Politicians are implementing increasingly stringent regulations for dishwashers, washing machines, and other appliances. There have even been reports of a desire to phase out gas stoves. What’s your take on all of this?
Doug Casey: As Der Schwabenklaus of the World Economic Forum boldly said some years ago, “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”
The fact that a prominent figure could actually say that, promote the idea, and not be pilloried gives you an idea of the spirit of the current century. The lack of outrage from the average man is even more sick than the idea itself.
Not owning appliances is a practical application of the meme, but just one tentacle of the global warming octopus. Appliances are constructed from resources that have to be mined and run with electricity; that makes them evil. It’s much more important in these people’s views to “save the planet”—a ridiculous concept—than to continue raising the standard of living.
The fact is that the self-righteous authoritarians who want to limit the use of appliances basically just hate people—especially middle-class people. They’d really like to revert to pre-capitalist times, when only the upper classes, the feudal aristocrats, could benefit from conveniences. Ecowarriors, the Greens, are cut from the same cloth as socialists, communists, and fascists. Their totem fruit is the watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.
International Man: Many people have noticed that modern appliances are not the same quality as the ones produced decades ago. For one thing, modern appliances tend to require much more time to do the same thing an older model could do faster. For example, today, it’s common to see a standard dish-washing cycle to take more than two hours.
Modern appliances also don’t perform as well and break down more frequently. Climate regulations are largely to blame for this regression. What is really going on here?
Doug Casey: I don’t have a lot of personal experience with how appliances work, but I’ve certainly heard that modern appliances are designed to sacrifice convenience and time in order to possibly use less water or electricity.
One thing that I do recall is that several decades ago, the US government decided to regulate the amount of water that could be used to flush toilets. The devices are now less sanitary and often have to be flushed twice. The idea that politicians should mandate plumbing designs is absurd. But they do this with all products—cars, planes, houses, you name it. They destroy capital and slow technological progress, even while annoying and frustrating engineers.
But perhaps the average person doesn’t think about these things or care. The standard of living has gone up for so long that we tend to think it’s automatic and divinely ordained. I’m not so sure about that. Everything tends to wind down unless there is enough outside force to counteract it.
For instance, we live in a throwaway society. If you need something repaired, it’s generally more economic to throw the whole thing away than to hire a skilled craftsman to fix it, even though they barely exist anymore, and they’re very expensive. It’s often cheaper to replace things that break.
Is that truly economic or not? I’m not sure, but we can see it even with houses. Once upon a time, houses were built to last 100 years or longer. They were a major capital investment. But now, they seem to be the residential equivalent of IKEA furniture. They’re disposable assets. But who cares if you’re renting or have a large mortgage?
I can understand how a “throwaway” mentality might be a good thing, even though it seems wasteful, simply because technology improves. Out with the old, in with the “new and improved.” Most changes make electricity, plumbing and insulation more economic. Who wants old stuff when technology can give you new stuff that works better? The problem, however, might be that new appliances are expensive and often financed. Your standard of living might go up in the short run but further down in the long run as you deal with debt.
A case can be made for everything being bulldozed after 50 or 100 years—a cycle of life argument. You may want to keep an old car for sentimental reasons, but newer cars really do work better. Although you’ll probably have to finance the thing over seven years since they’re so expensive. Or lease it, turning a minor asset into a perpetual liability. And if it breaks, you can forget about trying to fix it yourself, if only because of its thousands of computer chips. The same is true with most devices.
There are reasons to hate appliances and devices even while you need or even love them. But I prefer to make the decision, not some government official. It’s a moral question, not a technical question.
International Man: Governments present so-called “green” solutions as a step forward to the future. However, in many ways, they represent a big step backward. What is your take?
Doug Casey: One currently fashionable indication of this is the 15-minute city, which governments are trying to impose all over the world. These would penalize you if you exit your designated 15-minute zone more than X number of times per month. The idea is green. And, like most green notions, it is very retrogressive. They want to return people to the status of medieval serfs, when few ventured more than 15 minutes from their hovels.
The most egregious green solutions, of course, involve spending trillions of dollars to build wind and solar facilities to generate electricity. There’s nothing wrong with using wind or solar power, but they only make sense for specific projects, usually in isolated locations under special conditions.
Wind and solar are totally unsuitable for running an industrial civilization. They’ve gotten much better over the years as technology has advanced, but they’re still more the product of social engineering than mechanical or electrical engineering.
Electric vehicles are another example. As a lifelong car guy, I see advantages to EVs. They have very low centers of gravity, which, everything else being equal, makes them handle much better than equivalent internal combustion engine cars. They have many fewer moving parts, which adds to reliability and efficiency. They’re quieter, emissions-free on the road, and lightning-fast. These are big pluses.
But on the downside, they’re a nightmare when it’s too cold or too hot; temperature extremes drain batteries, and it’s still quite inconvenient to charge them. That’s assuming the huge extra load they entail doesn’t cause the whole “sustainable” wind/solar grid to collapse.
Of course, battery technology will improve, so they may yet fulfill their promise. But in the meantime, when the lithium battery needs replacement, you might as well junk the car. Plus, they tend to be ultra-expensive to repair if you’re in a fender bender and potentially quite dangerous under certain conditions.
Unless I either want a high-performance plaything or was in an ideal environment where I’m just using it locally, EVs don’t currently make much sense. In fact, almost all “green” solutions are uneconomic, counterproductive, and even destructive.
International Man: The rise of carbon hysteria has coincided with rising inflation. For example, the average person might typically be expected to be upset by a drastic rise in meat or energy prices.
But his anger is muted and misdirected by the media, academia, Hollywood, and politicians telling him that his reduced standard of living is somehow helping save the planet. It seems like the carbon hysteria is a mass campaign to gaslight people into accepting a lowering of their standard of living. What is your view on the relationship between inflation and the carbon hysteria?
Doug Casey: Well, inflation is caused by money printing. The carbon hysteria will mostly be financed by money printing. So, there’s an indirect relationship. But it’s actually worse than that.
It’s long been said that war is the health of the State. We’re now looking at an insane war on carbon to supposedly save the planet. Carbon is not only the basis of all life, but CO2 levels are only marginally above what’s necessary to sustain plant life.
It’s genetically inbred in people to pull together during a war. The eco-hysterics ask: “What could be more important than a war to save the planet?” So, of course, thoughtless people will accept less and do what they’re told. In my view, this is all complete nonsense.
If they tell the plebs that inflation is somehow necessary to fight deadly CO2 and save the planet, then the average pleb will probably go along, since he’s got almost no knowledge of economics, and even less of science.
The planet will be just fine. It’s been here for 4.5 billion years and will be here for billions more, long after humanity has disappeared or gone elsewhere. Anyway, the climate hysterics don’t really care about “saving the planet”; even they aren’t quite that stupid. What’s going on is that they actually hate humanity. And themselves. The world is suffering from an episode of mass psychosis. My reaction is to push against them wherever possible.
International Man: Where is the carbon hysteria trend headed? Have we hit the high water mark?
Doug Casey: Well, we have to look at both long-term and short-term trends. The long-term trend—the ascent of man—has been in motion for at least 10,000 years. It’s been advancing exponentially with more scientific breakthroughs, leading to better technology and a higher standard of living. Will that trend stop? I’d like to think it will not only continue but accelerate.
But there have been counter trends within that very favorable long-term trend. The Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BC set civilization back for over 400 years. The fall of Roman civilization in the West led to the Dark Ages from roughly the fifth through the ninth centuries. Could we be on the cusp of something similar? There are plenty of reasons for concern. But let’s not engage in fear porn.
I hate to think something so dire is in the cards. But Dark Riders are at large, and the eye of Sauron is scanning the world. The tendency towards authoritarianism or even totalitarianism worldwide is growing—not to mention the possibility of World War III.
The negative trends go way beyond carbon hysteria and appliances that don’t work very well.
]]>International Man’s Note: We’ve seen governments institute the strictest controls on people and businesses in history. It’s been a swift elimination of individual freedoms.
But this is just the beginning…
Most people don’t realize the terrible things that could come next, including negative interest rates, the abolition of cash, and much more.
If you want to know how to survive what the central bankers and the Deep State have planned, then you need to see this newly released report from legendary investor Doug Casey and his team.
A report from government watchdog Judicial Watch explains Biden is “subsidizing” the electric vehicle industry with $15.5 billion for which taxpayers will be on the hook.
That’s in addition to the $100 million for EV charging station fixes, the report said.
“The venture will ‘ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from upgraded charging infrastructure,’ according to the Department of Transportation, which is handing out funding.
Under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program the money will be sent to states, and then to others to “strategically deploy charging stations and establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access and reliability.”
The report said the White House launched the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool in response to the president’s January 2021 order to tackle the “climate crisis at home and abroad.”
Judicial Watch reported that includes “an extensive section dedicated to securing environmental justice for disadvantaged, historically marginalized and overburdened communities, by among other things, creating a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council consisting of top government leaders.”
Those bureaucrats were told to address environmental “justice” in those locations.
“Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts,” Biden ordered.
“It is not clear what the EV ownership rate is in marginalized or overburdened communities or the demand for chargers because the government has failed to provide that information. However, the administration does reveal that as of this month, 6,261 public charging ports out of 151,506 nationwide were identified as being temporarily unavailable,” the report said.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), himself an electrical engineer, revealed this information while talking to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The Kentucky congressman had been tackling President Joe Biden’s plan to have 50 percent of cars sold in the country be electric by 2030.
The current and future grid in most areas won’t be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators. For example, California’s power grid is already buckling under the existing load.
Massie warned that the notion of widespread adoption of EVs is a dangerous fantasy based on political science instead of sound engineering. However, governments, academia, large corporations, the media and celebrities still point to the inevitable “transition” to EVs – which is far from the truth.
One should keep in mind that the government and other entities are trying to manufacture people’s consent for a large-scale scam of unimaginable proportions.
Here are three reasons why EVs are a scam, and why they should be avoided.
The central premise for EVs is that driving them will help save the planet from carbon dioxide because they use electricity instead of gas. However, not enough people think to ask: What generates the electricity that powers EVs?
Hydrocarbons generate over 60 percent of the electricity in the U.S., meaning that there is a chance that coal, oil or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV. It is important to note that carbon is an essential element for life on Earth. Humans exhale carbon dioxide and plants need it to survive.
But after decades of propaganda, so-called environmentalists have created a twisted perception in the public’s mind that carbon dioxide is a harmful substance that must be reduced to save the planet. Assuming that carbon dioxide is truly bad for the environment, EVs don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they just rearrange them.
Additionally, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations – which only hydrocarbons can provide. Electric cars also require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals, such as lithium and cobalt, that companies mine in conditions that aren’t completely good for the environment.
According to analysts, each EV requires at least one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a lot of toxic waste. This is why production mainly occurs in China, a country that doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.
In short, the notion that EVs are green is false. It’s simply propaganda that governments use to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. (Related: Study finds electric vehicles are heavier and cause more damage to roads than gas and diesel cars.)
For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through loans, grants, rebates, sales tax exemptions, tax credits and other methods. Data suggests that American taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years, which is more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of Hong Kong.
To illustrate, if someone earned $1 a second every day for one year, or about $31 million per year, it will take at least 12,677 years for that person to make $393 billion. This doesn’t even include the subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.
Governments also impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem like a more attractive option. But even with government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles. According to consumer research firm J.D. Power, the average electric car costs at least 21 percent more than the average gasoline vehicle.
Without government support, the market for EVs would evaporate simply because they would become unaffordable for most buyers. This means the EV market is being artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.
So why are governments going all out to promote this uneconomic scam?
Modern devices come with many useful features, but they are also easy to turn against their users.
For example, governments can use electric cars as spying machines. Like other modern devices, EVs will collect different kinds of data on you, like how you drive and your frequent destinations, which governments can access easily.
Analysts have estimated that cars generate at least 25 gigabytes of data every hour. Since governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid, there is a great risk for corrupt governments to abuse such a system.
In the U.K., senior government ministers have expressed fears that Chinese electric cars imported to the U.K. could be used to spy on Britain in the future by collecting data from customers.
As China develops cheaper EVs, some government officials fear that they could be used to gather data and take photographs and recordings which would be used by the exporter’s rulers.
The last thing any government wants is an incident like Canadian truckers rebelling en masse against vaccine mandates. If the Canadian truckers’ vehicles were EVs, the government would have easily been able to stamp out the resistance.
The government and manufacturers don’t want the average person to have freedom of movement or access to independent power sources. This is why those in power are pushing for the phase-out of gasoline vehicles and why they are trying to push for EVs.
Despite their alleged benefits, electric cars are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support and are crucial to the emerging high-tech control grid.
To end government control through EVs, all government subsidies and support must be eliminated. It’s easy to say that it’s better to let EVs compete on their own merits in a free market, but this is unlikely to happen.
Despite the lack of interest, governments will try harder to push EVs. It’s bad enough that electric cars are government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to show that they are saving the planet.
Along with things like digital IDs and vaccine passports, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset or the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for all humanity.
Learn the truth about electric vehicles at RoboCars.news. Listen to the Health Ranger Mike Adams discussing electric cars and the myth of “green energy” below.
This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
]]>On the evening of February 22, 2020, the small town of Satartia was shaken by a loud boom and engulfed in a foul gas fog. Soon after, the people of Satartia learned that the thunder and white cloud was caused by a 2-inch-thick pipeline carrying pressurized carbon dioxide, which caused an explosion of ice and suffocating levels of CO2 gas.
The explosion in Satartia put a halt to public transportation and sent nine people to the hospital. The gas leak caused breathing difficulties for many residents and may be responsible for respiratory problems for these people well into the future. The foul odor, which included hydrogen sulfide, ultimately helped save many of the residents from further lung damage.
If the explosion had only included CO2 gas, there would have been no odor and many people would have continued to inhale the gas, not knowing that their respiratory systems were being damaged. The pipeline was owned by Denbury Inc., a self-proclaimed leader in CO2 transportation. In Satartia, Denbury extracts gas from an ancient volcanic vent called Jackson Dome and pipes it out.
The Satartia disaster should serve as a warning. These risky and unnecessary carbon capture and transportation projects are increasing and being expanded well into the future. In addition to subsidies, finance and tax credits, the government has committed $10 billion to CCS projects. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide from industrial and other sources, compressing it, and transporting it through pipelines to underground geological formations and unused oil wells for storage. Denbury also uses the technology to move more oil out of active wells.
Currently, three companies — Navigator Energy Services, Wolf Carbon Solutions, and Summit Carbon Solutions — are working to build a network to “decarbonize” ethanol production in the Midwest. Summit actually plans to capture carbon dioxide from 31 corn ethanol plants in five states, transport it 2,000 miles by pipeline, and release 18 million tons a year in North Dakota. The company is being incentivized by $600 million taxpayer credits annually. They have sent land surveyors onto private property along the pipeline route and secured 375 easement agreements.
The goal for 2050 is laid out: it will include 65,000 miles of pipeline transporting carbon dioxide across the United States. Currently there are 50 pipelines, spanning 5,000 miles, that carry 70 million tons of carbon dioxide per year to improve oil extraction. Developers are now seeking permits for multi-state CCS projects that would transport carbon dioxide from Midwestern ethanol plants along about 3,500 miles of pipeline.
This vast network of pipelines threatens human settlements and ecology, and worse, puts many people at risk from these CO2 explosions, like the one that happened in Satartia. Even scientists who support CCS are not sure what will eventually happen to the carbon dioxide that is pumped underground. The situation could become more dangerous as the years go by. Moreover, landowners in farming communities are worried about major statewide decisions that rule out non-public use projects that could destroy their farms, cause gas leaks, and cause their property values to plummet.
Nobel laureate John Clauser has spoken out against the climate change agenda, calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the global economy and the well-being of billions of people.” William Happer and Richard Lindzen, both respected climate scientists, wrote that the damage from carbon dioxide emissions has been exaggerated by “an unscientific method of analysis based on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that don’t work, and cherry-picking.” Viv Forbes, geologist, and Carbon Sense Coalition founder describes these CCS projects as a “silly scheme devised by green zealots to sacrifice billions of dollars and scads of energy to bury this harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in the hope of appeasing the global warming gods.”
In the end, the CCS projects are a burden to taxpayers, pose direct threats to the environment and the people, and constitute a lucrative government-incentivized land grab.
Sources include:
]]>On the one hand, you have climate fanatics who insist the world is “boiling” or “melting,” and that the only way to fix it is to ban everything that makes life in modern times livable. On the other hand, you have climate realists who admit that the climate has always been changing, and that there is no real climate emergency based on historical weather patterns.
Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser falls in the second camp, having recently affixed his signature to the World Climate Declaration stating that “there is no climate emergency.” Conversely, climate “apocalyptographer” Mike Mann holds a polar opposite position, claiming that every major weather event, including the recent Maui fires and Hurricane Hilary, is proof-positive that global warming is real.
Both of these men cannot be right, of course. Only Clauser holds a solid position that aligns with science, while Mann holds the conspiratorial globalist view that every activity mankind does heats up the planet, thus causing the polar ice caps to melt and ocean levels to rise.
(Related: Check out these 14 U.S. cities that are planning to outlaw meat, dairy, private car ownership, new clothing, and commercial air travel by 2030.)
Clauser is hardly alone in rejecting the prevailing climate narrative. He is actually the second Nobel Laureate to sign the World Climate Declaration, a document that currently has nearly 1,600 prominent signatures.
Clauser also recently joined the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, a climate organization that rejects the made-up notion that “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide are in any way responsible for directly causing major weather events that the “greenies” insist are occurring because too many people still eat meat and drive cars.
“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people,” Clauser is quoted as saying.
“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”
In no uncertain terms, Clauser has said again and again that, based on everything he knows and sees, there is absolutely no climate crisis taking place – at least not of a kind that humans can prevent, anyway.
“There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis,” Clauser does, however, say. “The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Clauser is quite brave in his position, sharing it publicly every change he gets, including at the recent Quantum Korea 2023 event. There, Clauser warned his audience that the pseudoscience and misinformation surrounding climate change continues to grow.
“Beware: If you’re doing good science, it may lead you into politically incorrect areas,” Clauser stated at the event.
“If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them. I have several I won’t have time to discuss, but I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”
The man-made climate change hoax is a globalist plot to strip the world’s population of all freedom – because freedom is “polluting” the planet, we are told. Learn more at GreenTyranny.news.
Sources for this article include:
]]>The notion of an electric vehicle (EV) has been around longer than the gasoline automobile, but is yet to be adopted with wide acceptance.
It has been an area of debate in the auto industry for as long as anyone can remember, says Travis Okulski, an editor at Road & Track. On paper, electric motors are fantastic, but in the real world – and especially during these trying times – there are a number of factors that combine to exemplify the weaknesses of EVs.
There are two factors that come into play that may not be considered by the EV buyer:
Unless you have your own solar generator, the likelihood is that the electric car is actually being charged by coal or gas power, which are the most prevalent power-generating stations in the world. They are also the most heavily polluting. The addition of hundreds of thousands or millions of EVs will put a strain on these plants, increasing pollution on their end.
The nickel-hydride batteries that are in electric cars are created in a number of heavily polluting processes, like nickel mining. The nickel-hydride batteries also contain possible carcinogens. To complete the battery construction process, they are shipped all over the world, which adds additional pollutants.
Disposal of the batteries is also an issue. With toxic materials inside, incorrect disposal by a junkyard or manufacturer could destroy the ecosystem of an area for generations.
Over half of all new cars sold in the United States by 2030 are expected to be EVs and that could put a major strain on the nation’s electric power grid – an already aging system built for a world that runs on fossil fuels, according to Katie Brigham in her story for CNBC.
While a direct comparison with appliances depends on many variables, an owner of a new Tesla Model 3 who drives the national average of around 14,000 miles per year would use about the same amount of electricity charging their vehicle at home as they would on their electric water heater over the course of a year, and about 10 times more electricity than it would take to power a new, energy-efficient refrigerator.
Larger electric vehicles such as the Ford F-150 Lightning would generally use more electricity than a central AC unit in a large home.
In a study commissioned by the California Public Utilities Commission, grid analytics company Kevala forecasts that California alone will have to spend $50 billion by 2035 in distribution grid upgrades to meet its ambitious EV targets. Energy providers could have the option to switch off EV charging stations remotely to reduce pressure on the electric grid, said Daniel Y. Teng via The Epoch Times.
EV charging can take minutes or days. There’s really no way to nail down exactly how long it takes to charge an EV because it depends on a myriad of factors. Battery size, its overall efficiency, the speed of its onboard charge and the power source you’re plugging into are just some of the more obvious variables though there are countless others, US News reported.
EVs are perfectly adequate to go around town or to run short errands. The truth is electric cars inherently limit a journey based on their small range.
Range involves charging the battery all the way to 100 percent, which is not the EV norm. Topping off the last 10–15 percent is when the rate of charging slows considerably and it also leads to increased degradation in battery capacity over time, according to Car and Driver.
For example, Tesla recommends limiting charging to 90 percent for daily use. Even on long-distance trips, the stops are determined more by the charging infrastructure than anything else, and the most expeditious method is to top up the battery just far enough—to maybe 80 or 90 percent, keeping it in the speedy part of the charge-rate curve—to get to the next charger. (Related: EV NIGHTMARE: Man spends 15 hours to travel 178 miles, proving EVs are unsuitable for long-distance travel.)
As of November 8, 2022, there are 56,256 EV charging stations with about 148,000 charging ports across the country. Approximately 52,375 were available to the public, and 3,816 stations were private, according to the Alternative Fuels Data Center.
While this is enough to sustain the current number of registered EVs, the US would need to roughly triple installation rates over the next eight years to support the anticipated number of EVs on the road by 2030. (Related: EV owners complain about “logistical nightmare” caused by lack of charging stations.)
Lower-income consumers still see EVs as out of reach, USA Today reported. Corey Lydstone, founder and CEO of Autolist, a CarGurus company, said the gains of EVs are currently largely limited to higher-income households.
In a survey fielded by Autolist to 3,104 buyers between February and July, 46 percent of those earning less than $30,000 annually cited EVs’ upfront costs as a major hurdle and a third said they had no place to charge where they lived. That compares to the survey average of 42 percent and 27 percent of people who cited these as top concerns, respectively.
Currently, government incentives are encouraging the purchase of electric cars in America with tax credits of up to $7,500 available.
This brings the purchase price in range with comparable traditional models to make them a viable alternative for buyers. But there is only so long a tax incentive can last, and once the credit dries up, it is only a matter of time until electric car sales slow as well.
So while the government is helping in the short term, the long-term effects could be harmful.
Watch the video above about the US power grid – can it handle the EV boom? This video is from the Daily Videos channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
]]>If we were able to find a way to remove all carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, all plants would die and humanity would rapidly go extinct from starvation. So when we are messing around with carbon dioxide, we are literally messing around with a life-giving gas that makes life on this planet possible.
But when it comes to messing things up, we should never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability. On Friday, his administration announced that more than a billion dollars will be spent on “huge vacuum cleaners” in Louisiana and Texas that will be used to suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air…
The Biden administration on Friday announced its first major investment to kickstart the US carbon removal industry – something energy experts say is key to getting the country’s planet-warming emissions under control.
Direct air capture removal projects are akin to huge vacuum cleaners sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, using chemicals to remove the greenhouse gas. Once removed, CO2 gets stored underground, or is used in industrial materials like cement. On Friday, the US Department of Energy announced it is spending $1.2 billion to fund two new demonstration projects in Texas and Louisiana – the South Texas Direct Air Capture hub and Project Cypress in Louisiana.
This is really going to happen.
According to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, these “huge vacuum cleaners” will be able to remove over 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere each year…
Granholm said the projects are expected to remove more than 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air annually once they are up and running – the equivalent of removing nearly 500,000 gas cars off the road.
Your tax dollars will be funding this project. Remember that the next time you look over the deductions to your paycheck.
A project of this nature is already up and running in Iceland, but the “huge vacuum cleaners” that the Biden administration will be putting up will absolutely dwarf what Iceland has been doing…
Another project in Iceland that opened in 2021 removes about 10 metric tons of CO2 every day, roughly the same amount of carbon emitted by 800 cars a day. At the time, that project’s operator Climeworks said it was the largest one in the world.
The US direct air capture projects alone could increase global capacity for the technology by 400 times, said Sasha Stashwick, policy director at Carbon180 – an independent nonprofit focused on carbon removal.
“The industry’s very nascent at the moment,” Stashwick told CNN. “These are meant to be the first commercial-scale deployments at the mega-ton scale. It’s a very, very big deal.”
Of course this is not the only really stupid idea that global leaders have come up with to fight climate change.
In Ireland, farmers are extremely distressed by reports that they may soon be forced to kill off 200,000 cows so that the government can meet climate targets…
IRISH farmers have been taking to the streets in recent weeks after reports surfaced of a Government plan to cull 200,000 cows to meet climate targets.
The controversial legislation to cut its emissions by 25 percent between the years of 2018 and 2030 was slated last year, with farmers raising concerns about potential culls. The Irish Cattle Breeding Federation last year told Beef Central it believed it could comply with the target through improved genetics.
However, cull concerns were recently ramped up, with a local media outlet finding a Government report that suggested culling 200,000 cows to meet the target.
Why in the world would the Irish government even consider such a thing when we are in the middle of a major global food crisis?
I simply do not understand.
Elsewhere in Europe, the Dutch government is going to be buying up large numbers of farms and shutting them down in order to “reduce nitrogen pollution”…
The European Commission on Tuesday said it had approved two Dutch plans worth a combined 1.47 billion euros ($1.61 billion) to buy out livestock farmers to reduce nitrogen pollution, saying they are permissible under state aid rules.
The Dutch need to reduce excess nitrogen levels, caused in part by decades of intensive farming, a problem that has led to courts blocking important construction projects until the issue is resolved.
Once again, I just don’t get why anyone would think that this is a good idea when the UN says that 2.4 billion people on the planet do not have enough food to eat.
But these elitists don’t listen to common sense.
They are just going to do what they want to do, and the rest of us will be forced to live with the consequences.
Unfortunately, some of these elitists appear to be willing to go to absolutely insane extremes in order to fight climate change.
Several years ago, a WEF “bioethicist” named S. Matthew Liao actually suggested genetically modifying humans so that they would become allergic to meat…
This is one of those rare moments where we don’t know if we should make jokes or fear for our lives. Prepare yourself.
A viral video shows a bioethicist suggest we re-engineer humans to become allergic to meat in order to control climate change.
A video of a panel at the 2016 World Science Festival has resurfaced causing outrage from thousands on social media. S. Matthew Liao is speaking about reducing humanity’s footprint on the planet.
There are people that actually sit around and think up stuff like this.
More recently, an astronomer at the University of Hawaii made headlines when he proposed that we should capture an asteroid and use it as part of a contraption that would work as an “umbrella” between us and the sun…
Scientists around the globe are working on myriad ways to reduce the effects of climate change, including István Szapudi, an astronomer at the University of Hawaiʻi Institute for Astronomy, who has devised a novel idea to lessen the amount of sunlight hitting our planet.
In a paper titled “Solar radiation management with a tethered sun shield” recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Szapudi proposes placing a sort of umbrella in a near gravitationally stable region of space between Earth and the sun along the sun-Earth axis, combined with a captured asteroid as a counterweight, that would shade the planet from a fraction of our star’s rays.
He was working on a space ship propulsion idea and read a paper about solar sails, spurring him to look into sun shades.
No thank you.
When I look up into the sky, I want to see the Sun.
I don’t want to see a giant umbrella blocking my view.
Given enough time, these freaks would implement all sorts of crazy schemes. The good news is that time is running out for them. The global system that they are trying to build will ultimately crumble to the ground. That will inevitably lead to a period of great global chaos, but out of that chaos will come something else entirely.
Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.
Article cross-posted from End of the American Dream.
]]>The White House dropped a report Friday detailing their support for research into blocking sunlight in their efforts to fight climate change. As Michael Snyder noted, this concept was already being tossed around by the European Union earlier in the week. That didn’t garner the attention the Globalist Elite Cabal expected, so they commanded the White House to sign onto the ludicrous concept a few days later.
Let’s be clear: Even the most unhinged climate change cultist wouldn’t think this sounds like a good idea. Lest we forget, these are the people who claim nuclear power is bad and cow farts are dangerous. One might think people who are so gullible would latch onto a sun-blocking maneuver, but that’s not the case. The cultists aren’t interested in any solution that does not force totalitarian control on their neighbors, the downfall of capitalism, and a bearhug embrace of Neo-Marxism.
Blocking the sun just doesn’t check enough of their climate change cult boxes.
This so-called “potential solution” is designed to push insanity levels to eleven so they can reel it back in with horrible ideas that are slightly less insane. Those who are against monitoring personal carbon emissions and tying the results to one’s ability to live their day-to-day lives might find the notion intrusive, but it’s better than blocking out the sun, right? That’s why idiocy is proposed as plausible by the Globalist Elite Cabal.
Here are the details about the White House’s drop from Discern Reporter:
A recently published research document on the White House website has shed light on the Biden administration’s willingness to explore the concept of blocking sunlight as a potential measure to combat climate change. The document, released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday, reveals that the team has been studying “geoengineering” methods aimed at preventing sun rays from exacerbating global warming.
The University of Oxford defines “geoengineering” as the intentional large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change. The report titled “Congressionally-Mandated Report on Solar Radiation Modification” outlines the specific geoengineering methods under consideration by the Biden administration, including “stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening,” along with research into “cirrus cloud thinning.”
The introduction to the report clarifies that research on “space-based approaches” has not been a focus due to the relative ease of implementing atmospheric approaches.
The document emphasizes that it is primarily a research plan aimed at understanding the potential impacts of solar radiation modification (SRM) rather than a blueprint for deployment. The research would contribute to a better understanding of basic climate processes, the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions, and the outcomes of SRM.
The summary highlights that a research program exploring the scientific and societal implications of SRM would enable informed decisions on its potential risks and benefits as part of climate policy. It also acknowledges that such a program would prepare the United States for possible SRM deployment by other public or private actors.
The report points out that SRM could offer the prospect of significant planetary cooling within a few years.
However, the White House issued a separate statement assuring the public that there are no plans at present to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.
]]>