“The most powerful and destructive perception in the world today is that using fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. This belief, marketed by every major government and corporate institution in the Western world, is the foundational premise underlying a policy agenda of stunning indifference to the aspirations of ordinary people....It is not possible to reason with an opponent of fossil fuel if you concede their fundamental premise: that burning fossil fuel will cause catastrophic climate change. You either become a “denier,” or you submit to energy poverty.”(1)
For some considerable time, most of us have been largely unaware of the extent of the impact that the global warming cultists have had upon us. This isn't because that impact has been minor – far from it. But it wasn't something that our elites were keen to bring to our attention, nor were the policies that were responsible for it ever a crucial enough point of difference in political manifestos. At no point were most of us obliged to choose between the alarmists and the deniers and, to my knowledge, there is no country in the collective West that has ever had an honest debate on the subject; for obvious reasons, as the evidence for the Establishment position doesn't exist. However, all sides of the political spectrum have been prepared to acquiesce in the fiction and no significant opposition has ever been given a platform. It's emblematic of the ersatz democracy that we have succumbed to.
And so, for at least thirty years, a vast array of laws, treaties, accords, rules, regulations and guidelines have been imposed upon us, without us ever having agreed to the premise that underpins them all – namely that man made emissions are destroying the world we live in and something must be done about it. What's more, the political class have absolutely no intention of ever letting us have a say, especially now when, despite having guided the project into the home stretch, they are gradually becoming aware of the fact that very few members of the wider public share their synthetic enthusiasm (at best), or are coming around to the view that they're being had (at worst).
This societal awakening had been turbo-charged by the Covid debacle; in particular, by the experts' manipulation of the science (which is increasingly apparent) and by the casual authoritarianism that was revealed to be the elites' second nature. I suspect that other events have also had an effect – Trudeau's diva-like disposition, the coup and counter-coup launched by the Conservative Party, Macron's small man syndrome and the blatantly stolen election that installed a cognitively impaired imposter in the White House have all served to further undermine trust in the Establishment and leech its credibility on multiple topics, not merely the one at hand.
Public credulity may be dissipating rapidly, but that doesn't mean that our lords and masters are minded to tread carefully. With the arrogance we are increasingly coming to recognize, the elites have simply doubled down. Perversely (or perhaps, unavoidably, given that they are beyond the point of no return), they've chosen to unleash a welter of new measures to combat 'climate change', some of which have already been tried elsewhere with predictably disastrous consequences.
Most of us will be dimly aware of last year's collapse of the Sri Lankan economy and of the ongoing battle between the Dutch farmers and their WEF infused government, even if the exact details may escape us. South Africa is also on life support due to the green agenda (and endemic corruption). I shall detail the travails of these front line combatants next time around. This essay is dedicated to an attempt to demonstrate just how many of the measures that are the authors of our current and future woes rely on the global warming scam for their legitimacy. If we wish to avoid the fate that the elites have in store for us, we must gird our loins and tear down the edifice. This has always been so – it's just becoming more and more difficult to ignore.
A recap, before I dive in, in no particular order. Global warming isn't currently a thing and hasn't been since 1998 at the latest. There was warming in the early part of the last century, as there should have been given that the Earth was recovering from a Little Ice Age. Man's effect on the climate is unknowable, as previously established, but we can be confident that his emissions of CO2 are not a driver of catastrophic global warming. For a start, atmospheric CO2 may still be rising (that's what we are being told, anyway), but temperature isn't. This is because climate history shows us that, while there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, it's the opposite of what is claimed – a rise in temperature precedes an increase in atmospheric CO2. And, surprise, surprise, the Sun is the primary driver of global climate.
CO2 levels and temperature have been far higher in the pre-Industrial Age. Additionally, the methodology used to measure the level of atmospheric CO2 is deeply flawed and almost certainly inaccurate. However, more CO2 would be a good thing anyway, as current levels aren't much above subsistence levels for the human race. Carbon is also the primary component of all known life on Earth – to categorize it as a pollutant is risible. Further, water vapor is by far the most effective greenhouse gas (responsible for 95% of the effect). Lastly, it is transparently moronic to hold that all changes in the climate prior to the twentieth century were caused by natural variation, yet all the changes since are solely the result of human activity.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”(2)
All of which means that any policy based on reducing man made emissions of CO2 is a waste of time and effort and there is better value elsewhere. However, that would be to assume that those responsible for such matters are faithful servants of the people and, as we are now painfully aware, they are not and haven't been for some considerable time, which is why they insist that the pursuit of Net Zero is the defining mission of our lifetime. This, despite the fact that what Net Zero actually is and how it can be achieved is not up for discussion for all the usual reasons; firstly, because there is no definition that is anything other than deficient in at least one important regard and, secondly, because if the elites were to be specific about the nature of the societies they are seeking to mould, the backlash would be extreme.
I'll start with Net Zero and work backwards, simply because it's a phrase that we are going to hear a lot more of. Presently, the latest impostor to occupy 10 Downing Street is the Net Zero poster-boy but, given that it is allegedly the Holy Grail of the cult, others will jump on the bandwagon soon enough. However, from the outset, we must remember that the elites don't believe any of this nonsense themselves. Yes, there is the usual array of hysterical wokesters superglueing themselves to motorways, but they are essentially a collective psychological condition in search of an obsession.
They are simply useful idiots, who are controlled by whoever it is that is really pulling the strings – for want of a better designation, the globalist Deep State - and the latter cannot believe in man-made global warming because there is no evidence of it, as detailed in Vineyards in Greenland. If there really was such as thing as anthropogenic global warming and if it truly was undeniably 'settled science', wouldn't the proposed plan be rather more inclusive than it is? Wouldn't everybody be pulling hard in the same direction?
China: 10,175
United States: 5,285
India: 2,616
Russia: 1,678
Japan: 1,107
Germany: 618
Indonesia: 494
Korea, Rep.: 611
Saudi Arabia: 582
Canada: 577
Total Top 10: 23,950
CO2 reported in Million MtCO2e.(3)
China emits 42% of the world's CO2 and is planning to increase its emissions to an average of 13,800 over the next five years, by which time the country will be responsible for as many emissions as the rest of the top ten together.(4) Any plan that doesn't include them clearly isn't credible. But can you hear the howls of anguish from the West, the accusations that the Chinese are hell-bent on destroying the globe? The threats of military action over their denialism?
Figure 1
No, you can't, because man-made global warming isn't real. The globalists' are simply using the scare as a tool and a very effective one, at that. Every single mechanism of control that currently exists, and most of those that are planned, rely on the maintenance of the global warming fiction now that the state of emergency occasioned by a fake pandemic has been lifted. Even the few mechanisms that aren't being justified primarily by the climate change narrative will be part of it soon enough.
Digital money may simply be introduced with no real fanfare or rationale, other than a vague assurance that the transition to a cashless society is necessary if money-laundering is to be curtailed; perhaps, they'll also tack on a further justification, which is that it will make their ability to manage economies better. It's not difficult to envisage a scenario whereby governments explain that they then need to use the digital system to monitor (dictate) what we spend our money on, to allow them to control the carbon footprint of industry. This, in turn, leads explicitly to the social credit score, even if it is limited to personal CO2 emissions – there will be no need to acknowledge the ability to control speech, as well as consumer behavior, although that will also be a reality in short order. Witness the UK's Online Safety Bill and Ireland's thought crime legislation.(5)(6)
Every aspect of the response to 'climate change' is not what it seems. Everything to do with the Green Agenda is premised on lies. And I do mean everything. There is absolutely no reason why we should reduce our usage of fossil fuels, unless we are of the view that they are a finite resource and we should, therefore, pivot more decisively towards nuclear power. Unsurprisingly, this is not a course of action that finds favour with the zealots, either. More on that shortly. In the interim, if we are being forced to give up oil, coal and gas (but not because of global warming), then there must be another hidden motivation.
The drive for Net Zero provides us with some clues. Firstly, however, it would be useful to know what Net Zero actually means:
“Net zero refers to a state in which the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.”(7)
This is supposed to be accomplished by 2050, according to the Paris Climate Accords of 2015. Three observations; firstly, the reference is to 'greenhouses gases' (GHG) rather than just CO2. Secondly, one would expect that the amount of greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere could be calculated. And, lastly, one would also expect to be able to calculate how much GHG is being removed, even if this latter figure may well bear little relation to reality, as we have a wholly incomplete understanding of the natural processes involved and the extent of Nature's adaptive ability – in fact, given other examples of recently discovered natural heat sinks and underwater volcanoes that we were previously unaware of (but which have a considerable impact on the proportion of atmospheric CO2), we might sensibly conclude that we cannot, in fact, calculate this figure accurately. This being so, a sensible person might have some humility and use the resultant numbers as hypotheses to be tested, rather than facts upon which trillions of dollars of expense and a re-ordering of human societies can be based. Inevitably, that isn't what's happened.
Instead, the globalists have committed us to limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (generally held to be pegged to the year 1850). Allegedly, we are already 1.1°C higher, which may or may not be true. The date has, nonetheless, been carefully chosen, as this was the end of the Little Ice Age, at which time temperatures rose naturally. However, according to NASA and despite much obfuscation, the warmest years from the last century were in the 1930s and global temperatures have not risen (and have likely fallen) since 1998.(8)
It should also be noted that 1.5°C is an entirely random threshold with no basis in science; it's simply a political invention, nothing more. There is no reason to suppose that, even if this warming were to occur, homo sapiens would be in any danger. It's much more likely that our already abundant food supply (albeit, less abundant than it was – by design) would be further enhanced.
In addition, if one tosses the data on the weather stations afflicted by the 'urban heat island' effect, the warming figure is halved and, since 1930, the planet has, in fact, cooled.(9) Certainly, the Northern Hemisphere (the hemisphere in which the globalists hold sway), has been cooling recently (10) and will continue to do so for the next fifteen to twenty years – regardless.(11) All of which might encourage the critical thinker to re-examine the GHG = global warming equation, but critical thinking has never been a feature of ideology, nor is it likely to be an attribute that will be encouraged by those further upstream, who have everything to gain by keeping the tip of the spear sharp. But, no matter – to return to our calculation.
Figure 2
From this chart, we are to assume that the other greenhouse gases (methane et al) roughly double the figure for CO2 alone although, as with much of the science in this field, 'adjustments' serve to obscure rather than illuminate. In this case, CO2 allegedly contributes nearly three quarters of the effect, with methane responsible for around 17%.(12) But paying too much attention to these numbers is pointless, as 95% of the warming effect of GHG is effected by water vapor, which doesn't feature in the equation.(13) CO2 and methane have a minor effect, but they are the Trojan horses of choice, as man can be said to be implicated in their proliferation through his activities.
So, if man is responsible for 50 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, how much of that is removed by natural processes? This figure would be vital information, would it not? Without it, how can anybody calculate what effort will need to be made to achieve Net Zero, if we were idiotic enough to think that such a thing was necessary? It may not surprise you to learn that this number is not known. At least, I couldn't find anyone prepared to offer one up, even when they explicitly set themselves the task of making the calculation. The automatic assumption was that Nature possesses no ability to absorb man-made CO2. The following excerpt is typical of the genre:
“The Formula For Net Zero:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Greenhouse Gas Removed From the Atmosphere = 0
To achieve net zero, governments and corporations must first focus on reducing anthropogenic emissions as much as possible. Vehicles and factories powered by fossil fuels should be slowly phased out, so renewable energy sources can later replace them.
However, some sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as aviation and agriculture, cannot be easily replaced or eradicated. For such cases, governments and communities must invest heavily in carbon removal methods and technologies.
Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere can compensate for some of the unavoidable anthropogenic emissions under our current circumstances. Carbon removal can be achieved through extensive afforestation, reforestation, and direct air capture and storage (DACS) technology.”(14)
Call me old-fashioned, but before governments “focus on reducing anthropogenic emissions as much as possible”, shouldn't they first have some sort of handle on why? And by how much? And how 'how much' is calculated? It seems not. As far as I can see, there is no attempt to ascertain what natural processes and adaptions actually exist in real life; there is just a computer model to be fed with what purports to be man's GHG emissions and the entirety of that number must be offset. However, it is known that a third of every kilo of carbon emitted by man is captured by trees, leafs and the soil. And even a climate change enthusiast, in the midst of an article accusing the EU of cheating with its emissions targets, had this to say about Nature's abilities:
“What is usually overlooked though is that since the beginning of industrialisation, most of the CO2 emitted (57%)* has been taken up by natural processes. In fact, while emissions from fossil fuels, cement production and deforestation have been growing exponentially (at 1.65% a year since 1850), my own research has found that natural sinks on land and in the ocean have been almost exactly keeping up with growth.*”(15)
Which information would appear to be moderately important, would it not? Instead, we find ourselves in the following situation. An entirely arbitrary number (1.5°C ) has been chosen as a threshold; there is no evidence to suggest that this rise in temperature would even be deleterious and much that indicates it would be advantageous. The time frame (1850 to the present) is wholly inappropriate due to the natural rebound in global temperatures after the Little Ice Age. It is claimed that increased atmospheric CO2 is responsible for an increase in temperature, whereas physical history demonstrates that the relationship is the inverse.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, as the proportion is currently languishing near the lower level needed to sustain human life on Earth. We cannot rely on our method of measuring atmospheric CO2, in any event. We cannot calculate what proportion of CO2 is absorbed annually. Water vapor is the most potent GHG (by far), yet it plays no role in Net Zero calculations. Instead, in the Janet and John world of the globalists, the following is true, instead:
“It is international scientific consensus that, in order to prevent the worst climate damages, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. Global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, which means that the planet will keep heating for as long as global emissions remain more than zero.”(16)
Despite all of the above, Western nations are committed to halving their GHG emissions by 2030 and achieving Net Zero by 2050. In the UK, by way of example, a reduction of 68% is required by the end of the decade.(17) If that seems like a very big number, it's because it is. The US figure of 50% is, too. Especially when the emissions sources are broken down and one can see what would need to go by the way if the target is to be achieved.
Figure 3
This is the trajectory that they have in mind for us.
Figure 4
And this is what the energy mix will look like at the end of it.
Figure 5
That is some serious shrinkage, especially in terms of transport, industry, power and agriculture – four reasonably important sectors, one might think. Of course, the claim is not that there will be no power; just no fossil fueled power. There is no overt marketing of the idea that there is an expectation of reduced consumption, just as there is no emphasis on CBDCs being the death of cash. In the energy sector, renewable energy sources are the solution; although not renewable energy sources that actually work (see nuclear, again) but ones that don't – in particular, wind and solar. In the field of travel, the electric vehicle (EV) will be king. This is the Utopian future that is in store for us; clean electricity powering everything, because of climate change.
It's worth noting that all is not what it seems in the field of electric vehicles. Teslas, for example, are constructed in a world in which 73% of the world's reliable energy is supplied by fossil fuels. Once it finds its way to an owner, it is entirely dependent on the electric grid. That electricity is again supplied (in large part) by a fossil fuel plant. This plant heats water into steam, which turns a steam turbine, which then turns a generator which produces power. The process is only 37% efficient.(18)
More efficiency is lost in converting the power for domestic use; the US has to reduce the 440V supply to 110V. In so doing, two thirds of the 37% is lost; 13.7% remains to be used to charge the car battery. By contrast, an internal combustion engine, while 14% efficient in city conditions, is 26% efficient on the highway.(19) These realities are reflected in monetary terms;
“...fueling costs from mid-priced ICE-powered vehicles are lower than similarly priced electric vehicles. Combustion drivers pay about $11.29 per 100 miles on the road. EV drivers who charge up at home spend about $11.60 per 100 miles. The price difference is more dramatic for those who mainly recharge at stations. Frequent charging station users pay $14.40 per 100 miles.”(20)
There are other unexpected factors that the zealots are not keen on us discovering. For instance, when the CO2 emissions needed to make the batteries for electric vehicles are taken into account (plus the emissions required to charge them), several studies have found that EVs come with higher emissions than diesel vehicles.(21)(22)(23) Further, the modern combustion engine is hugely efficient. Many achieve over 35 miles a gallon and have a range of over 500 miles. The tailpipe emissions, when compared to the 1960s, have been reduced by 98%-99%. There are also, clearly, many more refueling options – 115,000 of them in the US alone – which don't involve a two hour wait.(24)
So far, so stupid. Anybody still clinging to the notion that the people making decisions on our future are using 'settled science' in doing so probably needs a crash course in human nature. But there's plenty more evidence of wilful malfeasance and misdirection. The 'developed world', the repository of moral virtue signalling, is completely phasing out the production and sale of internal combustion engined cars. The rest of the world is paying lip service.
Figure 6
They will, no doubt, also find a way of regulating all used petrol and diesel cars out of existence. Already, there are 16.5 million EVs on the world's roads (or parked up being charged, anyway). The market share of new car purchases in 2021 was around 10%, up four times what it was just two years earlier, largely due to taxpayer subsidies and the prevailing political winds, one would assume. It's difficult to imagine that many people would voluntarily opt for an electric vehicle, after all. They're very heavy,(25) very expensive (26) and their range is anemic (225 miles on a good day, much less when the weather is uncooperative)(27), even if they can be persuaded to function in the first place. But...climate change.
Additionally, to meet the alleged international goal of two billion EVs by 2050, the world would have to mine at least three times the amount of lithium that it currently extracts. Unfortunately, any mention of the word 'mining' inevitably raises the climate cultists' blood pressure to dangerous levels, because of all the social and environmental harms, “in many places irreversibly damaging landscapes without the consent of affected communities.”(28)
Their logic dictates that, in cases like these, the views of communities should be sought – just not at any other time and certainly not with regard to the veracity of 'climate change', nor the policies spawned by a belief in it. Their solution is to say the quiet part out loud; the key is in “limiting the amount of lithium mining necessary by reducing the car dependence of the transportation system...”.(29)
Lithium is one of three vital minerals needed for car batteries – the others are cobalt and natural graphite. China is the world's leading producer of all three, a fact that seems to have eluded the American Secretary of the Interior,(30) who may also be unaware that China also produces three quarters of all lithium-ion batteries, 70% of the production capacity for cathodes and 85% of the production capacity for anodes.(31) A bottleneck for both minerals and finished products is inevitable.
Setting all that aside, the 'plan', courtesy of the International Energy Agency (IEA) – yet another supranational unelected quango - is that EVs market share will be 30% by 2030. It won't be; it'll possibly creep up to 20% by that date, but it would need to be 60% if the 2050 Net Zero target is to be met.(32)
You can presumably see the timing problem. The collective West will phase out any vehicle fitted with an internal combustion engine by 2035, at the latest, without there being the remotest possibility that there will be enough EVs to replace them. Some might call that a bug in the system, but it's actually a feature; it's too egregious an 'oversight' to be anything else. The experts in the energy field are also scratching their heads about other so-called anomalies, like the lack of a public charging infrastructure. Some seem to believe that it might be insufficient, which is a reasonably simple conclusion to come to when, in the US for example, the number of public chargers would need to expand nine-fold by 2030.(33)
The ability to charge an EV will be constrained in a domestic setting also. By constrained I, of course, mean made impossible. As even an academic, a group well versed in the art of making the compelling less so, has it;
“With aggressive vehicle electrification goals, there will be a lack of hosting capacity of today’s distribution networks in handling massive distributed energy resources and Evs.”(34)
'Charging from home' - just three little words that give no hint as to the complexity of the task. Firstly, the installation of the charging kit is likely to set you back $2,000. Those homes without an attached garage will be required to snake the power line across public pavements, those in apartments may not be able to charge at all. Do homeowners wish to leave windows open at night? Are they confident that the cables won't be vandalized?(35) There are a plethora of problems, including the not inconsiderable one of grid loading, but we must endure them because...climate change.
If every American switched to an EV, the US would have to produce 25% more electricity than it currently does; add in trucks and you can up that to 40%.(36) That would necessitate the construction of many new power plants and an upgrade of transmission systems. There are no plans for that to happen. The public charging system in most Western countries is pitiful. The Americans, leading the charge into the abyss, talk a good game and do very little to improve the situation.
Biden has pledged that he will install 500,000 new chargers, but progress has been lackluster.(37) Longer journeys in an EV are, therefore, particularly problematic, because even if meticulously planned around charging points, there is no guarantee that they will be available when required. Despite these myriad problems, some benighted administrations have already started restricting access to gasoline and diesel by banning the construction of new gas stations.(38)
So what conclusions are we to draw from measures that hugely add to demand on the existing grid, in combination with a lack of intent as to its expansion? What are to make of a collective West which legislates the internal combustion engine out of existence while simultaneously ensuring that its putative replacement will be unavailable in sufficient numbers? Would it be something like this?
Figure 7
Yes, it would. A sensible course of action, given the state of the electric grid, would be to restrict the number of electric vehicles, something which Switzerland and Wyoming are in the process of doing.(39)(40) As Reuters piously observed;
"We have to be very careful about turning system A off prematurely and depending on a system that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been proven."(41)
They warn that we are at risk of a disorderly transition. Once again, this assumes that the rest of the Western globalists are not speaking with forked tongue; but they are. A 'disorderly transition' is exactly what they have in mind. They know full well that an orderly transition would take decades,(42) but we don't have that time because...climate change. The Great Reset explicitly requires the breaking of the family china, because then the center can take control and Build Back Better. There is also the implicit assumption that a transition of any kind is, in fact, a necessity, when it isn't.
Clearly, thusfar, I've only examined the mismatch between what the conventional grid supplies, how it supplies it and what it will need to supply if fossil-fuels as an energy source for vehicles (in particular) are banned and, on this score, there is an obvious asymmetrical emphasis. There is much effort expended on banning traditional energy sources and almost none on finding viable solutions that not only replace the ability to meet existing demand, but also cater for providing perhaps 40% more. I used the word 'viable' advisedly, because much effort has been invested in renewable energy; it's just not going to be the answer, nor could it ever be.
“The obstacles confronting the “energy transition” are fundamental — they are caused by the very nature of unconventional energy — driven by massive costs, technical and engineering realities, severe constraints in terms of needed physical inputs, and at a political level growing local opposition to the unconventional energy facilities central to the “transition.””(43)
One might take comfort from the fact that such opposition is at least appearing in print. However, on closer inspection, it's predictably weak-kneed. Pretty much all contrary thinking comes for this same place, whereby it is assumed that the climate cultists and their enablers are suddenly waking up and realizing that their belief in the efficacy of an energy 'transition' is delusional. This is not a thesis that makes any sense.
The Rio conference that set this train in motion took place thirty years ago. The Paris Climate Accords were signed eight years ago. It is inconceivable that the necessary calculations were not at least done on the back of a fag packet decades ago – they know it can never work, if the intention is that we have a life that looks a lot like it does now. And that's being charitable and assuming that some of them, the most detached from reality, genuinely believe in their shtick. It's a racing certainty that most of them never even bothered to get the calculator out, as it wasn't a necessary component of the scam.
Because the 'transition' was never meant to work – it's simply the main mechanism for massive de-industrialisation, impoverishment and top-down control. Solar, Wind and Battery (SWB) cannot do the job and everybody in a position of influence knows it:
“Two decades of aspirational policies and trillions of dollars in spending, most of it on SWB tech, have not yielded an “energy transition” that eliminates hydrocarbons. Regardless of climate-inspired motivations, it is a dangerous delusion to believe that spending yet more, and more quickly, will do so. The lessons of the recent decade make it clear that SWB technologies cannot be surged in times of need, are neither inherently “clean” nor even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap.”(44)
As acidic as that statement may be, it still somewhat understates the true nature of the delusion. The following chart makes matters a little clearer.
Figure 8
Note that the storage figure has been forecast out to 2030, whereas Minnesota power use is for 2019, which predates any extra usage that will be inevitable if the 'transition' to EVs takes place as planned. At the current rate of transition, America alone would take 130 years to to create enough generating capacity to meet the demand for electricity in 2050 – another one of those timing issues. But, it's necessary to suck it up, because...climate change.
The technologies that are supposed to transport us to the sunlit uplands of Net Zero are the aforementioned wind and solar (plus the batteries necessary to store the power they create), a smattering of biofuels plus the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere via carbon capture. In the northern hemisphere, home to a majority of the nations which are fully invested in the cult, solar produces electricity 18% of the time. By that I mean any electricity, not 18% of its capacity.(45)
Obviously, night time production of energy is a non-starter, but they also cease to function when it's cloudy or when they are covered by snow. However, utility companies don't routinely clear snow off solar panel fields, because the cost of doing so outweighs the value of the energy the panels produce. That's how reliable solar is, but that doesn't stop their continued deployment.(46)
Wind power is equally unreliable, if the turbines can manage to stay upright, which is becoming increasingly problematic.(47) Their efficacy is far below what is advertised, as they obviously don't provide any power when there is no wind and they shut off when there is too much wind. Nominally, power creation through onshore and offshore wind-farms in the EU and UK is 235GB. In reality, it's a fraction of that.
Figure 9
The proposed nuclear power station at Hinckley Point in the UK will be able to generate 3,200 million watts. A wind turbine, at full capacity, can produce 600 watts per square metre. The UK is very keen on building offshore wind farms – indeed, it will double the number of them by 2030. Nonetheless, to simply match the output of one power station in permanently optimal conditions, would require 5,500,000 square miles of turbine swept sea.(48)
Wind turbines, as well as being hugely inefficient, are also an environmental disaster – although not one that the likes of Greenpeace are in any way bothered by. In the US alone, 235,000 turbine blades will be decommissioned by 2050. At present, there is no practical way of re-purposing them, so they simply languish in landfills.(49) While they're in use, they produce large number of fatalities among the bat and bird populations; in Germany alone, at least 200,000 and counting.(50) The blades can spin at 150mph and one study found that the slaughter of wildlife extended to priority species, which were suffering “population level effects”.(51) And yet, the activists stay silent. It's because of climate change, you see? It's a necessary sacrifice.
Their original construction is also problematic;
“...tall, string towers require a lot of construction materials that have... a considerable carbon footprint to create. Compared to the amount of "carbon free" electricity generated, the carbon emitted in manufacturing and construction of the towers may take many years to counterbalance. Consider that the relatively low electricity production of each tower (compared to a coal or nuclear fired plant) means that far more power transmission lines must be constructed, and there is a carbon footprint involved...”(52)
There's also a massive amount of infrastructure required – infrastructure that isn't being built and, in fact, is being actively waylaid. The 732 mile TransWest Transmission Project, which will carry 3,000 megawatts of wind power (or, more accurately, could carry if that amount of electricity was ever produced), has taken fifteen years to gain approval and will take another five years to construct.(53) However, if the United States is to generate 90% of its power through wind and solar by 2050, it will need to build 240,000 miles of transmission lines – or 328 times the length of the TransWest.(54) There is clearly very little prospect of that happening.
There would also need to be a serious upgrade in battery capacity. The Americans have had a stab at calculating the cost of doing so. At present, the US has less than 20,000 MWh or, next to nothing. It is estimated that they would require 250 million MWh, but a single MWh of grid battery costs $700,000:
“For 250 million MWh we get an astronomical total cost of $175 trillion dollars just to replace today’s fossil fuel-generated electricity needs with wind and solar...clearly this is economically impossible.”(55)
If the EV target is met, that cost could easily double. Or not, as there are not enough minerals in the world to make that many batteries.(56) So, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of that happening, either. And, to a large degree, the discussion is purely academic in nature. Wind and solar power are intermittent and unreliable and demand cannot, in any case, be matched to supply. An economy cannot run be with SWB technology and neither can domestic life as we know it.
The other Net Zero staples are equally arbitrary and unserious. Ethanol production, required to be a 99.8% pure end product for mixing with gasoline, uses 131,000 Btu's (British thermal units) of energy per gallon. This gallon has an energy value of 77,000 Btu's.(57) So, more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished product can then provide. A 2005 study found that, at best, some biofuels required 27% more energy than they subsequently produced. The worst offender (sunflower oil) used 100% more energy.(58) Further, as ethanol is made from crops that are traditionally foodstuffs (such as corn, sugar cane and palm oil), competition for the product will likely cause consumer prices to rise.
Carbon capture is, perhaps, the ugliest sister of them all. The concept is that CO2 is sequestered from the atmosphere, either from a power plant or directly from the air. The US government, in particular, is all in. It will pay power plants $85 a tonne for immediate capture at power stations and a whopping $180 a tonne directly from the air. This gas will then need to be transported to underground storage sites, so that it may never pollute the atmosphere again. It is, however, a very costly endeavor that has yet to find many takers. This will be solved by an EPA mandate, which will force many reliable energy suppliers to close,(59) which is clearly the idea. It's not only costly, though; it's also nonsensical:
“Capturing even half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would require capturing, transporting and storing 50 trillion cubic feet of gas annually, which is more than the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the United States produces each year.
To put this in perspective, just one trillion cubic feet... would wrap around the equator in a 30-by-30-foot band three times.”(60)
And it won't make a blind bit of difference to 'global warming', because CO2 isn't the primary driver of global temperatures. It might not help US food production much, though, but the globalists clearly aren't that fussed, judging by their repeated attempts to sabotage the food supply within the past eighteen months. Just to demonstrate that they are prepared to double down ad infinitum, Biden's administration (who are simply the pathfinders for all other Western regimes) is now going after household appliances.
At the top of the list is gas stoves. The Department of Energy, in the spirit of the age, is effectively writing legislation rather than enforcing laws passed by Congress. This time it's the introduction of a rule that would ban any stove that was not judged to be at a max-tech level – which would eliminate 96% of the products available. There is some unconvincing drivel about natural gas causing asthma in kids, which can only be asserted if one ignores a previous study of 500,000 kids spread over 47 countries which found no link,(61) but the true intention is clear enough; smaller burners, longer cooking times, all for an energy saving of $1.50 a year, per household.(62)
The proposed ban has nothing to do with the risk of asthma, as it comes at the same juncture as other proposed regulations, with a similar thrust, but which are nakedly justified by 'green' policies. These are entitled “Congressionally-mandated proposed standards” for reasons that are not immediately clear, given that Congress has had nothing to do with them. First up, it's dishwashers and washing machines; in the case of the former, the rules will cut water and power usage by 34% and 27% respectively. In the case of both, the 'energy savings' will dictate that they don't work properly, any more.
Next, I give you the incandescent light bulb, the climate scourge of our day. By banning the sale of them (which the DoE is about to do), they will effectively mandate LED bulbs for the entire nation in order to meet “President Biden's climate goals”.(63) Refrigerators are also in the firing line, with “new energy-efficient standards” pushing unit costs dramatically upwards; a looming ban on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) isn't likely to help, either. Not forgetting new rules for beverage vending machines, air-conditioning units and furnaces.(64) The climate change scam truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
So, Net Zero and all that flows from it is hugely unnecessary and hugely damaging; allowing the pursuit of it to continue unchecked will result in a catastrophic reduction in both personal autonomy and living standards. But it isn't an orphan child. It has a parent - and it has siblings. And so, to the genesis of the entire global warming scam, the manuscript upon which all measures so far discussed are predicated - UN Agenda 21. The Great Reset that we hear so much about is simply a synonym for it. It's the mechanism for the synchronisation of global systems, so that they might be centrally controlled. The 21 stands for the 21st century and the Agenda is an allegedly non-binding agreement signed up to by 178 countries, but which has been enthusiastically endorsed by all Western governments.
Agenda 21 is the master document for all the green policies that claim to be about preventing global warming, but are instead designed to strip the general population of choice in most areas of life; the ability to own a house in a location you desire, to travel, to eat what you want and much else besides.
The agreement involves a commitment to 'sustainable development', but the overriding ideology behind Agenda 21 (which has been around since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio) is communitarianism, which holds that an individual's rights are a threat to the global community. Apparently, property ownership, personal mobility and other life choices that we make individually are all potentially damaging to the 'environment' and must be subject to some sort of collective control, because we must “protect the rights of future generations and all species against the potential crimes of the present”.(65) And all because the UN knows best.
In true Orwellian fashion, we can only really be free when we give ourselves wholly over to the state, which makes all the decisions for us. We must be rationed, controlled, watched, regulated and restricted. Our rights must be constrained and limited to whatever rights the United Nations deems itself able to grant to the 'world community'. And the philosophical undergirding justifying these excesses? An intentional perversion of the precautionary principle which, in their version;
“...states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”(66)
Which is to deliberately get things backward. The term 'suspected risk' is wholly subjective and lacking in precision. It's not difficult to suspect that there might be the risk of harm, even in the complete absence of evidence. Those taking the action, who are now guilty until proven innocent, are obliged to attempt to prove a negative. Further, the risk/reward calculation (the basis for all effective risk assessment) is effectively canned.
The practical outcomes of thirty years of this type of thinking are widely felt. Each signatory nation has a General Plan, which is woven into the fabric of decision-making at all levels of government. In the United States, this has the catchy title of Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook:Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change.(67) Your country will have one, too. It'll be a blueprint governing every aspect of land use and its strictures will have formed a backdrop to our lives for at least two decades.
In the housing sector, future developments are being restricted to Priority Development Areas, which are small areas within city limits. Any land outside these arbitrarily designated areas will not be able to be built on. Rural and suburban communities will be gradually emptied into cities where more development areas will be identified and superimposed on local government. There will be more regional legislation and less local control; publicly accountable officials will be rarer than hen's teeth, which is exactly the point. The use of NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) as contractors introduces yet another layer of unaccountability.
A favorite trick, as ever, is to disguise their true intentions with misleading language. Often, the words 'redevelopment' and 'mixed use' will feature prominently, which usually means retail on the ground floor with apartments above. These projects are not easy to finance, so money that would otherwise have been allocated to maintenance of the existing built environment (via property taxes) is instead being used to 'redevelop' inner cities in this way.
Even more egregiously (in the US and, undoubtedly elsewhere as it'll be almost impossible for any bureaucrat to resist), an area can be declared 'blighted' and the property taxes for the area can be diverted to another area, where favored developers will build low-income, mixed-use housing, thus ensuring that the disfavored area of town will soon be genuinely blighted. High density urban development with no car parking is the goal; the attractively named Transit Villages.(68) That term is already prominent enough to earn its own Wikipedia page and glowing description:
“A transit village is a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use district or neighbourhood oriented around the station of a high-quality transit system, such as rail...often a civic square of public space abuts the train station, functioning as the hub or centrepiece of the surrounding community and encouraging social interaction. While mainly residential in nature, many transit villages offer convenience retail and services to residents heading to and from train stations.”(69)
Just don't be thinking that this village will look anything like the vision that the mention of the word conjures up currently. Mixed use apartment blocks don't usually feature prominently in traditional villages.
Figure 10
And don't imagine that you'll have the room to swing a kitten once you're ensconced in your new digs. These village apartments will be suitably miniscule, both as a favour to the tenants (energy costs being what they are) and as a vital bulwark against climate change; the less energy used to heat and cool a home, the less likely it is that runaway global warming will incinerate us.(70) These new urban developments have a minimum of privacy and frequently suffer from high vacancy rates, crime and poor maintenance. In the US and elsewhere, they are equipped with SMART energy and water technologies which allow agencies to limit usage without consent. Control of resources is clearly another of the essential building blocks of authoritarian rule.
Private land is also a major target;
“...private landownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice...public control of land is therefore indispensable.”(71)
It all sounds very familiar, doesn't it? We find an echo of this 'social justice' nonsense in many locations – in the insistence on equity (which is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity) and with the current fad for reparations. It also means that none of these apartments in transit villages will be privately owned; we will all be renters because, as the WEF were thoughtful enough to inform us, we will “own nothing and be happy” which, even by pantomime villain standards, was one of their more spectacular own goals.
Figure 11
I will devote an entire article to the concurrent campaign against private home ownership, because there is much detail to be laid out, but it is apparent that central banks are manipulating housing markets to the detriment of homeowners. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 onwards resulted in a huge transfer of property from the working class to Big Banking. The next impending implosion is shaping up similarly, with house prices soaring while interest rates were artificially low (sucking in the unwary) and now plunging while central banks are allegedly 'fighting' inflation by raising rates; buy high, forced to sell low.(72) Not a winning strategy. But, seeing as how single family housing (otherwise known as owning your own home) is now racist - inevitably – and unsustainable,(73) the bankers pretending that they are the ones occupying the moral high ground.
This is because Agenda 21/2030 lists a number of other activities that don't meet the UN's self defined metric of sustainability and are, therefore, legitimate targets for elimination. These include:
All forms of crop irrigation, pesticides and commercial fertilizers, except when approved for Big Business.
Livestock production and most meat consumption.
Private owned vehicles and personal travel.
Single family homes and suburban communities.
Most forms of mining and timber harvesting.(74)
This list is non exhaustive. Nonetheless, were these actions to be implemented, they would fundamentally degrade the American lifestyle and that of all other Western democracies. In fact, they already are. We can bear witness to the attack on fossil fuels, but the other categories are also coming under the knife. Fifteen minute cities are being imposed upon us because of the elites' attempt to enforce item 4 above.
“The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.”(75)
I guess that depends on your perspective. These are being rolled out globally; it's not just Oxford City Council's stroke of genius – Barcelona, Paris, Melbourne, Bogota... it's a lengthy list.(76) Like many of the globalists' plans, the concept seems relatively innocuous at first blush; certainly, one might not want to appear curmudgeonly by objecting. Everything that you might need within a fifteen minutes walk? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Well, firstly, the WEF is a cheerleader for them. That should immediately give pause. Secondly, they're “SMART cities”, which means they will be saturated with surveillance technology. Between now and 2040, for example, cities around the world are splashing trillions of dollars on cameras and biometric sensors.(77) By 2050, 68% of the world's population will live in urban areas just like these, according to the UN.(78) And it's not as if Oxford are simply indulging in a bit of urban renewal which one can take or leave:
“Oxford’s 150,000 residents will be allowed to use their cars as much as they like within their district and will be given free permits allowing them to drive to other districts on 100 days a year. If they exceed this limit, they will be fined, possibly £70 a journey or a day. A maximum of three permits a household will be allowed … The restrictions will take effect between 7 am and 7 pm, seven days a week, in four of the six districts, but not on Sundays in the other two.”(79)
And that's merely their opening offer. You can be confident that, if they succeed in foisting these restrictions upon the populace (complete with concrete bollards and surveillance cameras), things will go downhill rapidly. The contagion is already spreading unchecked; Birmingham City Council plans to turn park of the ring road into a park, the better to become “carbon zero”.(80) You see,
“as much as 60-70 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions come from cities, so the quest for greener urban solutions is urgent.”(81)
No, it isn't. And developments that are justified with lies and forced through regardless are obviously the fruits of an ulterior motive; even a concept that sounds wholesome, for the simple fact that they could have just invested in more local amenities, for our benefit, without the need for the false narrative of 'climate change', but they didn't. Instead, as per the General Plan, people are to be rounded up and packed into “islands of human habitation”, as the master document would have it.(82)
One can link the current furore about ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zones) to the same rationale; it's all about emissions and 'clean air'. London's mayor, the walking disaster that is Sadiq Khan, is expanding the scheme (which involves a daily charge for lorries, vans and cars which enter central London) to all London boroughs. These zones have also been imposed in eight other major cities throughout the UK. There will, inevitably, be more even though they are hugely unpopular.
The incoming Labour government (the Tories cannot possibly win the next election, given their execrable performance thusfar) are currently attempting to persuade the public that they have an open mind on the subject, but they're not doing a very good job of it.(83) It would be safe to anticipate that the war against motorists will intensify, no matter which wing of the Uniparty is nominally in power.
Interestingly, neither the Agenda nor the Accords are themselves law. That hasn't stopped the collective West from pretending that they are and, because they claim the original Agenda is binding, the Paris Climate Accords are also, because all they do is put a figure on encoded aspirations. The UK, in particular, has been fervently in favor of kneecapping its population and has enshrined the worst excesses of the Agenda and the Accords into its own Climate Change Act. Sportingly, the Establishment acknowledges that the future will not be plain sailing:
“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.”
“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.”
“All existing forms of cement production are incompatible with zero emissions.”
“All coal, gas, and oil-fuel supply from extraction through the supply chain to retail must close within 30 years.”(84)
The push for EVs and a grid that can't cater to them is starting to make sense now, isn't it? They don't want us driving around and they certainly don't want us flying anywhere, either. The United States has also sought to legislate their own Green New Deal and, through a mixture of unconstitutional Executive Orders, misleadingly named legislation (the Inflation Reduction Act) and bureaucratic overreach, they have largely succeeded. The recently approved US bill H.R.3684, for instance, contains the following provisions:
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 feature integrated payment systems and a per-mile driving fee.
There's more. New vehicles sold in the US will have to average 49 miles per gallon by 2026, not 32mpg as under Trump.(85) There will be speed limiters on all new EU cars, too, as of July 6th. If you commit the unpardonable sin of speeding, the SMART tech will reduce your fuel flow until you decelerate to the correct limit. It's for your safety, you understand (86) and, as a bonus, you also get to contribute to the fight against global warming.
While cars will still exist, incredible though it may seem to us now, most airplanes will be a thing of the past. In the UK, all airports other than Glasgow, Heathrow and Belfast must be closed by 2029 – and these three can only remain open if all transfers to and from them are done by rail.(87) This is supposed to be for some considerable time, so that the emissions target for 2050 can be hit; so, 20 years at least, then.
Figure 12
France is doing its bit to upstage les rost boeufs. They have already banned short haul internal flights of less than two and a half hours when there is a viable rail alternative, because of the absolute necessity to reduce the national carbon footprint.(88) Sadly, the scientific calculations that the ban is based upon have not been made public, which has somewhat compromised the official response to accusations that it is a piece of arbitrary virtue signalling.
In the ongoing attempts to gaslight the public and distract attention from the practical effect of these policies, various tactics have been deployed – on the spectrum between outright lies and studied ignorance – but 'Putin's price hike' has pride of place. As usual, they're lying through their teeth. Russian oil was just 3-4% of US crude oil imports and the loss of that supply would have had a negligible impact on domestic prices.(89) The truth is that 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.
A court judgement then stated that the grounds for freezing the leases were ideological, not factual, and completely arbitrary and undid the EO. Instead of complying with the judgment, the administration just ignored it, even though prices were still skyrocketing, and continued onwards, because when they're occupying the moral high ground (which they always are, because 'climate change' is an existential threat), the ends always justifies the means.(90) Additionally, in May 2021, Biden issued another EO, this time with the intention of de-funding energy companies.(91) These moves had their inevitable effect.
The oil price is calculated on both current events and on what events are anticipated in the short to medium term. Hence, the decision to cancel the pipeline and future drilling, plus the further targeting of oil companies caused the steady increase in energy prices. On November 30th, 2020, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in America was $2.21.(92) Now, it's $4.25. It was over $4 by Christmas 2021, well before Putin's invasion.
Inflation (largely fuel and housing driven) was already at a 40 year high by December. Even the WEF knows that.(93) Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made matters marginally worse, but while the price of OPEC crude oil went to around $107 a barrel in May last year, it already risen to $76 in July 2021 (having been $14 in April 2020) and $90 by end of January 2022, well before the war.
And when energy prices rises, so do prices for everything else, especially when the prevailing ideology holds that reducing GHG emissions is the panacea to cure all ills. Hence, the EU runs a scheme called Farm to Fork, which is “at the heart of the European Green New Deal, aiming to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally friendly”, as the EU themselves tell us. Unfortunately, that word 'sustainable' pops up shortly thereafter and we find ourselves, once more, in a parallel universe governed by ideology with no place for proportionality.
The scheme was voted into existence by the ciphers in the European Parliament in October 2021, over the objections of farmers and features 27 actions to be completed by 2030 (that date again), but actionable immediately.(94)
“The 27 actions proposed in the strategy include the following:
a 50% reduction in the use and risk of pesticides (with 2020 serving as the base year);
a 20% reduction in the use of fertilizers, including manure;
a 50% reduction in sales of antimicrobials or antibiotics used for farm animals and aquaculture; and
requiring 25% of agricultural land be farmed under organic practices (an increase current level of around 8%.)
a 10% reduction in farmland used for growing crops.”(95)
What could possibly go wrong when, at the time at which the vote was taken, the price of fuel had already dictated that far less fertiliser had been produced and that the upcoming harvest would be insufficient for global needs come late 2023? Even without that bump in the road, which even the cerebrally challenged would recognise as potentially disastrous, it was estimated that EU farmers would have to cut their agricultural production by 7-12%, which would drive up worldwide food prices and increase the number of food insecure people by tens of millions.(96) But it's totally worth it because ...climate change.
You and I might think that starving millions of people in order to prevent fake global warming - that will allegedly produce droughts and also starve millions of people - is an exercise in futility. Au contraire. Apparently, the current self induced sanctions disaster is an opportunity instead, according to Biden's head of USAID:
“Fertilizer shortages are real now because Russia is a big exporter of fertilizer and even though fertilizer is not sanctioned, less fertilizer is coming out of Russia. As a result, we are working with countries to think about natural solutions like manure and compost – and this may hasten transitions that would be in the interest for farmers to make anyway. So, never let a crisis go to waste.”(97)
There's that word 'transition, again. According to other people, who aren't lying through their teeth:
“Behind the growing global fertilizer shortage crisis is the five-fold explosion in the price of methane or natural gas as it is usually called. This has its origins in deliberate “anti-carbon” green policies of the Biden Administration and of the European Union with its “Fit for 55” program to cut CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030, including methane or natural gas.....As nuclear and coal plants are taxed into extinction for the Zero Carbon madness, prices for oil and natural gas are exploding.”(98)
Figure 13
If you're of an irrepressibly masochistic bent, all is not lost. You can still save a planet that doesn't need saving and add some variety to your diet as a bonus:
“A protein shake for breakfast made from cow milk that was brewed in cell cultures, with insect powder added for protein, and blue-green algae added for vitamins. A vat-made burger could be served up for lunch and a dinner burrito made from “scrambled cultured fungal protein” could be on the menu.”(99)
And if you're a pernickety eater, there's always 3D printed lab grown steaks (100) and dairy,(101) or 'real' meat made from meat cells that have been encouraged to keep replicating by the addition of immortalized cells which are either precancerous or fully cancerous.(102) Ordinarily, we might laugh at mad scientists, secure in the knowledge that consuming these products was a choice, one that we were never going to make.
But that's not how it's going to go, as the imbecilic, vegan Mayor of New York is in the process of showing us. He wants to limit the amount of meat people are allowed to eat and the justification is, as always, reducing emissions because of 'climate change'.(103) And he is merely the first to verbalize this intent; it's an open goal and, as long as the narrative is still intact, others will inevitably attempt to score. In the UK, even though nobody is paying attention, it's actually the law.
Figure 14
Ultimately, the imposition of sanctions was the pièce de résistance and may very well have been the primary reason for the provocations that forced Putin's hand, along with the desire to undermine the country that the russophobes insist is their mortal enemy. Through the sanctions regime, the US, in concert with its toadying allies, has managed to further its own climate change goals; not once, but repeatedly, with more to come.(104) An initial backfire might have been forgiven as a demonstration of the expected level of incompetence, but it has been apparent for many months that the major harm done by sanctions was to those doing the sanctioning; despite over 300 sanctions, the Russians have simply re-jigged the global supply chain, by increasing business with Asia.(105) It can only be assumed (given the copious circumstantial evidence to hand) that this self-harm is intended.
Lastly, there is the crushing weight of ESG, an acronym for Environmental, Social and Governance; the three broad categories of interest for 'socially responsible investors', who won't put money into companies that don't operate in the way the investor wants them to. 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.(106) 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.
Regulatory boards, such as the SEC, have launched their own regulatory drive; not on their own initiative, mind you. They've been helped with their thinking by private investment companies who manage a combined $140 trillion and whose primary concern is apparently in preventing the climate catastrophe that is demonstrably gathering pace all around us (as they'd have us believe), rather than simply making money; a prospect as likely as a pile of rocking horse dung. 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 (are being 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.”(107)
Companies that actually want to be funded by financial behemoths like BlackRock and Vanguard will now need to be making strides to be carbon neutral by 2050. However, finance won't be flowing their way until they've answered every last question and given all 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 and to disfavor sectors that they wish to destroy:
“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...”(108)
Lest we forget, ESG would also be untenable without the Great Pretending. Without the global warming scam, there would be no justification for not only ESG, but every other aspect of Agenda 21. It all comes back to that. And if we ever feel the need for one last crumb of evidence, we might consider the nuclear option.
Three nuclear power stations in Germany that could have been kept operational while last winter's energy crisis played itself out, were still shuttered on schedule,(109) because the ideological debate on the desirability of nuclear power is over (more of that settled science) and will not be reopened. It's not over for legitimate reasons, though. Nuclear power could easily supply all the energy we need, without emitting any GHGs. It's far cheaper and more reliable that wind and solar; the latter technologies require five to ten times the government subsidy to compete.(110)
“...nothing exposes the insincerity of the global climate-change movement as does the left's hatred of nuclear power. We can save the planet from climate change and have all the power we need at affordable prices. But just as the greens are against clean natural gas and fracking, they also oppose nuclear power.”(111)
Nuclear power could supply all emissions-free primary energy demand by 2020 and the power stations needed would occupy 0.016% of the world's land mass (or 820 square kilometers). The IEA road-map, contrastingly, allocates 2,981,000 to biofuel production alone, with an additional 995,000 km² in onshore wind farms and 270,000 km² in solar panels.(112) But logic matters not to an ideologue and the cultists cut their teeth on opposition to all things nuclear; they're not going to change now and the puppet masters behind the scenes don't want a replacement energy source anyway – they want wholesale de-industrialisation. Indeed, when energy prices drop 'too low' due to the efficiency of nuclear energy production, the first thing to be capped is production, as recently happened in Finland. There, the new nuclear plant was too efficient, so they turned the dial down; in the midst of shortages across the West:
“The energy crisis was a major wake-up call for the world. It was a reminder that our energy supplies are far more fragile than we often realise. And it made it clear that green technology can rarely be relied on.... despite this...working nuclear power plants were shut down across the world, from California to Germany. This will be seen by future generations as a moment of absolute madness. As will attempts to phase out fossil fuels before reliable replacements are available.”(113)
Figure 15
It would clearly be better if this generation woke up and smelled the coffee, rather than wandering around glued to a screen, because over the past thirty years, trillions of dollars (and pounds, euros etc) of taxpayers money have been wasted on subsidies, NGOs and wind and solar technologies that are completely unnecessary – if we take the view that all this money was spent to reduce global temperatures, but not if we realize that this orgy of spending was instead intended to separate us from yet more of our treasure and from our autonomy as citizens.
We, whoever 'we' can be said to be, committed a huge error in not challenging the ridiculous accords and targets that have emerged as a result of the contention that the world is on course for a climate disaster. These policies, such as striving for net zero carbon emissions by 2035, may have been viewed as ridiculous and unachievable when they were proposed, but that takes no account of the enormous damage that has been done (and is still being done) in allegedly trying to reach them. Agenda 21 is the codified spawn of the false contention that man made global warming is destroying our planet.
We haven't drawn a line in the sand and so the tide is in process of obliterating life as we know it. The Covid 'pandemic' has the appearance of a beta test aimed at conditioning us to accept restrictions in our activities, as well as ushering in the other set of mechanisms which will complete our misery; digital everything, in other words. Acquiescence to lock-downs led to state mandated limits on the use of air-conditioners and yet neither of the 'crises' are what they seem – they are simply concocted as a means to control us.
And there is a further nexus, as the WHO are attempting to gain sovereignty over global health policy via amendments to their Health Regulations and a Pandemic Treaty. Global health, to the WHO, is defined in the broadest possible terms and include, through the One Health agenda;
“...the WHO will have power to make decisions in matters relating to the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, deforestation...with these extended powers, the WHO could readily declare a climate or environmental emergency and enforce lockdowns.”(114)
If they are going to arrogate that power to themselves, then they intend to use it. I would imagine the current fad for trialing emergency alerts forms part of this element of the overall plan.
The global warming narrative, fostered by the globalists and the cultists, has been weaponized in order to dominate us. Almost every aspect of The Great Reset flows from that giant conceit. It follows that, if we dismantle it, the Emperor will be divested of his clothes. If we don't, then this is what will play out:
“The giant capital controllers...have teamed up with heads of western governments and the Biden Administration in particular, to deny and constrain citizen rights while they continue to live – and intend to keep living – billionaire lifestyles. Whatever their lofty claims about their efforts, their end goal is to create a global class of nobility for themselves, and a narrow future without autonomy for the rest of us.”(115)
If we wish to prevent that outcome, we would be well advised to spread the Gospel According to the Deniers as widely as possible, because it doesn't feel like they're going to wait for 2030; 2024, or perhaps even 2023 feel far more likely.
Citations
(1) https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/challenging-the-premise-of-our-destruction/
(2) https://defyccc.com/oregon-petition/
(3) https://www.worldeconomics.com/Indicator-Data/ESG/Environment/Carbon-Emissions/
(5) https://expose-news.com/2022/08/16/the-uks-online-safety-bill-and-social-media/
(7) https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero/
(8) Ian Plimer, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, pg 99
(9) Brian Sussman, Climategate, pg 61
(10) https://expose-news.com/2023/05/20/global-warming-is-not-global-north-hemisphere-is-cooling/
(12) Ditto
(13) Climategate, pg 67
(14) https://www.attainablehome.com/how-is-net-zero-emissions-calculated/
(16) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sets-ambitious-new-climate-target-ahead-of-un-summit
(17) https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero/
(18) https://www.turbinesinfo.com/steam-turbine-efficiency/
(21) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
(22) https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-JA-0518.pdf
(23) https://www.ifo.de/presse
(24) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/whats_behind_the_push_for_electric_vehicles.html
(25) https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148483758/ntsb-heavy-electric-vehicles-safety-risks
(26) https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/electric-car-faqs/
(27) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/whats_behind_the_push_for_electric_vehicles.html
(29) Ditto
(31) https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022/executive-summary
(32) Ditto
(33) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/whats_behind_the_push_for_electric_vehicles.html
(34) https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(21)00299-3
(35) https://archive.is/https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/charging-home
(38) https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/denver-suburb-caps-number-gas-stations-promote-electric-vehicles
(39)
(42) https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/investors-start-realize-energy-transition-will-take-decades
(43) https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/energy-transition-delusion-indeed
(44) https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
(45) https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/solar-energy-is-useless.php
(49) https://www.startribune.com/wind-turbine-recycling-blades-landfills/600234699/
(50) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989422001512
(51) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.211558
(55) https://www.cfact.org/2023/03/17/a-simple-reason-why-net-zero-is-impossible/
(57) https://wisdomanswer.com/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-produce-1-gallon-of-ethanol/
(58) http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1552355771656v0/
(59) https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/06/opinion-the-great-carbon-capture-scam-jason-isaac/
(60) Ditto
(65) Rosa Koire, Behind the Green Mask: Agenda 21, pg 9 (66)https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf
(67) Behind the Green Mask: Agenda 21, pg 15
(68) Behind the Green Mask: Agenda 21, pg 16
(69) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village
(70) Behind the Green Mask: Agenda 21, pg 17
(71) UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat One) 1976
(74) http://rangefire.us/2022/01/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dangers-of-agenda-21-30/
(75) https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Benchmark-15-minute-cities?language=en_US
(76) https://cities-today.com/programme-launched-to-expand-15-minute-cities-globally/
(77) https://www.treehugger.com/agenda-plot-exposed-new-york-times-and-grist-4857881
(79) https://archive.ph/ux9rI#selection-911.0-913.164
(81) https://cities-today.com/programme-launched-to-expand-15-minute-cities-globally/
(82) Behind the Green Mask, pg 14
(84) http://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
(87) https://expose-news.com/2023/04/12/all-uk-airports-must-close-in-the-name-of-climate-change/
(92) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/snyder-are-gasoline-prices-being-pushed-higher-purpose
(93) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/inflation-39-year-high-consumer-price-index-us
(94) https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en
(96) https://larouchepub.com/pr/2020/20201121_grteen_cuts.html
(97)
(98) http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO12Nov2021.php
(100) https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/israeli-company-introduces-3d-printed-meat-future-food
(101) https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-lab-grown-dairy-the-future-of-milk-this-startup-thinks-so
(102)
(104) https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/sanctions-russia-g7-fortify-99473817
(106) https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/21/consumers-utilities-energy-renewables-natural-gas/
(109) https://reason.com/2023/05/10/new-study-nuclear-power-is-humanitys-greenest-energy-option/
(110) https://www.heritage.org/nuclear-energy/commentary/why-the-greens-hate-nuclear-power
(111) Ditto
(112) https://reason.com/2023/05/10/new-study-nuclear-power-is-humanitys-greenest-energy-option/
(14) https://www.anhinternational.org/news/the-plan-for-who-supremacy-over-human-health
Figure 1
https://ourworldindata.com
Figure 2 https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
Figure 4 Ditto
Figure 5 Ditto
Figure 6 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/combustion-going-bust-global-phase-outs-gasoline-cars
Figure 8 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/03/why-wind-and-solar-will-never-work-2.php
Figure 10 Trade Data Monitor; Green Markets, a Bloomberg company
Figure 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village
Figure 12 https://reclaimthenet.org/world-economic-forum-deletes-tweet-after-backlash
Figure 13 https://expose-news.com/2023/04/12/all-uk-airports-must-close-in-the-name-of-climate-change/
Figure 14 Ditto