Aletho News


Report A COVID-19 Vaccine Injury

Have you been injured by a COVID-19 vaccine?

Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines for COVID-19 are being developed at warp speed. Potential safety issues may not be disclosed or fully disclosed to individuals receiving these experimental products.

A COVID-19 vaccine can cause injury weeks or months after injection.

If you have received a COVID-19 vaccine and suffered an adverse event thereafter, we can assist in investigating whether you have been adequately warned of the potential injury.

Informed consent is the bedrock of medical ethics and we fight every day to assure that every person is given informed consent prior to being given any drug or injected with a vaccine. We look forward to helping you.

Report A COVID-19 Vaccine Injury

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 1 Comment

AMLO Complains to the US over USAID Funding of Opposition Group

teleSUR | May 7, 2021

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador revealed on Friday his authorities sent a complaint to the U.S. government urging an explanation on the funding by U.S. organization USAID of an alleged anti-corruption group that seeks to take down his administration.

“A foreign government can’t provide money to political groups,” the president known as AMLO said before a virtual meeting with the U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris. The note asks the U.S. to confirm such funding and suspend it in case the collaboration is true.

The Mexican authorities highlighted the information that Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity, a political group that has tried to plot against the government, is receiving funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). AMLO considers this action “it’s promoting a form of coup.”

The Mexican organization has reported critically on some of AMLO’s most outstanding initiatives, which the Mexican government respects as members o the civil society. However, people linked to the group “have been explicit in their political militancy against the government of Mexico,” the authorities added.

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem: The full story

Israeli government plans to force Palestinian families out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood

JERUSALEM - APRIL 15: Israeli forces intervene in Palestinians as they gather around the Damascus Gate after performing Tarawih prayer in Al-Aqsa Compound, in Eastern Jerusalem on April 15, 2021. Israeli forces took into custody some of Palestinians during the intervention. ( Mostafa Alkharouf - Anadolu Agency )

By Abdel-Raouf Arnaout | Anadolu Agency | 08.05.2021


In the aftermath of the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians by Zionist gangs to pave the way for the creation of the state of Israel, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee their homes in historical Palestine to neighboring countries.

Following these events, which came to be known to the Palestinians as “Nakba”, or the Catastrophe, 28 families settled in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem in 1956, hoping that would be the last time they are forced out of their homes.

But these families, whose number has grown to 38 since then, say they are experiencing a renewed Nakba on a daily basis.

The Israeli Central Court in East Jerusalem approved a decision earlier this year to evict four Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in favor of right-wing Israeli settlers.

Israel’s Supreme Court was scheduled to issue a ruling on the evictions on Thursday amid heated demonstrations and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli settlers, but the decision was delayed until May 10.

In the event that the court rules in favor of the settlers, the Palestinian families will lose their homes. Other families will face a similar fate.

Beginning of tragedy

In 1956, the 28 refugee families who lost their homes during the Nakba reached an agreement with the Jordanian Ministry of Construction and Development and the UN refugee agency UNRWA to provide housing for them in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.

At that time, the West Bank was under Jordanian rule (1951-1967).

According to the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem (CCPRJ), the Jordanian government provided the land while UNRWA covered the cost for constructing 28 homes for these families.

“A contract was concluded between the Ministry of Construction and Reconstruction and Palestinian families in 1956, with one of the main conditions stating that the residents pay a symbolic fee, provided that ownership is transferred to the residents after three years from the completion of construction,” the CCPRJ said in a statement.

This, however, was interrupted by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, in 1967 which prevented the registration of the houses under the names of families, the statement said.

Jordan’s reaction

Last week, Jordan’s Foreign Ministry said it had provided the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with 14 ratified agreements meant for the people of the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem which support their claim of their lands and property.

In a statement, the ministry said it handed over a certificate to the residents proving that the Jordanian Ministry of Construction and Development had concluded an agreement with UNRWA to establish 28 housing units in Sheikh Jarrah to be delegated and registered in the names of these families.

According to the statement, the process, however, was interrupted as a result of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967.

The ministry said it had previously provided the Palestinian side with all the documents that could help Jerusalemites maintain their full rights, including lease contracts, lists of beneficiaries’ names and a copy of the agreement concluded with UNRWA in 1954.

Suffering renewed in 1972

Muhammad al-Sabbagh, a resident of the neighborhood, told Anadolu Agency that the suffering of the Palestinian families began in 1972, when the Sephardic Committee and the Knesset Committee of Israel claimed that they owned the land on which the houses were built in 1885.

In July 1972, the two Israeli associations asked the court to evict four families from their homes in the neighborhood accusing them of land grab, according to the CCPRJ.

The Palestinian families appointed a lawyer to defend their rights, and in 1976 a verdict was issued by Israeli courts in their favor.

“However, the court, using a new registration made in the Israeli Land Registry Department, decided that the land belongs to the Israeli settlement associations,” al-Sabbagh said.

Apartheid law

In 1970, the Law on Legal and Administrative Affairs in Israel was enacted, which stipulated, among other things, that Jews who lost their property in East Jerusalem in 1948 can reclaim their property.

The Israeli Peace Now movement says the law does not allow Palestinians to reclaim their property they lost in Israel in 1948, a move that proves the existence of a separate law for Jews and Palestinians.

According to al-Sabbagh, residents of Sheikh Jarrah were deceived by an Israeli lawyer assigned to defend them.

“In 1982, the Israeli settlement associations filed an eviction case against 24 families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood,” al-Sabbagh said, adding that 17 families assigned Israeli lawyer Tosia Cohen to defend them.

As the legal battle continued, al-Sabbagh said the lawyer in 1991 signed an agreement, without the knowledge of the families, that the ownership of the land belongs to the settlement associations.

“The residents of the neighborhood were instead granted a tenant status,” al-Sabbagh added.

The lawyer, according to the CCPRJ, put Palestinian families “under the threat of eviction if they failed to pay the rent to the settlement associations”.

Meanwhile, Israeli courts continued to hear rival cases from residents and settlement associations.

In 1997, Suleiman Darwish Hijazi, a local resident, filed a lawsuit with the Israeli Central Court to prove his land ownership, using title deeds issued by the Ottoman Empire, which were brought from Turkey. The move, however, backfired when the court rejected the claim in 2005.

The court said the papers did not prove his land ownership and Hijazi’s appeal in the following year was rejected.

Evictions begin

For years, Israeli courts have heard cases submitted by settlement associations against Palestinian residents, as well as Palestinian appeals against court rulings issued in favor of settlers.

In November 2008, however, the al-Kurd family was evicted from their home, followed by the eviction of the Hanoun and al-Ghawi families in August 2009.

Their homes were taken over by settlers who were quick to raise Israeli flags on them, marking a new phase for the suffering of the Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.

So far, 12 Palestinian families in the neighborhood have received eviction orders issued by the Israeli central and magistrates courts.

Most recently, four Palestinian families filed a petition with the Supreme Court, Israel’s highest judicial body, against a decision to expel them from their homes. The court is set to rule on the issue on Monday.

Al-Sabbagh, who has a 32-member family including 10 children, is afraid that the court verdict will make him and his family refugees again.

In 1948, al-Sabbagh’s family had fled their home in Jaffa, which is now inhabited by Israelis.

The Palestine-Israel conflict dates back to 1917, when the British government, in the now-famous Balfour Declaration, called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

*Ibrahim Mukhtar in Ankara translated this report from Arabic

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 1 Comment

Doctors For Covid Ethics: Resources For Your Use

Doctors for Covid Ethics

As coercive pressures on citizens to take investigational vaccines mount in many countries around the world, we wanted to share with you some resources that may help you to raise awareness, and defend the principles of informed consent and bodily autonomy, in the face of assaults on these fundamental rights and freedoms.

First is a document that we have prepared on the vaccine risk-benefit analysis. It aims to help raise understanding of the evidence and science behind the COVID-19 vaccines, and to combat common misconceptions. It is a summary of vaccine necessity, efficacy and safety (attached in pdf form). The document was initially posted on our Medium site, but was taken down by Medium, so we have re-posted it on a secure blockchain website, here. It is also available on the Off Guardian website, here.

Second is a form for employees whose employers are requiring Covid-19 injections as a condition of employment. It was written for US employees, but it could be adapted to local circumstances as required.

And third is a letter to Universities from the President of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, urging Universities to reverse their policy of mandating COVID-19 vaccinations. It provides a succinct and cogent rationale that could be adapted for other institutions and situations.

We hope that you find these resources helpful. Please do not underestimate the value of each and every individual action that you take, and each and every person that you reach. These are difficult times. But the sheer weight of fact and evidence against coercive and repressive measures mounts daily. In addition to the AAPS statement above, evidence given to the CDC and an independent French drug assessment centre have called for the cessation of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Some new articles and video interviews with signatories are also available on our Medium site, should they be of interest to you And we have a Twitter account, here

With our sincerest respect and thanks,

Doctors for Covid Ethics

We are many

More at

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Why are people going blind after having the Covid Vaccine?


Since the first Covid-19 vaccine was authorised for use in the United Kingdom, and administered on the 8th December 2020, there have been hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. But there is one particular adverse reaction which is both concerning and strange, and the number of people suffering from it is increasing by the week – Blindness.

The MHRA Yellow Card scheme analysis print for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA jab shows that since the first jab was administered on the 9th December and up to the 28th April, thirty-three people have reported suffering blindness due to the jab. Another two people have reported central vision loss, and a further two have reported sudden visual loss.

Five people have also reported an adverse reaction known as ‘blindness transient’ due to the Pfizer vaccine. This is where a person suffers visual disturbance or loss of sight in one eye for seconds or minutes at a time. And a further six people have reported an adverse reaction known as ‘unilateral blindness’. This is where a person is blind or has extremely poor vision in one eye.

However the MHRA Yellow Card scheme analysis print for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine shows that recipients are at a significantly higher risk of suffering loss of vision after having the jab compared to having the Pfizer jab. Since the first AstraZeneca jab was administered on the 4th January 2021 and up to the 28th April 2021 a total of one-hundred-forty-three people have reported suffering blindness due to the jab. Another four-hundred-seventeen people have reported visual impairment, and a further three have reported sudden visual loss.

Ten people have also reported suffering transient blindness as a result of having the AstraZeneca jab, and a further thirteen have reported suffering unilateral blindness as a result of the same jab.

In all there have been 11,279 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to both jabs, with 2,438 reported due to the Pfizer jab, and a frightening 8,841 reported due to the AstraZeneca jab. The fact-checkers alongside authorities have recently been on the case to sweep this data under the carpet and have called it unreliable. Their reasoning is that “just because someone reports the event after having the vaccine, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is due to the vaccine”.

But what they’re not telling you is that it also doesn’t necessarily mean it is not due to the vaccine, and we imagine every single person who has reported an adverse reaction would disagree with the fact checkers and authorities attempts to play down these reports. For instance one person who goes by the name of Louis has been documenting the story of his wife on Twitter since she had the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

Unfortunately his wife has gone completely blind in her left eye and 30-60% blind in her right eye since she had the AstraZeneca jab and the neurologist treating her has categorically told her not have the second dose. Louis states that as of the 8th May 2021 it has been 59 days since his wife had the AstraZeneca vaccine, 55 days since she went blind, 19 days since she started steroid treatment and unfortunately has seen zero improvement. In that time she has had 2 CT scans and 1 MRI. She has also seen 3 ophthalmologists, 2 opticians and had dozens of blood tests.

As you can see the misery which the fact checkers are disregarding as “not necessarily the fault of the vaccine” is very real for the people who are reporting them. But why are the Covid vaccines causing people to go blind?

Well there is another extremely concerning adverse reaction that has been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, one which has seen an astronomical increase in the number of reports in the past few weeks – stroke.

As of the 28th April 2021 the MHRA has received two-hundred-ninety-seven reports of stroke due to the Pfizer vaccine. This includes twenty-one reports of cerebral haemorrhage, 16 reports of cerebral infarction, twenty-five reports of ischaemic stroke, and a frightening 192 reports of cerebrovascular accident. Sadly this has resulted in twenty-seven deaths.

But yet again the AstraZeneca jab has caused far more misery in terms of causing a stroke compared to the Pfizer jab. As of the 28th April 2021 the MHRA Yellow Card scheme has received one-thousand-eighty-eight reports of stroke, this is almost four times the amount of reports received due to the Pfizer jab. These include eleven cerebral haematomas, forty-six cerebral infarctions, one-hundred-seven cerebral haemorrhages, and a terrifying six-hundred-seven cerebrovascular accidents.

But it doesn’t end there. The AstraZeneca jab has also caused fifteen cases of lacunar stroke, fifty-nine cases of sbarachnoid haemorrhage, and seventy-four cases of ischaemic stroke. Sadly this has resulted in eighty-five deaths.

But what does this have to do with people going blind? Well this helpful fact sheet provided by the Stroke Foundation in Australia provides the answer as to why. According to the fact sheet around one-third of stroke survivors suffer visual loss, and most sadly never fully recover their vision.

The reason strokes cause blindness is that vision depends on a healthy eye to receive information and a healthy brain to process that information. The nerves in the eye travel from the eye through the brain to the occipital cortex at the back of the brain, allowing you to see.

Most strokes affect one side of the brain. Nerves from each eye travel together in the brain, so both eyes are affected. If the right side of your brain is damaged, the left side vision in each eye may be affected. It is rare for both sides of the brain to be affected by stroke. When it does happen, it can result in blindness.

So if you’ve been wondering how on earth the experimental Covid vaccines could cause a person to go blind, you now know why. It’s the vast amount of strokes the Covid jabs are causing that is contributing to this devastating and life-changing adverse event. Strokes will not be the only contributing factor of course, but the numbers shows us they are most likely the main adverse reaction at fault.

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 10 Comments

Joe Biden’s Offshore Wind Energy Mirage

The reality is a lot of turbines, not much energy.

By Craig Rucker | Real Clear Energy | May 6, 2021

President Biden recently announced ambitious plans to install huge offshore industrial wind facilities along America’s Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. His goal is to churn out 30 gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of wind capacity by 2030, ensuring the U.S. “leads by example” in fighting the “climate crisis.”

Granted “30 by 2030” is clever PR. But what are the realities?

The only existing U.S. offshore wind operation features five 6-MW turbines off Rhode Island. Their combined capacity (what they could generate if they worked full-bore, round the clock 24/7) is 30 MW. Mr. Biden is planning 1,000 times more offshore electricity, perhaps split three ways: 10,000 MW for each coast.

While that might sound impressive, it isn’t.  It means total wind capacity for the entire Atlantic coast, under Biden’s plan, would only meet three-fourths of the peak summertime electricity needed to power New York City.  Again, this assumes the blades are fully spinning 24/7. In reality, such turbines would be lucky to be operating a top capacity half the time. Even less as storms and salt spray corrode the turbines, year after year.

The reason why is there is often minimal or no wind in the Atlantic – especially on the hottest days. Ditto for the Gulf of Mexico. No wind means no electricity – right when you need it most.

Of course, too little wind isn’t the only issue. Other times, there’s too much wind – as when a hurricane roars up the coast. That’s more likely in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 had Category 4 winds in Virginia, Category 3 intensity off Cape Hatteras (NC), Long Island and Rhode Island, and Category 2 when it reached Maine. It sank four U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships.

When storms or hurricanes hit, turbines can be destroyed. Repairing or replacing hundreds of offshore turbines could take years.

If the White House is planning to generate all that power using common 6-MW turbines, our coastlines would need a hefty 5,000 of the 600-foot tall monsters dotting them. The Washington Monument is 655 feet tall.

Going instead with 12-MW turbines, like the 850-foot-tall GE Haliade-X turbines Virginia is planning to install off its coast, America would still need 2,500 of the behemoths – just to complete Phase One of Biden’s plan. 30,000 megawatts by 2030.  Even if these were all plopped in the Atlantic, it still would not be enough to meet New York State’s current electricity needs.

And what about the environment?

How many millions of tons of steel, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, petroleum-based composites (for turbine blades) and other raw materials would be required to manufacture and install the turbines and undersea electrical cables, especially where deep-water turbines are involved?

How many billions of tons of ore would have to be mined, crushed, processed and refined – considering that it takes 125,000 tons of average ore for every 1,000 tons of pure copper metal?

Not only would nearly all of this mining and manufacturing require fossil fuels, but much of it would be done in China, or in other countries by Chinese-owned companies. Haliade-X turbines are also manufactured in China. And much of the mining and processing is done under horrid workplace safety and environmental conditions, often with near-slave and child labor.

More turbines will also kill countless birds and bats. Turbine infrasound and other noise have been implicated in disorienting and stranding whales and dolphins. The numbers, height and low-frequency turbine noise also interferes with surface ships, submarines, aircraft and radar.

Nuclear power or billions of batteries (or retained fossil fuel power plants) will have to back up every megawatt of intermittent, unreliable wind power, so that society can function every time the wind fails. That means more raw materials, transmission lines and costs.

Even with massive taxpayer subsidies, electricity generated by offshore turbines will cost many times what we are paying today, even in New York and California. That will have especially heavy impacts on energy-intensive industries, hospitals, and poor, middle-class, minority and fixed-income families.

Economic, environmental and climate justice reviews must fully, carefully and honestly assess every one of these factors. No “expedited” or “climate emergency” shortcuts should be permitted.

President Biden likes to say offshore wind energy is clean, green, renewable and sustainable. Wind itself certainly is. But harnessing the wind (or sun), to meet the needs of modern civilization is not – especially in ocean environments.

Claiming otherwise is a mirage – a scam. Maybe that’s why the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management already canceled two wind projects off Long Island. The costs and impacts are enormous, and local opposition was high. Do climate activists in and out of the Biden Administration expect otherwise anywhere else?

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Facebook Has Deleted The Richie Allen Show Page

By Richie Allen | May 8, 2021

Facebook deleted The Richie Allen Show page overnight. There was no warning. The page had been managed by a friend of mine as I haven’t had a personal Facebook account for a few years.

I had my pals login details, so I could go in and post the recording of each day’s radio show. Rodge (my mate) rarely posted. When he did, it was to remind you that the show was about to start, or when I was on holiday, to remind you why I was away.

I’ve only ever posted the show on there and recently, articles from this website. Three months ago, Facebook emailed Rodge to say that the visibility of the page would be severely restricted, because the page was posting fake news. This was nonsense, but I didn’t care.

In the radio show, I interview academics and journalists who have been effectively banned from the media. In the articles, I report what these people are saying. The fake news claim is pathetic. I am a journalist and I hold myself to the highest standard.

I make it crystal clear when I am offering an opinion. “That’s conjecture,” I say. When stating a fact, I offer empirical evidence to support the claim.

I couldn’t care less that Facebook has banned the page. I was going to close the page several years ago when I deleted my personal page. I despise Facebook, but Rodge compelled me to keep it open. He’s a good lad so I said go ahead.

You know me. I despise megalomaniacal truthers and attention seekers who use information and people as their props. The indy media is filled to the brim with celebrity wannabes. For me, the information has always been the star and a proper presenter should put the guest and the info ahead of him or her. I’m not important. I am a conduit.

So you’ll believe me when I tell you this. They’re coming for The Richie Allen Show and they’re coming fast. Every other week, the show is criticised in a national newspaper, either here or back home, not because of anything I have said or done, but because of some of the people I have hosted. I’m never offered right of reply.

Some weeks ago, Talk Radio presenter James Whale allowed some goon from an organisation called Hope Not Hate, free rein to smear me and my radio show. It went on for ten minutes. Whale, the gormless stooge, never challenged him.

When I politely Tweeted Whale to inquire as to when I’d be given right of reply, he blocked me. Astonishing stuff. I’d have been fired for doing that, in my time on commercial radio.

Three times last week, academics declined to come on the show. This has become more common over the last two years.

They’d all heard of me and two of them said they really appreciated the show, but still they declined. “Richie, I’ll get destroyed if I come on with you,” is a standard reply now.

Why is this happening? It’s all about the numbers. That makes me smile. Ian Collins, on his Talk Radio show, in reply to a listener who told him that he loved the Richie Allen Show, said that “it’s all about the numbers.”

You’re damn right it is Ian. My live show averages 150,000 listeners a night. Read that line again. Ok, so they’re not all in the UK. In the last 30 days, the show has had 248,864 unique listeners in 98 countries.

The Podcast is downloaded or streamed more than two million times a month.

There has never been a show like it. You know me. I ain’t boasting. I’m making a point.

They’re not going to stand for it. I’ve known this for some time, as has my friend and colleague Hayden Hewitt and FAB Radio’s Paul Ripley. We’ve discussed it. They won’t stand for a show with that kind of reach, featuring content that challenges the covid narrative or anything else for that matter.

I’ll keep doing it though. I have a state of the art radio studio and an independent stream. I have my website. I have friends like Paul Ripley, Hayden Hewitt, and you. They’re going to try and make it harder and harder for you to find me. But I’ll always be here.

Have a great weekend. Join me for the most chilled music show in radio tomorrow at 10am.

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Fantasy Versus Reality In Woke-Land

By Francis Menton | The Manhattan Contrarian | May 6, 2021

JP Morgan Chase — it’s hard to find a more “woke” company than that one. Under celebrity CEO Jamie Dimon, JPM in its corporate pronouncements consistently positions itself at the most exquisitely correct end of the politically correct spectrum.

But reality can be tough. In its email of a couple of days ago, the Global Warming Policy Foundation links to JPM’s 2021 Annual Energy Paper. The Paper comes from JPM’s Asset and Wealth Management Group. The lead author is a guy named Michael Cembalest, who appears to have his ear right down on the ground of the global energy business. The bottom line is that all the talk about “deep de-carbonization” of the world economy any time soon is a ridiculous fantasy. Fossil fuels are not going away for a long time, if ever. Carbon emissions into the atmosphere are increasing? You’d better get used to that.

Once again, this “deep de-carbonization” thing is a case of the really “smart” people deceiving you, or maybe themselves; or more likely, both.

For starters, let’s consider some of the extreme wokeism that issues from the executive suites in JPMville. This is not limited to matters of “climate,” but extends as well to other usual topics, like for example “systemic racism.” On that subject, here is JPM CEO Jamie Dimon, as quoted in Forbes in October 2020:

“Systemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history. We can do more and do better to break down systems that have propagated racism and widespread economic inequality, especially for Black and Latinx people. It’s long past time that society addresses racial inequities in a more tangible, meaningful way.”

Meanwhile, over in the climate arena, JPM’s high-level pronouncements totally buy into the idea that we’re going to save the planet by financing a bunch of wind turbines, or something. Last October, JPM put out a big statement with the pompous title of “How one of the world’s biggest banks plans to tackle climate change.” Excerpt:

Climate change is among the most urgent problems facing humanity; businesses and governments have an imperative to act. Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to restrict a rise in the world’s average temperature, would enable us to take a giant step towards a safer, greener, more sustainable future. . . . For the world to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, there needs to be an acceleration of emerging technologies that are not yet widely commercially available or economically viable. . . . Our company, JPMorgan Chase, announced this month that we will start aligning our financing portfolio to meet the Paris goals.

Then just a couple of weeks ago, on April 15, JPM followed up by announcing a big new plan to “Advance Climate Action and Sustainable Development” with some $2.5 trillion in investments:

JPMorgan Chase aims to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years – beginning this year through the end of 2030 – to advance long-term solutions that address climate change and contribute to sustainable development. . . . This long-term target complements the firm’s Paris-aligned financing strategy and will help accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by encouraging actions that set a path for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050

Wow, that sounds great! Or is it all just a cynical grab for some of the upcoming gusher of government subsidies, with no detectable effect at all on the climate, or even much effect on the use of fossil fuels? For some insights, let’s look at that 2021 Annual Energy Paper. The document is not short (42 pages), and certainly does not fall in the category of “climate skepticism,” but it does contain some notable doses of hard-headed realism that are normally completely lacking in this field.

From the Executive Summary:

Our main focus this year: why is the transition [away from carbon-based fuels] taking so long? Deep decarbonization plans assume massive changes in electric vehicles, electricity transmission grids, industrial energy use and carbon sequestration, but each faces headwinds often not accounted for by energy futurists. As shown below, many prior forecasts of the renewable transition were too ambitious since they ignored energy density, intermittency and the complex realities of incumbent energy systems. . . .

Maybe those “energy futurist” people are just kidding themselves?

President Biden just announced a new GHG emissions target: a 50% decline by 2030 vs a 2005 baseline. This very ambitious target implies a decarbonization pace in the next 10 years that’s four times faster than in the last 15 years. Even with the amount of money the administration plans to dedicate to the task, it’s an enormous hurdle. . . .

The even more important and larger question: even if the US succeeds, what about everyone else? Over the last 25 years, the developed world shifted much of its carbon-intensive manufacturing of steel, cement, ammonia and plastics to the developing world. . . .

Loudly proclaiming that you have achieved some (small) decreases in carbon emissions while offshoring most of your energy-intensive manufacturing — That’s one good way to fool yourself.

The world gets more energy efficient every year, but levels of emissions keep rising. . . .

It’s those pesky Chinese and Indians and Africans who think they ought to be able to have electricity and cars and air conditioning just like you do.

How is the global energy transition going? Taken together, the aggregate impact of nuclear, hydroelectric and solar/wind generation reduced global reliance on fossil fuels from ~95% of primary energy in 1975 to ~85% in 2020. In other words, energy transitions take a long time and lots of money. . . . [T]he IEA still projects that 70%-75% of global primary energy consumption may be met via fossil fuels in the year 2040. Why don’t rapid wind and solar price declines translate into faster decarbonization? As we will discuss, renewable energy is still mostly used to generate electricity, and electricity as a share of final energy consumption on a global basis is still just 18%.

Yes, all those thousands of wind turbines and solar panels blanketing the landscape are at best hoping to replace a minority of a sector that itself only represents 18% of energy use to begin with. Why are we spending (wasting) these many trillions of dollars again?

Getting beyond the Executive Summary and into the details of the Paper, there are many great tidbits. A section on “Transmission Realities” shows how bringing “renewable” power to where it’s needed runs into the same roadblocks from environmentalists as all other energy development:

While MIT and Princeton assume rapid growth in transmission infrastructure, actual development can be a hornet’s nest of siting challenges and legal costs even when projects are eventually built after years of planning. Let’s start with HydroQuebec’s plan to sell hydropower to the US. . . . Take Northern Pass, a 1.1 GW transmission project to bring hydropower from Quebec to the Northeast through New Hampshire (80% via existing right-of-ways or underground lines). . . . [A] New Hampshire siting committee blocked Northern Pass. . . . Now Massachusetts is trying to import Canadian hydropower through Maine (“New England Clean Energy Connect”) but has already run into an injunction due to opposition from environmental groups. . . .

And so on and on and on.

Then there’s the Holy Grail of carbon capture and storage, sometimes known as CCS. Hey, why not just take all of this dangerous CO2 and bury it somewhere in the ground? The Paper looks at some of the practical realities:

After 20 years of planning and conjecture, by the end of 2020 carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities stored just 0.1% of global CO2 emissions. . . . The highest ratio in the history of science: the number of academic papers written on CCS divided by real-life implementation of it. . . . The Princeton CCS buildout, just to sequester an amount equal to 15% of current US GHG emissions, would require infrastructure whose throughput volume would be higher than the volume of oil flowing through US distribution and refining pipelines, a system which has taken over 100 years to build. . . . Sequestering 25% of global CO2 through direct air capture would require 25%-40% of the world’s electricity generation plus 11%-17% of its primary energy.

And then there’s my favorite line in the whole Paper, from page 28:

We recommend that investors stick with oil & gas for now.

Read the full article here.

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment