“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.” Ronald Reagan
Anybody who tells you that man's use of fossil fuels is driving catastrophic global warming is a liar. There is no evidence for that assertion and I don't mean that in the usual political way, where a cause and effect is blindingly obvious but inconvenient, so nobody is going to volunteer to even look for the evidence. I mean that there is no evidence that there is catastrophic global warming, firstly, and also no way of knowing how much of our CO2 stays in the atmosphere and, in any event, the relationship between temperature and CO2 is increased heat first, followed by more CO2, not the other way around. And that makes sense, because colder oceans store more CO2, so when they heat slightly, they release the gas into the atmosphere.
So, first and foremost, the only argument against fossil fuels is the fact that, as a finite resource, they will run out at some point. It would, therefore, be wise to husband these resources before it's too late and to reduce our dependency – enter nuclear power. And that is the argument right there – nothing more.
As for humans, greenhouse gases and climate change, there are two genuine schools of thought, neither of which you will probably have heard of. One, best explained by Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace) is as follows; the CO2 in the air is vital for our survival – 200 parts per million is borderline starvation level (150 is where plants start to die), 400 is better (which is where we are now), 1,000 would be better still, 3,000 would be the upper limit. But that's up to Mother Earth, not us, and that's not going to change no matter how critical we believe we are to the outcome.
And, just so that we are clear about how we know this information, the global atmospheric parts per million is measured from Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano on the planet, having erupted 33 times since 1848. And what do active volcanoes do? They constantly emit CO2 into the atmosphere and volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from human emitted CO2 in terms of its carbon isotopic fingerprint. There are 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 sea floor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. I don't think it would be controversial to state that measuring global atmospheric CO2 from the side of one of them is not best practice.(1)
It is also distinctly possible that human emitted CO2 has helped bring the earth back from the brink of catastrophe:
“It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.”(2)
I don't intend to give chapter and verse on the reams of evidence that give the lie to the climate change scam, just to point to several more salient facts. We are currently living through an interglacial, an interlude between two Ice Ages, and given the fact that this interglacial has lasted 12,000 years so far (against an average of 10,000 years for at least the past 800,000 years), it seems possible that human emissions may have helped to delay a damaging reversal, historically caused by variations in solar activity. One other factoid; over the past 550 million years, there has been a gradual net loss of 98% of atmospheric CO2, one of the most essential nutrients for life. Thank God for human emissions. More, please.
But what about methane and the enormous damage we are told it can do? Ruminants are now in the cross-hairs for burping and farting. This is the reason that we are going to have to stop eating meat, apparently:
“Methane, CH4, which is measured in parts per billion is so rare that doubling the amount we have now would raise the equilibrium temperature by about 0.012 degrees Celsius … adding a lot more methane would have virtually no effect on climate. All climate scientists know this but many would lose their jobs if they said it.”(3)
The second argument holds that there is no evidence for any of it; warming temperatures, the causal effect of CO2, any other gas or the human element. It might, after all, be useful to know whether global temperature is indeed rising; not because more heat would be a bad thing (far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves) and not because we are concerned that humans are the ones making it happen (no scientist has ever measured the effect on climate of CO2 added by humans) but just to establish that it is, in fact, happening at all.
Once more, as with absolutely everything that our lords and masters insist is true, there is no such certainty. Temperature has not risen since 2015, which is strange given that we are told that more CO2 means more heat – a pause isn't possible in this scenario. This is probably why they say that the science is settled. Then the actual data doesn't get examined. However, people who are confident in their positions don't shut down debate.
The point is that these facts are well known, if little publicized. Climate policy is, therefore, not based on settled science, but on something much less substantial; ideology. We are hurtling towards a disaster not because of global warming, but because of the counter measures that are deemed necessary in order to avert an outcome that's never going to happen, anyway. That's how ideology works; first the inflexible belief and the desired outcome, then work backwards and shoehorn in whatever lies and misdirection are deemed necessary.
An obsession with CO2 fits the template, rather like Covid did. It's insubstantial and invisible. It's a complicated enough concept that experts are required in order to explain things to us drones, but not so complicated that the overall message is unclear – CO2 bad, heat bad, rising oceans bad. In fact, it's probably scarier because it's invisible, rather like a virus.
The obvious problems with the science can be smoothed away with the usual grab bag of tactics; because universities are Leftist nirvanas and because big business and government are all in it together, making sure the academy writes the right sort of peer-reviewed papers is a simple matter. Refuseniks and dissidents need not apply for funding. Play on the fact that the public is (or rather was) gullible enough to believe scientists in lab coats, even if most of the signatories and reviewers of the climate narrative have nothing to do with climate science. Shout down anyone who dissents, label them 'deniers', destroy a few careers pour encourager les autres and then start writing treaties and policies that have never been sanctioned by the public and never would be if they were told what was in them, all the while waving the 'proof' that they paid for in the air and insisting that the science is settled. If it all sounds a bit familiar, it's because it is. The same movie has been having its sequel with the 'pandemic'.
It's also necessary to keep the pot boiling, to ensure that nobody forgets that we are on the cusp of extinction and its all our own fault. A university probed some of these claims:
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”(4)
The apocalyptos have always had to have a bête noire to fit their personalities – an overpopulation crisis predicted in the 60s, a new Ice Age and mass starvation in the 70s, the 'end of oil' in the 90s. As Trump says,
“These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”(5)
The upshot of the manufactured crisis is, as previously noted, the UN's Agenda 21. The Democrat attempt to finally codify it is the Build Back Better Infrastructure Bill, or the Green New Deal. The big misunderstanding, which the globalists have been intent on fostering, is about what constitutes the sustainability that this agreement references continually. The public has been led to believe that the idea is that we will replace our current energy sources with alternatives and continue on with our lives largely unimpeded. This is not so. The idea is that drastically reduce our energy usage and curtail any activity that involves releasing 'greenhouse gases' into the atmosphere. This involves a dramatic downward adjustment in our standard of living. That is the essence of Agenda 21. All of its polices flow from this premise.
Here's what the medium term strategy should have been (whilst simultaneously building more nuclear power stations):
“With an abundance of American natural gas now available, our European allies no longer have to be vulnerable to unfriendly energy suppliers. We urge our friends in Europe to use America’s vast supply and achieve true energy security.”(6)
That was Trump at Davos, talking to the WEF, a few short weeks before the 'pandemic'. That is the strategy that every Western government should have pursued. Better to be in bed with your friends than your enemies. But perhaps they knew that Trump would be exiting stage left within a year and that Biden was going to ensure that America became a net importer again, which is precisely what he's done.
Instead, the long term strategy for the entire West is to eliminate carbon emissions. The US has pledged to have a carbon free electricity grid by 2035 and the UK has passed into law the requirement that the country is carbon zero by 2050. To get a handle on what this means, let's turn to an academic report (sponsored by the government, naturally), published in November 2019, just four months before the lock-downs, although that's obviously purely a coincidence. Some food for thought:
“The two big challenges we face with an all electric future are flying and shipping. Although there are lots of new ideas about electric planes, they won’t be operating at commercial scales within 30 years, so zero emissions means that for some period, we’ll all stop using aeroplanes.”(7)
“In addition, obeying the law of our Climate Change Act requires that we stop doing anything that causes emissions regardless of its energy source. This requires that we stop eating beef and lamb - ruminants who release methane as they digest grass - and already many people have started to switch to more vegetarian diets.”(8)
“All existing forms of cement production are incompatible with zero emissions.”(9)
“All coal, gas, and oil-fuel supply from extraction through the supply chain to retail must close within 30 years.”(10)
I may be a little old fashioned, but I believe that banning flying and the eating of meat aren't things that anybody has consented to. And it's no use thinking that these are just the ideas of some fringe lunatics who will never get anywhere near government. This is what will be required to meet the terms of legislation that the actual government has already passed. So, unless it's somehow revoked, it's going to happen.
That's the UK, but elsewhere will be similar because there will be no access to finance for companies unless they abide by sustainability targets which will mean that these outcomes are targeted by default, no matter what we say. The report is worth a read – this is not a joke. This is coming; they are telling us so.
As is usually the way when government wants to introduce unpopular measures for which they have no mandate, lies and subterfuge are the order of the day. In the US, although the main Infrastructure Bill (aka Build Back Better) is mired in committee after two Democratic senators refused to back it, some measures have already been approved in the sister bill, H.R.3684. It is here, among other abominations, that we find the following laws:
a) New vehicles will now have inbuilt kill switches on the engines, which will be controlled by the state via 5G.
b) The SMART technology will also be able to dictate when you use a vehicle.
c) New vehicles will also feature integrated payment systems and a per-mile driving fee.
How did those provisions get through without any of this becoming public knowledge? Because 19 Republicans voted for it, along with the Democrat caucus of 50. I get the very strong feeling that the fabric of American life is being rewoven rapidly, yet without the approval or knowledge of the people. It's impossible to believe that Americans, particularly, would approve of any law that tells them when they can drive their own vehicle and which cuts off the fuel on a governmental whim.
To give ourselves a little perspective on what the long term strategy is attempting to achieve by transitioning from fossil fuels; only 5% of global energy production is from wind and solar, 84% is from coal and gas and the bulk of the remainder is from nuclear.(11) And note that the two biggest CO2 emitters are China and India and they have no intention of committing economic hari-kari, unlike the West. They have been clear about that for the past thirty years and yet still the Anglosphere and most of Europe press on with policies that will have no effect, not that any effect is actually required, because the climate crisis doesn't exist.
If we want to see where we will all end up, just check out California. They are the cautionary tale with rolling blackouts, TV ads pressuring people to 'power down between 4pm and 9pm' – the time when everybody uses the bulk of their daily electricity – and a stated commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.(12) There is only way this can be achieved:
“The model for governance that California is implementing, with the wholehearted approval and complicity of other blue states accompanied by the elites of most of the western world, is oligarchy. They have determined that a middle class lifestyle cannot be sustained in America, much less exported to the aspiring nations of the world, and oligarchy, or neofeudalism, is their answer.”(13)
There's more. New vehicles sold in the US will have to average 49 miles per gallon by 2026, not 32mpg as under Trump.(14) There will be speed limiters on all new EU cars as of July 6th. The SMART tech will reduce your fuel flow until you reduce to the correct speed. It's for your safety, you understand.(15) To that end, according to the Americans:
“We must redouble our efforts to decarbonize our economies, recognizing that countries will use a range of tools—including carbon pricing, regulation, and subsidies—to achieve needed emissions reductions. Because those approaches will have quite different consequences for the costs of production, we will see differing impacts on trade competitiveness. We will need to work together to avoid trade tensions and in time to coordinate and harmonize our approaches.”(16)
As previously noted, we need to do no such thing, but the globalists can see opportunity beckoning. Never ones to let a good crisis go to waste (and never needing to as they created the crisis themselves and can end it any time they wish), they now speak of a 'green recovery'. To them, that means taking the opportunity to build back greener. Note that the 'pandemic' and the 'climate crisis' have nothing in common, other than both being fake. There is no connection between renewables and Covid but, given that science is settled, it would be a shame to reconstruct the world as it was, when it could be so much greener. It's uncanny how much of this agenda seems to be ready-made. It's almost as if the 'pandemic' was all part of the plan.
There's certainly some co-ordination in the messaging. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the lower house of Congress, is on the record as saying that we can't let higher gas prices be an excuse to produce more American energy. Biden's economic advisor told us that the only way that America can be energy independent is by eliminating fossil fuel consumption, forgetting that America was energy independent as recently as 2019. The White House Communications Director stated that the sanctions that they have voluntarily imposed on Russia show that dependence on fossil fuels is unsustainable.
Figure 1
None of them are saying anything that makes sense or is even vaguely true, but they are signalling a direction of travel and that direction is away from fossil fuels at breakneck speed. It's the classic trick that they are so fond of; create a problem, ignore the obvious solution and go with the third way. So, in this case, don't produce more fuel to sustain standards of living and reduce fuel costs. Just coerce people into reducing consumption by passing legislation on the quiet and effectively crushing the middle class.(17)
It's a war on the people. The White House bemoans the fact that, without government policies in place, consumers would continue purchasing “artificially inexpensive, carbon intensive goods.” We can't have that. So, the solution will be a carbon tax, where energy providers pay a tax for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally, they won't actually be paying anything. We will. They just keep piling on the misery.(18) And to make sure we don't slack off, the US government has pledged to squander more tax dollars in establishing a new Office of Environmental Justice. As the US Attorney General made unclear, in the sort of word salad beloved of all politicians:
“In our environmental enforcement efforts, we will prioritize the cases that will have the greatest impact on the communities most overburdened by environmental harm. Communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution and climate change.”(19)
It should be obvious that climate change is racist, because everything is too. And, seeing as how the bulk of the green recovery legislation isn't getting through Congress at the moment, the regime is forced to turn to other well established means of getting what they want without bothering to involve the electorate in the decision.
As we move from strategy to tactics, we will see events moving quickly. This is clearly deliberate (how could it not be when it involves conscious decision making) and a product of some horrible brew of certitude – with the fanatics – and possibly panic from those elitists still capable of rational thought. It was always likely that they would only, initially, have two years in which to wreak as much havoc as they could. They have wafer thin majorities in both houses of Congress and the loss of one Senate seat would ensure that any legislation from that point onwards would have to rely on Republican turncoats, of which there are a number, but even so. True bipartisanship is not high on the list of Democrat priorities; claiming that it is important to them is, of course.
So, the usual elite play-book goes something like this:
Gaslight the public about the real situation; importantly, blame someone else for the crisis. Anyone else will do, but there are extra points available if the Russians can be finagled into it, somehow.
Utilize rules and regulations that carry the force of law without actually passing any legislation. This works equally well when proposed bills are stalled or when you don't want the details of what's coming anywhere in the public domain.
Distract the public eye with any amount of click-bait nonsense and then, if the stipulated opposition won't play ball, launch a false flag operation (or several) and blame them anyway.
Use nominally independent supranational (unelected) organisations to do your dirty work for you, thus allowing for plausible deniability.
So, in ongoing attempts to gaslight the public, Putin's price hike has pride of place. However, as usual, they're lying through their teeth. Russian oil is 3-4% of US crude oil imports.(20) Biden reaches out to OPEC and the Saudis (individually) for more oil, then Iran, Venezuela and yet Canada has the third largest reserves in the world and they haven't even been asked for help. That's because the US could guarantee that the others would say no, whereas Canada would have said yes and that would never have done.(21)(22)
From day one, with the Executive Orders stopping the construction of the Keystone pipeline and cancelling oil and gas leases on federal land, the price of energy began a steady rise. The administration then just ignored the judiciary, even though prices were still skyrocketing and despite the fact that the court stated that their grounds for freezing the leases is ideological, not factual, and completely arbitrary.(23) Then, in May 2021, Biden issued another EO, this time with the intention of de-funding energy companies.(24)
On November 30th, 2020, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in America was $2.21.(25) Now, it's $4.25. It was over $4 by Christmas 2021, well before Putin's invasion. The oil price is calculated on current events and on what events are anticipated in the short to medium term. Hence, a decision about the pipeline and about future drilling, plus the further targeting of oil companies caused the steady increase in energy prices.
Inflation (largely fuel and housing driven) was already at a 40 year high by December. Even the WEF knows that.(26) Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made matters marginally worse, but the price of OPEC crude oil is currently around $107 a barrel but it was $76 in July 2021 (having been $14 in April 2020) and $90 by end of January this year, well before the war.
And the second tactic, the rules and regs approach? Easy. Crush consumers with the heavy burden of what is known as ESG, an acronym for Environmental, Social and Governance; the three broad categories of interest for 'socially responsible investors'. American energy firms, seeing which way the regulatory wind is blowing, are investing in renewable energy projects to the tune of $140 billion both this year and next.(27) Of course, that money isn't going to come from the personal accounts of the directors of these companies; the cost will be passed on to consumers.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the body that regulates Wall Street, is launching its own regulatory drive. It didn't come up with the initiative all on its own, mind you. It's been helped with its thinking by private investment companies who manage a combined $140 trillion and whose primary concern is apparently preventing the climate catastrophe that is clearly gathering pace all around us, rather than simply making money; allegedly. The idea is that companies which don't play their part in reducing their carbon footprint (and that of everyone they have dealings with) will be de-funded. It's that brutal. This is broadly how it works:
“Making a box of Cocoa Puffs is a complicated global affair. It could start with cocoa farms in Africa, corn fields in the U.S. or sugar plantations in Latin America. Then thousands of processors, transporters, packagers, distributors, office workers and retailers join the supply chain before a kid in Minnesota, where General Mills is based, pours the cereal into a bowl. Now imagine the challenge that General Mills faces in counting the greenhouse gas emissions from all of these people, machines, vehicles, buildings and other products involved in this Cocoa Puff supply chain – then multiply that by the 100-plus brands belonging to the food giant. Thousands of public companies may soon have such a daunting task to comply with a new set of climate rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.”(28)
The idea is that companies that actually want to be funded by financial behemoths like BlackRock and State Street will need to be making strides to be carbon neutral by 2050. However, funds won't be flowing their way until they've answered every last question and given the required information, which is going to be extremely difficult to do. As can be seen from the above example, ESG is a many headed hydra which will reach well beyond the supplicant business and into all aspects of its operation. It will be used to coerce compliance with whatever climate change goals the investors are currently enamored with.
“Large corporations, in cahoots with government regulators, don’t mind such intrusiveness because their size enables them to absorb the costs while their less favored competitors and smaller businesses get squeezed out. from fossil fuel producers. Forcing publicly traded companies to examine their impact on the climate amounts to an absurd guessing game and an inexorable defunding by banks and investors of energy companies that produce oil, gas, and coal, which is well under way. Investors will shift away from such businesses that threaten their portfolios’ regulatory compliance. Companies out of favor with the Biden regulators, in turn, will produce less domestic energy...”(29)
Additionally, the 'pandemic' lock-downs reduced demand for energy. The industry shed workers and is now encountering problems finding them again. Not only that, but there are supply chains problems for things like pipes and sand for fracking.(30) And, to cap it all, those same investment companies pressuring the SEC for ESG regulations are also insisting that oil companies pay more dividends and buyback more of their own shares in order to keep the stock market propped up. This all means that investment in drilling is much reduced, which one feels was the intention all along.
Let's not forget the hand off to a supranational organisation either. This time it's the world renowned International Energy Agency who I'd never heard of either - yet another unelected quango, and a policy advisor to states in achieving (you've guessed it), sustainable energy production. They want things like car-free Sundays in cities, restrictions on other days, working from home, the whole nine yards.(31) I say 'want', I mean 'demand'. As I am confident that the moving parts of the overall strategy are co-ordinated and as the major clients of the IEA include the entire Anglo-sphere, it's reasonable to assume that it's their job to soften us up with some advance warning. Expect governments to start parroting the same lines.
It's not just the US who are going through the mill. Germany is once gain in the vanguard and, despite being the country least well equipped to resist an energy crisis - due to their reliance on foreign imports (Russian, in particular) - they are making one stupid decision after another. Three nuclear power stations, that could be kept on while the crisis plays itself out, are still going to close this year, because the ideological debate on the desirability of nuclear power is over (more of that settled science) and will not be reopened.(32)
Germany relies on Russia for 55% of its natural gas, 53% of its coal and 32% of its mineral oil. So the sensible thing to do would be to deliver lethal arms to Ukraine, help cut Russia off from the SWIFT financial system and freeze the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline agreement. Expecting no retribution for following the US like a lapdog is breathtakingly arrogant and, sure enough, it turns out that, as well as screwing their own population over in pursuit of climate goals that are arrant nonsense, biting the Russian hand that feeds doesn't go well either.(33)
They've already had a warning shot across the bows, when Russia reversed the flow of gas through the Yamal pipeline, so that it flowed eastward across Poland.(34) And so, Germany, along with other Western countries who participated in the sanctions against Russia (including the random seizure of Russia's foreign reserves), all find themselves in a tight spot. Unwilling to risk more transactions in dollars, the Russians have demanded payment in rubles. Poland has found itself on the receiving end and, if they aren't getting any, neither is Germany, not that they're telling.(35)
Figure 2
Although no European nations were initially prepared to admit as much, Russia says that four of them have paid in rubles and another six have opened accounts with the supplier. The EU is saying that paying in rubles will violate the sanctions which, depending on your perspective, gives countries an excuse for resisting Russian pressure or paints them into a corner.(36) However, Uniper, one of Germany's largest gas importers, has seen the light and bowed to Russian pressure. They, at least, will pay in rubles.(37)
And it looks as if the German state is starting to come around to a more rational position on ESG and perhaps even the green agenda in it's entirety. As well as realizing that, just perhaps, they should discharge their primary duty to their people by not plunging them into turmoil by immediately boycotting Russian oil and gas, they are seemingly coming to the overdue conclusion that renewables are a disaster. To that end, they have rejected EU plans to label which economic activities are renewable and which are not (along US lines) and are even encouraging the UK to bite the bullet and do likewise:
“Germany is taking radical steps to remove obstacles and potential threats to energy security amid the looming ban of Russian energy imports. Britain needs to follow suit if it doesn’t want to worsen the energy cost crisis and suffer severe competitive disadvantage.”(38)
I'd be very surprised if Boris heeded their advice. The UK is the Western country that is the furthest down the green path and, even though the best plan would be to put the country back on the gas-to-nuclear trajectory – both in terms of lower prices and lower emissions (39)– the political will to unravel the fruits of decades of climate activism does not yet exist, and it may never do so.
I think, in general, the implementation of the green recovery plan (including ESG) depends on how fast various countries feel they can normalize energy shortages with their voters. The Italians, as with Covid mandates and upcoming digital IDs, seem to be more enthusiastic than most. They think that the way to deal with the energy crisis allegedly provoked by the Ukrainian conflict is to introduce the rationing of air conditioning, to reduce the dependence on Russian energy. So, the government (on behalf of the people) manages policy ineptly and over-commits to a potentially problematic supplier. They then participate in sanctions against said supplier when it oversteps the mark – as defined by that same government – and the people then have to dial their AC down to complement government policy. Probably the shape of things to come in most places.(40)
What Western governments are not keen to tell you is that the sanctions are doing exactly what Germany said they would do – hurt the West more than Russia.
Figure 3
It's not solely about whether Russia sells more oil; it's also about the price at which they sell it. But, once again, we have to step back from our natural assumption that western policies such as sanctions are primarily aimed at punishing Russia. A high school kid with a room temperature IQ could have forecast that the price they got for their product would go up because of sanctions.(41) The Secretary of the US Treasury just about reaches that standard:
”Europe clearly needs to reduce its dependence on Russia with respect to energy. But we need to be careful when we think about a complete European ban on say oil imports. We want to harm Russia – that would clearly raise global oil prices would have a damaging impact on Europe and other parts of the world. And counterintuitively it could actually have very little negative impact on Russia because although Russia might export less, its price for its exports would go up.”(42)
What is certain is that even partial elimination of Russia's oil in Western markets will have a profound effect. None of the oil producing regions have regained pre-pandemic production. And what happens when there isn't enough oil to go around, because finding new supplies is not a going concern any more?
“When there isn’t enough crude oil to go around, the naive belief is that oil prices will rise and either more oil will be found, or substitutes will take its place. In fact, the result may be conflict and elimination of segments of the economy.”(43)
Figure 4
And those segments of the economy will be those already singled out for destruction by the likes of the UK government – airlines, meat producers and cement makers prominent among them. It's difficult to overstate the impact that ESG will have on our lives. If a sector is de-funded, it won't just be a case of things being more difficult to source and a little scarcer. They simply won't exist any more and, what's more, the normal competitive market will have disappeared and we will be unable to rely on innovators picking up the slack, because they won't get the funds necessary to finance themselves. ESG will be suffocating.
All important parties – the state, regulators, big business and the media – are all pulling in the same direction. It seems astonishing that governments have been allowed to fudge all matters climate change for so long – or, more accurately, it's an indictment of our democracies and evidence of their inadequacy in reigning in authoritarianism. If there was ever any doubt that there is an elite class that does its own thing, regardless of the voters, then the sanctions on Russia should dispel it.
The hopelessly naïve or simply inattentive still believe the sanctions are hitting the 'wrong' people and even those with a firmer grip on reality are having difficulty understanding that the Western reaction to the war in Ukraine is achieving some of the most important aims of the Green New Deal. This is highly unlikely to be coincidental, firstly because it's the same people still telling us reams of lies about the 'pandemic' and, secondly, because it is following hard on the heels of the rejection of the Build Back Better bill in late 2021. The combination of the regulatory introduction of ESG and excuse provided by the war allow the Green New Deal by the back door. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
And, finally, watch out for ye olde false flag operation. If events are moving too slowly for the globalists, they have any and all cards up their sleeve and they have prepared for its deployment in the now familiar way. The Biden administration has warned us rubes that the words 'Russia' and 'cyberattack' are synonymous.(44) Others have put a little flesh on the bones of such assertions, pointing to the criminally vulnerable patchwork of Western energy infrastructure as a likely target. It's worth noting that, were an attack to happen, we (the general public) wouldn't actually have any first hand knowledge of who was the guilty party; we'd be relying on governments to inform us. Need I remind you, once again, how badly that could go?
Next time around, the coming food crisis and the supply chain snafu. It's all of a piece.
Citations
(1) https://principia-scientific.com/a-volcano-eruption-can-emit-more-co2-than-all-humanity-why-worry/
(3) https://shortfall.blog/climate-curious-513ccfeb8a7f
(4) https://phys.org/news/2021-02-citing-uncertainty-decreases-faith-science.html#google_vignette
(5) https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/30/trumps-climate-challenge-to-the-gop/
(7) http://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
(8) Ditto
(9) Ditto
(10) Ditto
(12) https://energyupgradeca.org/time-of-use/
(13) https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/11/oligarchs-want-us-to-power-down-so-they-can-power-up/
(18) https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/18/joe-biden-clean-energy-fossil-fuels-taxes-economy/
(21) https://www.theblaze.com/news/sonya-savage-biden-oil-gas
(22) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/canadian-energy-official-says-america-thinking/
(25) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/snyder-are-gasoline-prices-being-pushed-higher-purpose
(26) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/inflation-39-year-high-consumer-price-index-us
(27) https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/21/consumers-utilities-energy-renewables-natural-gas/
(30) https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/02/energy/us-oil-production/index.html
(31) https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/05/02/iea-demands-climate-lockdowns/
(33) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-gas-oil-boycott-mass-poverty-warns-germany
(36) https://finance.yahoo.com/news/four-european-gas-buyers-made-091649434.html
(37) https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/German-Energy-Giant-To-Pay-For-Russian-Gas-In-Rubles.html
(38) https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/05/05/calls-for-boris-johnson-to-put-esg-on-ice/
(39) https://www.netzerowatch.com/radical-plan-to-end-the-energy-crisis/
(41) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russian-fossil-fuel-revenues-double-despite-western-sanctions
(42) https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0736
Figure 1 US Energy Information Administration
Figure 3 https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/full-embargo-russian-oil-would-send-brent-185bbl-jpmorgan
Figure 4 Gail Tverberg
https://www.ourfiniteworld.com