Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘US sanctions on Russia over Ukraine will cost Americans dearly’

Press TV – February 23, 2022

A popular pro-Republican cable TV host in the US has questioned Joe Biden administration’s raison d’être in confronting Russia over developments in Ukraine, saying it will prove counter-productive.

Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News, in a lengthy diatribe on his most-watched cable TV show Tuesday, blasted Joe Biden and said his attempts to take on Russian President Vladimir Putin will come at a heavy cost for American taxpayers.

The controversial TV show host asserted that there are no actual reasons for Americans to hate Putin, even if the leftist media outlets tell them that “anything less than hating Putin is treason”.

“Why do Democrats want you to hate Putin? Has Putin shipped every middle-class job in your town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked your business,” Carlson said in his prime-time monologue.

US President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced a slew of fresh sanctions against Russia, calling its recognition of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine as independent the “beginning of a Russian invasion” of that country.

Putin on Monday recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as independent and ordered troops into the restive Donbas region. On Tuesday, Russian lawmakers approved a request by Putin to use military force outside of Russia.

“If Russia goes further with this invasion, we stand prepared to go further as with sanctions,” Biden said.

“Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belongs to his neighbors? This is a flagrant violation of international law and demands a firm response from the international community.”

Carlson, a staunch critic of Biden’s foreign policy, said his latest move over developments on the Ukrainian border “will have costs” at home.

He emphasized that Biden’s resolve to confront Russia over Ukraine was motivated by personal and family corruption, rather than geostrategic concerns.

The cost of sanctions on Russia, the TV host noted, will be paid by Americans, who will see a rise in gas prices, a concern shared by many across the political spectrum in the US.

He also slammed Biden for moving to freeze the Nord Stream 2 pipeline connecting Russia and Germany, which is likely to fuel the global energy crisis.

The Fox News host went on to ask why Ukraine’s borders were more important for Biden than his own country’s southern border – adding that the US president’s priorities were determined by his son who made huge money while working on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

“It seems like a pretty terrible deal for you and for the United States. Hunter Biden gets a million dollars a year from Ukraine, but you can no longer afford to go out to dinner”, Carlson remarked.

While Washington has outlined its fresh offensive against Russia over Ukraine, a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers told Biden in a letter on Tuesday that he must seek authorization from the Congress before sending in troops or ordering military attacks.

“If the ongoing situation compels you to introduce the brave men and women of our military into Ukraine, their lives would inherently be put at risk if Russia chooses to invade,” the letter reads.

“Therefore, we ask that your decisions comport with the Constitution and our nation’s laws by consulting with Congress to receive authorization before any such development.”

Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), among others, signed the letter.

February 23, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

The “World’s Dumbest Energy Policy” Just Got Dumber… The Frightening Race To Reset By World War

By P Gosselin – No Tricks Zone – 22. February 2022

Just when we thought leaders couldn’t possibly screw things up more… now Europe faces a massively crippling energy shock and the German Chancellor closes a pipeline… NATO’s frightening race to war with Russia.

The inflation rate in Germany stood at +4.9% in January, 2022. In December 2021, it had been +5.3% when it reached its highest level in almost 30 years.

Soaring energy costs

The main inflation driver for Germany is energy, which in January saw an increase of 20.5% year on year.

According the the the Federal Statistical Office, motor fuel prices jumped 24.8% and household energy prices 18.3%, year on year. The price of home heating oil rose a whopping 51.9%, natural gas up 32.2% and electricity +11.1%.

The steep price rise for energy products was affected by several factors: 1) the CO2 charge that increased from 25 euros to 30 euros per metric ton of CO2 at the beginning of the year and 2) higher electricity prices.

Escalating to war

Now worries are growing that the situation Europe is about to get a lot worse.

Earlier today Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany was suspending the approval process for the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline – which means it cannot go online. The pipeline was built to be a major supply line to meet Germany’s energy needs as the country takes nuclear and coal power plants offline.

“55% of Germany’s natural gas demand is met by Russia’s Gazprom. Gas storage facilities in the country are currently only 31% full,” reports Disclose.tv.

2000 euros for 1000 cubic meters of gas

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, reacted with a forceful tweet to the German move:

Nuclear superpowers’ mad race to world war

All signs point to an escalating Ukraine conflict that threatens to fly out of control, possibly unleashing a World War between nuclear super-powers Russia and NATO.

It’s reported: “NATO has put more than 100 fighter jets on high alert, and 120 allied ships are underway in what Stoltenberg called ‘the most dangerous moment for European security in a generation.’”

Stock up everyone. it’s not looking good. We’re being run by dangerous, reckless madmen.

February 22, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Before you save the planet, save the people who live on it

By Vijay Jayaraj – bizpacreview – February 12, 2022  

Climate change frequently dominates media coverage and political discourse. Why wouldn’t it when those advancing the apocalyptic agenda speak in terms of saving the planet? The state of the climate is nothing if not an “existential threat,” or so it is said.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the motives of climate alarmists are as pure as the environment they envision. That they really do see their roles as saviors. Even so, there is a very large elephant in the room, which is that they seek to save the planet by killing its inhabitants — unwittingly or not.

Not only do climate enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge the issue of ongoing energy poverty for billions of people across the world, but they promote policies that exacerbate lack of access to affordable, reliable electricity. The socio-economic conditions of energy poverty, which can only be worsened by the forced replacement of fossil fuels with wind and solar, contribute to higher rates of both morbidity and mortality.

Lack of gas for cooking and heating is the major cause of death from indoor air pollution in the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) states, “Around 2.6 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fueled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste).” Around 4 million people among them die annually and many more millions suffer long-lasting illnesses.

Community-level energy poverty affects larger populations. Some regions that are home to hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia have no access to electricity. Among those who do have electricity, the supply is highly unreliable. From inadequate supplies of drinking water to intermittent power in health care centers, energy poverty poses an imminent threat to the lives of these people.

Death due to blackouts in hospitals has become a common event. A 2020 scientific study suggests that there is a possibility of between 3 to 105 additional deaths per 1,000 patients in grids with frequent blackouts. Problems “can range from postponing surgery, postponing accurate diagnoses for a needed surgery, permanent disabilities, and even to fatalities during surgery, due to failure of various medical equipment,” according to the study.

Climate alarmists are seemingly unaware of the billions of people who wouldn’t live to see the future if their basic energy necessities of today were not met by affordable and available fossil fuels. For people in extreme energy poverty, dreams of climbing the socio-economic ladder are impossible to achieve without coal, oil and natural gas. Rhetoric about “green” energy meeting these needs ignores the hard, physical reality that wind and solar can produce but a tiny fraction of the output of traditional generating sources..

Even if third-world governments — backed with foreign aid — install expensive micro-scale, off-grid renewable technologies, such systems are of a temporary nature incapable of meeting high baseload energy demand for either domestic or commercial use. They are of little or no use when there is no sun or wind.

The choice of energy source in the poorest areas is a matter of life and death in many cases. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of climate change and the supposed ability of government policy to avoid global warming, it is necessary that all agree on the immediate need for affordable and reliable energy for those who don’t have it.

Saving the planet must not mean rejecting fossil fuels to meet such needs. Otherwise, the clarion call of environmental activists is the death knell for the billions they would condemn to energy poverty.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Contributing Writer to the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

US warns of ‘global fallout’

The world economy will pay a heavy price if the West imposes new sanctions on Moscow, the US Treasury warns

By Alexey Viryasov | RT | February 17, 2022

If Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, the global economy will suffer an inevitable fallout as a result of newly unleashed Western sanctions on Moscow, the US Treasury secretary warned on Wednesday.

Speaking to French news agency AFP, Janet Yellen explained that the US and its European allies are preparing a “very substantial package of sanctions that will have severe consequences for the Russian economy.”

However, despite Washington wanting the highest cost to fall on Moscow, she admitted that there would be “some global fallout” from the measures.

The primary concern of Washington and Brussels is the potential impact of economic sanctions on the global energy market. As a major exporter of energy, Moscow supplies around 40% of the gas used by EU countries. The bloc’s energy security could be in danger if Moscow were to cut off its gas pipelines in retaliation for economic sanctions, some have claimed. And even if Russia doesn’t limit its supply, energy prices could still rise even further in the event of a large-scale conflict in Europe.

Earlier on Tuesday, US President Joe Biden warned that Americans would also have to pay a heavy price for the escalation around Ukraine.

“If Russia decides to invade, that would also have consequences here at home. But the American people understand that defending democracy and liberty is never without cost,” he said. “I will not pretend this will be painless.”

The recent spat over Ukraine between Moscow and NATO allies started when Russia allegedly began amassing troops on its Western border. Fears of war then led to some nations, including the US, opting to evacuate diplomatic personnel from Kiev. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied that it is planning a military incursion, claiming that troop movements near the frontier are due to planned training exercises.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Pandemic-related school closings likely to have far-reaching effects on child well-being

By Sandra M. Chafouleas – The Conversation – February 9, 2022

A global analysis has found that kids whose schools closed to stop the spread of various waves of the coronavirus lost educational progress and are at increased risk of dropping out of school.

As a result, the study says, they will earn less money from work over their lifetimes than they would have if schools had remained open.

Educational researchers like me know these students will feel the effects of pandemic-related school closures for many years to come. Here are four other ways the closings have affected students’ well-being for the long term:

1. Academic progress

At the end of the 2020-2021 school year, most students were about four to five months behind where they should have been in math and reading, according to a July 2021 report by McKinsey and Co., a global management consulting firm.

When the researchers looked at the data from fall 2021, though, they found students attending majority-white schools are catching up. But students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds — including those attending majority-Black or low-income schools — are falling further behind.

As a result, students attending majority-Black schools are now estimated to be a full year behind those attending majority-white schools.

Differences also can vary by grade level. High schools have been closed more total days than elementary schools. According to a recent news report, 2021 graduation rates dipped across the country, and some education leaders fear future graduating classes may be hit even harder.

Schools have scrambled to provide options such as credit recovery to boost graduation rates, leaving concerns about the quality of learning.

College and university leaders have been preparing for first-year students with less knowledge, weaker study habits and more difficulty concentrating than new college arrivals in past years.

2. Social-emotional development

Even early in the pandemic, school closings were harming students’ social and emotional well-being, according to a review of 36 studies across 11 countries including the U.S. By summer 2021, teachers and administrators in the U.S. said students felt more emotional distress, disengagement, depression, anxiety and loneliness than in previous years.

When schools resumed in fall 2021, large numbers of children in the U.S. had lost a primary caregiver over the previous year to COVID-19. A colleague and I raised concerns about the anxiety and grief those students would likely feel.

In addition, 28% of all parents of children in grades K-12 are “very concerned” or “extremely concerned” about their child’s mental health and social and emotional well-being. That’s down from a high of 35% in spring 2021, but is still 7% higher than before the pandemic.

Parents of Black and Hispanic students are 5% more likely to be worried than parents of white students.

Schools and organizations have focused resources on supporting students’ social, emotional and mental health. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, recommends, based on research, that teachers integrate lessons around compassion and courage into classroom activities, and that schools establish wellness teams to help students.

States have said they plan to address these needs with federal funds meant to help schools respond to the pandemic. In Connecticut, for example, school districts will hire additional mental health support staff, offer social-emotional programs and partner with local agencies to increase access to supports.

3. Behavioral habits

The return to in-person learning has been accompanied by school leaders’ reports of increasing student misbehavior and threats of violence. These increases were more likely to be reported in larger districts and where most students had engaged in remote or hybrid learning — rather than in-person instruction — during the prior school year.

Viral social media “challenges” — like memes on TikTok suggesting students “smack a staff member” or skip school on a particular day — certainly aren’t helping educators provide safe and supportive environments.

Parents’ distress is also affecting their children. Students whose parents are depressed, anxious, lonely and exhausted are more likely to misbehave in school — and that connection grew stronger during lockdown periods when schools were closed.

Meanwhile, news reports show students are missing more school than they were before the pandemic, with more kids out for more than 15 days of a school year.

Given links between chronic absenteeism and increased high school dropout rates, researchers warn this increase in missed school could lead between 1.7 million and 3.3 million students in eighth through 12th grade to not graduate on time.

4. Physical health

Adults have suffered hair loss, sore eyes, irritable bowels and skin flare-ups as a result of the pandemic. One study found that Chinese preschool children whose schools closed during the pandemic were shorter than preschoolers in previous years, though the researchers did not observe noteworthy differences in weight change.

Schools can be a primary place for children to access physical activity and healthy food. Amid school closures, researchers are exploring the effects of losing out on these benefits. During lockdowns in Italy, children with obesity engaged in less physical activity, slept and used screens more and increased their consumption of potato chips and sugary drinks.

In the U.S., 1 in 4 families with school-age children don’t have reliable access to food. Abrupt school closures cut off more than 30 million children from free and reduced-price lunches and breakfasts delivered at school.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees school food programs, provided waivers to let schools provide meals in ways that fit their students’ needs. In Connecticut, for example, researchers found that letting families know about wider availability and pickup sites for to-go school meals boosted the number of students who received food during the pandemic.

Time will tell if the costs of school closings will be worth the benefits. These early indicators show that decisions are not as simple as reducing the physical health risks of COVID-19. A full assessment would consider the effects across all aspects of child well-being, including how diverse populations are affected.

Connection, collaboration and positive interaction are fundamental to healthy childhood growth and development. Working together, schools, families and communities can assess and address every child’s needs to reduce the lasting effects of school closings.

Disclosure statement

Sandra M. Chafouleas receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Education, Connecticut State Department of Education, the Neag Foundation, and the Principal Foundation.

February 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Hungary not willing to host NATO troops amid Ukrainian crisis

By Lucas Leiroz | February 10, 2022

Another European country appears to be taking different paths from NATO’s central plans. In a recent official statement, the Hungarian foreign minister stated that his country will not allow the arrival of more NATO troops on its territory. The case demonstrates further evidence of the crisis in the legitimacy of the anti-Russian discourse of the Western alliance, which is increasingly convincing fewer people.

Peter Szijjarto, Hungarian foreign minister, during an interview to Euronews on February 9, stated that Hungary is unwilling to receive NATO troops on its territory in the midst of the current Ukrainian crisis. For him, the Hungarian armed forces are sufficiently well prepared and equipped to deal with any threat of war in the region, so there is no need to import more foreign troops.

These were some of his words: “No, we have not agreed to that and we will not agree because we have already NATO’s troops on the territory of the country, which is the Hungarian army and the Hungarian armed forces, [they] are in the proper shape to guarantee the security of the country. So we don’t need additional troops on the territory of Hungary”. Szijjarto also commented that the current Ukrainian situation recalls the Cold War times, which were “many decades where we [the Hungarian people] suffered (…) That’s why we don’t want these times to come back. We ask, we urge the international community to do its best in order to avoid the Cold War to return, avoid even the psyche of the Cold War to return because we learned it from history, unfortunately have very clearly, that whenever there is an East-West conflict , the countries of Central Europe lose and we don’t want to be losers anymore”.

In addition to ruling out the possibility of receiving troops and taking a stance against a “new cold war”, the minister also expressed skepticism about the efficiency of the implementation of coercive measures against Moscow: “If you look at the sanctions themselves, it’s a failure. They don’t work out. They are unsuccessful. Trade between Germany and the Russian Federation has increased since the sanctions have been in place. (…) We have to invest in diplomacy, we have to invest in dialogue. That’s why we urge the Russian Federation and our Western allies, the big countries, the strong countries, not to give up hope of peaceful settlement, to the contrary, to talk to each other because once again, I want to underline that for us, rather small Central European countries, it can be extremely dangerous if violent action take place”.

Szijjarto’s speech comes as a Hungarian response to recent American pressure for all European countries to accept that new NATO troops are deployed on their territories. Earlier, US Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said Washington would send a new group of troops to Europe, including a squad of about 1,000 men to Romania, a country that borders Hungary and already has more than 900 American soldiers installed. On February 8, the first soldiers of the new American squadron for Romania arrived in Bucharest, which increased pressure during this week for Budapest to give a definitive answer on the reception of the troops, but the Hungarian government seems really willing not to follow the trends in neighboring nations.

In fact, this kind of attitude is being taken simply because Budapest no longer believes in the existence of a Russian invasion plan. And it is very likely that other European governments will soon abandon this narrative as well. This is a natural consequence of the recent events. NATO has been talking about such an invasion for a long time, but it never happened and is unlikely to happen, so there is no reason to accept that European countries are passively filled with thousands of American soldiers. There is no threat to justify this.

Furthermore, regarding the opinion against sanctions and in favor of bilateral dialogue, we can see that the Hungarian government is forming a solid pro-diplomacy stance. This position is a consequence of the friendly ties that Viktor Orban has been trying to develop in recent times – which is why he suffers so much criticism within the European Union. In early February, the prime minister visited Moscow and spoke with Putin on various strategic topics in bilateral relations, including security issues in Europe, gas trade, among others. In the West, Orban’s attitude has been seen with criticism due to the moment of tensions, but it was an opportunity to make it clear that the Hungarian position is anti-war, anti-sanctions and pro-diplomacy one. Now, Szijjarto’s words corroborate this thesis.

It is possible that it will take time, but at some point other European countries will start to take the same attitude as Hungary. There is no possibility that the narrative about “Russian invasion” will endure, considering that it is unsubstantiated and fallacious. If there is no threat of war, there will be no reason for these governments to want their territories occupied by foreign troops and this will inevitably generate a NATO retreat in Europe.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

February 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

China’s support is a game changer for Russia

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 6, 2022

During the visit by President Vladimir Putin to Beijing on Friday, the world attention was focused on how far China would go in support of Russia in the latter’s standoff with the US and NATO. From the joint statement issued after the visit, China has given fulsome support to Russia, endorsing Moscow’s demand for security guarantee and its opposition to NATO expansion, the two core issues.

Russia never expected or sought any Chinese intervention in any military confrontation with the western alliance. Russia has the capability to safeguard its sovereignty.

The Chinese support to Russia at the present juncture can still manifest in a variety of ways. Aside China’s backing at the UN Security Council, what really matters most for Moscow would be the myriad ways in which Beijing can mitigate the effect of any harsh western sanctions against by way of transfer of technology, trade, investments, etc. Conceivably, Putin and Xi Jinping have reached an understanding. 

Already, a significant step has been taken in this direction during Putin’s visit with the agreement on new Russian oil and gas deals with China worth an estimated $117.5 billion, and China promising to ramp up Russia’s Far East exports. A new 30-year contract to supply 10 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year to China from Russia’s Far East was signed. 

Separately, Russian oil giant Rosneft signed a deal with China’s CNPC to supply 100 million tonnes of oil through Kazakhstan over 10 years, effectively extending an existing deal, which is worth an estimated $80bn. The construction of the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China with a massive capacity of 50 bcm annually is also under discussion. 

No doubt, Russia is seriously diversifying its markets for oil and gas exports. This will create space for Moscow to negotiate with its European partners. The new deal with Beijing will not necessitate diversion of Russia’s gas exports to Europe, as they are linked to the gas reserves from the Pacific island of Sakhalin, whereas Russia’s European pipeline network sources gas from the Siberian fields. 

The ball is in now entirely in the European court — whether to continue to source assured energy supplies from Russia at such incredibly low prices or punish itself by forgoing that option. 

While sanctions may inflict some dislocation initially necessitating readjustments, Moscow will cope with it, as past experience shows. With around $640 billion in foreign exchange reserves, Moscow could persevere longer than the Europeans in the energy market. 

The big question is about Putin’s decisions regarding the dangerous situation on Russia’s western borders. The short answer is that Putin will not be browbeaten by the Biden Administration’s threat of sanctions. 

China does not consider that a full scale invasion of Ukraine is in the Russian calculus but it neatly sidesteps the issue, nonetheless. Putin acts very cautiously, and almost always is reactive. Be it in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria or Ukraine itself, that has been the pattern. Of course, it is a different matter that in all these instances, Putin acted decisively to make sure his objectives were realised. 

In the situation surrounding Ukraine, the Biden Administration is forcing Putin’s hands. The latest US and NATO troop reinforcements to Russia’s neighbours—particularly to the Baltic states, in close proximity to St. Petersburg — were completely unwarranted and can only be seen as a calculated act of provocation when there has so far been no evidence of an adequate justification for a major Russian military operation. 

Yet, there could be a method in this madness, given the real possibility of risky military operations in Donbass by an emboldened Ukrainian military or even worse, by the nationalist battalions in that region (to whom NATO has secretly provided a large influx of arms in recent weeks.) 

In the event of any attack on Donbass, make no mistake, Russian intervention is guaranteed. The legislation under consideration with the Duma in Moscow currently factors in precisely such a contingency. It calls upon the Russian government to recognise the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk and, secondly, authorises the government to provide with new weapons to these two “people’s republics.”            

A plausible scenario could be that Russia will patiently wait for the Ukrainian provocation. That is, it all boils down to a question of resolve. For Russia, the stakes are exceedingly high and its staying power is far greater than that of its Western adversaries. 

There is a big element of brinkmanship here. What is happening in Europe at the moment has turned out to be a huge distraction for the US and as time passes, the Biden Administration would rue that its Indo-Pacific strategy is faltering and it is bogged down. The likelihood of Russia backing off is zero.

Evidently, the North Korean missile testing is already putting enormous strain on the US’ alliance system in the Far East. Unlike Ukraine, the US’ security interests are directly affected. Yet, on Friday, a US-drafted statement condemning Pyongyang crash-landed. 

Ironically, China called on the US to be more flexible in its dealings with North Korea and joined six other member countries (including Russia and India) in refusing to sign the joint statement. 

China’s ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun later told reporters, “If they do want to see some new breakthrough, they should show more sincerity and flexibility. They should come up with more attractive and more practical, more flexible approaches, policies and actions and accommodating the concerns of the DPRK.” 

This is where the US is facing the new reality that its Cold War mentality to isolate China in the Asia-Pacific region and Russia in Europe will not work.

The solidarity between China and Russia reflected in Friday’s joint statement goes far beyond the immediate crisis in Ukraine or the tensions over Taiwan and has an epochal significance heralding a new era in international relations based on a pluralistic world order where the role of the US will no longer be exclusive or defining. 

Russia and China have a broad consensus today on almost all core issues related to global strategic stability, which is unprecedented in modern history. 

The joint statement mentions the US not less than five times while highlighting the common stance of China and Russia on several key regional and global issues, including the expansion of NATO, the US-led ideological clique in the name of democracy, the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy, AUKUS, etc. 

Xi told Putin he is willing to work with him to plan a blueprint and guide the direction of China-Russia ties under the new historical conditions. China has lent support to the fundamental principle of the indivisibility of security that Russia is upholding. In these circumstances, if the US with its zero-sum mindset thinks it can defeat Russia through sanctions, it is being delusional. 

Stonewalling the Russian demands is not going to be feasible, either. The challenge facing the Biden Administration will be how to preserve its credibility, especially in the European eyes. For, if Russia is compelled to act militarily to defend its non-negotiable core interests, as it will be at some point, a dangerous escalation may happen. 

Is the US ready for an open-ended conflict with Russia? Are its allies game for it? Can they afford it? Will their domestic opinion allow it — war with a thermonuclear nuclear power in Europe to defend ill-defined notions? 

A far more judicious course would be to seek a diplomatic formula that takes into account all of these self-evident realities and negotiate some kind of a document that guarantees Russia’s legitimate security needs.

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

More Focus On The Impossible Costs Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Battery Energy System

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | February 1, 2022

It should be glaringly obvious that, if we are shortly going to try to convert to a “net zero” carbon emissions energy system based entirely on wind, sun and batteries, then there needs to be serious focus on the feasibility and costs of such a system. The particular part of such a prospective system that needs the most focus is the method of energy storage, its cost and, indeed, feasibility. That part needs focus because, as wind and solar increase their share of generation over 50% of the total, storage becomes far and away the dominant driver of the total costs. Moreover, there is no clear way to identify some fixed amount of storage that will be sufficient to make such a system reliable enough to power a modern economy without full backup from dispatchable sources. This also should be glaringly obvious to anyone who thinks about the problem for any amount of time.

And yet, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, it seemed like the entire Western world was racing forward to “net zero” based on wind and sun without anyone anywhere giving real thought to the problem of the amount of storage needed, let alone its cost, and let alone whether any fixed amount of storage could ever fully assure complete reliability. A retired, independent guy named Roger Andrews had done some calculations back in 2018 for test cases of California and Germany, which had showed that at least 30 days’ of storage would be needed to back up a fully wind/solar system. Andrews’s work showed that storage costs just to be sufficient to match actual wind/solar intermittency patterns for 2017 would likely cause a multiplication of the cost of electricity by something in the range of a factor of 14 to 22. But Andrews did not even get to the point of considering how much storage might be needed in worst case scenarios of lengthy winter wind or sun droughts.

And then Andrews died suddenly in early 2019, and nobody immediately took up where he left off.

But then a few weeks ago I discovered at Watts Up With That some new work from someone named Ken Gregory (again, a retired, independent guy — funny, isn’t it?), who produced a spreadsheet for the entire United States again showing that about 30 days’ storage would be needed to back up a fully wind/solar system. (Cost for the storage, assuming all energy use gets electrified: about $400 trillion.)

And now, some others are getting into the act. And none too soon. A guy named Roger Caiazza has a blog called Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. Caiazza, as you might by now have guessed, is another independent retired guy. In the past few months, he has turned his attention principally to the energy transition supposedly getting underway here in New York State, as a result of something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (the Climate Act). The Climate Act created a gaggle of bureaucracies, and the end of 2021 saw those bureaucracies utter something they call the “Scoping Plan,” laying out how New York is going to go from its current energy system to the nirvana of electrification of everything together with “net zero” emissions by no later than 2050.

The Scoping Plan is a massive document (some 330 pages plus another 500+ pages of appendices) of breathtaking incompetence. The basic approach, summarized by me in this post of December 29, 2021, is that designated “expert” bureaucrats working for the State, themselves having no actual idea how to achieve “net zero” from an engineering perspective, will get around that problem by simply ordering the people to achieve the “net zero” goal by a date certain. Then, presumably some engineers will magically emerge to work out the details. The thousands of people who put this thing together apparently do not regard proof of cost or feasibility as any part of their job. As to the key problem of energy storage to achieve “net zero” goals, the Scoping Plan, in nearly 1000 pages of heft, never even gets to the point of recognizing that the MWH (as opposed to MW) is the key unit that must be considered to assess issues of cost and feasibility.

For the past many weeks, Caiazza has been putting out one post after another ripping the Climate Act and the “Scoping Plan” apart, piece by piece. But for today, I want to focus on one post from January 24 titled “Scoping Plan Reliability Feasibility – Renewable Variability.” This post considers the implications of dependence only on wind and solar power, particularly as to how much storage would be needed with such a system, and without remaining fossil fuel backup, to achieve necessary system reliability.

Rather than creating a spreadsheet for annual wind and solar generation, in the manner of Andrews or Gregory, Caiazza takes a different approach, which is simply to consider a worst-case scenario. (For this purpose Caiazza draws on a January 20 piece from a guy named David Wojick at PA Pundits International.). The beauty of considering the worst-case scenario is that the math becomes so simple you can do it in your head.

So here is the scenario considered by Caiazza. Your mission as the State is to deliver 1000 MW of power continuously with complete reliability, but with only the wind and sun to provide the generation. How much generation capacity do you need, and how much storage do you need? And how much will it cost? (New York’s average current usage is about 18,000 MW, and by the time everything is electrified that will be at least 60,000 MW, so we can multiply everything by 60 at the end to see what the cost implications are for the State of New York.)

First what is the hypothesized worst case? To make the math simple, Caiazza hypothesizes a solar/storage only system, and a five day winter period of overcast, followed by two sunny days to recharge before the next such worst-case 5-day sun drought.

The required battery capacity is simple. Five days at 24 hours a day is 120 hours. To supply a steady 1,000 MW that is a whopping 120,000 MWh of storage. We already have the overnight storage capacity for 16 hours so we now need an additional 104 hours, which means 104,000 MWh of additional storage.

But the 120,000 MWH of storage assumes that you charge the batteries up to 100% and discharge them down to 0%. Real world batteries are supposed to only range between about 20% and 80% charge for best performance.

The standard practice is to operate between 80% and 20%. In that case the available storage is just 60% of the nameplate capacity. This turns the dark days 120,000 MWh into a requirement for 200,000 MWh.

I might throw in that solar panels don’t produce at full capacity for anything close to 8 hours on even the sunniest winter day, but who’s quibbling?

Now suppose that in this worst-case scenario we only had two days to charge up since the last 5 day drought:

Two days gives us 16 hours of charging time for the needed 120,000 MWh, which requires a large 7,500 MW of generating capacity. We already have 3,000 MW of generating capacity but that is in use providing round the clock sunny day power. It is not available to help recharge the dark days batteries. Turns out we need a whopping 10,500 MW of solar generating capacity.

That’s right, it’s not just that you need 200,000 MWH of storage, but you also need more than ten times the “capacity” of solar panels as the mere 1000 MW that you are trying to deliver on a firm basis, just to deal with this worst case scenario to deliver 1000 MW firm through one bad month in the winter.

For cost of storage, Caiazza takes what he calls a standard EIA figure of $250/MWH for the batteries. At this price, 200,000 MWH would cost $50 billion. Then there is the cost of the solar panels. Here, Caiazza has a standard EIA figure of $1.3 million per MW. For the 10,500 MW capacity case, that would mean $13.7 billion. Add the $50 billion plus the $13.7 billion and you get $63.7 billion.

And that’s for the 1000 MW firm power case. Remember, fully-electrified New York State is going to need 60,000 MW firm. So multiply the $63.7 billion by 60, and you get $3.822 trillion. For comparison, the annual GDP of New York State is approximately $1.75 trillion.

Caiazza points out that the state’s Scoping Plan gives necessary storage costs for the new wind/solar/battery system in the range of $288.6 to $310.5 billion. These figures are about 10 times lower than we just calculated. But Caiazza attempts to find in the Scoping Plan the assumptions on which these numbers were calculated, and he can’t find it. Neither can I. Maybe some reader can take a crack.

The reader may find that Caiazza’s $3.8 trillion figure for New York State seems remarkably small relative to the number calculated by Gregory. Gregory got about $400 trillion for the U.S. as a whole. New York representing about 7% of the U.S. economy, that would mean that the cost of the storage piece for New York would be closer to $30 trillion than $4 trillion. The difference is that Caiazza is calculating the cost of just getting through one “worst case” week in the winter, while Gregory considers the cost of trying to get through a whole year where energy needs to be stored up from the summer to get through the whole winter.

One final point. Suppose that, based on even a few decades of meteorological data, you determine that this five day winter sun drought is the true worst case scenario, and you put together a system on that basis. OK, what now happens when one year you get a six day drought? By hypothesis your fossil fuel backup has been dismantled and is no longer available. Does all power then just go out on that sixth day? Remember, this is the dead of winter. People are going to freeze to death. So are you going to keep the fossil fuel backup around just for this one day that might occur only once every few decades? If so, how much of the fossil fuel backup capacity do you need to keep? Think about that for a second. The answer is, all of it. In the 60,000 MW firm power requirement scenario for New York State, you will need 60,000 MW of available fossil fuel capacity to cover that one day when the batteries run out. Dozens of major power plants, fully maintained, and with fuel at the ready, capable of being turned on for this one emergency day perhaps once every twenty years.

Or you can try to avoid that by building yet more solar panels and more batteries so that you can get through a six day sun drought. But what happens when you get a drought of seven days?

It’s almost impossible to contemplate the lack of critical thinking that is going into this so-called green energy transition.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Omicron did not “slam labor markets.” Covid policy did. And it was entirely avoidable.

el gato malo – bad cattitude – february 2, 2022

CNBC would appear to wish to have us believe that the drop in jobs was caused by “the variant” as though this was some act of nature instead of an act of government.

it is not. this is a deeply misleading framing intended to obscure causality rather than reveal it.

it’s way past the point where even these people could possibly be this ignorant of baseline reality.

this is, instead, a clear bet that you are.

this drop in jobs was not “unexpected” at least not by anyone paying attention. this is the direct, proximate effect of imposing vaccine mandates as a precondition to work. the OSHA mandate fell, but the federal mandate for contractors did not. thousands of mandates for health care workers imposed by states and hospital systems did not. requirements for many truckers and teachers and hospitality workers did not. many employers went ahead and imposed these anyway. they waited until after the holidays, but here we are.

we also cut off the flow of travel and of patronage. we closed businesses (again). we limited capacity. we mandated vaccination as a pre-requisite for going out to eat or staying in hotels. and like clockwork, it choked off the flow of tourists and local patrons alike because people HATE this and hate playing officious games and pretending that the made up “covid physics” of “wear your mask to the table then take it off when you sit” make any sense at all. they hate having some hostess demand “their papers.” maybe not everyone does, but enough people do that it has savaged businesses.

we’re living though needless damage to no useful effect at all.

this is NOT the virus.

it’s the predictable and unavoidable output of deeply stupid public health policy.

the damage since this began has been acute and severe. “2 weeks to flatten the curve” was, as many of us were screaming right from the beginning, the commencement of the nastiest economic hit to jobs and small business per unit time in US history and probably in global history.

in the US, we dropped 20 million jobs in 2 months. that is so far outside any precedent it’s staggering.

the entire 2008 recession and financial crisis led to a job reduction of 8 million over 24 months…

and we have NOT recovered to previous levels. current job levels are about the same as jan 2018.

they are 4 million jobs below the level from early 2020.

they are 9 million below where we would be had job growth continued as before. (added in red)

might job growth have slowed anyway? yes, perhaps, but this gives us a set of fairly reasonable bookends to assess the scope of what this has cost in terms of private nonfarm employment.

we’re 4-9 million jobs short of where we would likely have been without this public health response and claims that the US jobs market looks strong are pretty iffy.

(keep in mind that the unemployment rate drops when people drop out of the labor force/stop looking for work. it does not mean they found jobs.)

“but it was the virus! most of this would have happened anyway!”

this is a predictable claim, but seems out of step with reality. fortunately, we have a control group.

compare this damage to a place like sweden who did not lock down and freak out.

sweden’s payrolls figure is much more seasonally variable than the US, but looking through this seeming cardiac rhythm the overall difference in outcome is unavoidably obvious.

the dip was extremely minor in comparison. it was extremely short in comparison. and, despite the effects of many neighbors locking down, tourism and travel dropping, and global supply chain issues, their jobs figures currently look indistinguishable from 2019 and pre pandemic 2020.

employment today is higher than dec 2019 or jan 2020.

the US is nowhere close.

it’s really very simple: places that locked down harder got no better outcomes on covid. but they got much, much worse outcomes on economic and societal damage.

this was all known and knowable.

the base prior for pandemics was to never, never do this.

it’s what the guidelines said.

i did a ton of work on this back in the twitter days. it was obvious right from the start that drops in google mobility data (measuring actual human behavior from cell phone tracking) had zero effect on bending any epidemiological curve. it was clearly doing nothing at all. this was already glaring. and so was the harm.

i pulled this data from BLS way back in 2020:

it was more than a little apparent that it was predominantly politics and policy, not covid putting people out of work.

the no lockdown states were back at baseline by the fall.

the relationship was not subtle:

at this stage of the game and with this much clear data at one’s disposal, it’s pretty absurd to still be trying to blame upon a virus that which’s fault lies with public health response.

to do so is neither economically or epidemiologically accurate.

these are choices, not happenstance.

and it’s long past time to be making different ones.

February 3, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Russia & China may be ready to challenge America’s ‘Monroe Doctrine’

By Paul Robinson | RT | February 1, 2022

For 200 years, the Monroe Doctrine – asserting a US sphere of influence over Latin America – has been a cornerstone of American policy. But as Russia and China assert their opposition to the US-led world order, American dominance in the region is beginning to look a little shaky.

As the “Russian invasion” scare enters its fourth month, and Russian tanks still fail to roll into Kiev, the parameters of Moscow’s likely response to the West’s rejection of its security demands are becoming a little clearer. Frustrated with what it sees as decades of Western contempt for its concerns, Moscow has demanded that the US offer it security guarantees, including a promise not to expand NATO further to the east. As has become clear through America’s negative response this week, the US has no intention of doing as Russia desires. The issue is now how the Kremlin will react.

Despite hysterical headlines in the Western media about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has categorically ruled this option out. “Our nation has likewise repeatedly stated that we have no intention to attack anyone. We consider the very thought that our people may go to war against each other unacceptable,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexei Zaitsev this week.

This is not surprising. Russian officials and security experts have repeatedly made clear that Ukraine is a secondary issue and that their primary concern is a much broader one – the general nature of the international system and of the security architecture in Europe. The idea that failure to achieve agreement on the latter would lead to the invasion of the former was never very logical. Instead of targeting Ukraine, Russia’s response to the current diplomatic impasse is much more likely to be directed at the party deemed by Moscow to be most responsible for the problem, namely the US.

And what better way to do this than to challenge America in its own back yard? Since President James Monroe declared his famous “doctrine” in 1832 – according to which any foreign interference in the politics of the Americas is deemed a hostile act against Washington – the US has fiercely asserted its primacy in both North and South America.

Nowhere has this been clearer than in successive US administrations’ efforts to depose the government of Cuba, as well as the imposition of sanctions on that country for over 60 years. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Washington made it clear that it was willing even to risk nuclear war to prevent potentially hostile weaponry being deployed close to its borders. Meanwhile, elsewhere it has used other methods to undermine or overthrow Latin American governments deemed insufficiently friendly. These include supporting coups and insurgencies, such as aiding the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

But Washington’s ability to bend Latin America to its will appears somewhat weakened. Support for regime change in Bolivia and Honduras has backfired, with members of the deposed governments having returned to power. Meanwhile, China is expanding its Belt and Road Initiative into South America, with seven countries having signed up to join and negotiations under way with Nicaragua to add an eighth. The US is no longer the only player in town.

Russia has now stepped into the mix. In the past few weeks, President Vladimir Putin has held telephone conversations with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, all countries with whom Washington has very poor relations. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, agreement was reached with all three “to deepen our strategic partnership, with no exceptions, including military and military-technical.”

Asked if this meant deploying Russian troops to those countries, Lavrov’s deputy Sergey Ryabkov failed to rule it in, but failed to rule it out also. “The president of Russia has spoken multiple times on the subject of what the measures could be, for example involving the Russian Navy, if things are set on the course of provoking Russia, and further increasing the military pressure on us by the US,” he said.

A much-discussed extreme option would involve going back to 1962 and placing missiles in Cuba or Venezuela. Given that Russia now has missiles with hypersonic capabilities, this would give it the capacity to strike the US in a matter of minutes, rendering any defense impossible.

It seems unlikely, though, that the Russian government would take such a provocative step unless the US first did something similar in Ukraine or elsewhere close to the Russian border. Even the option mentioned by Ryabkov of some Russian naval deployment to the region is far from certain. “We can’t deploy anything” to Cuba, said former president Dmitry Medvedev this week, arguing that it would harm that country’s prospects of improving its relations with the US and “would provoke tension in the world.”

Still, the threat of such action now dangles in the air. So, too, does the possibility of lesser options, such as additional arms sales as well as economic assistance to enable the Cubans and others to resist American sanctions. For now, we will have to wait and see exactly what “military and military-technical” measures Moscow has in mind. But it is likely that whatever it is will not be to the Americans’ liking. Nor will Russia’s more general support of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

Reacting to talk of Russian military deployments in the Americas, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has promised that the Americans would respond “decisively.” This is somewhat ironic, since Sullivan and his peers in the US government seem to deny Russia the right to respond to American deployments close to its borders. But that is by the by. In reality, it’s hard to see what Washington could actually do, short of starting a catastrophic war. Efforts to overthrow the Cuban and Venezuelan government having failed, and economic ties having been almost fully broken, its leverage against those countries is weak.

Washington now has to face the reality that while it remains the foremost power in the world, it can no longer be fully confident of its hegemony even close to home. Its decline is a very gradual process. Nothing very dramatic will likely result from Russia’s latest announcement. It is also possible that Moscow would have decided to cooperate more deeply with Cuba and others even in the absence of current East-West tensions. But had relations been good, one can imagine that the Kremlin might have been inclined not to challenge the US in its own neighborhood.

As it is, the news highlights the fact that pressuring Russia is not a cost-free option from Washington’s point of view and may well rebound to its disadvantage. That’s something that the authorities in the White House could do well to consider.

Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.

February 1, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rocketing Energy Prices Were Part Of The Plan All The Time

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 29, 2022

image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/

The above excerpt comes from the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget. It shows conclusively that high energy prices have always been the official policy, in order that expensive renewables are made viable.

EU carbon prices have already risen from 32 to 80 euro/tonne in the last year, and the new UK ETS system tracks EU prices, with prices now at £75/tonne.

As it turns out global price rises for natural gas have brought the CCC’s dream to fruition a decade early.

January 30, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Biden Regime Escalates War on Supply Chains

By Stephen Lendman | January 30, 2022

Effective on January 22, the Biden regime’s Department of Homeland Security ordered the following:

“(N)on-US individuals seeking to enter the US via land ports of entry and ferry terminals at the US-Mexico and Canada  borders  (must) be fully (jabbed) for (flu/covid) and provide related proof” of kill shots gotten.

The draconian mandate does not apply to US citizens and lawful residents.

It has nothing to do with protecting public health.

If that was official policy, kill shots and all else flu/covid never would have been mandated and heavily promoted.

Banning unjabbed foreign truckers from entering the US is polar opposite a Biden regime “commitment to…facilitat(e) cross-border trade and travel that is critical to our economy (sic).”

It’s all about more greatly disrupting supply chains than already.

It’s about further increasing shortages of food and other essentials.

It’s about heightening double-digit inflation above its current level.

It’s about continuing the largest-scale ever transfer of wealth from ordinary people to super-rich ones.

It’s about imposing greater misery on ordinary Americans and others abroad.

It includes mass-extermination of unwanted segments of society at home and abroad, along with eliminating what remains of greatly eroded freedoms.

According to draconian Biden regime policy, foreign nationals traveling to the US — including truckers from Canada and Mexico — must:

“Verbally attest to their (jabbing) status.”

“Provide proof of (Phama-controlled) CDC-approved (jabs).”

“Present a valid Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-compliant document, such as a valid passport, Trusted Traveler Program card, or Enhanced Tribal Card.”

“Be prepared to present any other relevant documents requested by a US Customs and Border Protection  officer during a border inspection.”

While proof of being jabbed doesn’t apply to US citizens and lawful residents, when reentering the US from abroad, they must present a WHTI-compliant document on request.

All of the above is about destroying public health and what remains of a free and open society — on both sides of the US/Canadian border.

It’s about growing social control tyranny that’s heading toward becoming full-blown without all-out resistance against what no one should tolerate.

It’s about transforming the US, Canada — other Western countries and all others — into being more unsafe and unfit to live in than their current deplorable state.

Prohibiting foreign truckers from entering the US unless jabbed was ordered despite knowing that many thousands are unjabbed.

That the vast majority of refusenik truckers are likely to hold firm on this issue.

That banning them from entering the US will cause greater supply shortages and higher prices from demand greatly exceeding supply.

It’s at a time when real inflation is 15.15% — based on how calculated pre-1990 before things were rigged to way understate it.

It’s when real unemployment is 24.8%.

In the world’s richest country, one-fourth of its working-age population is not only jobless.

Based on officially reported data, the vast majority of the unemployed don’t exist.

Thousands of outraged Canadian truckers comprised a 93-mile-long Freedom Convoy en route to the country’s capital.

On Saturday, they arrived. See below.

A statement by its organizers said the following:

Truckers involved oppose draconian mandates by the Biden and complicit Trudeau regimes.

“No more lockdowns. No forced (mass-jabbing) (and yes, it IS force when you choose between a shot you don’t want and your ability to feed yourself),” they stressed.

The Freedom Convoy traveled from British Columbia in Canada’s west to the country’s capital in Ottawa.

According to media reports along the way, large crowds expressed support for their freedom-supporting initiative.

Like the Biden regime, Trudeau requires truckers entering Canada from the US to be jabbed with health-destroying kill shots.

According to Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber:

“We’re going to end mandates.”

To be jabbed or not jabbed is “everybody’s personal choice.”

“The straw that broke the camel’s back was the USA border for commercial drivers, and you have to show (a flu/covid) passport.”

“A lot of guys are going to lose their jobs over that.”

What’s going on “has gone too far.”

“If we can’t get across the border freely, and we’re being forced to (be jabbed), we can take a stand or we can’t.”

According to US and Canadian trucking associations, around 26,000 of 160,000 drivers who travel regularly cross border will be out of work if the draconian US and Canadian mandates aren’t challenged and rescinded.

Enough US and Canadian truckers holding firm on this issue is the most effective way of beating it.

As long as it remains official policy of the Biden and Trudeau regimes, countless millions of Americans and Canadians will endure greater economic and financial misery than already.

Late Friday and early Saturday, Freedom Convoy truckers arrived in Ottawa.

Ahead of their arrival, Canadian PM Trudeau moved to an undisclosed location — a cowardly act by the vassal to US interests, notably its highest of high crimes against humanity.

On Saturday, the Ottawa Citizen reported that thousands are protesting peacefully in the nation’s capital.

There have been “no incidents of violence or injuries.”

Despite sub-zero weather conditions, Parliament Hill remains filled with protesting truckers and supporters.

Much the same is expected throughout Sunday and days to follow.

Freedom Convoy truckers didn’t travel thousands of miles to back off from their legitimate demands for the Trudeau regime to rescind its draconian mandates from hell.

January 30, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »