered necessary for a still unknown disease? [emphasis mine] If so, why would Moderna—a company clearly on the brink—throw everything into and gamble the entire company on a vaccine project that had no demonstrated need at the time?

The Serendipitous Origins of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine
When early January 2020 brought news of a novel coronavirus outbreak originating in Wuhan, China, Moderna’s CEO Stéphane Bancel immediately emailed Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, and asked to be sent the genetic sequence for what would become known as SAR-CoV-2, allegedly because media reports on the outbreak “troubled” him. The date of that email varies according to different media reports, though most place it as having been sent on either January 6th or 7th.

A few weeks before Bancel’s email to Graham, Moderna was quickly approaching the end of the line, their desperately needed “Hail Mary” still not having materialized. “We were freaked out about money,” Stephen Hoge would later remember of Moderna’s late 2019 circumstances. Not only were executives “cutting back on research and other expenditures” like never before, but – as STAT News would later report – “cash from investors had stopped pouring in and partnerships with some drug makers had been discontinued. In meetings at Moderna, Bancel emphasized the need to stretch every dollar and employees were told to reduce travel and other expenses, a frugality there were advised would last several years.”

At the tail end of 2019, Graham was in a very different mood than Bancel, having emailed the leader of the coronavirus team at his NIH lab saying, “Get ready for 2020,” apparently viewing the news out of Wuhan in late 2019 as a harbinger of something significant. He went on, in the days before he was contacted by Bancel, to “run a drill he had been turning over in his mind for years” and called his long-time colleague Jason McLellan “to talk about the game plan” for getting a head start on producing a vaccine the world did not yet know it needed. When Bancel called Graham soon afterward and asked about this new virus, Graham responded that he didn’t know yet but that “they were ready if it turned out to be a coronavirus.” The Washington Post claimed that Graham’s apparent foreknowledge that a coronavirus vaccine would be needed before anyone officially knew what type of disease was circulating in Wuhan was a fortunate mix of “serendipity and foresight.”

Dr. Barney Graham and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, VRC coronavirus vaccine lead, discuss COVID-19 research with U.S. legislators Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Sen. Benjamin Cardin and Rep. Jamie Raskin, March 6, 2020; Source: NIH

A report in Boston magazine offers a slightly different account than that reported by the Washington Post. Per that article, Graham had told Bancel, “If [the virus] is a coronavirus, we know what to do and have proven mRNA is effective.” Per that report, this assertion of efficacy from Graham referred to Moderna’s early stage human-trial data published in September 2019 regarding its chikungunya vaccine candidate, which was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as its cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine candidate.

As mentioned in Part I of this series, the chikungunya vaccine study data released at that time included the participation of just four subjects, three of whom developed significant side effects that led Moderna to state that they would reformulate the vaccine in question and would pause trials on that vaccine candidate. In the case of the CMV vaccine candidate, the data was largely positive, but it was widely noted that the vaccine still needed to pass through larger and longer clinical trials before its efficacy was in fact “proven,” as Graham later claimed. In addition, Graham implied that this early stage trial of Moderna’s CMV vaccine candidate was somehow proof that an mRNA vaccine would be effective against coronaviruses, which makes little sense since CMV is not a coronavirus but instead hails from the family of viruses that includes chickenpox, herpes, and shingles.

Bancel apparently had reached out to Graham because Graham and his team at the NIH had been working in direct partnership with Moderna on vaccines since 2017, soon after Moderna had delayed its Crigler-Najjar and related therapies in favor of vaccines. According to Boston magazine, Moderna had been working closely with Graham specifically “on [Moderna’s] quest to bring a whole new class of vaccines to market” and Graham had personally visited Moderna’s facilities in November 2019. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIH’s infectious-disease division NIAID, has called his unit’s collaboration with Moderna, in the years prior to and also during the COVID-19 crisis, “most extraordinary.”

Part 1 of 3

 

[marsh]

Part 2 of 3

The year 2017, besides being the year when Moderna made its pivot to vaccines (due to its inability to produce safe multidose therapies, see Part I), was also a big year for Graham. That year he and his lab filed a patent for the “2P mutation” technique whereby recombinant coronavirus spike proteins can be stabilized in a prefusion state and used as more effective immunogens. If a coronavirus vaccine were to be produced using this patent, Graham’s team would financially benefit, though federal law caps their annual royalties. Nonetheless, it would still yield a considerable sum for the named researchers, including Graham.

However, due to the well-known difficulties with coronavirus vaccine development, including antibody dependent enhancement risk, it seemed that commercial use of Graham’s patent was a pipe dream. Yet, today, the 2P mutation patent, also known as the ’070 patent, is not just in use in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, but also in the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, Pfizer/BioNTech, and CureVac. Experts at New York University School of Law have noted that the 2P mutation patent first filed in 2016 “sounds remarkably prescient” in light of the COVID crisis that emerged a few years later while later publications from the NIH (still pre-COVID) revealed that the NIH’s view on “the breadth and importance of the ’070 patent” as well as its potential commercial applications was also quite prescient, given that there was little justification at the time to hold such a view. [Emphasis mine]

On January 10, three days after the reported initial conversation between Bancel and Graham on the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, Graham met with Hamilton Bennett, the program leader for Moderna’s vaccine portfolio. Graham asked Bennett “if Moderna would be interested in using the new [novel coronavirus] to test the company’s accelerated vaccine-making capabilities.”

According to Boston, Graham then mused, “That way . . . if ever there came a day when a new virus emerged that threatened global public health, Moderna and the NIH could know how long it would take them to respond.”

Graham’s “musings” to Bennett are interesting considering his earlier statements made to others, such as “Get ready for 2020” and his team, in collaboration with Moderna, would be “ready if [the virus then circulating in Wuhan, China] turned out to be a coronavirus.” Is this merely “serendipity” and “foresight”, as the Washington Post suggested, or was it something else? It is worth noting that the above accounts are those that have been given by Bancel and Graham themselves, as the actual contents of these critical January 2020 emails have not been publicly released.

When the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was published on January 11, NIH scientists and Moderna researchers got to work determining which targeted genetic sequence would be used in their vaccine candidate. Later reports, however, claimed that this initial work toward a COVID-19 vaccine was merely intended to be a “demonstration project.”

Other odd features of the Moderna-NIH COVID-19 vaccine-development story emerged with Bancel’s account of the role the World Economic Forum played in shaping his “foresight” when it came to the development of a COVID-19 vaccine back in January 2020. On January 21, 2020, Bancel reportedly began to hear about “a far darker version of the future” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where he spent time with “two [anonymous] prominent infectious-disease experts from Europe” who shared with him data from “their contacts on the ground in China, including Wuhan.” [Emphasis mine]

That data, per Bancel, showed a dire situation that left his mind “reeling” and led him to conclude, that very day, that “this isn’t going to be SARS. It’s going to be the 1918 flu pandemic.”

Stéphane Bancel speaks at the Breakthroughs in Cancer Care session at WEF annual meeting, January 24, 2020; Source: WEF

This realization is allegedly what led Bancel to contact Moderna cofounder and chairman, as well as a WEF technology pioneer, Noubar Afeyan. Bancel reportedly interrupted Afeyan’s celebration of his daughter’s birthday to tell him “what he’d learned about the virus” and to suggest that “Moderna begin to build the vaccine—for real.” The next day, Moderna held an executive meeting, which Bancel attended remotely, and there was considerable internal debate about whether a vaccine for the novel coronavirus would be needed. To Bancel, the “sheer act of debating” pursuing a vaccine for the virus was “absurd” given that he was now convinced, after a single day at Davos, that “a global pandemic was about to descend like a biblical plague, and whatever distractions the vaccine caused internally at Moderna were irrelevant.”

Bancel spent the rest of his time at the Davos annual meeting “building partnerships, generating excitement, and securing funding,” which led to the Moderna collaboration agreement with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—a project largely funded by Bill Gates. (Bancel and Moderna’s cozy relationship with the WEF, dating back to 2013, was discussed in Part I as were the Forum’s efforts, beginning well before COVID-19, to promote mRNA-based therapies as essential to the remaking of the health-care sector in the age of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution). At the 2020 annual meeting attended by Bancel and others it was noted that a major barrier to the widespread adoption of these and other related “health-care” technologies was “public distrust.” The panel where that issue was specifically discussed was entitled “When Humankind Overrides Evolution.” [Emphasis mine]

As also noted in Part I of this series, a few months earlier, in October 2019, major players in what would become the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly Rick Bright and Anthony Fauci, had discussed during a Milken Institute panel on vaccines how a “disruptive” event would be needed to push the public to accept “nontraditional” vaccines such as mRNA vaccines; to convince the public that flu-like illnesses are scarier than traditionally believed; and to remove existing bureaucratic safeguards in the vaccine development-and-approval processes.

That panel took place less than two weeks after the Event 201 simulation, jointly hosted by the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Event 201 simulated “an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus” that was “modeled largely on SARS but . . . more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.” The recommendations of the simulation panel were to considerably increase investment in new vaccine technologies and industrial approaches, favoring rapid vaccine development and manufacturing. As mentioned in Part I, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had also conducted the June 2001 Dark Winter simulation that briefly preceded and predicted major aspects of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and some of its participants had apparent foreknowledge of those attacks. Other Dark Winter participants later worked to sabotage the FBI investigation into those attacks after their origin was traced back to a US military source.

It is hard to imagine that Bancel, whose company had long been closely partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation, was unaware of the exercise and surprised by the closely analogous event that transpired within three months. Given the accounts given by Bancel, Graham, and others, it seems likely there is more to the story regarding the origins of Moderna’s early and “serendipitous” push to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, given that Moderna was in dire financial circumstances at the time, it seems odd that the company would gamble everything on a vaccine project that was opposed by the few investors that were still willing to fund Moderna in January/February 2020. Why would they divert their scant resources towards a project born only out of Barney Graham’s “musings” that Moderna could try to test the speed of its vaccine development capabilities and Bancel’s doomsday view that a “biblical plague” was imminent, especially when their investors opposed the idea?

Moderna Gets to Bypass Its Long-Standing Issues with R & D
Moderna produced the first batch of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate on February 7, one month after Bancel and Graham’s initial conversation. After a sterility test and other mandatory tests, the first batch of its vaccine candidate, called mRNA-1273, shipped to the NIH on February 24. For the first time in a long time, Moderna’s stock price surged. NIH researchers administered the first dose of the candidate into a human volunteer less than a month later, on March 16.

Controversially, in order to begin its human trial on March 16, regulatory agencies had to allow Moderna to bypass major aspects of traditional animal trials, which many experts and commentators noted was highly unusual but was now deemed necessary due to the urgency of the crisis. Instead of developing the vaccine in distinct sequential stages, as is the custom, Moderna “decided to do all of the steps [relating to animal trials] simultaneously.” In other words, confirming that the candidate is working before manufacturing an animal-grade vaccine, conducting animal trials, analyzing the animal-trial data, manufacturing a vaccine for use in human trials, and beginning human trials were all conducted simultaneously by Moderna. Thus, the design of human trials for the Moderna vaccine candidate was not informed by animal-trial data.

Part 2 of 3

 

[marsh]

Part 3 of 3


Lt. Javier Lopez Coronado and Hospitalman Francisco Velasco inspect a box of COVID-19 vaccine vials at the Naval Health Clinic in Corpus Christi, TX, December 2020; Source: Wikimedia

This should have been a major red flag, given Moderna’s persistent difficulties in getting its products past animal trials. As noted in Part I, up until the COVID-19 crisis, most of Moderna’s experiments and products had only been tested in animals, with only a handful able to make it to human trials. In the case of the Crigler-Najjar therapy that it was forced to indefinitely delay, toxicity concerns related to the mRNA delivery system being used had emerged in the animal trials, which Moderna was now greenlighted to largely skip. Given that Moderna had subsequently been forced to abandon all multidose products because of poor results in animal trials, being allowed to skip this formerly insurmountable obstacle was likely seen as a boon to some at the company. It is also astounding that, given Moderna’s history with problematic animal trials, more scrutiny was not devoted to the regulatory decision to allow Moderna to essentially skip such trials.

Animal studies conducted on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine did identify problems that should have informed human trials, but this did not happen because of the regulatory decision. For example, animal reproductive toxicity studies on the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine that are cited by the European Medicines Agency found that there was reduced fertility in rats that received the vaccine (e. g., overall pregnancy index of 84.1% in vaccinated rats versus 93.2% in the unvaccinated) as well as an increased proportion of aberrant bone development in their fetuses. [Emphasis mine] That study has been criticized for failing to report on the accumulation of vaccine in the placenta as well as failing to investigate the effect of vaccine doses administered during key pregnancy milestones, such as embryonic organogenesis. In addition, the number of animals tested is unstated, making the statistical power of the study unknown. At the very least, the 9 percent drop in the fertility index among vaccinated rats should have prompted expanded animal trials to investigate concerns of reproductive toxicity before testing in humans. [Emphasis mine]

Yet, Moderna declined to further investigate reproductive toxicity in animal trials and entirely excluded reproductive toxicity studies from its simultaneous human trials, as pregnant women were excluded from participation in the clinical trials of its vaccine. Despite this, pregnant women were labeled a priority group for receiving the vaccine after Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Per the New England Journal of Medicine, this meant that “pregnant women and their clinicians were left to weigh the documented risks of Covid-19 infection against the unknown safety risks of vaccination in deciding whether to receive the vaccine.”

Moderna only began recruiting for an “observational pregnancy outcome study” of its COVID-19 vaccine in humans in mid-July 2021, and that study is projected to conclude in early 2024. Nevertheless, the Centers for Disease Control recommends the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in “people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future.” This recommendation is largely based on the CDC’s publication of preliminary data on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women in June 2021, which is based on passive reporting systems in use within the United States (i. e., VAERS and v-safe).

Even in the limited scope of this study, 115 of the 827 women who had a completed pregnancy during the study lost the baby, 104 of which were spontaneous abortions before 20 weeks of gestation. Of these 827 pregnant women, only 127 had received a mRNA vaccine before the 3rd trimester. This appears to suggest an increased risk among those women who took the vaccine before the 3rd trimester, but the selective nature of the data makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. Despite claims from the New England Journal of Medicine that the study’s data was “reassuring”, the study’s authors ultimately stated that their study, which mainly looked at women who began vaccination in the third trimester, was unable to draw “conclusions about spontaneous abortions, congenital anomalies, and other potential rare neonatal outcomes.”

This is just one example of the problems caused by “cutting corners” with respect to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine trials in humans and animals, including those conducted by the NIH.

Meanwhile, throughout February, March and April, Bancel was “begging for money” as Moderna reportedly lacked “enough money to buy essential ingredients for the shots” and “needed hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even more than a billion dollars” to manufacture its vaccine, which had only recently begun trials. Bancel, whose tenure at Moderna had long been marked by his ability to charm investors, kept coming up empty-handed.

Then, in mid-April 2020, Moderna’s long-time cooperation with the US government again paid off when Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded the company $483 million to “accelerate the development of its vaccine candidate for the novel coronavirus.” A year later, the amount invested in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine by the US government had grown to about $6 billion dollars, just $1.5 billion short of the company’s entire value at the time of its pre-COVID IPO.

BARDA, throughout 2020, was directly overseen by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), led by the extremely corrupt Robert Kadlec, who had spent roughly the last two decades designing BARDA and helping shape legislation that concentrated many of the emergency powers of HHS under the Office of the ASPR. Conveniently, Kadlec occupied the powerful role of ASPR that he had spent years sculpting at the exact moment when the pandemic, which he had simulated the previous year via Crimson Contagion, took place. As mentioned in Part I, he was also a key participant in the June 2001 Dark Winter exercise. In his capacity as ASPR during 2020, Kadlec oversaw nearly all major aspects of the HHS COVID-19 response and had a key role in BARDA’s funding decisions during that period, as well as in the affairs of the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration as they related to COVID-19 medical countermeasures, including vaccines.

On May 1, 2020, Moderna announced a ten-year manufacturing agreement with the Lonza Group, a multinational chemical and biotech company based in Switzerland. Per the agreement, Lonza would build out vaccine production sites for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, first in the US and Switzerland, before expanding to Lonza’s facilities in other countries. The scale of production discussed in the agreement was to produce 1 billion doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine annually. It was claimed that the ten-year agreement would also focus on other products, even though it was well known at the time that other Moderna products were “nowhere close to being ready for the market.” Moderna executives would later state that they were still scrambling for the cash to manufacture doses at the time the agreement with Lonza was made.

The decision to forge a partnership to produce that quantity of doses annually suggests marvelous foresight on the part of Moderna and Lonza that the COVID-19 vaccine would become an annual or semiannual affair, given that current claims of waning immunity could not have been known back then because initial trials of the Moderna vaccine had begun less than two months earlier and there was still no published data on its efficacy or safety. However, as will be discussed Part III of this series, Moderna needs to sell “pandemic level” quantities of its COVID-19 vaccine every year in order to avoid a return of the existential crises it faced before COVID-19 (for more on those crises, see Part I). The implications of this, given Moderna’s previous inability to produce a safe product for multidosing and lack of evidence that past issues were addressed in the development of its COVID-19 vaccine, will also be discussed in Part III of this series.

It is also noteworthy that, like Moderna, Lonza as a company and its leaders are closely affiliated with the World Economic Forum. [Emphasis mine] In addition, at the time the agreement was reached in May 2020, Moncef Slaoui, the former GlaxoSmithKline executive, served on the boards of both Moderna and Lonza. Slaoui withdrew from the boards of both companies two weeks after the agreement was reached to become the head of the US-led vaccination-development drive Operation Warp Speed. Moderna praised Slaoui’s appointment to head the vaccination project.

By mid-May, Moderna’s stock price—whose steady decline before COVID-19 was detailed in Part I —had tripled since late February 2020, all on high hopes for its COVID-19 vaccine. Since Moderna’s stock had begun to surge in February, media reports noted that “nearly every progress update—or media appearance by Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel—has been gobbled up by investors, who seem to have an insatiable appetite for the stock.” Bancel’s tried-and-tested method of keeping Moderna afloat on pure hype, though it was faltering before COVID-19, was again paying off for the company thanks to the global crisis and related panic.

Some critics did emerge, however, calling Moderna’s now $23 billion valuation “insane,” especially considering that the company had posted a net loss of $514 million the previous year and had yet to produce a safe or effective medicine since its founding a decade earlier. In January 2020, Moderna had been worth a mere $5 billion, $2 billion less than its valuation at its December 2018 IPO. If it hadn’t been for the onset of the COVID crisis and a fresh injection of hype, it seems that Moderna’s valuation would have continued to shrink. Yet, thankfully for Moderna, investors were valuing Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine even before the release of any clinical data. Market analysts at the time were forecasting Moderna’s 2022 revenue at about $1 billion, a figure based almost entirely on coronavirus vaccine sales, since all other Moderna products were years away from a market debut. Yet, even with this forecasted revenue, Moderna’s stock value in mid-May 2020 was trading at twenty-three times its projected sales, a phenomenon unique to Moderna among biotech stocks at the time. For comparison, the other highest multiples in biotech at the time were Vertex Pharmaceutical and Seattle Genetics, which were then trading at nine and twelve times their projected revenue, respectively. Now, with the implementation of booster shot policies around the world, revenue forecasts for Moderna now predict the company will make a staggering $35 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales through next year.

To read the rest of the report, click here.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

"Dangerous Nonsense" Or "Win-Win" - What To Expect From The COP26 Gabfest

FRIDAY, OCT 29, 2021 - 05:00 AM
Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

“Clean energy isn’t just good for the planet, but will make us all richer!”

It’s easy to be cynical about next week’s COP26 Gabfest, but we could all be winners if global leaders successfully optimise for a cleaner decarbonised environment and a global growth economy based on new clean technologies, but we need time for the transition from fossil fuels. If we fail to do so, the alternatives are bleak.


From Sunday the Good, the Bad, the Ugly and Politicians meet in Glasgow for the 26th United Nations “Conference of Parties” on Climate Change. It might just be the most important gab-fest of global leaders in the whole of human history – so I am told. So far, the biggest winners are Scottish Railway workers. They were threatening strike action through the conference, and they’ve just accepted a 2.5% bribe pay-rise to return to work.

Ultimately.. we might all be winners…

I should stop being cynical about the COP26 conference. I guess I just have a problem with virtue-signalling politicians and unelected commentors telling us how to live our lives and telling me I can’t eat steak. These same folk will be furiously negotiating compromises on how much longer they can keep building coal-fired power stations. I don’t mind that – as long as the coal is part of a short-term transition strategy.

As a trader and investor, I’ve weighed up the evidence and concluded the climate science predicting global warming is more likely than not to be correct. I’d much rather the scientists are wrong, but common sense and the risk profile dictates we should go with a hedging strategy; a “perfect preparation prevents piss-poor performance” approach to mitigating climate change. (I take the same approach to my passion for offshore sailing – prepare for every eventuality, no matter how remote. Assume stuff is going to break. (Generally, a good rule of life is buying an expensive piece of kit to fix a specific breakage means that breakage will never occur. If you don’t buy it – the thing will break.))

I accept climate change is among the most important issues facing humanity today. Unless we are prepared for it, then increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by industrial processes will trigger higher temperatures, catastrophic weather events (such as we’ve seen this summer), sea levels to rise with unquantifiable economic damage.

These are just the Micro-issues.

Climate change could tip an increasingly unstable global society into Macro-chaos. Very small weather changes can trigger drought. The wars of the future are far more likely to be about water security than the passions of kings. Water security could trigger mass migration – and all the consequences that could follow in terms of nationalism, protectionism, global conflict and even genocide.

In short, even small rises in global temperatures could be… nasty in the extreme.

Avoiding chronic instability as the result of climate change is what the COP26 meeting is about. All of us win if we avoid the events described above.

Global leaders will update us on how they’ve cut Co2 emissions since COP20 5-years ago in Paris, and “commit” to “binding” net-zero targets for the future. Like all gabfests it will be about compromise. At the end some grand statement (agreed months ago by conference Sherpas), will emerge. The Climate protestors will keep protesting saying the conference failed to do enough.

The reality is everything is a compromise.

We need to find a way to deal with the climate threat without cratering global society. What we need to solve for is an optimisation:

How to reverse rising emissions while maintaining global growth, raising billions of people out of poverty and providing them with higher living standards, and doing so in a better, cleaner more stable environment.

That spells massive market opportunity!

Perfect preparation for climate change should spur massive innovation! Its already happening. It should mean multiple new energy technologies – each potentially with the revolutionary potential of the internal combustion engine. It should mean whole new industries to capture, sequester and store carbon and improve the environment. It should mean finding new ways to prepare for a carbon neutral future, and spur whole new industries, even things like manufacturing and mining in space. The possibilities are endless – but they can’t be done overnight.

Economic transformation will not be easy.

The basics of climate change mitigation are about energy transition – how to switch from fossil fuels to other energy sources.

77% of emissions causing global warming come from transport and power derived from fossil fuels. If we can cut the economy’s reliance on coal, oil and gas by transiting to renewable power sources, then we might get the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions required by 2030 to reach global net zero by 2050, thus limiting global temperature rises to a “manageable” 1.5 degrees.

The only way we could achieve these targets overnight would mean the total collapse of the global economy and that we all starve or freeze. That would not be a good compromise.

The International Energy Authority says renewables now account for 28% of global energy production, up 2% in a single year! We’ve embraced them because the costs of wind and solar power, and battery storage, have dramatically fallen. Wind costs are down 50% in a decade! Solar power in 2030 is expected to be 1/20th of the price 10-years ago.

Renewables work but have issues; weather means wind and solar are intermittent, the carbon costs of construction are huge, it takes years to achieve carbon neutrality (solar panels take 4 years, and 3 years for an electric vehicle’s battery), there are questions about maintenance and replacement, and supply chain and recycling chokepoints are appearing in commodities like lithium. Any renewable energy future is going to require a massive increase in minerals, rare-earths and metals mining – raising new social and environmental costs.

The market has embraced the simple renewables. Under the banner of ESG (Environment, Social and Governance), most investment managers now claim to be green and won’t fund anything fossil fuel related. They foresee greatly improved returns from renewables – creating a virtuous circle where renewable stocks go higher as fossil fuels tank. The result is companies with a high ESG rating trade at up to a 25% premium to the poorer ones, and can raise finance some 10% cheaper.

But… what we’ve seen so far has been the easy yards of the long-term decarbonisation shift. EVs are not rocket science.

Windmills are millennia old-tech. Solar panels are great when it’s not raining. They were all established technologies – and relatively simple to upscale and innovate for the modern age. We embraced Wind, Solar and Lithium batteries because they were proven, cheap and promised swift payback – and there is nothing the market likes as much as short-term returns.

The fashion for ESG assumes renewables are a complete solution – that wind and solar can be ramped up from 28% to 100% – which is dangerous nonsense.
Over the past decade it’s become increasingly difficult to finance fossil fuel exploration or production. The result is a new energy crisis – the UK and Europe ignored the reality we will need Gas for decades to provide power during the transition to clean energy, but having neglected how to source or store it. The result is the deepening crisis for European Energy Security and an increasingly dangerous dependency on Russia for supplies.

The next and very necessary stage of de-carbonisation is likely to prove more difficult and more expensive. Wind and Solar were easy but unreliable.

Tidal energy is an example of short-termism failure. Tides are ultra-reliable, but extracting energy comes at a higher cost because the sea is an unfriendly environment for any piece of high-tech kit dunked in it. Tidal power remains in the slow lane, even though industry experts have shown costs would quickly tumble on widespread adoption to make them cheaper and more reliable than wind.

It takes years and billions to build a nuclear power station, or to develop smaller and more nimble nuclear alternatives. There are battery solutions which will be less dependent on dirty, socially questionable elements like lithium, but they are still a few years from commercial roll out. They require long-term investment – which is difficult due to the market’s short-termism.

A second issue is the reality of changing the global economy from high growth to carbon neutral growth, something no politician will talk about it if it looks like a poorer future. Which developing nations are willing to tell their populations future growth is limited while the developed west looks relatively richer? The problem of free riding will not go away – at the individual or national level – which is why the no-show of China’s President Xi at the conference is generating distrust.

Politics is a game with a short frame focused on the next election – however much they say about future generations. Short-term solutions are favoured to garner immediate results. Sound bites allowing politicians to bask in glory on their well intentioned but short-term plans will flavour the conference.

The hard work is making it happen over the long-term.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

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

www.zerohedge.com

Is The Establishment Hiding Mass Resistance To Vaccine Mandates With The "Striketober" Farce?

THURSDAY, OCT 28, 2021 - 11:40 PM
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

It is perhaps a sign of the waning influence of the mainstream media that even though they have been incessantly pumping the concept of “Striketober” for the past month, the majority of Americans rarely mention it.

What we do deal with on a regular basis, though, are the constant labor shortages across multiple sectors of the economy as well as the growing supply chain disruptions and stagflationary retail price hikes.

The media notion of “labor regaining its power” is a background narrative that they are still struggling to plant in the public subconscious while the majority of people try to adapt to more serious concerns.


That said, the establishment doesn’t really care if the propaganda takes hold, only that they have a useful cover for the very real collapse of the US economy.

It’s a kind of vicious perversion of the “fake it until you make it” strategy.
Striketober, like BLM, Antifa, and numerous other Marxist or Cultural Marxist movements has been created from thin air by a combination of news hype and globalist foundation funding. It’s important to first recognize that none of these leftist organizations would have ever been formed had it not been for the ample support of institutions like the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. BLM, for example, was founded by openly Marxist leaders and got its start using millions of dollars in funding from the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundation.

Many of the “workers unions” involved in various elements of Striktober also enjoy direct or indirect funding from globalist foundations. The Food Chain Workers Alliance, for example, receives funding from the Ford Foundation, and the National Domestic Workers Foundation gets ample money from the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

As I have said many times in the past, all the evil people are on the side of the political left. All the billionaire elites and corporations they claim to hate are feeding them endless cash. Leftist labor strikes only exist because globalists want them to exist.

Of course, leftist strikes are actually a minimal problem. In fact, I suspect they are a deliberately fabricated theater meant to obscure the very REAL labor strikes among conservatives over the covid vaccine mandates.

Let me explain…

We are all familiar with sensationalist worker walkouts like the Netflix protest over Dave Chappelle’s special “The Closer” which dares to make jokes about trans activists, a highly protected minority of people at the top of the leftist oppression totem pole. Most people have also heard about the workers strike among McDonalds employees over #metoo claims even though there is little to no evidence to support the accusations.

What we don’t hear much about is that the Netflix walkout was actually only a handful of real employees mixed with a mob of career activists that were bused in from elsewhere. We also don’t hear about the fact that the #metoo claims made against McDonalds are actually from back in 2018, and they are now being conveniently dredged up again as the country faces a labor shortage crisis.

These high profile strikes and walkouts are starting to eclipse media coverage of the true culprits behind the labor crisis – Namely the Biden Administration and blue state governments enacting global mandates, vaccine controls and covid stimulus.

The source of worker shortages, supply chain bottlenecks and a lot of our stagflationary issues can be traced directly back to the government’s covid restrictions and the covid welfare programs. Get rid of the restrictions, the mandates and the covid checks and over time the crisis will disappear. It really is that simple. However, the establishment does not want you to see it that way.

Marxist/Socialist groups are working feverishly to make hay with the covid protests and employee strikes in an attempt to attribute them to “worker discontent” over low wages and “mistreatment” rather than the covid mandates.

This is nonsense.

First and foremost, wages have been rising exponentially in the past year for what I would call “zero skill workers” in the retail and service industries.

When a potential employee with no valuable skills can walk into almost any chain restaurant or retail outlet and get $15 or more an hour on top of a signing bonus of hundreds of dollars just for showing up on the first day, there is no unfair disparity for the working class.

When the average minimum wage across the states is around $9 and most service workers are making nearly double that, there is no legitimate problem for Marxists to complain about. So, they have to make things up. To be sure, $15 an hour is not enough to buy a home or start a family on a single income, but people aren’t automatically entitled to home ownership and no intelligent person expects to launch a career in food service or retail. That’s why decades ago these jobs were filled by teenagers, not people in their 20s or older. Doubling the minimum wage only accomplished one thing int he long run: Much higher prices for everyone.

Workers might feel like they are being abused, but it’s not their paychecks under attack or their managers making sexual advances. These are petty concerns compared to the bigger issue at hand – Their individual civil liberties.

As noted, there are two major factors in worker shortages: The Biden vaccine mandates and state and federal covid stimulus programs which pay people more to stay at home than they would make on the job. THESE are the reasons for worker shortages and anyone that claims otherwise is ignorant or has an agenda.

Federal covid checks are not done yet. Contrary to popular belief the cash is still flowing through various programs including child credit programs. Also, most states continue to pump out covid financial aid on top of existing unemployment benefits. This is essentially Universal Basic Income and it’s not over by a long shot. Businesses cannot find enough labor because the government has bribed millions of workers to stay home. The socialists don’t like to address this problem because it conflicts with their Striketober fantasy, so they deny it exists.

The establishment is well aware that these actions are destabilizing the labor market and I believe the goal is to destroy the small business sector specifically.

Small businesses cannot compete with corporations backed by trillions in central bank stimulus. They don’t have the resources to double wage rates for zero-skill workers or to offer large signing bonuses. They also don’t have the resources to police their own employees and customers to ensure these people are complying with vaccine passports and booster shots. Within a year the solid small business foundation of the US will be a hollow shell.

With the death of small businesses, all that will remain are international conglomerates that WILL enforce the mandates and threaten people with poverty and starvation if they refuse the vax. All other legal alternatives will be removed and that is exactly what the elites want. Without defiant small businesses there’s nowhere left for you to work or shop without the vax passport.

Corporate monopolies are the tool governments are using to circumvent constitutional protections for individuals.

But as this process plays out the resistance grows. And, as they say, the resistance will not be televised.

The entire premise of Striketober and the rise of the “oppressed proletariat” is a farce, but there is a different kind of revolution brewing. The latest narrative does at least represent something new in the agenda to derail the US economy. For the most part we have been dealing with astroturf protests from Cultural Marxists in the form of crazed social justice warriors funded by globalist foundations. The focus is usually on exploiting cultural taboos or non-existent racism or sexism. The Striketober development is a much more classic rendition of old school Marxist sabotage, and it appears that it was slapped together haphazardly by establishment elites in order to diminish the VERY REAL conservative worker walkouts.

That is to say, from now on expect that if you walk out of a job or get fired from a job for non-compliance on the experimental covid vax you might be lumped in with a fake leftist movement and no one will mention the real reasons for your sacrifice. But what is the point of this psy-op? Don’t the globalists want to identify and demonize the millions of conservatives refusing the vax?

I am reminded of a story I read when I was a child about a conversation between an ancient Roman General and a Roman Senator. The senator tells the general that something needed to be done about separating and delineating the slave class from the free Roman citizens because often they all looked alike and were sometimes dressed alike. The senator suggested that the slaves be forced to wear black arm bands so they could be easily identified. The general disagreed, pointing out that if the slaves were given the arm bands they would finally see how many of them there were, and realizing the sheer size of their population the slaves might then be encouraged to revolt against the empire.

Now, I don’t know if this tale is historically accurate but I treat it as a parable. In the case of the vaccine mandates and the massive worker strikes among airlines, hospitals, police and emergency services, etc., the more the establishment tries to squeeze the US population with forced vaccination efforts the more liberty minded people slip through their fingers and fight back. If mass walkouts and strikes are attributed to conservatives and patriots standing against the mandates, then all the other “slaves” might realize they are actually legion. This would be bad for the globalists and their Reset agenda.

So, they are attempting to co-opt the vaccine walkouts and rewrite history in real time by creating a fake workers movement through Striketober. And no, it will not end in October, the media will be promoting this idea from now on. That way the resistance becomes convoluted and confused and the mainstream media can say the great number of striking workers are actually on the side of the political left battling the “capitalist machine”, not conservatives and patriots on the side of truth and freedom.

We are not supposed to know our numbers. By instituting a two tier society through vax mandates the establishment has made an error. They obviously assumed there would be far less rebellion against the passports. They obviously assumed that there would be a vast majority of support and the 10% or less of the population refusing to comply would be overwhelmed and surrounded by the covid cult. They figured we would be compelled by peer pressure and the fear of standing out, and that we would naturally fall in line.

Instead, 30% to 50% of the population depending on the state or city or industry is in revolt and we are starting to see how many of us there really are across the country.

There are three things the covid authoritarians are predominantly afraid of:

1. Liberty groups recognizing their true numbers.
2. Those same groups organizing at the local and state level across the country.
3. And, losing the mainstream narrative that they are the “good guys” and that we are the “evil insurrectionists”.

Striketober is just another desperate attempt by the power elites to manage optics in the face of unexpected opposition. Their efforts to terrorize people that refuse to become guinea pigs for a barely tested mRNA cocktail is backfiring. Eventually, worker strikes due to forced vaccination will culminate in greater acts of rebellion against the system. And, with each escalation of resistance the establishment will strain their weak think-tank brains trying to create new narratives to obscure what is really happening.