Aletho News


NATO ‘s Great New Idea: ‘Let’s Start A War With China!’

By Ron Paul | May 8, 2023

NATO’s post-Cold War history is that of an organization far past its “sell-by” date. Desperate for a mission after the end of the Warsaw Pact, NATO in the late 1990s decided that it would become the muscle behind the militarization of “human rights” under the Clinton Administration.

Gone was the “threat of global communism” which was used to justify NATO’s 40-year run, so NATO re-imagined itself as a band of armed Atlanticist superheroes. Wherever there was an “injustice” (as defined by Washington’s neocons), NATO was ready with guns and bombs.

The US military-industrial complex could not have been happier. All the Beltway think tanks they lavishly fund finally hit on a sure winner to keep the money pipeline flowing. It was always about money, not security.

The test run for NATO as human rights superheroes was Yugoslavia in 1999. To everybody but NATO and its neocon handlers in DC and many European capitals, it was a horrific, unjustified disaster. Seventy-eight days of bombing a country that did not threaten NATO left many hundreds of civilians dead, the infrastructure destroyed, and a legacy of uranium-tipped ammunition to poison the landscape for generations to come.

Just last week tennis legend Novak Djokovic recalled what it felt like to flee his grandfather’s home in the middle of the night as NATO bombs fell and destroyed it. What a horror!

Then NATO got behind the overthrow of the Gaddafi government in Libya. The corporate press regurgitated the neocon lies that bombing the country, killing its people, and overthrowing its government would solve all of Libya’s human rights problems. As could be predicted, NATO bombs did not solve Libya’s problems but made everything worse. Chaos, civil war, terrorism, slave markets, crushing poverty – no wonder Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the neocons don’t want to talk about Libya these days.

After a series of failures longer than we have space for here, DC-controlled NATO in 2014 decided to go all-in and target Russia itself for “regime change.” First step was overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian government, which Victoria Nuland and the rest of the neocons took care of. Next was the eight years of massive NATO military assistance to Ukraine’s coup government with the intent of fighting Russia. Finally, it was the 2022 rejection of Russia’s request to negotiate a European security agreement that would prevent NATO armies circling its border.

Despite the mainstream media and US government propaganda, NATO has been about as successful in Ukraine as it was in Libya. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been flushed away, with massive corruption documented by journalists like Seymour Hersh and others.

The only difference this time is that NATO’s target – Russia – has nuclear weapons and views this proxy war as vital to its very existence.

So now despite its legacy of failure, NATO has decided to start a conflict with China, perhaps to take attention off its disaster in Ukraine. Last week NATO announced that it will open its first-ever Asia office in Japan. What next, NATO membership for Taiwan? Will Taiwan willingly serve as NATO’s newest “Ukraine” – sacrificing itself to China in the name of blundering NATO’s seemingly endless appetite for conflict?

We can only hope that America will elect a president in 2024 who will finally end NATO’s deadly world tour.

Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

One Health: A Plan to ‘Surveil and Control Every Aspect of Life on Earth’?

This is part two of a two-part series on the One Health initiative. Read part one here.

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 8, 2023

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines “One Health,” as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems,” as they are “closely linked and interdependent” — a concept that on the surface appears to promote noble goals interlinking human and environmental health.

However, some scientists and medical experts are concerned about One Health’s vague goals. Arguing that the concept has been “hijacked,” they question the intent of those involved with the development and global rollout of the concept — including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Bank.

Experts who spoke with The Defender also raised questions about other aspects of the One Health concept, including a biosecurity agenda, a global surveillance system, vaccine passports and restrictions on human behavior.

While these goals are underpinned by a vaguely defined “Theory of Change,” experts told The Defender that major financial interests are at the heart of the One Health agenda, which appears to be closely linked to climate change and sustainable development initiatives promoted by the same global organizations.

One Health objectives include a ‘global takeover of everything’

In a May 1 article, Dr. Joseph Mercola connected the One Health concept, as promoted by global organizations, to the policies and restrictions pursued in response to COVID-19, describing it as an attempted “global takeover of everything.”

Mercola tied the One Health concept to key entities that have supported gain-of-function research. According to Mercola:

“Interestingly, the term ‘One Health,’ which was formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017, was first coined by the executive vice president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the same firm that appears to have had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

During the 2019 lecture “Can One Health Help Prevent the Next Pandemic?” EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, Ph.D., commissioner in The Lancet’s One Health Commission, said “emerging infectious diseases” are “a growing global threat.”

He also argued that many of these emerging diseases are “zoonotic — spread from animals to humans.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, questioned this narrative, telling The Defender :

“All these ‘emerging infectious diseases’ are emerging out of their offensive biological warfare weapons programs conducted in their BSL4 [biosecurity level 4] and BSL3 laboratories.

“If you look at the people on the WHO advisory committee dealing with ‘emerging infectious diseases,’ that’s exactly what they are doing — ‘emerging’ them from their labs.”

One example is that of Marion Koopmans, DVM, Ph.D., director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for emerging infectious diseases at Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands and member of the WHO’s One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP).

According to Boyle, “Erasmus is where this offensive Nazi biowarfare gain-of-function death science dirty work first became notorious under Fouchier, [who] started the entire controversy over his gain-of-function work there.”

Boyle was referring to Ron Fouchier, Ph.D., who also is deputy head of Erasmus’ Viroscience Department and who, according to Science, “alarmed the world” in 2011, after he and other researchers “separately modified the deadly avian H5N1 influenza virus so that it spread between ferrets” — an early example of gain-of-function research.

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who is a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said such objectives are kept deliberately vague. She referred to a CDC document that stated:

“Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners … Other relevant players in a One Health approach could include law enforcement, policymakers, agriculture, communities, and even pet owners.

“By promoting collaboration across all sectors, a One Health approach can achieve the best health outcomes for people, animals, and plants in a shared environment.”

Nass wrote on her blog, “I anticipate that One Health will be used to impose changes in the way humans and animals interact … most likely based on the needs of the WEF [World Economic Forum]/elites and not the needs of the people or the animals that will be affected.”

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, told The Defender, “It’s not clear that One Health is prioritizing human health.”

Highlighting the “vague” language employed by the global organizations promoting One Health, Littlejohn said that one goal may be to “govern farm animal health in addition to human health,” through which “they could do things like forcing vaccines on livestock.”

One Health means ‘surveilling everything’

The experts who spoke with The Defender expressed concerns over the biosecurity agenda that is associated with the stated objectives of One Health.

According to Nass, this reflects how the WHO “has been changing into a biosecurity agency,” adding that “the justification, apparently, for the WHO’s director-general to take over jurisdiction of healthcare during pandemics, but also potentially ecosystems, animals and plants, is through One Health.”

Nass noted that One Health “is mentioned several times in the National Defense [Authorization] Act for Fiscal Year 2023” (NDAA), which includes 18 pages on “pandemic preparedness” and a formal definition of the “One Health approach” on page 952 of the act.

Independent journalist and researcher James Roguski also highlighted the prominent placement of One Health in the NDAA and noted that, by formally defining the concept within the act, it is now part of the Code of Federal Regulations.

However, Roguski said the NDAA goes even further:

“The U.S. has pledged a billion dollars a year to the World Bank Pandemic Fund in support of the global health security agenda. The WHO is one of 14 intermediaries who will receive and redistribute some of that billion dollars.

“Basically, it’s capitalism, it’s corruption, it’s an abomination from a health perspective. Let’s just throw money at pharmaceutical companies, build out the infrastructure in these nations and, if you’re making tons of products locally, you’re going to be able to convince the local government to stick them in people’s arms or shove it down their throat.

“And none of it really has shown to be of any health benefit. It’s damage to people’s health.”

Associated with the promotion of a global biosecurity agenda is the development of a global surveillance infrastructure that would purportedly protect human and animal health and the environment. An Oct. 3, 2022, WHO document states:

“The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused COVID-19 has underlined the need to strengthen the One Health approach, with a greater emphasis on connections to animal health and the environment …

“… It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods. …

“We now have an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen collaboration and policies across these many areas and reduce the risk of future pandemics and epidemics while also addressing the ongoing burden of endemic and non-communicable diseases

“Surveillance that monitors risks and helps identify patterns across these many areas is needed.”

Remarking on this, Littlejohn said One Health’s proponents talk about “interoperable, integrated surveillance systems.” She told The Defender :

“I believe … these surveillance systems of people, animals, plants, and the environment are going to be coordinated by some kind of a global surveillance system that is interoperable globally and integrated.

“Whoever’s running this show, the WHO, the Chinese Communist Party … the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are the people who really appear to be running the show at the WHO, are going to be able to tap into and see all of our private information. Not just us, but animals and plants.”

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant and former director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender that what global organizations intend is “surveilling everything.” He said:

“It means surveilling everything, surveilling the climate for possible threats, surveilling animal population, surveilling wildlife, surveilling the soil to see if there’s new traces of virus or bacteria in river systems, et cetera.

“This allows you to ‘discover’ what we already know is nature, and then turn nature into a potential threat or into a threat. The more surveillance you have and the wider it is, the more inevitable ‘threats’ you’ll find … because you can make an argument that almost any new variant virus is a ‘threat.’

“It will allow them to keep a constant kind of fear which then allows you to introduce authoritarian controls such as central bank digital currencies and digital passports … that allow them to monetize the human population more effectively.”

Nass noted that global actors such as the WHO “talk about sharing of specimens during a pandemic … so they can try to make vaccines too. However, they don’t talk about performing surveillance on human beings. But what they did say, which let the cat out of the bag, is that they would want to get informed consent from countries for sharing of genomic data, rather than from individuals.”

Part of this surveillance infrastructure also would include vaccine passports, which figure prominently in the pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) currently under negotiation at the WHO.

According to Littlejohn:

“I believe that they laid the infrastructure during the COVID-19 crisis, and we’re having a little bit of a ‘break’ here between pandemics, but that structure, that infrastructure is going to snap shut with the next pandemic if we don’t stop it. That structure has to do with vaccine passports.

“It could be called a ‘smart health card’ or ‘digital health ID,’ or even a mandatory digital driver’s license can serve as the platform for a China-style social credit system. And there’s a new bill in front of the Senate right now … the Improving Digital Identity Act of 2023 … It’s a mandatory national ID that’s going to be interoperable, coordinated, integrated and can serve as the same platform as China’s social credit system … to surveil us.”

Restrictions on human behavior could lower humans to the level of animals

The WHO’s Oct. 3, 2022, document also claimed that “Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that are reported globally come from animals, both wild and domestic,” adding that “human activities and stressed ecosystems have created new opportunities for diseases to emerge and spread.”

Such stressors “include animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas,” according to the WHO.

“To the extent that carbon emissions due to transportation within cities would contribute to climate change, then the ‘15-minute city’ would be a way of addressing that,” Littlejohn said. “The danger is that they will enforce it by having surveillance cameras everywhere to make sure you don’t go outside of your district without permission.”

In a March 30 article, “Your Daughter for a Rat,” Bell cited a One Health editorial published in The Lancet stating that “all life is equal, and of equal concern.” In response, Bell suggested that One Health aims to lower humans to the level of animals.

The same Lancet article described One Health as “a call for ecological, not merely health, equity” and called for a “subtle but quite revolutionary shift of perspective” away from “anthropocentrism”: “All life is equal, and of equal concern.”

“It looks like this is going to be the justification for moving people down to the value of animals,” Nass said in response; a sentiment shared by Boyle, who said, “One Health relates the healthcare of human beings to the healthcare of animals and thus reduces healthcare for human beings to the level of healthcare for animals.”

According to Bell, “suggesting that we have a duty as a species on this planet to look after every species equally and treat them more equally [is] becoming sort of a religion or dogma. It defies what any rational society in the history of humanity” has practiced and is “a very unusual approach and potentially very scary.”

One Health: Follow the money

The WHO has attempted to give theoretical credence to the One Health concept by developing a so-called “Theory of Change” (ToC).

Although the WHO says the ToC is designed to provide “a conceptual framework” for “organisations, agencies and initiatives working towards similar One Health goals” and a “common narrative of coherence,” the theory itself does not appear to have a clear definition.

“They want to be able to do whatever they want,” Littlejohn said. “If you define it, then you can hold them to the definition … one of the tactics is just to be really obscure and incomprehensible.”

“This is a term that is used in these circles,” Bell added. “It’s stating the obvious, that if you do a certain act, you’ll have a certain outcome. It’s a fancy way of saying that.”

Bell also referred to the “fallacy that is being pushed that humans are having increasing contact with wildlife,” supposedly leading to “this threat of viruses jumping from wildlife to humans.”

Calling it a “ludicrous claim,” Bell said that “when humans move into wildlife habitats, the wildlife don’t start living with humans. They die out.”

Noting that “it used to be very common” for people to live with farm animals, Bell added that the claim that pandemics are becoming more common due to increased contact with animals is itself “not true,” but is “used to instill fear and to try to get people to buy into this One Health, constant health emergency agenda.”

Nass said One Health proponents “don’t actually have any evidence” to support their claims, offering the example of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria found in meat consumed by humans, as a result of antibiotics administered to livestock. “That’s been the hook that One Health has been hung on,” Nass said.

However, Nass said this problem “could be solved in a heartbeat if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told farmers they can’t put antibiotics into animal feed anymore, they can only use them when an animal gets sick.”

In his recent article, Mercola suggested following the money. “Private interests wield immense power over the WHO, and a majority of the funding is ‘specified,’ meaning it’s earmarked for particular programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most.”

As a result, this “massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it. So, the WHO is an organization that does whatever its funders tell it to do,” naming organizations such as the Gates Foundation as prime funders of the WHO.

Bell said that supporters of One Health include “those who have been pushing the COVID agenda … and enriching themselves from it,” including “private foundations who are on the bandwagon” and “corporations who stand to gain from controlling the food chain and controlling agriculture and pharmaceuticals, et cetera.”

“It’s corporate authoritarians that have benefited themselves from public health through COVID and the certainly inappropriate COVID response,” Bell added. “And it’s the same and it’s not disconnected with the climate emergency agenda.”

One prominent financial actor closely involved with the development of the One Health agenda is the World Bank, as WHO documents indicate.

At a November 2022 OHHLEP meeting, Franck Berthe, the World Bank’s senior livestock specialist, introduced the World Bank’s Financial Intermediary Fund, which would “allow countries to borrow funds to strengthen their health system and promote the OH [One Health] approach.”

According to Nass, “the WHO and the World Bank have helped form this financing operation for the biosecurity agenda,” while Boyle told The Defender, “There is nothing humanitarian about these backers and the WHO promoting the One Health agenda.”

Both Nass and Bell said the One Health agenda is closely tied to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030. Bell said that the One Health agenda attempts to deal with a supposed “existential threat to human health” that “must be dealt with in a centralized way, rather than giving people a choice.”

One Health closely tied to WHO pandemic treaty, IHR amendments

Experts who spoke with The Defender also emphasized the connections between the One Health concept and the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments under negotiation.

Mercola wrote that through the One Health agenda, which recognizes “a very broad range of aspects of life and the environment [that] can impact health and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to cause harm,” the WHO “will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.”

Roguski, who has extensively researched the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, said that in amendments the EU recently proposed for the pandemic treaty, the term “One Health” appears 29 times, including calling upon countries to develop and regularly update pandemic prevention plans via the One Health approach.

Referring to the need to prevent potential “pandemic situations,” the proposals also call for strengthening global public health surveillance “using a One Health approach,” which will also “address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance.”

The proposals also suggest the One Health approach could be used “to produce science-based evidence, and support, facilitate and/or oversee the correct, evidence-based and risk-informed implementation of infection prevention and control,” and go as far as to suggest targets on “antimicrobial consumption/use.”

Roguski told The Defender that the latest draft of the pandemic treaty refers to One Health 13 times. Such language would “be used to take over complete control of our lives,” Roguski added.

For example, one proposal states, “Each Party shall, in accordance with national law, adopt policies and strategies, supported by implementation plans, across the public and private sectors and relevant agencies, consistent with relevant tools, including, but not limited to, the International Health Regulations, and strengthen and reinforce public health functions for: (c) surveillance (including using a One Health approach).”

Other proposals include:

“The Parties commit to strengthen multi-sectoral, coordinated, interoperable and integrated One Health surveillance systems … to identify and assess the risks and emergence of pathogens and variants with pandemic potential, in order to minimize spill-over events, mutations and the risks associated with zoonotic neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases, with a view to preventing small-scale outbreaks in wildlife or domesticated animals from becoming a pandemic.

“Each Party shall … develop and implement a national One Health action plan on antimicrobial resistance that strengthens antimicrobial stewardship in the human and animal sectors, optimizes antimicrobial consumption, increases investment in, and promotes equitable and affordable access to, new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions, strengthens infection prevention and control in health care settings and sanitation and biosecurity in livestock farms, and provides technical support to developing countries.”

Roguski said the phrase “One Health” doesn’t directly appear in documents related to the proposed IHR amendments, but he added the WHO “is going to try to get them both to prevail,” referring to both the treaty and IHR amendments.

Littlejohn said, the One Health approach and the proposed language in the treaty “gives them the right to surveil and potentially control every aspect of life on earth.”

Noting that the proposed treaty also calls for a “commitment to counteract ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘false news,’” Littlejohn added, “they’re going to surveil our social media … and if any of us steps out of line by contradicting what the WHO says, then we could be censored.”

“That’s what I think is in mind with this commitment to ‘coordinated, interoperable and integrated’ One Health surveillance systems,” Littlejohn added. “I think that’s how it could end up being deployed. Ultimately, globalist entities, such as the World Economic Forum and the UN are using the WHO as their way of establishing global control.”

“The reason that health is such a good pretext is that people can become terrified,” Littlejohn added. “To the extent that their minds are paralyzed if they think they could die or get really sick, they’re willing to give up freedoms that they would not be willing to give up in other contexts.”

Roguski told The Defender :

“They made a lot of bad decisions. They gave a lot of bad advice [and] they caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. You can’t just give those people more power, authority and control without looking at what they did and going, ‘no, you should not be in charge of any of this.’”

In turn, Mercola wrote that “The globalist takeover hinges on the successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to ‘end’ the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on.”

And according to Bell, One Health “is part of a much bigger picture of finding ways to pull apart the intrinsic ideas that most societies have been built on.”

“I think that this is part of a move to undo these sorts of ideas and to replace them with a sort of religion of fear of our surroundings and denigration of other humans that can then be used by very greedy people to increase their wealth and power,” Bell said. “It’s taken over public health to a large extent.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | Leave a comment

China won’t forget NATO’s ‘barbaric’ actions in Yugoslavia

RT | May 8, 2023

Beijing has neither forgotten nor forgiven the May 1999 bombing of its embassy in Belgrade, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters on Monday. Wang condemned the US-led bloc for creating conflict while posing as a defensive alliance, urging it to “seriously reflect” on its crimes.

Wang noted that May 7 was the anniversary of the embassy attack, in which three Chinese journalists were killed and 20 diplomatic staff members were injured. “The Chinese people will never forget what they sacrificed to uphold the truth, fairness and justice. Nor will we ever forget this barbaric atrocity committed by US-led NATO,” he told reporters.

While claiming to be a regional defense bloc, NATO has “repeatedly lit the fuse and brought conflicts to places all over the world,” Wang noted, “from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Kosovo, from Iraq to Afghanistan, and from Libya to Syria.”

Having participated in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands and displaced tens of millions, NATO is now “making forays eastward into the Asia-Pacific, instigating bloc confrontation and undermining peace and stability in the region,” the spokesman added. “The US-led NATO needs to seriously reflect on the crimes they’ve committed, abandon the outdated Cold War mentality, stop inciting tensions in the region, and stop sowing division and instability.”

The embassy strike happened six weeks into the NATO air war against Yugoslavia, waged on behalf of ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo. Five bombs struck the compound, killing Shao Yunhuan, Xu Xinghu and his wife Zhu Ying. Beijing condemned the bombing as a “barbaric act.”

The US claimed it had struck the embassy by accident, using an “old map” of the Serbian capital. The real target, Washington said, had been the Yugoslav government agency for military procurement, which was almost 500 meters (1,640 feet) away. The strike was carried out by a B-2 stealth bomber, using JDAM bombs that are accurate to within 14 meters (46 feet) of the target. It was the first and only mission during the 78-day campaign that had been planned by the CIA, the agency’s director George Tenet later testified before the US Congress. One CIA agent was reportedly fired and six were reprimanded over the incident.

US President Bill Clinton offered a public apology. Washington later paid a compensation of $28 million to the Chinese government and $4.5 million to the families of the victims.

The NATO-backed war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia cited this, as well as the CIA disciplinary measures, among the reasons for not opening an investigation into the bombing, much less pressing charges.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Assassination Bid on Putin to Provoke Furious Escalation… for Whom?

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 7, 2023

Just as the Western public is growing increasingly skeptical of the U.S.-led proxy war against Russia and the insane military and financial aid being pumped to prop up the corrupt Kiev regime, we then see a daring assassination drone attack on the Kremlin.

Russia called it an act of terrorism to kill President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin has also pointed  the finger at Washington for authoring the assassination bid as well as the Kiev regime for having a hand in it.

The White House denies any American role in the air raid as does Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Western media are reporting claims that Russia may have carried out a false-flag terror attack on itself to justify ramping up military force in Ukraine. Those claims echo those put out earlier by the West about Russia blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines under the Baltic Sea last September. In both cases, the notion of Russian false-flag attacks seems absurd.

Would Russia really risk making itself look incompetent by staging an audacious aerial raid on the seat of political power in its capital?

Two small unmanned aerial vehicles were apparently brought down over the Kremlin in the early hours of Wednesday. The lightweight devices could hardly have posed a serious threat to kill Putin in his official residence. So, it can be dismissed as a realistic attempt at assassination. The Kremlin said Putin was not even in the building at the time.

Nevertheless, the mere fact of explosive drones breaching the iconic walls of the Kremlin and targeting the Senate Palace is certainly an outrageous provocation. One may aver that this provocative act per se was the main aim.

Moscow’s initial response was that it would retaliate accordingly at a time of its choosing. There are many voices calling for Russia to kill Zelensky. A furious reaction by Russia is understandable, but is it prudent?

It seems highly pertinent that there is growing skepticism and even disgust among the Western public about the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine. Polls are showing increasing numbers of Americans critical of the “blank checks” that Washington is throwing like a drunken sailor at the Kiev regime. Across Europe too people are angered by the unlimited money showering a corrupt cabal and the reckless danger of inciting an all-out war between NATO and Russia that could spiral into nuclear armageddon. This while Western workers are being drummed into poverty and social misery.

Skimming hundreds of millions of dollars by Zelensky and his cronies in Kiev is undermining Western public tolerance of this completely unnecessary conflict. The war is increasingly seen as a racket for the American military-industrial complex, a racket in which Zelensky and his ilk are indulged with their embezzlement and thievery of Western tax payers’ money.

The Ukraine conflict is blatantly being fueled indefinitely. There is brazen repudiation by Washington and its European minions of any diplomatic solution. A diplomatic solution was obviated from the very beginning when Russia’s reasonable security concerns and offer of dialogue in December 2021 about NATO and Ukraine were arrogantly brushed aside by the Joe Biden administration.

The war racket is too lucrative for the Pentagon industry and its ancillary European weapons firms.

But the Western propaganda narrative of “defending Ukraine for as long as it takes” is wearing thin for public consumption. The Kiev regime is burning down churches, ruthlessly repressing opposition political and media voices, glorifying Nazis and beating its own citizens on the streets in forced conscription for the military.

Vladimir Zelensky is seen as a wheedling character whose begging bowl for more weapons and funds is a black hole.

Without public support (or ignorance) in the West, the whole U.S.-led proxy war against Russia comes unstuck. The American presidential elections are approaching and the Ukrainian debacle could become a decisive factor for voters.

In order to salvage the shaky situation, therefore, what better than for Russia to launch an attack to kill Zelensky? Such an event would be spun to death by the pliant Western media as “evidence of Russian barbarism”, thereby giving the NATO proxy war in Ukraine a new lease on life and most importantly for the weapons racket to find a new throttle.

The American deep state, the CIA and Pentagon corporate oligarchy would be the most plausible agency to author the drone attack on the Kremlin. Just as this faction did with the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines. Technically and militarily, this faction has the capability. Just like the Nord Stream diversionary media stories about Ukrainian military agents being responsible for that sabotage, it is doubtful that the Kiev regime could have carried out the Kremlin attack – alone.

The timing of the Kremlin attack points to a big calculation to incite a wild reaction from Russia. It comes days before the annual May 9 Victory Day parade in Red Square commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. The last time the Kremlin was attacked in an air raid was reportedly in 1942 during Hitler’s invasion. Throw into that incitement that President Putin was targeted.

Arguably, Russia should push to defeat the NATO-backed Kiev regime. The longer that regime survives, the worse the danger persists for Russia from uncontrolled instability on its border. But taking out the contemptible Zelensky and his cronies in a bloody assassination? Such a reaction might be just what his American puppet masters want.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

EU plans to punish China for trade with Russia – FT

RT | May 8, 2023

The European Union is seeking to tighten its economic screws on Russia by sanctioning Chinese companies that conduct trade with Moscow, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

Seven Chinese businesses have been named in a new package of restrictions that the EU member states will discuss this week, the report says, citing a copy of the sanctions list seen by the paper.

According to the FT, the list includes two mainland Chinese companies, 3HC Semiconductors and King-Pai Technology, and five from Hong Kong, including Sinno Electronics, Sigma Technology, Asia Pacific Links, Tordan Industry, and Alpha Trading Investments.

To take effect, the new sanctions need to be unanimously approved by all 27 EU member states.

The businesses have reportedly been accused of selling equipment that could be used by Moscow in weapons manufacturing. Some of these companies have already been placed under sanctions by the US.

The European Commission believes it is “appropriate” to target certain entities “in third countries involved in the circumvention of trade restrictions” against Russia, the FT quoted the sanctions proposal as saying.

Until now, the FT noted, the EU has avoided targeting China, saying there was no evidence that Beijing was directly providing weapons to Moscow.

The EU has so far imposed 10 rounds of economic sanctions against Russia over its military operation in Ukraine.

The EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, admitted last month that the bloc had nearly exhausted its options for punitive measures against Moscow.

Since then, it has been reported that EU lawmakers are considering targeting third countries that re-export goods to Russia, thus helping Moscow to circumvent trade restrictions.

China is insisting on a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict, and proposed a 12-point peace plan in February, calling for the security concerns of each side to be addressed. Josep Borrell dismissed Beijing’s proposals last week as “wishful thinking” and insisted that any peace plan must be based on Kiev’s demands.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

US can’t explain what happened to Nord Stream – Russia

RT | May 8, 2023

Washington hasn’t responded to Moscow’s demand for an explanation of what happened to the Nord Stream pipelines after veteran journalist Seymour Hersh published a bombshell report blaming the US for destroying the key gas route, high-ranking Russian diplomat Konstantin Gavrilov has said.

“We haven’t received any clarification yet and it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get any,” he told Izvestia newspaper on Monday. “There’ll be nothing new [from the US],” added the official, who heads Russia’s delegation at the Vienna talks on military security and arms control.

Gavrilov said he was surprised by the behavior of the EU nations that were most affected by the sabotage of crucial energy infrastructure, which was built to deliver Russian gas to Europe through Germany.

Germany, Sweden and Denmark, which have been carrying out probes into the explosions on Nord Stream 1 and 2 last fall, have so far been reluctant to open up about their findings. They also rejected offers from Russia to assist with the investigations.

“The stance of Europe, which is being openly humiliated, is something that I can’t fully understand,” Gavrilov said.

In early February, Hersh authored a report claiming that US President Joe Biden had given the order to destroy Nord Stream. According to an informed source who talked to the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the explosives that were detonated last September had been planted at the pipelines in the Baltic Sea back in June 2022 by US Navy divers under the cover of a NATO exercise.

Hersh later suggested that Biden had chosen that very moment to blow up the infrastructure because the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “wasn’t going great” for Kiev and its backers in Washington.

US National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson denied the report, calling it “utterly false and complete fiction.”

In late March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he “fully agreed” with Hersh’s findings that the Nord Stream sabotage had been organized by the American Special Forces.

Other Russian officials have also noted that the only party to benefit from the destruction of Nord Stream was the US, which has seen supplies of its more expensive liquefied natural gas to Europe increase massively since the blasts.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin Responds To Ukraine Intel Chief’s Threat To “Kill Russians Anywhere”

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | May 8, 2023

Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, in an interview with Yahoo News published Friday addressed the recent string of assassinations and cross-border attacks on Russian territory.

In reference to the August car bombing death of Daria Dugina (Yahoo underscored in its lead-in that “U.S. intelligence has attributed Dugina’s killing to the Ukrainian government“), Gen. Budanov offered the following ultra-provocative statement:

we’ve been killing Russians and we will keep killing Russians anywhere on the face of this world until the complete victory of Ukraine.”

He seemed to be owning up to Ukraine being behind the assassinations. What Russia calls “terrorism, we call liberation,” he had said when asked whether Kiev was behind the attacks, which also included the April cafe bombing and death of Russian blogger Vladlen Tatarsky.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blasted the threatening remarks, calling them “truly heinous” while “vigorously” condemning them. In the Monday response, Peskov said, “What Budanov said is a direct confirmation that the Kiev regime isn’t only sponsoring terrorist activity, but is a direct organizer of this activity.”

He further emphasized that Russia’s own secret services “will be doing everything that they should be doing against the background of such statements.”

“It’s very difficult to imagine that such terrorist statements from Kiev will remain without condemnation. Therefore, today we will be waiting for these condemnations,” he followed with, in reference to the international community.

But the White House has remained mum on the emerging covert ‘dirty war’ targeting Russian officials and ‘pro-Russia’ journalists and mere activists, and may even be assisting with intelligence and planning for such operations. Moscow has leveled this charge precisely. None of those killed so far have actually been Kremlin decision-makers, but are civilians

Russia’s Security Service (FSB) has said Tatarsky’s assassination was the work of “Ukrainian special services and their agents, including fugitive members of the Russian opposition.”

On Saturday, one of Russia’s best-known novelists, Zakhar Prilepin, was targeted in a car bombing near the city of Nizhny Novgorod. He survived the attack which took place on a highway when a device under his car detonated, but his driver was killed.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Syria’s return to Arab League is a big deal


When a mere subplot overnight assumes habitation and a name, it becomes more fascinating than the main plot itself. Syria’s return to the Arab League after its decade-long exclusion can be regarded as a sub-plot of the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But then, China and Iran are not per se party to the process. 

Syria’s return to the Arab League is seen as an Arab initiative, but it is quintessentially a project Riyadh steered through in close consultation and coordination with Damascus, ignoring some murmur by a clutch of Arab States  and patently in defiance of Washington’s trenchant opposition.

Against the backdrop of the epochal struggle for a new world order characterised by multipolarity and resistance to Western hegemony, Russia and China quietly encouraged Riyadh to move in such a direction. 

A riveting thing about the decision taken by the foreign ministers of the seven Arab League nations at the meeting in Cairo on Sunday is its sweet timing. For, this is the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Ba’ath Party in Damascus in 1943, which espoused an ideology of Arab nationalist and anti-imperialist interests that have lately re-appeared in the geopolitics of West Asia. 

Syria has a tradition of strategic autonomy. Through the past decade, it was preoccupied with fighting off the US-sponsored regime change project, with help from Russia and Iran. As it turns the corner and is stabilising, Syria’s strategic autonomy will be increasingly in evidence. This is one thing. 

However, the strategic relations with Russia and Iran will continue to remain special and there should be no misconceptions on that score. But Syria is capable of ingenuity and diplomatic acumen to create space for itself to manoeuvre, as geopolitics takes a back seat and  Assad prioritises stabilisation and reconstruction of the economy, which requires regional cooperation.

The recent visit by Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi to Syria testifies to Tehran’s “soft diplomacy,” exuding pragmatism that on the one hand made it clear that despite the recent rapprochement between Damascus and Arab countries, Syrian-Iranian ties are still strong and even highlighted Syria’s role in the resistance to Israel — with Raisi holding a meeting in Damascus with senior Palestinian officials, including leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad — while on the other hand, the negotiations with the Syrian leadership was largely about  economic cooperation. 

Raisi said Iran is ready to take an active part in the post-war reconstruction of Syria. Iran faces competition from Gulf countries that have deep pockets. Meanwhile, the warming of relations between Syria and Turkey is also on the agenda, which is sure to lead to increased trade and spur investment flow. 

To put matters in perspective, Iran’s exports to Syria currently amount to a paltry sum of $243 million. However, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, Iran has been a key sponsor of the Syrian authorities. In January 2013, Tehran opened the first credit line of $1 billion for Damascus, which was under international sanctions, thanks to which the government was able to pay for imported food. This was followed by a loan of $3.6 billion for the purchase of petroleum products. The third loan of $1 billion was extended in 2015. Tehran also allocated funds to Damascus to pay salaries to civil servants, which helped preserve state institutions. In 2012, a free trade agreement began to operate between the countries. Iran is also spending billions to finance Shiite militias in Syria and supply them with weapons. Naturally, Tehran would like to recoup some of these investments. 

Syria is assessing, rightly so, that normalisation with the Arab neighbours and Turkey will be a game changer. But, while everyone is talking about Syria’s “readmission to the Arab family” as a concession, Damascus reacted to the Arab League decision in a measured way.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry statement said on Sunday, “Syria has been following the positive trends and interactions that are currently taking place in the Arab region, and believes that these benefit all Arab countries and favour the stability, security and well-being of their peoples.

“Syria has received with interest the decision issued by the meeting of the Council of the League of Arab States.” The statement went on to stress the importance of dialogue and joint action to confront the challenges facing the Arab countries. It recalled that Syria is a founding member of the Arab League and always had a strong position in favour of strengthening joint Arab action. 

Most important, the statement concluded by reaffirming that the next stage requires “an effective and constructive Arab approach on the bilateral and collective levels on the basis of dialogue, mutual respect, and the common interests of the Arab nation.”

From all appearance, the Arab League statement itself was a “consensus statement” drafted with great sensitivity by Saudi Arabia. 

In an interview with Al-Mayadeen, Raisi said prior to his departure for Damascus that “Syria has always been on the axis of resistance… We unequivocally support all fronts of the axis of resistance, and my visit to Syria is within the framework of this support, and we are working to strengthen the resistance front, and we will not hesitate in this.” In fact, Raisi’s arrival in Syria coincided with increased Israeli attacks by Israel on Iranian military facilities, including on Aleppo airport. 

Without doubt, Iran remains Syria’s main ally and Iranian influence in Damascus is still strong. Iran views Syria as its strategic territory through which Tehran can establish ties with Lebanon and confront Israel. 

What works to Syria’s advantage here is that the Saudi-Iranian detente is based on a common view in Riyadh and Tehran that they have to coexist in one form or another, since their enmity and regional rivalry turned out to be a “lose-lose” proposition that didn’t improve their regional standing. Suffice to say, their national interest resulting from their rapprochement overrides past rivalries. Syria will be a testing ground where each other’s true intentions as well as conduct will come under close scrutiny.

The good part is that the Saudis have concluded that President Assad is firmly in the saddle, having weathered the most devastating war since World War 2, and mending relations with Damascus can be a “win-win” for Riyadh.   

That said, Syria is a strategic hinge where Riyadh will need to balance its strategic ties with the US and its tacit ties with Israel. But then, Saudi Arabia’s new strategic calculus also includes China and Russia. When it comes to Syria, Russia is an anchor sheet for Assad, while China has been all along on the right side of history. 

This geopolitical setting has driven Biden Administration into frenzy, NSA Jake Sullivan rushed to Saudi Arabia holding the hands of his Indian and Emirati counterparts for company! Wisdom lies in Washington using Saudis (and Emiratis and Indians) to open a line to Damascus. However, Assad will set the very same non-negotiable condition to Washington for normalisation that he insisted with Turkey — vacation of US occupation. Beyond that lies, of course, Israel’s annexation of Golan Heights. 

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Türkiye won’t toe Western line on Russia sanctions – FM

RT | May 8, 2023

Ankara has no plans to support the Western economic restrictions against Russia, foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu insisted in an interview on Monday.

Türkiye’s top diplomat made the comments to the Lider Haber TV channel in the run-up to the country’s presidential and parliamentary elections, due to take place on Sunday.

“We are not going to join the unilateral sanctions imposed against Russia by the US and the EU. Our own benefit and prosperity come first,” Cavusoglu explained, as quoted by the TASS news agency.

The minister also criticized the opposition presidential candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who has said he would give priority to developing ties with the West. According to Cavusoglu, the rival to incumbent president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown himself to be inconsistent in his statements; at one rally, Kilicdaroglu reportedly said that nothing would endanger the relationship between Türkiye and Russia.

Reports emerged in March of Türkiye blocking some transit shipments destined for Russia, in response to recent pledges by Brussels and Washington to enforce anti-Russian sanctions and to stop the supply of sanctioned products via third parties. Türkiye’s Ministry of Trade provided no official confirmation of the move. It was later reported that Ankara had resumed the transit to Russia of some sanctioned goods of European origin.

The EU has repeatedly voiced concern about the country’s refusal to participate in Western sanctions against Russia, and accused the Middle Eastern state of becoming a ‘transit hub’ for Russia, thus enabling the economic blockade to be circumvented.

Ankara is one of Moscow’s main trading partners, with both sides having pledged to deepen economic cooperation and expand bilateral trade.

Last year, Türkiye and Russia signed a roadmap for economic cooperation that envisages bringing bilateral trade turnover to $100 billion a year. The two have also agreed to introduce the Russian ruble as a settlement currency for bilateral trade, including for Russian natural-gas supply.

Data shows that, around this time last year, Türkiye became one of the top five exporters to Russia. In 2021, it ranked 11th, ahead of the US, France, Japan, Poland and Italy.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | 1 Comment

Bloomberg Wants The West To Punish African States Over Their Preferred Security Partners


Bloomberg’s demand for the West to punish African states over their preferred security partners is extremely condescending. Opinion columnist Bobby Ghosh published a piece about this over the weekend urging to “Make Russia’s Wagner Group a Pariah in Africa”, to which end he’s lobbying for the US and EU to designate it as a terrorist organization so that its clients there can then be sanctioned. This suggests that the West knows what’s better for African states’ security than their own governments do.

According to Ghosh, Wagner is only useful for “reinforc[ing] military rule” in “despot[ic]” states and “disproportionately targeting civilians” in its anti-terrorist operations. In exchange, it supposedly bleeds local partners dry by extracting their resources. He thus predicts that “The arrival of fresh legions of Wagner mercenaries in Africa will make it harder for the West to nudge military governments back toward democracy, and to prevent democratic governments from going in the other direction.”

The reality is altogether different as could have been expected considering how often Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets like Ghosh’s publish the exact opposite of the truth in pursuit of the West’s interests. “Russia’s Newfound Appeal To African Countries Is Actually Quite Easy To Explain” since it simply boils down to Wagner’s “Democratic Security” expertise. This refers to its counter-Hybrid Warfare tactics and strategies that ensure its partners’ sovereignty in the face of related threats from the West.

Its earlier success in the Central African Republic (CAR) inspired Mali’s revolutionary anti-imperialist government to follow in that nearby country’s footsteps. Just last week, neighboring Burkina Faso’s interim leader declared that his state is in a “strategic alliance” with Russia too despite denying that Wagner is on the ground helping the national forces fight terrorism. In all three cases, these Russian-friendly governments enjoy genuine grassroots support for striving to restore their sovereignty.

This means that Ghosh’s demand for the West to designate the CAR and Mali’s Wagner partners as terrorists in order to then punish them with sanctions is anti-democratic, as is the potential deterrent effect that this could have on that group’s cooperation with Burkina Faso and other countries. So long as any given security relationship doesn’t occur at the expense of a third party’s legitimate interests, then there shouldn’t be any pressure put upon either side for their ties with one another.

Wagner is always invited by African authorities to assist their armed forces and hasn’t ever intervened without their permission. Allegations of it committing war crimes are part of the US’ Hybrid War against that group, which was detailed at length by Politico a few days after Ghosh’s piece and analyzed here. Whether by coincidence or collusion, his article advances America’s information warfare interests, with its timing being extra curious since it in hindsight preconditions his audience to accept the US’ narratives.

Regardless of his speculative ties with its military-intelligence services, there’s no denying that the condescending way in which he addresses Africans is very offensive. It’s up to their countries as equal members of the international community to decide for themselves how best to ensure their security and who to partner with to that end, not any third parties like the US, let alone MSM figures like Ghosh. Meddling of the sort that Bloomberg just attempted only further discredits the West in Africans’ eyes.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

The Practical Impossibility of Large-Scale Carbon Capture and Storage

By Steve Goreham | MasterResource | May 2, 2023

“CCS has been slow to take off due to the cost of capture and the limited salability of carbon dioxide as a product. Thirty-nine CCS facilities capture CO2 around the world today, totaling 45 million tons per year, or about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of industrial emissions produced globally.”

The Environmental Protection Agency is working on a new rule that would set stringent limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from US power plants. Utilities would be required to retrofit existing plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology or to switch to hydrogen fuel. Others call for the use of CCS to decarbonize heavy industry. But the cost of capture and the amount of CO2 that proponents say needs to be captured crush any ideas about feasibility.

Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from an industrial plant before it enters the atmosphere, transporting it, and storing it for centuries to millennia. Capture may be accomplished by filtering it from combustion exhaust streams. Pipelines are proposed to transport the captured CO2. Underground reservoirs could be used for storage. For the last two decades, advocates have proposed CCS to reduce emissions from coal plants and steel, chemical, and other hard-to-decarbonize industries in order to fight human-caused climate change.

CCS has been slow to take off due to the cost of capture and the limited salability of carbon dioxide as a product. Thirty-nine CCS facilities capture CO2 around the world today, totaling 45 million tons per year, or about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of industrial emissions produced globally. Of these, 20 reside in the US or Canada, six in Europe, and five in China. Twenty-four of these facilities use captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Captured CO2 is injected into oil wells to boost oil output,

The news from these facilities is mixed. Many are not meeting their carbon-capture goals or are incurring costs well over budget. Nevertheless, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, the US, and nations of Europe now offer billions in direct subsidies or tax breaks to firms for capture of CO2 emissions and to build pipelines and storage. Over 300 large and small capture projects are in planning around the world which, after completion, may be able to boost capture to 0.5 percent of man-made emissions.

Illinois, Iowa, and other states are struggling with issues involving plans for CO2 pipelines. Ethanol plants and other facilities propose to capture CO2 and need a new network of pipelines to transport the gas to underground storage sites. These pipelines face strong opposition from local communities over farmland use and safety concerns in the case of a pipeline rupture.

Carbon capture and storage is very expensive. An example concerns plans for CCS in Wyoming, the leading US coal state. Wyoming mined 41 percent of US coal in 2020 and coal-fired plants produced about 85 percent of the state’s electricity. With abundant coal resources and good opportunities to store CO2 underground, Wyoming appeared to be an excellent candidate to use CCS. The state passed House Bill 200 in March 2020, directing utilities to produce 20 percent of electricity from coal plants fitted with CCS by 2030.

In response to the statute, Rocky Mountain Power and Black Hills Energy, Wyoming’s two major power companies, analyzed alternatives for their operations and provided comments to the Wyoming Public Service Commission in March 2022. But the comments were not favorable for CCS. Black Hills Energy determined that adding CCS to two existing coal plants would cost an estimated $980 million, or three times the capital cost expended to build the plants. Rocky Mountain Power stated that adding CCS to its existing plants was “not economically feasible at this time.”

Beyond cost, the amount of carbon dioxide that advocates say must be captured is vast. The amount of CO2 produced by industry is small in global terms, only about five percent of what nature releases into and absorbs from the atmosphere every day. But the amount of industrial CO2 produced is still huge in human terms.

For example, an empty Boeing 747 jumbo jet weighs 412,300 pounds (187,000 kg). Its maximum fuel weight is 433,195 pounds (196,494 kg), more than the empty weight of the aircraft. During fuel combustion, two oxygen atoms are taken from the atmosphere and combined with each carbon atom. For each kilogram of jet fuel burned, 3.16 kilograms of carbon dioxide are created.

Consider the Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire, England, the third-largest power plant in Europe, which has been converted to using two-thirds biomass fuel. The plant is experimenting with CCS to reduce emissions. Each day, the plant uses about 20,000 tons of wood pellets delivered by 475 railroad cars. Picture the volume that these railroad cars would carry and then more than double it to get an idea of the amount of CO2 to be captured and stored each day.

The world’s heavy industries use vast amounts of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Ammonia, cement, plastics, steel, and other industries produce billions of tons of materials each year for agriculture, construction, health care, industry, and transportation. Capturing, transporting, and storing CO2 from these processes would involve trillions of dollars and many decades of investment.

The International Energy Agency calls for 9 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions to be captured and stored by 2050. Today we have a mix of 39 major and minor capture facilities in operation. The IEA estimates that 70 to 100 major capture facilities will need to come online each year until 2050 to achieve this goal. It’s unlikely that even 20 percent of the goal will be achieved, despite hundreds of billions of dollars in spending.


Steve Goreham, a popular speaker on energy, environmental, and public policy issues, is author of three books on energy, sustainable development, and climate change. His previous post at MasterResource was “Green Energy: Greatest Wealth Transfer to the Rich in History,”

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 1 Comment

Global Cooling Alert! (1972)

By Robert Bradley Jr. | MasterResource | March 8, 2023


For various posts at MasterResource on the experts’ global cooling scare, see here.

May 8, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment