Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

As The Federal Government Abandons The Climate Fantasy, New York Doubles Down

By Francis Menton – Manhattan Contrarian – May 13, 2025

The first 100+ days of the second Trump administration (it’s now actually 113 days) have seen a near total abandonment of the fantasy that this one country’s government can change the weather and “save the planet” by suppressing use of hydrocarbon fuels and impoverishing the people. Biden administration “climate” and energy policies amounting to thousands of pages in regulations and hundreds of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies to uneconomic energy projects have been swiftly reversed. Examples in just the past few weeks include:

And these are just examples. There are many more.

At this point, you would think that the blue states might take the hint. As a blue state, you had thought that you were embarking on an energy “transition” with the full backing and support of the federal government, complete with its vast powers and its infinite checkbook. Sure, this was going to cost trillions of dollars; but it was almost all their money, not yours. If somehow it all didn’t work out, you were not going to be the main one on the hook.

Now, all that has changed. In the blink of an eye, there is no more support to be had from the infinite deep pocket. Not only is the federal government no longer your partner and financial sugar daddy, but it is even taking steps to obstruct and hinder your efforts.

So going forward, is there any point? As a lone blue state, you don’t remotely have the resources to expunge fossil fuels from your energy system on your own. Maybe, would it be best just to lie low for a few years and wait for the next friendly administration in Washington?

Well, if you are New York, that is not how you react. Your religious fervor is such that you are now prepared to proceed totally on your own to defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Even as the federal government is telling New York to take a hike, here are some of the latest antics on the climate front from New York officials and climate activists:

  • The State’s 2025-26 budget just got enacted on Friday, May 9. ESG Today reported excitedly on Monday (May 12) that the budget includes “over $1 billion investment in decarbonization.” Excerpt:

    New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the state’s 2025-2026 budget on Friday, which included more than $1 billion in climate change-focused investments, including funding to lower emissions from buildings and accelerate the rollout of electrified transportation. . . . Key climate-focused allocations in the new budget include $450 million targeting reductions in building emissions, including investments in energy-efficient retrofits and clean heating technologies like heat pumps, more than $200 million for thermal energy networks, $250 million to support electric school buses, fast-charging stations and a NYSERDA rebate program for installing EV charging stations, as well as $200 million for renewable energy expansion and grid modernization.

    Nobody is impolite enough here to mention that $1 billion is chump change in the effort to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels. If you were serious about the effort, the number would be more like $1 trillion. But don’t worry, nobody reading this stuff has sufficient numeric competency to understand that.

  • New York City Comptroller Brad Lander — who is also a candidate for Mayor in the current election cycle — fancies himself a leader in the climate movement. Lander put out a statement on April 22 (“Earth Day”) setting forth his position:

    New York City Comptroller Brad Lander decried threats from the Trump administration to dramatically roll back climate progress and stood with climate activists from New York Communities for Change, 350 NYC, and Fridays for Future to announce new actions by the Comptroller’s Office to reduce New York City’s emissions. . . . [T]o stand strong against federal rollbacks, Comptroller Lander is demanding more from the asset managers who manage funds for the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS), Teachers Retirement System (TRS), and Board of Education Retirement System (BERS).

  • In a prior statement on March 26, reported in Net Zero Investor, Lander vowed that the City “will not retreat one inch” on its climate program, despite the actions of the Trump administration.

  • Our local environmental activist groups brook no dissent from climate orthodoxy. On March 31, a group of four climate activist organizations sued the State government in an effort to force faster progress on greenhouse gas reduction goals. From New York Focus, March 31:

    Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or dec, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.” It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or clcpa: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

So, there is plenty of bluster from local politicians and activists. But despite that, I can’t find a word as to how they plan to meet the greenhouse gas reduction and green energy mandates of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, now that all federal backing is withdrawn. As just one element, there was supposed to be 9000 MW of offshore wind built to replace on-shore fossil fuel power plants. Now the Trump administration is obstructing the offshore wind development. I haven’t been able to find a word from New York elected or energy officials on how they plan to transition the energy supply if they can’t build the offshore wind facilities.

So we move forward with our officials in a state of bluff and bluster and denial, and no plan of any kind to meet the impossible mandates of the Climate Act. We all know that this is doomed to failure, but it will likely be a couple of years before we see the failure unfold.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Being Russia’s enemy could cost European allies $1trn – study

RT | May 16, 2025

European NATO members would face a $1 trillion bill over 25 years to replace US military contributions if Washington exited the bloc, according to a study published on Thursday by a British think tank. The EU is planning a militarization drive, which it claims is necessitated by an alleged Russian threat.

Western European leaders have said member states must reduce their dependence on US weapons while implementing a massive increase in military spending. The proposed hike comes amid claims that Russia could attack a NATO member in the coming years. Moscow has denied the allegations and has accused the West of “irresponsibly stoking fears” of a fabricated threat.

The report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) outlines the challenges nations would encounter in the event the US withdraws from NATO to focus on confronting China.

According to the IISS, European nations – including the UK – would need to replace some 128,000 American troops, along with a wide array of weapon systems and command infrastructure currently provided by the Pentagon, particularly for air and naval forces.

”European states would need to invest significant resources on top of already existing plans to boost military capacity,” the report stated. The estimated price tag for replacing American weaponry alone ranges from $226 billion to $344 billion.

Domestic arms manufacturers would face difficulties securing contracts, financing, and skilled labor, while also grappling with regulatory and supply chain hurdles, the report warned. In certain sectors – such as stealth aircraft and rocket artillery – European NATO members currently lack viable alternatives, prompting the IISS to suggest outsourcing production to countries outside the bloc.

Beyond hardware, the study highlighted intangible but critical costs associated with command-and-control functions, space intelligence, and filling high-level leadership roles traditionally held by US officers.

The think tank questioned whether European governments possess the political will to ensure the vast spending required. The administration of US President Donald Trump has accused European NATO nations of taking advantage of American military protection without contributing enough in return.

On Thursday, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stirred controversy by vowing to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, well above Germany’s existing level of 2.1%. The statement, made following a NATO meeting, drew backlash, including from members of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius later stated that the exact percentage was “not so important” and that Berlin considered 3% to be a more realistic level.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Ball’s in Trump’s Court, But Iran Won’t Bow to US Pressure

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.05.2025

There is a good possibility of a US-Iranian deal, Mohammad Marandi, a Tehran University professor who was on Iran’s team during the 2015 nuclear talks, tells Sputnik.

Marandi stresses, however, that Tehran won’t accept any agreement that infringes on the nation’s sovereignty.

Reduced, Not Suspended, Enrichment

“The reason why [Iran is] enriching uranium at 60% right now is in order to put pressure on the US to come to the negotiating table, to behave more reasonably and to force it to remove sanctions,” the professor tells Sputnik.

The US shouldn’t expect Iran to halt its uranium enrichment – Tehran will only reduce enrichment levels and expand the IAEA’s role in the country in exchange for US sanctions relief, the academic stresses.

“Iran is a country that’s deeply and profoundly independent in its foreign policy… so the US should not expect Iran to be a subordinate country.”

What’s the Real Cause of the US-Iranian Row?

  • The root cause is “Iran’s support for the Palestinian people and… legitimate resistance to ethnic cleansing, to genocide, to apartheid,” says Marandi.
  • “The US supports genocide, because they unconditionally support racism… and ethno-supremacism in our region.”
  • The nuclear issue is an excuse — just like the “human rights” or “terrorism” accusations the US uses against Iran to appease Israel.

US: An Irresponsible Negotiator?

The US isn’t a trustworthy negotiator; it violates agreements, according to Marandi: Trump is constantly “flip-flopping” — be it Ukraine, trade wars, Yemen, or Gaza genocide.

“This is what makes it very difficult to come to any agreement,” the pundit concludes.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

India, Pakistan, and the future of the Indus Waters Treaty

By Amin Noorafkan | Press TV | May 14, 2025

On April 22, 2025, militants carried out a brutal attack on tourists at a hill resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, leaving 26 people dead. Indian authorities swiftly blamed Pakistan, responding by downgrading diplomatic ties and initiating a series of escalatory measures.

Among these measures, one that took many observers by surprise was India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) – a landmark water-sharing agreement signed in Karachi in September 1960.

Despite decades of hostilities and multiple wars, the treaty had long endured as a rare symbol of cooperation between the two estranged neighbors.

As tensions surged, India launched a military operation on the morning of May 7, firing a barrage of missiles deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, reportedly killing dozens.

In retaliation, Pakistan struck several Indian cities, including key military installations, three days later.

A ceasefire was brokered just hours after Pakistan’s attack, halting the escalation between the two nuclear-armed nations. However, underlying tensions remain high.

A key point of contention is the continued suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, in remarks on Monday, warned that the fragile ceasefire could unravel if the treaty is not reinstated.

Indus Waters Treaty: Status, India’s stance and Pakistan’s response

India’s cabinet committee on security announced the Indus Waters Treaty – long seen as a symbol of “water for peace” – would be held “in abeyance” until Pakistan ends its support for cross-border terrorism.

India’s Foreign Secretary confirmed the suspension, stating it would remain in place until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures” terror support.

On the ground, India backed up its announcement with action. It briefly restricted flows on the Chenab River, and then released large volumes of water from the Baglihar and Salal dams as levels rose.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that “India’s water will flow only in India,” emphasizing that water previously shared with Pakistan would now be conserved for domestic use.

Echoing this, Jal Shakti Minister C.R. Patil said, “We will ensure that not even a drop of water from the Indus River goes to Pakistan.”

In Islamabad, the reaction was defiant and dramatic. Pakistani leaders condemned India’s suspension of the treaty as “an act of war”.

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and military officials publicly warned that blocking Pakistan’s water share would trigger a full response. Pakistan also announced it would pursue international legal action.

The government is reportedly preparing cases before the World Bank (the treaty’s broker), the Hague’s arbitration tribunals and even the International Court of Justice.

This escalation is particularly notable given the treaty’s durability. The Indus Waters Treaty remained intact through the wars of 1965, 1971, and 1999.

What is clear is that water has moved to the center of the current standoff. India’s handling of dam flows appears to serve more as a signal of power than a direct retaliation; a message to Pakistan that New Delhi can, at will, alter the course of shared rivers.

The Indus basin dams underpin Pakistan’s food and energy security. A recent report showed that over 80% of Pakistan’s irrigation and nearly 50% of its GDP depend on the Indus water.

But there is another player that needs to be factored into the equation.

China’s role and upstream developments

Adding complexity to the dispute is the growing role of China. In January 2023, satellite imagery revealed extensive dam construction by China on the Indus headwaters in Tibet and on the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Zangbo).

Images also show China building a dam on the Mabja Zangbo (which is a tributary flowing toward Nepal and India) and planning a mega-dam on the lower Brahmaputra.

The Brahmaputra provides about 30% of India’s freshwater and 44% of its hydropower potential, giving Beijing strategic leverage.

Some analysts warn that India’s current use of the IWT as a geopolitical tool could set a precedent, encouraging China to do the same against India downstream.

China’s involvement also has a strategic aspect. Under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Beijing has poured billions into Pakistan’s hydropower sector, co-developing large dams like Diamer-Bhasha, Dasu, and Mohmand. These projects are central to Pakistan’s water and energy plans, and China’s investment makes it a key stakeholder.

As a result, any dramatic shift in Indus water flows or treaty dynamics is unlikely to remain a bilateral issue. China could respond directly, especially on the Brahmaputra, or through its partnership with Pakistan, by accelerating joint hydropower projects.

A fragile equilibrium

India’s moves risk triggering a “double-edged sword.” By choking Indus flows, it could prompt Beijing to tighten its grip on Himalayan rivers flowing into India.

In effect, the water dispute now entangles three powers: India, Pakistan, and China, each competing for control over critical transboundary rivers.

However, not all leverage is equal. While China’s upstream position on the Brahmaputra is significant, its practical impact is more limited. The Brahmaputra’s flow through India is largely driven by monsoons, with only 7–10% originating in Tibet.

Even a theoretical full diversion (which remains unlikely due to technical and geopolitical constraints) would reduce India’s national freshwater by 10–15%, impacting less than 1% of GDP. India’s more diversified economy and lower dependence on agriculture (13.5% of GDP) offer some buffer.

Still, China’s dam-building project signals its intent to assert hydro-hegemony in the region.

And as tensions mount, rivers are no longer just a source of sustenance; they are emerging as instruments of strategy and power.

Future scenarios for water diplomacy and conflict

The coming months will reveal whether the current crisis can be resolved through diplomacy or whether tensions will spiral further.

Pakistan appears determined to internationalize the dispute. It has signaled intentions to pursue legal action through the World Bank – the designated facilitator of the Indus Waters Treaty – as well as the Permanent Court of Arbitration and potentially the International Court of Justice.

However, the World Bank has already sought to distance itself. President Ajay Banga stated that the institution has “no role to play beyond a facilitator,” casting doubt on its capacity to mediate a meaningful resolution.

As of now, there are no reports of substantive diplomatic progress. This vacuum raises the risk that the ceasefire may falter, potentially reigniting conflict. Looking ahead, several possible scenarios emerge:

  • Legal/diplomatic resolution: Pakistan could formally invoke treaty mechanisms, filing for arbitration and launching protests under international law. A mediated renegotiation might follow, potentially involving updated water allocations or enhanced confidence-building measures. India has long advocated for revisions to the treaty. Under international pressure, New Delhi might seek new security guarantees, while Islamabad could push for a more robust monitoring framework to ensure compliance.
  • Escalation: If India persists in withholding water flows or damming key rivers in Kashmir, Pakistan’s response may not remain confined to legal avenues. Officials have warned of potential covert retaliation, including cyberattacks or sabotage targeting Indian water infrastructure. Military confrontation cannot be ruled out either. Pakistani leadership has labeled water denial as an existential threat, with some officials mentioning the possibility of a “last resort response.”
  • International mediation/coercion: While the World Bank has signaled a limited role, other global actors may step in. The United States, which helped broker the current ceasefire, could take further steps to mediate the water dispute. Other states – including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – may offer to facilitate negotiations or introduce incentives for cooperation. Thus far, however, India has resisted most third-party involvement, making an exception only for US-led efforts.

Amin Noorafkahn is a student of regional studies at Allamah Tabatabai University, Tehran. He is interested in political science, literature, and sociology.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s Bold Nuclear Deal 2.0?

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 14.05.2025

After the US unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nucleal deal in May 2018, subsequent efforts to revive the agreement have largely stalled.

Iran has suggested a joint nuclear enrichment project with US investments and regional Arab nations – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi offered the idea as an alternative to US demand for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program during the recent talks with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman, the New York Times reports.

Iran would use the venture to enrich uranium to a low grade, beneath the levels needed for nuclear weapons.

Representatives from other countries, including the US, will be on the ground to provide “oversight and involvement.”

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Nuclear Power | , , | Leave a comment

France can’t give Ukraine any more arms – Macron

RT | May 14, 2025

France has reached the limit of its military support for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

In a televised interview with TF1 on Tuesday, Macron defended his administration’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, saying the French have done “the maximum we could” to help Kiev, given that the country’s military was not set up to conduct a protracted, high-intensity land war.

”We gave away everything we had,” Macron said. “But we can’t give away what we don’t have, and we can’t strip ourselves of what is necessary for our own security.” He noted that France’s approach, coordinated with those of other Western donors, aims to avoid direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.

France has committed more than €3.7 billion ($4.1 billion) in military assistance to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, according to the Kiel Institute’s aid tracker. Macron highlighted efforts to scale up the domestic defense industry to continue supplying arms.

The remarks came as the French government struggles with an economic crisis. The national budget deficit hit 5.8% last year, once again surpassing the 3% threshold recommended for EU members. Public debt has climbed above 110% of GDP, and economic forecasts predict growth of less than 1% in 2025. Macron is also facing increased challenges in pushing legislation through parliament.

The TF1 broadcast opened with a montage of public criticism, including accusations that Macron has mismanaged the economy, treated ordinary citizens with contempt, and focused too heavily on foreign affairs. One citizen described him as “a president who practically wants to send us to war.”

Macron advocates for deploying French troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow, arguing that such a move could help deter Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly warned it would not accept any NATO presence in Ukraine, citing the military bloc’s expansion in Europe as a core reason for the conflict. Russia views the war as a US-led proxy campaign, with local troops serving as “cannon fodder.”

Direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, which Kiev called off in 2022, are expected to resume this week in Türkiye. Kiev has demanded that President Vladimir Putin participate in person and urged its Western backers to impose new sanctions if he refuses. Moscow has yet to confirm its delegation.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Heating costs for Hungarian families could triple under EU plans to ban Russian gas, think tank warns

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 13, 2025

Heating bills for Hungarian households could rise by as much as three and a half times if the European Union moves forward with a full ban on Russian natural gas imports, according to a new report by the Századvég Institute, as cited by Magyar Hírlap.

The economic research group estimates such a move would impose nearly HUF 1,100 billion (approximately €2.8 billion) in additional annual costs on Hungary, putting severe pressure on both the country’s energy system and its citizens.

According to Századvég, their calculations — based on publicly available domestic and international energy data — show that a total ban on Russian energy imports would result in a doubling of gas prices and heightened volatility on European energy markets. This would not only harm the EU’s competitiveness but also destabilize Hungary’s long-standing utility bill reduction program, which currently ensures some of the lowest heating costs in Europe for Hungarian families.

Earlier this month, the European Commission published a roadmap outlining its intention to wean European nations off Russian gas before a wholesale ban came into effect by the end of 2027.

“No more will we permit Russia to weaponize energy against us… No more will we indirectly help fill up the [Kremlin’s] war chests,” European Commissioner for Energy Dan Jorgensen told reporters.

The move, however, faces stiff opposition from several nations still heavily reliant on Russia for their imports and unsure of where alternative energy sources will be found for an acceptable price.

In addition to Hungary, Slovakia is also holding firm against the plans. Prime Minister Robert Fico said earlier this week he would veto the move in the European Council if need be.

“A halt of gas supplies will cause instability. Our petrochemical plants were set up to use Russian oil for oil refining, and the shutdown may cause technological problems. I hope that our EU partners will learn about this when legal acts are adopted,” Fico said.

“If it is necessary for all 27 countries to agree, we will use our veto power,” he added.

Currently, Hungary imports around 4.5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas annually through a long-term supply contract, which covered more than half of the country’s total gas consumption last year.

Replacing this volume on international markets, the institute notes, would cost Hungary an estimated HUF 660 billion more. When including Russian gas delivered to Hungary by alternative routes, the shortfall reaches 7.5 billion cubic meters, raising the potential total impact to HUF 1,100 billion annually.

The institute highlighted that Hungarian households today pay an average of HUF 176,900 (around €435) per year for heating, thanks to state price regulations. Without these protections and based on current exchange rates, that figure would nearly double to HUF 355,310. If Russian gas were banned outright, average heating costs could skyrocket to HUF 625,000 (€1,540) — more than three and a half times the current average.

Századvég recalled that the EU’s reliance on Russian gas fell from 40 percent before the war in Ukraine to below 20 percent in 2023. This dramatic shift led to a doubling of gas prices on the Dutch energy exchange. Under the European Commission’s new strategy, prices could rise from €35 to €70 per megawatt hour, according to the think tank’s projections. They warned, however, that actual increases could be even steeper due to market instability triggered by supply shocks.

The report also emphasized the cumulative effect of EU sanctions on Hungarian households. Since 2022, Századvég estimates that higher energy prices, loss of export markets, and increased borrowing costs have drained HUF 2.2 million (€5,430) from the average Hungarian household. The direct financial cost of Ukraine’s accelerated EU accession process would add HUF 458,000 annually, while a ban on Russian gas could tack on another HUF 448,000.

“Brussels’ three highest priority objectives — arming Ukraine, accelerating EU accession, and banning Russian energy — would impose unbearable burdens on Hungarian families,” the Századvég Institute concluded on its website.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Net Zero Fades As the Deluded Cling to Its Fantasy

By Vijay Jayaraj | Townhall | May 9, 2025

The grand vision of “Net Zero” initiatives – by which emissions of carbon dioxide magically balance with expensive and futile capture and storage systems – have long been sold as the redemption arc for humanity’s profligate modern ways. Yet, like a poorly scripted dystopian thriller, the holes in this plot are glaring.

Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences, that voters would accept higher costs for daily necessities, and that developing countries would sacrifice growth for climate targets they had no hand in creating.

None of those fantasies held. Countries did not decarbonize nearly at the speed promised, even though climate bureaucracies clung to the illusion. Long-range targets, five-year reviews and international pledges lacked common sense and defied physical and economic realities. The result? An unaccountable machine pushing impractical policies that most people never voted for and are now beginning to reject.

If Net Zero were a serious endeavor, its architects would confront the undeniable: China and India are more than delaying their decarbonization timelines – they’re burying them. Why has this been ignored?

China and India – responsible for more than 40 percent of global CO2 emissions in the last two decades – are accelerating fossil fuel use, not phasing it out. In Southeast Asia, coal, oil and natural gas continue to dominate. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are building new electric generating power plants using those fuels. These countries understand that economic growth comes first.

Africa, too, is pushing back. Leaders in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal have criticized Western attempts to block fossil fuel financing. African nations are investing in exploitation of the oil and gas reserves.

If Asia represents the global rejection of Net Zero, Germany and the U.K. are poster children of the West’s self-inflicted wounds. Both nations, once hailed as Net Zero pioneers, are grappling with the harsh realities of their green ambitions. The transition to “renewables” has been plagued by economic pain, energy insecurity and political backlash, exposing the folly of policies divorced from facts. When the war in Ukraine cut off energy supplies, Germany panicked. Suddenly, coal plants were back online. The Green Dream died a quiet death.

Trump funding cuts likely will accelerate the fall of Net Zero’s house of cards. The president’s decisions to slash financing for international and domestic green programs has severed the lifeline for global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Program. Trump also vowed to redirect billions from the Inflation Reduction Act – Biden’s misnomered climate law – toward fossil fuel infrastructure.

The retreat of Net Zero interrupts the flow of trillions of dollars into an agenda with questionable motives and false promises. Climate finance had developed the fever of a gold rush. Banks, asset managers and consulting firms hurried to brand themselves as “green.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing promised to reward “climate-friendly” firms and punish alleged polluters.

The fallout was massive market distortions. Companies shifted resources to meet ESG checklists at the expense of fiduciary obligations. Now the tide is turning. The Net Zero Banking Alliance comprising top firms globally has been abandoned by America’s leading institutions. Similarly, a Net Zero investors alliance collapsed after Blackrock’s exit.

Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers and consumers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise. Climate goals were set behind closed doors. Policies were imposed from above. Higher utility bills, job losses and diminished economic opportunity became the burdens of ordinary families. All while elites flew private jets to international summits and lectured about the need to sacrifice.

A certain lesson in the slow passing of Net Zero is this: Energy policy must serve people, not ideology. That truth was always obvious and remains so.

Yet, some political leaders, legacy media and industry “yes-men” continue to blather on about a “green” utopia. How long the delusion persists remains to be seen.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Russia is not afraid of Western sanctions – Kremlin

RT | May 10, 2025

Russia is used to Western pressure and is not concerned about new sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

He was commenting on a new round of sanctions recently imposed by the UK.

”We already know what we will do once the sanctions are announced and how we will minimize their effect,” Peskov told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Saturday. Russia has learned effective ways to counteract Western pressure, he said. “Therefore, scaring us with sanctions is pointless.”

On Friday, the British government announced what it called the “largest-ever” sanctions package against Russia, targeting its oil transportation network in order to deliver a blow to the country’s energy revenues.

The new measures blacklisted up to 100 oil tankers that the West claims are part of a Russian ‘shadow fleet’, older vessels operating outside Western insurance systems. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict over three years ago, successive British governments have introduced more than 2,000 sanctions on Russian individuals and entities.

Moscow has said the move will not harm Russia’s economy and will instead increase energy costs and inflation in Europe.

Earlier, US President Donald Trump called for an “unconditional ceasefire” between Moscow and Kiev, threatening punitive measures if the truce is not observed. “The US and its partners will impose further sanctions” if it is violated, he said.

In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that a total of 28,595 sanctions were imposed on Russian companies and individuals in recent years – more than the total number on all other countries combined. According to the president, the West sought to eliminate Russia as a competitor but its economy has only grown more resilient under pressure.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Hungary Prepares for Battle Over EU’s Plan to Phase Out Russian Energy

Sputnik – 09.05.2025

The EU executive is considering bypassing Hungary in the vote on its plan to phase out Russian energy imports by relying on a “qualified majority,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday.

“We need to gather allies, to prepare legally. There really is a plan to bypass a unanimous decision and pass it by a qualified majority,” Orban told Kossuth Radio.

Hungary is gearing up for an uphill battle in the coming weeks and months to ensure that Hungarian households are not forced to pay twice as much for power and utilities, Orban said.

Orban estimated that Hungary would have to pay about 2 billion euros ($2.23 billion) more for energy than it does now if the European Commission gets its plan to abandon Russian energy imports adopted by the Council of the European Union.

A qualified majority requires at least 15 out of 27 EU member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population to support the proposal.

On Tuesday, the Commission presented a project on ending Russian energy imports to the EU by the end of 2027. The Commission intends to submit a legislative proposal in June to ban all imports under new Russian gas contracts and existing spot contracts. This ban could come into effect by the end of 2025. Remaining imports of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia under long-term contracts could stop by the end of 2027.

May 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

US universities are recruiting Indian and Nigerian students to replace Chinese. It’s not working.

Inside China Business | May 8, 2025

Chinese university students contribute over $14 billion a year to the US economy. But Chinese families are increasingly choosing to either study in China, or to other countries.

This shift is deepening the fiscal crises in American higher education, which also suffers from a steep decline in US student populations. US universities are heavily recruiting students from India and Africa, in the hope to make up for shortfalls in Chinese enrollments. And briefly, this strategy seemed to work.

A surge in students from India pushed China into second place, as a leading country of origin for US international students. But that was short-lived. Indian enrollment in the past year plunged, with 99,000 fewer students. Nigeria also saw double-digit percentage declines in just a one-year period.

A more serious problem, however, exists in the financial commitments of the students’ families. Chinese students cluster in the most highly-ranked, and most expensive, US university programs. In comparison, Indian and especially Nigerian students tend to attend far lower-cost programs. Closing scene, Detian Waterfall, near Nanning, Guangxi

Resources and links:

LA Times, Why Chinese students still want to attend U.S. universities https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/…

Interest in studying in US dropped 42% in January https://www.universityworldnews.com/p…

There are already 130,000 fewer international students in the US. Has anyone noticed? https://distributedprogress.substack….

Already facing Trump administration cuts, US colleges risk losses from another revenue source: foreign students https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/18/us/int…

SEVIS Data Shows Declining Number of International Students in the United States https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-…

Wall Street Journal, Chinese Students on U.S. Campuses Are Ensnared in Political Standoff https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/c…

Tracking College Closures and Mergers https://www.bestcolleges.com/research…

The Demographic Cliff: What It Means for College Admissions and Higher Education https://www.applerouth.com/blog/the-d…

US: New survey shows international student recruitment shifting to India in 2023 https://monitor.icef.com/2023/07/us-n…

Why the Next Wave of International Students May Come From Africa https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/wav…

May 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | , | 1 Comment

‘Scandal!’ – Hungary’s Orbán reacts to von der Leyen’s call to fast-track Ukraine membership in the EU

Remix News | May 8, 2025

According to EU commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukraine should be given more money and its accession to the EU should be accelerated. In response, Orbán called her policies a “scandal.”

“Ukraine gets money and weapons, and European taxpayers foot the bill,” said Orbán, who responded to von der Leyen’s speech on X.

EU support for Ukraine was discussed at the plenary session of the European Parliament on Wednesday.

In her speech, von der Leyen highlighted three critical points, saying Ukraine needs more weapons, that energy dependence on Russia needs to be ended, and that Ukraine’s ascension process into the EU should be accelerated.

Orbán is making a full-court press against von der Leyen’s speech, highlighting the threat Ukraine also poses to EU agriculture. He notes that Ukraine controls 40 percent of the arable land in Europe, which would result in the EU market being flooded with cheap crops.

Europe has already flooded Ukraine with tens of billions in taxpayer money, yet the EU wants to continue sending billions to the country, even as inflation has eaten into citizens’ pocketbooks.

Hungarian MEP András László wrote in a response that the most obvious reason for keeping Ukraine out of the EU is that a war is still raging between the country and Russia. However, rebuilding Ukraine will cost tens of billions, with some estimates going as high as hundreds of billions. With many EU nations already facing massive debt burdens, allowing Ukraine to enter the EU would perhaps be the greatest financial folly the bloc has ever partaken in.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »