MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’

Without fossil fuels there is no need for electricity

Posted by M. C. on May 17, 2022

the greenies need to identify the replacement or clone for crude oil, to keep the world’s population of 8 billion fed and healthy, and economies running with the more than6,000 productsnow made with manufactured derivatives from crude oil,

By Ronald Stein 

https://www.cfact.org/2022/05/13/without-fossil-fuels-there-is-no-need-for-electricity/

America is in a fast pursuit toward achieving President Biden’s stated goal that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels” to achieve the Green New Deal’s (GND) pursuit of wind turbines and solar panels to provide electricity to run the world, but WAIT, everything in our materialistic lives and economies cannot exist without crude oil, coal, and natural gas.

Everything that needs electricity, from lights, vehicles, iPhones, defibrillators, computers, telecommunications, etc., are all made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

The need for electricity will decrease over time without crude oil. With no new things to power, and the deterioration of current things made with oil derivatives over the next few decades and centuries, the existing items that need electricity will not have replacement parts and will ultimately become obsolete in the future and the need for electricity will diminish accordingly.

The Green New Deal proposal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and focus on electricity from wind and solar, but why? What will there be to power in the future without fossil fuels?

Rather than list the more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, I will let the readers list what is NOT dependent on oil derivatives that will need electricity. They can begin listing them here ______  ________   _______.

And by the way, crude oil came before electricity. The electricity that came AFTER the discovery of oil, is comprised of components made with those same oil derivatives from crude oil. Thus, getting rid of crude oil, also eliminates our ability to make wind turbines, solar panels, as well as those vehicles intended to be powered by an EV battery.

Today, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels are all the rage with big banks, Wall Street firms, and financial institutions, to divest in all 3 fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil. Both President Biden and the United Nations support allowing banks and investment giants to collude to reshape economies and our energy infrastructure toward JUST electricity from wind and solar.

A reduction in the usage of coal, natural gas, and crude oil would lead us to life as it was without the crude oil infrastructure and those products manufactured from oil that did not exist before 1900, i.e., the decarbonized world that existed in the 1800’s and before when life was hard, and life expectancy was short.

Ridding the world of crude oil would result in less manufactured oil derivatives and lead to a reduction in each of the following:

  • The 50,000 heavy-weight and long-range merchant ships that are moving products throughout the world.
  • The 50,000 heavy-weight and long-range jets used by commercial airlines, private usage, and the military.
  • The number of wind turbines and solar panels as they are made with oil derivatives from crude oil.
  • The pesticides to control locusts and other pests.
  • The tires for the billions of vehicles.
  • The asphalt for the millions of miles of roadways.
  • The medications and medical equipment.
  • The vaccines.
  • The water filtration systems.
  • The sanitation systems.
  • The communications systems, including cell phones, computers, iPhones, and iPads.
  • The number of cruise ships that now move twenty-five million passengers around the world.
  • The space program.

Before we rid the world of all three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, the greenies need to identify the replacement or clone for crude oil, to keep the world’s population of 8 billion fed and healthy, and economies running with the more than6,000 productsnow made with manufactured derivatives from crude oil, along with the fuels manufactured from crude oil to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets and more than 50,000 merchant ships, and the military and space programs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Destroying America to “Save” It? Biden’s Nihilistic Destruction of the Energy Industry

Posted by M. C. on April 7, 2022

If this administration and like-minded officials in state capitols have their way, the disruptions and empty shelves that we hope now to be temporary would be anything but. Instead, they would be a new way of life. Furthermore, we still would have tornadoes in Oklahoma and Alabama, wildfires in California, and hurricanes on the East Coast. Nothing would change but our ability to deal with the elements, and that would mean people freezing in their homes in winter and unable to cool their homes in hot summers. (And none of Biden’s climate initiatives will make summers in the Deep South any more bearable.)

https://mises.org/wire/destroying-america-save-it-bidens-nihilistic-destruction-energy-industry

William L. Anderson

One of the saddest quotes from the Vietnam War came from journalist Peter Arnett, who wrote in a dispatch in 1968 about an American attack on a Vietcong-held village: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” As often happens with such quotes, they take on a second and even third life. Today, the Biden administration seeks to destroy the American economy ostensibly to save America from the dreaded climate change.

No one advocating the so-called Green New Deal (GND) has put it quite like that. In fact, its advocates claim that not only will the GND give us better weather, but it will raise the standard of living in the USA by “creating millions of new, high-paying jobs.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims on her website that the GND under her leadership (if she ever were elected president) would “create 10.6 million green jobs,” adding:

While climate change presents an urgent threat, it also presents the greatest opportunity of our time: the chance to rebuild our economy with 100% clean energy, to address the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy, and to create millions of good, union jobs in the process. 

One needs to ask how she came up with such numbers and such an optimistic outlook, but one gets the picture. The web is full of apocalyptic claims about climate change, many coming from the US government and the assorted groups. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the sponsors of the proposed Green New Deal, has openly claimed that the world literally will end in twelve years if we don’t stop carbon dioxide emissions now.

As Michael Shellenberger has pointed out in many publications, including Forbes, the claims of the coming apocalypse are a bit premature. Addressing the claim made by environmentalists that billions of people will perish in the coming disasters, he writes:

In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.

What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?

Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.

What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

Not surprisingly, President Joe Biden has sided with the most radical alarmists and has taken action from day 1 in his presidency to curtail and ultimately destroy the oil and gas industries in the USA. Last year, I wrote that this administration was attacking these industries on every front, but Biden now claims that his government is doing nothing of the sort. He repeated the claim at a recent press conference: “It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production.”

The facts state otherwise.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Misanthropic Bankers Behind COP26 and the Green New Deal – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2021

Mark Carney – formerly of Goldman Sachs & the Bank of England – has hailed plans to spend 130 TRILLION dollars on “net zero finance”.

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex likely believes this.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/11/03/the-misanthropic-bankers-behind-cop26-and-the-green-new-deal/

Matthew Ehret

A vast sweeping change towards a “green economy” is now being pushed by forces that may make an educated citizen rather uncomfortable.

Of course, news reports flash daily showcasing the brave young movement of “eco-warriors” led by Sweden’s “forever 15 year old” Greta Thunberg or America’s 17 year old Jamie Margolin who have become a force across Europe and America leading such movements as the Extinction Rebellion, This is Zero Hour, the Sunrise Movement and Children’s eco-crusade.

The young face of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez daily sells the idea that the only way for outdated capitalist forces that have plagued the world for decades to be replaced is by imposing a sweeping Green New Deal that priorities de-carbonization as a goal for humanity rather than continuing to allow the mindless forces of the markets to determine our destiny.

When EU President Ursula von der Leyen had stepped into her office, she lost no time attacking China’s Belt and Road Initiative (which is ironically representing a true 21st century New Deal) by saying:

…some are buying their influence by investing in dependencies on ports and roads [but] we go the European way.”

What is the “European way”? Not the development plans of Charles De Gaulle or Konrad Adenauer who envisioned industrial growth and increasing population as positives, but rather a Green New Deal.

Von der Leyen then announced that: 

I want Europe to become the first CO2 neutral continent in the world by 2050! I will put forward a Green New Deal for Europe in my first 100 days in office…”

Attacking the “mindless forces of the market” and vested power structures of capitalism are not bad things to do…but why must we de-carbonize? Re-regulating the too-big-to-fail banks is long overdue, but why do so many assume that a “Green New Deal” won’t just empower those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half-century and just cause more death and starvation than has already been suffered under Globalization?

One might only think to even ask such questions by first confronting the uncomfortable fact that behind such young cardboard cutouts as Thunberg, Margolin, Cortez or the Green New Deal are figures whom one would not associate with humanitarianism by any measure.

Green Bonds and Oligarchs

When we begin to pull back the curtain we quickly run into figures like Prince Charles, who recently met with the heads of 18 Commonwealth countries to consolidate climate emergency legislation which was promptly passed in the UK and Canadian Parliaments.

At the end of the meeting Charles said that we “have 18 months to save the world from climate change” and called for “increasing the amount of private sector finance flowing towards the supporting of sustainable development throughout the commonwealth”.

Following the royal decree, the Bank of England and some of the dirtiest banks in the Rothschild-City of London web of finance have promoted “green financial instruments” led by Green Bonds to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects that no one in their right minds would ever invest in willfully.

The Ecological, Social, Governance Index (ESGI) has now been set up across 51% of Germany’s banks including the derivatives-bomb waiting to blow named Deutschebank. Leading bankers supporting the ESGI like Mark Carney of the Bank of England have said that over 6.5 trillion Euros could be mobilized under this new index (which currently accounts for about $160 billion).

The creation of these “green bonds” run hand-in-hand with the Bail-in mechanisms which have now been implemented across the trans-Atlantic nations in order to steal trillions of dollars of from pension funds, RRSPs and Mutual funds the next time a bailout is needed to prop up the “too big to fails” which currently sit atop a $1.2 trillion derivatives bubble waiting to blow.

On top of heading the Bank of England, former Goldman Sachs-man Carney has also endorsed the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures which was created in 2015 and was used as a guideline for the UK government’s July 2019 White Paper “Green Finance Strategy: Transforming Finance for a Greener Future”.

The White Paper proposed to: 

consolidate the UK’s position as a global hub for green finance and positioning the UK at the head of green financial innovation and data and analytics…endorsed by institutions representing $118 trillion of assets globally.”

The Carney-led Task Force also spawned the Green Finance Initiative in 2016 which is now a primary vehicle designed to divert international capital flows into green tech.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Misanthropic Bankers Behind COP26 and the Green New Deal – by Matthew Ehret – Matt Ehret’s Insights

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2021

Following the royal decree, the Bank of England and some of the dirtiest banks in the Rothschild-City of London web of finance have promoted “green financial instruments” led by Green Bonds to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects that no one in their right minds would ever invest in willfully.

https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-misanthropic-bankers-behind-cop26

Matthew Ehret

A vast sweeping change towards a “green economy” is now being pushed by forces that may make an educated citizen rather uncomfortable.

Of course, news reports flash daily showcasing the brave young movement of “eco-warriors” led by Sweden’s “forever 15 year old” Greta Thunberg or America’s 17 year old Jamie Margolin who have become a force across Europe and America leading such movements as the Extinction Rebellion, This is Zero Hour, the Sunrise Movement and Children’s eco-crusade. The young face of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez daily sells the idea that the only way for outdated capitalist forces that have plagued the world for decades to be replaced is by imposing a sweeping Green New Deal that priorities de-carbonization as a goal for humanity rather than continuing to allow the mindless forces of the markets to determine our destiny.

When EU President Ursula von der Leyen had stepped into her office, she lost no time attacking China’s Belt and Road Initiative (which is ironically representing a true 21st century New Deal) by saying “some are buying their influence by investing in dependence from ports and roads”… but “we go the European way”. What is the “European way”? Not the development plans of Charles De Gaulle or Konrad Adenauer who envisioned industrial growth and increasing population as positives, but rather a Green New Deal. Von der Leyen then announced that “I want Europe to become the first CO2 neutral continent in the world by 2050! I will put forward a Green New Deal for Europe in my first 100 days in office…”

Attacking the “mindless forces of the market” and vested power structures of capitalism are not bad things to do… but why must we de-carbonize? Re-regulating the too-big-to-fail banks is long overdue, but why do so many assume that a “Green New Deal” won’t just empower those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half century and just cause more death and starvation than has already been suffered under Globalization?

One might only think to even ask such questions by first confronting the uncomfortable fact that behind such young cardboard cut outs as Thunberg, Margolin, Cortez or the Green New Deal are figures whom one would not associate with humanitarianism by any measure.

Green Bonds and Oligarchs

When we begin to pull back the curtain we quickly run into figures like Prince Charles, who recently met with the heads of 18 Commonwealth countries to consolidate climate emergency legislation which was promptly passed in the UK and Canadian Parliaments. At the end of the meeting Charles said that we “have 18 months to save the world from climate change” and called for “increasing the amount of private sector finance flowing towards the supporting sustainable development throughout the commonwealth”.

See the rest here

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Unmasking the Latest Bipartisan (and Dangerous) Climate Bill | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 4, 2021

There is a larger issue at work that we should not forget. The notion that government programs somehow are going to result in better weather should give anyone pause.

https://mises.org/wire/unmasking-latest-bipartisan-and-dangerous-climate-bill

William L. Anderson

It is summer in the United States, which means temperatures are hot and western forests and grasslands are burning—as has been the case as long as people have lived here. In our current age, however, in which there is alleged to be a political “solution” to nearly every problem, politicians believe they can use governmental policies to give us better weather and change the nature of wildfires.

So far, Congress, state legislators, and the Biden administration have launched a blizzard of new programs and initiatives that sponsors claim will reverse what they call the “climate crisis” and return our country, and even the whole world, to “normal” weather patterns. There are the Green New Deal, state mandates for utilities to purchase electricity from “renewable” sources such as solar panels and wind power, and the Biden “Build Back Better” campaign, in which the president has promised “millions of new jobs that help us recover from the pandemic and tackle climate change.”

Advocates of these initiatives claim that because current methods of producing energy ostensibly release gases that change the earth’s climate for the worse, governmental authorities should be redirecting resources to ensure results that will guide worldwide temperatures downward. Elites in government, the media, and academe have accepted these utopian notions as being self-explanatory and believe that once a progressive politician has announced certain “goals” commensurate with progressive thinking, the goals always are worthy and within reach—if governments allocate and spend enough money.

One of the conservative criticisms of climate change policies is that they follow the historically failed patterns of central economic planning, with resources directed politically without regard to their relative scarcity and paying no attention to the negative secondary effects that always follow. To counter the command-and-control measures environmentalists and their political allies impose, many conservatives have urged that the government, instead, pursue “market-based” solutions.

For example, to reduce automobile air pollution, the US government in 1975 required automakers to install catalytic converters on cars made in the USA, as well as on imported vehicles. While these devices are effective, a market-based mechanism would permit automakers to find their own solutions and likely would result in lower emissions (and lower pollution abatement costs) than what we see.

The idea behind market-based pollution abatement programs is that regulated parties use market mechanisms like prices and property rights to reduce toxic emissions or some other form of environmental harm. Such initiatives set pollution reduction goals and then provide incentives for regulated entities to best determine the overall strategies of abatement. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 permitted and organized market-based policies that were relatively successful.

Now four US senators, Mike Braun (R-IN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have reintroduced the bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act, which has won praise from conservative groups, because it allows for some market-based activity in reducing “greenhouse” gases blamed for climate change. The conservative-leaning advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions has praised the proposed law, declaring:

When our farmers, ranchers, and foresters go the extra mile to help reduce America’s carbon footprint, they should be rewarded, not penalized. The Growing Climate Solutions Act is exciting because it would allow valuable carbon credits to be harvested along with any crops farmed using climate-friendly practices. By normalizing how those credits can be sold on voluntary carbon credit markets, the GCSA also makes it easy for farms of all shapes and sizes to connect with and sell these credits to the scores of American companies and utilities that have committed to going carbon neutral but can’t do it alone.

The GCSA is a free-market win for agriculture producers, businesses, and the climate; it is a solution that helps restore the environment without heavy-handed government mandates or driving up the cost of food and energy production.

But intentions are one thing. Reality is quite another.

First, while there is no doubt that using a market price system to move resources will be more economically efficient than a command-and-control system, nonetheless government still is determining the direction resources move. There is little doubt that a carbon-credit trading system will result in less release of carbon dioxide and methane gases than would be the case with a typical government regulatory regime.

But that farmers will be using some free market devices does not mean that the entire system suddenly has turned into free enterprise. While farmers may be able to be more cost efficient in carrying out government emissions mandates, nonetheless their actions will still be mandated and there is no reason to believe government regulators and their green allies who are imposing the mandates know what the optimum levels of emissions should be. For all of the talk about science, the only thing we truly know is that whatever the emissions reductions might be from the farm belt, they will have zero effect on the world’s climate.

The second problem is that while the Growing Climate Solutions Act of 2021 might try to arrange market-based abatement systems, what actually happens ultimately is up to the regulators, who always are given wide berths to set policy. No matter what the original legislation might declare, regulators are going to govern in a way that reduces their own costs while enhancing their own authority. Perhaps the best analogy is that of Lucy, the character from the cartoon strip Peanuts, who is famous for pulling up the football after inviting Charlie Brown to kick it.

One more point to remember is that while market-based emissions reduction programs will be more effective than traditional bureaucratic command and control, these still are contrived markets in which the value of tradable permits and other mechanisms is set by government agents. Thus, that value in trade will always be arbitrary, as opposed to the value being set by the interaction of real consumers and producers.

There is a larger issue at work that we should not forget. The notion that government programs somehow are going to result in better weather should give anyone pause. As H. Sterling Burnett recently wrote, government regulators in pursuit of abating climate change are slowly destroying the capacity of US electric power production by requiring so-called renewable production such as wind power and solar panels while forcibly phasing out production using coal, oil, natural gas, and zero-emissions nuclear power.

No doubt, environmental advocates will claim that the deterioration of the American electric grid is temporary and that whatever up-front costs electricity users incur using “renewables” are still less than the “real” costs that accompany conventional fuels. Don’t count on it. If we know anything about economic central planning from American political authorities, it is that there always are huge hidden costs that come with policy initiatives. That they put a free market happy face on the latest policy prescription does not change the fact that the original policies regarding climate change are terribly flawed.

Author:

Contact William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan – Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on August 2, 2021

Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena.

Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company.3 However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/5678775

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute

First published in December 2016, this article is of relevance to an understanding of the ongoing debate on Climate Change as well the Green New Deal,  largely controlled by the financial establishment. The Rockefellers also play a key role in World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Proposal.

***

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (excerpt from Report)

The following text is the Executive Summary of  a full length report by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016.

This informative report is brought to the attention of Global Research readers. The CRG does not necessarily endorse the title nor the contents of this report.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?

Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2019, March 6, 2021

Read full report here.

***

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

Most Americans hold the billionaire philanthropists in high esteem, associating the Rockefeller name with “oil” and “capitalism.” In reality, the Rockefellers are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes. Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues. Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.

Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.

Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy in well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving “clean energy” policies throughout both the federal government and general public.

As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21. With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.

Image result for eric schneiderman

On November 5, 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (image on the right) launched an unprecedented investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if the company had defrauded investors by not disclosing the risks that climate change could have on its business.1 This occurred only weeks after the Columbia Journalism School’s (CJS) Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship accused Exxon of misleading the public through its Los Angeles Times article, “How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change.”2

Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena. Research shows that Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation, as well as Columbia Journalism’s negative portrayal of ExxonMobil were neither objective nor independent. In fact, substantial evidence leads to the premise that both Columbia Journalism School’s accusations against ExxonMobil and Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation into the oil giant were not only financed, but orchestrated by the Rockefeller family.

Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company.3 However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.

The Rockefeller Family Fund hosted and led two closed door meetings with prominent climate activists – one in 2012 and one in January 2016. Uncovered emails show that the main issue at both gatherings was how to best take down the fossil fuel industry.4 Aside from key leaders of the Rockefellers’ many foundations, both summits included the major players in the climate movement such as: Matt Pawa (attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law), Sharon Eubanks (director of the Department of Justice’s tobacco litigation effort in the 1990’s and known anti Exxon activist), representatives of Greenpeace, and Carroll Moffit of the Climate Accountability Institute.5 During both summits, Eric Schneiderman was considered the possible catalyst to spearhead the legal investigation, while ExxonMobil was repeatedly mentioned as the possible target.

Schneiderman’s fervent outspokenness against “climate deniers,” and public call to enact policies conducive to increasing renewable energy use made him a perfect and willing candidate.6 When announcing his crusade against Exxon, Schneiderman cited studies from the Rockefeller funded outlets Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism School’s Exxon reports.7 Revealingly, numerous members of the Rockefeller family had long urged Schneiderman to investigate the oil company.

However, as evidenced in the Rockefeller-hosted La Jolla 2012 meeting report, the family and climate activists needed a well-known, respected, and objectively perceived media outlet to push the public narrative. Although not disclosed in the summit’s documentation, it appears they found one in the Columbia Journalism School. While arguably the most prestigious journalism school in the country, the Columbia Journalism School is not only a beneficiary of millions in Rockefeller donations, it is composed, almost entirely, of professors closely affiliated with the green movement.

Image result for Steve Coll

In 2013, a year after the plan was crafted, climate alarmist and author of a well-known book condemning ExxonMobil, Steve Coll, was appointed Dean of the Columbia Journalism School.

Not surprisingly, Coll spearheaded the school’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship’s project that smeared Exxon. Coll is closely tied to the Rockefellers, as he previously chaired the climate change proponent New America Foundation, which received significant funding from the family. These revelations suggest that the Rockefellers used their influence over both the Columbia Journalism School and Steve Coll to put Coll in place as Dean, providing him the platform to do what he had done voluntarily and enthusiastically once before: publically and thoroughly castigate ExxonMobil.

Along with Coll, as a bastion of climate activists, the Columbia Journalism School was likely an eager participant in the plot to smear Exxon. At least seven CJS professors are directly connected to green activist billionaire George Soros, receiving either awards or significant amounts of money from the socialist philanthropist. Moreover, several CJS alumni board members are prominent climate change advocates, including Scott Dodd, and Thomas Watkins.

This report proposes that the assault on ExxonMobil was neither the idea of Eric Schneiderman, nor the Columbia Journalism School. Instead, the Rockefellers, with the help of other billionaires and prominent climate activists, carefully orchestrated both the legal and media investigations into ExxonMobil in an effort to achieve their goal of collapsing the fossil fuel industry to gain control over the energy sector.

Read full report here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Chris Mooney, “New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

2 Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, “How Exxon Went from leader to skeptic on climate change,”Los Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

3 Susanne Rust, “The Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship,” Columbia Journalism School website,Columbia Journalism School, Accessed April 16, 2016.

4 Alana Goodman, “Memo Shows Secret Coordination Effort Against ExxonMobil by Climate Activists, Rockefeller Fund,” The Washington Free Beacon, April 14, 2016, Accessed April 28, 2016.

5 Katie Brown, “Wait Till You See These Secret Memos Laying Out Activists’ Plans to Target Exxon,” Energy InDepth, April 15, 2016, Accessed April 29, 2016.

6 “Schneiderman Delivers Speech on #Climate2014: “It’s Time for Action on Climate Change,” YouTube, Sep. 22,2014, Accessed April 20 2016.

7 Jon Entine, “How the Columbia Journalism School Smeared Exxon,” New York Post, March 1, 2016, Accessed April 21, 2016.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Elon Musk, SNL, and the Purpose of Life, by Gregory Hood – The Unz Review

Posted by M. C. on May 13, 2021

This leads to the most important reason why this petty SNL controversy matters. It highlights the most important issue in history. Are we meant to solve problems or to complain? Do we strive upward or accept decline? Elon Musk stands for the former; progressives stand for the latter.

The purpose of life is to build something greater than ourselves. A Christian might lead a life of service, but for the glory of God. A patriot dies for his country and people. Parents sacrifice for children. Artists feed the soul. Even athletes encourage us to be stronger and better. The true Right is the pursuit of greatness.

https://www.unz.com/ghood/elon-musk-snl-and-the-purpose-of-life/

Gregory Hood

Why do they hate Elon Musk? The head of Tesla and SpaceX should be a progressive hero.

Leftists lecture us about “climate change” and why we need a Green New Deal. One group, Extinction Rebellion, warns of “mass extinction” unless there is revolution. The Guardian says some parents regret having children because of “climate change.”

Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla should thrill progressives who worry about the planet. President Obama toured SpaceX HQ with Mr. Musk, and he’s hardly a conservative. Mr. Musk endorsed Democrat Andrew Yang in the 2020 presidential campaign and supports a Universal Basic Income. Republicans don’t hate him, either. Democrats and Republicans support him at about equal rates, which is rare in a partisan age.

Elon Musk appeared in the movies Iron Man 2 and Machete Kills as a smart, socially conscious CEO who was saving the world. He represented the ascendant “creative class” — the pragmatic, progressive, environmentally friendly elite who think globally and aren’t held back by old-fashioned nationalism. Elon Musk is even an immigrant. He’s the most successful African-American in the world. It’s especially impressive because he doesn’t get affirmative action (he’s from South Africa).

However, many were outraged learn that he is going to host Saturday Night Live.

Elon Musk hosting SNL is the most reckless casting decision they’ve made since Donald Trump.

— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) April 24, 2021

Having Elon Musk host SNL seriously feels like the show’s biggest misstep since having Trump host

— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) April 25, 2021

Of course Lorne Michaels is letting dangerous loon Elon Musk host SNL. TV networks pay no price when they do harmful things for ratings. SNL paid no price for letting Trump host. Cable news paid no price for lying about Hillary’s emails. We all pay a price – but not the TV folks.

— Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) April 24, 2021

“Elon Musk doesn’t deserve to host SNL,” says CNN’s Dean Obeidallah. SNL’s “starsapparently agree. Here are some of the objections:

Another racist asshole billionaire to host SNL. Musk figures if Trump can do it, why not me?https://t.co/cRgsAiU4hm

— Mike Klonsky (@mikeklonsky) April 24, 2021

People who are mad about Elon Musk hosting SNL need to understand that hosting SNL is *not* an endorsement, for example Adolf Hitler hosted SNL in 1938

— pixelatedboat aka “mr tweets” (@pixelatedboat) April 24, 2021

Reminder: Elon Musk runs a racism- and racist-filled company with no interest in changing https://t.co/ujer1RVwyshttps://t.co/6cKIov5qCShttps://t.co/QclcH0VQDW pic.twitter.com/c0LuCD3oN8

— Ellen K. Pao (@ekp) April 24, 2021

Perhaps they were among the people who shorted the stock and lost $38 billion in 2020. Why is this worth writing about?

First, it reflects what progressives think about the 2016 election and what they think must be done to make sure nothing like it happens again. They think without strict media gatekeeping, dangerous forces could emerge.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why a Green New Deal Is More Expensive Than Joe Biden Realizes | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 14, 2021

Price signals! Government does need no stinkin’ price signals.

 States like Texas, however, have failed to heed considerations of both net energy and supply and demand in installing massive wind farms at great taxpayer expense where fossil fuels would be far cheaper and more reliable. Lacking price signals, the central planner is blind to the economic consequences of his grand designs.

https://mises.org/wire/why-green-new-deal-more-expensive-joe-biden-realizes

Charlie Deist

One of President Biden’s first executive actions was to declare January 27 “Climate Day.” This ad hoc holiday provided an opportunity for his administration to celebrate the latest rationale for economic central planning. The day’s festivities began with three executive orders on climate change, science, and technology.

In his remarks, Biden bundled his environmental agenda with a jobs program, along with a broader policy to address social inequality and environmental injustice. Among the ambitious goals of Biden’s $2 trillion Green New Deal are 1 million new high-paying union jobs in the automobile industry, half a million electric car charging stations, and a 100 percent carbon pollution–free electric sector by 2035. 

The goal of transitioning the electrical grid to zero carbon emissions in the next fifteen years stands out as a singularly misguided effort. Even granting the nonobvious assumption that we must immediately transition away from fossil fuels, overhauling the American energy infrastructure is a vast and complex calculation problem. To be truly sustainable, individuals and firms would need to act on local knowledge, assessing where and what kinds of renewables might meet their energy needs.

The concept of “net energy” illustrates why replacing fossil fuels with large-scale renewable energy is often counterproductive. In Carbon Shift, a 2009 book discussing peak oil and climate change, David Hughes summarizes it like this:

A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

This life-cycle accounting of “energy return on energy invested” (EROEI) succinctly describes multiple stages of intermediate capital within a hydrocarbon-based structure of production. Hughes also hints at the basic questions facing all entrepreneurs—namely, where they should place their investments and how they should configure heterogeneous capital to recoup up-front costs plus some profit or “windfall.”

Wind turbines and solar panels do enjoy a wide market in off-grid applications, such as remote farm properties and on oceangoing sailboats, where the abundance of wind and scarcity of petroleum products makes the investment a no-brainer. In sunny parts of the country, solar has reached “grid parity.” States like Texas, however, have failed to heed considerations of both net energy and supply and demand in installing massive wind farms at great taxpayer expense where fossil fuels would be far cheaper and more reliable. Lacking price signals, the central planner is blind to the economic consequences of his grand designs.

The president revealed his ignorance of the technological and economic problem at hand when he stated matter of factly, “We know what to do, we’ve just got to do it.” On the contrary, we have no idea how to create a nonpolluting electrical grid without emitting much more carbon in the process than we otherwise would have. 

If the government invests trillions of dollars in energy-intensive capital investments—whether wind farms, solar charging stations, or transformer stations—it will have two primary effects. 

First, it will frontload carbon emissions into the construction phase. This may offer the illusion of reducing pollution when in fact it merely shuffles emissions to a prior stage of production. California’s high-speed rail, for example, will take an estimated seventy-one years to offset its own construction emissions through the cars it will hypothetically replace (assuming it is ever completed). Furthermore, electric charging stations are typically powered by coal or natural gas—not solar panels. 

Second, and relatedly, a Green New Deal funded by debt will distort the capital structure, skewing investment toward long-term fixed capital assets at the expense of the intermediate capital maintenance of the overall structure of production. Theoretically we could burn more coal, petroleum, and natural gas today to build a zero-pollution electrical infrastructure for tomorrow. But when it comes time to service offshore wind turbines, will the helicopters and boats used for maintenance be powered by electricity as well? And what kind of energy will power the factories that manufacture the solar panels and wind turbines? Claiming that they will run on renewables is eerily similar to the circular reasoning and magical thinking used by proponents of modern monetary theory to promote the illusion of spending without taxation.

The Green New Deal is, if anything, a formula for a new dark age. Texas’s recent power outages show the difficulty of the task facing grid managers. There, an attempt to prematurely transition to unreliable wind energy exacerbated the strain on the grid when turbines froze at the crucial moment when they were most needed. The grid managers failed to keep a maintain a sufficient buffer, even without the additional mandate of ensuring the creation of new green jobs and mitigating the discriminatory effects of climate change. It is ironic that a state and nation so rich in natural energy resources would be leading the charge to cancel fossil fuels in favor of technology that has never been proven effective, or even environmentally friendly, at a large scale.

The stock of fossil fuels is large but not infinite. Geological surveys indicate that there is plentiful energy in the ground to advance civilization and develop new sources of abundant and nonpolluting energy. However, we must be careful not to squander our petroleum patrimony on unused charging stations, unreliable wind farms, and half-finished trains to nowhere. Author:

Charlie Deist

Charlie Deist is a writer, radio producer, and sailboat captain in Berkeley, California. He received his BA in economics from UC Berkeley.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Trump and Biden Squabble While America Burns

Posted by M. C. on October 6, 2020

Jo Jorgensen

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/october/05/trump-and-biden-squabble-while-america-burns/?mc_cid=a154d3db1b&mc_eid=4e0de347c8

Written by Ron Paul

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden spent most of last week’s first Presidential debate trading insults and interrupting each other. The result was a debate with very little discussion of actual issues or policies.

In one of the evening’s few substantive exchanges, President Trump rightly criticized Vice President Biden for saying he would listen to the “scientists” in determining whether to lock down the country. President Trump also acknowledged that the lockdowns were a harmful over-reaction that needs to end.

Unfortunately, President Trump once again pledged that Covid vaccines would soon be available. This raises the specter of a repeat of the swine flu debacle where a vaccine rushed into production for political purposes caused more deaths than the swine flu itself. President Trump also raised concerns about mandatory Covid vaccinations by suggesting the military would be in charge of vaccine distribution.

Vice President Biden vehemently denied he was a socialist, while championing increased spending, taxes, regulations, expanded Obamacare, and a modified “Green New Deal.” Biden may not consider himself a socialist, but if his economic plans were implemented it would take America further down the road to socialism — and serfdom.

President Trump also denounced socialism, while bragging about his own big government policies such as tariffs, massive spending increases, and plans to maintain the “popular” provisions of Obamacare.

One topic that did not come up was gun control. This may have been because both candidates support infringements on the Second Amendment. Joe Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when it passed gun control measures like the assault weapons ban and the “Brady Bill.” President Trump has not only banned bump stocks by executive order, which President Obama refused to do because his Attorney General correctly determined that the President lacks the authority to do so, but has enthusiastically endorsed “red flag” laws. These laws allow law enforcement to, as President Trump put it, “take the guns first worry about due process later.”

The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the federal debt will exceed the gross domestic product next year and reach 195 percent of GDP by 2050! This report was issued before this week’s revelation that the federal debt reached record levels of $27 trillion.

This is the biggest threat to our national security, but it was unmentioned during the debate. This is not surprising since few in the political or media elite understand the debt crisis well enough to give it the attention it deserves. Although if Biden wins and Democrats seize control of the Senate, Republicans will likely remember they are supposed to be against big spending and debt.

One critical area that could have led to an interesting exchange was monetary policy. Biden has called Trump’s tweets attacking the Fed as an assault on Fed’s independence, as if the Fed were ever free from political pressure. President Trump has gone from supporting a fed audit, criticizing low interest rates, and supporting the gold standard, to pushing the Fed to adopt the insane policy of zero interest rates

The debate is the latest evidence the two major parties will not on their own restore our lost liberties. Those who want to roll back the welfare-warfare state should avoid focusing on political parties or personalities. Instead we must focus on spreading the ideas of liberty among our fellow citizens and building a liberty movement that puts principles of liberty above partisanship.


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article – Kamala Harris part of leftist Trojan horse operation

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not.

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

This coming from WaPo! I am surprised it is permitted.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1700df0f9

Kamala Harris a moderate? Not even close. Welcome to the leftist Trojan horse operation.

In case you haven’t noticed, there is a not-sosubtle campaign afoot to paint Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as a centrist — an effort that exposes the left’s strategy to fool the American people into giving them political power in November.

After presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate, the New York Times immediately declared her a ‘pragmatic moderate,’ the Los Angeles Times called her a ‘centrist’ and ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos told his viewers ‘Kamala Harris comes from the middle of the road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party.’

No, she doesn’t. Harris was the ‘most liberal compared to all senators’ in 2019 according to Gov-Track, the nonpartisan government transparency watchdog — to the left of even her democraticsocialist colleague, Sen.

Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Harris wasn’t ‘pragmatic’ either. GovTrack found she ‘joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats.’

According to Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl, Harris has proposed a mind-numbing $46 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

She supports the economically ruinous Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all and free taxpayer funded health care for undocumented immigrants. She is also an abortion zealot who has suggested that a faithful Catholic who belongs to the Knights of Columbus is unfit to serve as a federal judge. She opposes deportation of those who illegally enter the United States and once compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the Ku Klux Klan.

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not. Leftists understand that to win in November, they must be able to peel away reluctant Trump voters in key swing states who are uncomfortable with the leftward lurch of today’s Democratic Party. These voters need to believe that a Biden-Harris administration will be centrist and reasonable, so they can give themselves permission to defect and vote Democrats into power. So progressives and their allies in the mainstream media have tried to portray Biden’s choice of Harris as another example of how he has kept the left at arm’s length.

Progressives know it is a lie. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep.

Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., recently said the left need not worry about Biden’s moderate veneer because ‘he is movable.’ As she told ‘The Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah, ‘As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.’

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

They have every reason to believe that will happen, because Biden has already given in to their demands. For more than 40 years, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions, even writing a constituent to say, ‘Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.’ When he reiterated his support for the Hyde Amendment last year during the presidential primaries, he was chastised by none other than Harris, who declared, ‘No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.’

Biden quickly surrendered to Harris and the party’s pro-abortion radicals.

If Biden will capitulate to his party’s left wing on a fundamental moral question like abortion, what makes anyone think he won’t do the same when it comes to Medicare-for-all or the Green New Deal?

Most candidates tack to the center after securing their party’s nomination, but Biden has already gone to the left, forging a ‘unity platform’ with Sanders.

The platform was a wink and a nod to democratic socialists — embracing a number of their demands and promising to ‘study’ others once Biden is in the White House.

The left got the message: Once the election is over, Biden will move even further in their direction.

Besides, progressives in Congress believe that they will be setting the agenda anyway, and Biden’s job will be to autopen whatever they pass and put on his desk. What is he going to do, stand with Republicans and veto their legislation?

Progressives are more than comfortable spreading the myth of moderation, while they hide inside the belly of the Democratic ticket waiting for voters to open the White House gates.

Marc A. Thiessen is a Washington Post columnist. Contact him on Twitter, @marcthiessen.

Marc Thiessen

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »