Denmark is set to become the first country in the world to tax farmers for the greenhouse gasses emitted by their livestock, in a deal reached June 24 between the Danish government and representatives of the farming industry and unions.
The tax, which specifically targets methane emissions by cows, pigs and sheep, will take effect in 2030, pending final approval by the Danish Parliament, The Associated Press (AP) reported.
Beginning in 2030, farmers will be required to pay a tax of 300 kroner (approximately $43) per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This will increase to 750 kroner ($108) by 2035. After a 60% tax deduction, the respective amounts will be 120 kroner ($17.30) and 300 kroner.
CNN, quoting Denmark’s “green think tank” Concito, reported that Danish dairy cows emit, on average, 5.6 tonnes (6.2 U.S. tons) of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. This would result in a tax of 672 kroner per cow ($96) in 2030 and 1,680 kroner ($241) in 2035.
The respective emissions figure for all Danish cows is an average of 6.6 tons of CO2-equivalent annually, according to the AP, which reported that the Danish government aims to reduce the country’s greenhouse emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030, citing Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus.
According to CNN, the proceeds from the tax will be used to support the agricultural industry’s green transition in the first two years, including the investment of 40 billion kroner ($3.7 billion) for measures including reforestation and establishing wetlands.
After two years, the tax will be “reassessed.”
Denmark is a significant exporter of pork and dairy products, CNN reported. Agriculture is the country’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The AP reported that, as of June 2022, there were nearly 1.5 million cows in Denmark.
Tax will encourage farmers ‘to look for solutions to reduce emissions’
Proponents of the tax emphasized that Denmark is the first country to enact such a policy, characterizing it as a step toward greater environmental sustainability.
“We will take a big step closer in becoming climate neutral in 2045,” Bruus said.
“We are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times,” said Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen in a statement quoted by CNN. “At the same time, we will be the first country in the world with a (carbon) tax on agriculture.”
According to Torsten Hasforth, Concito’s chief economist, “The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions,” CNN reported. Hasforth noted that farmers could, for instance, change the feed they use, as part of their efforts to reduce emissions.
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation called the tax “a historic compromise,” in remarks quoted by the AP. The organization’s president, Maria Reumert Gjerding, said, “We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry — also on the other side of 2030.”
And Ben Lilliston, director of Rural Strategies and Climate Change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told PBS NewsHour that methane emissions are “a huge problem … a huge challenge.” He argued that while methane remains in the atmosphere for fewer years than CO2, it has “about 80 times the potency.”
“If you reduce methane, you can get more near-term results and allow us to have a little longer of a window to reduce carbon dioxide emission,” Lilliston said.
The farmers voiced grievances over new environmental regulations and the corporate takeover of European farming.
In recent years, EU member states such as Ireland and the Netherlands have also pursued plans to limit farming and cull livestock, leading to protests in those countries.
Criticisms are now being levied against Denmark’s new carbon tax, with some experts arguing that it amounts to an added burden for the agricultural sector — particularly small farmers.
CNN quoted Danish farmers’ association Bæredygtigt Landbrug, which described the new policy as a “scary experiment.”
Peder Tuborgh, CEO of Arla Foods, Europe’s largest dairy company, told CNN that the new tax is “positive,” but farmers who “genuinely do everything they can to reduce emissions” should be exempt.
In remarks shared with The Defender, Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and president of the Solari Report, said, “Emissions are a cover story to achieve steps in the central bankers’ ‘Going Direct Reset.’”
According to Fitts, the goal of this “reset” is “to consolidate control over the food supply, shifting to corporate-controlled ‘PharmaFood’ and to shift energy availability from the general population to feed an electrical control grid that will supply AI [artificial intelligence], robotics, digital IDs and an all-digital financial system.”
“We are trading fresh food and freedom for digital concentration camps and lab-grown meat,” Fitts said. “On Wall Street, we used to call this ‘a bad trade.’”
Other critics told The Defender the Danish government’s new tax has less to do with protecting the environment and reducing emissions, and more to do with achieving the United Nations’ (U.N.) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the objectives of global entities such as the G20 and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Dutch attorney and activist Meike Terhorst told The Defender :
“I think the measures have nothing to do with sustainability but with power. A group of companies, the so-called globalists/banks/investors, such as the WEF, work together with governments, such as the G20, and together they can force the small farmers off their lands.”
“Small farmers will be the first to go, and their land will most likely be used to house a variety of so-called ‘green initiatives,’ such as fake meat labs, acres of solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see, new AI data centers that require tons of water, energy and land, and possibly even nuclear power plants to power those data centers,” he said.
Similarly, Terhorst said the goal is to “close down the small farmers as part of the ‘Agenda 2030’ — U.N. SDGs — or the corporate takeover agenda.”
Terhorst said this agenda aims “to ensure that small farmers are to be removed from the land and replaced by ‘digital’ farming” — meaning “replacing meat and milk with factory-made insect food or milk and lab-grown meat.”
Critics also questioned claims that policies like carbon taxation help promote “sustainability.”
“When unelected globalists at the WEF and the U.N. talk about sustainability, they don’t mean self-sustainability for the individual. They don’t want that at all. They want to ensure sustainable control, influence and power for themselves for decades to come,” Hinchliffe said, adding:
“As I see it, the real goal here is to take control of prime agricultural land and to tax farmers out of existence. Once the taxes get too expensive and the farmers can’t keep up, that’s when public-private entities swoop in to take control of the land.
“If they really believed that flatulent farm animals were responsible for the weather, they would just plant more trees to absorb the carbon, and their imaginary crisis would be solved, but they’re not doing that because what they’re really after are land grabs, money, and total control of our food systems.”
According to Hinchliffe, global organizations also aim to change human habits — including meat consumption. He said:
“On a nutritional level, groups like the WEF and the U.N. want us eating less meat and more bugs, and this will only make us weaker and more docile as a species over time.
“It also makes us all dependent on very centralized sources of protein, so if there’s an outbreak or a contamination, citizens all over the world will suffer because there’ll be no alternative. The local farmers will have disappeared due to the carbon taxes and land grabs.”
“The bio meat industry was organized and financed by the investors and banks that are part of the WEF,” Terhorst said. “If we want to become sustainable, we have to limit the powers of the investors and WEF and support small farmers.”
Hinchliffe added, “When carbon taxes fail to quash the human spirit completely, they already have plans to tax just about everything else in nature, including the air we breathe, the water we drink and the very soil upon which we walk.”
The need for energy in India is so dire, the Modi government just leaned on the power companies to get their act together. Instead of adding the usual 1 – 2 gigawatts of new coal power, which they have for a lot of the last decade, last year they ordered enough gear to build 10 gigawatts. And this year Modi wants them to aim for 31 gigawatts. Which is about the same capacity as the entire coal generation of the Australian National Grid (and our gas plants too).
Somewhat miraculously, they are talking of building them “in the next 5 or 6 years”:
India is rushing to add fresh coal-fired plants as it is barely able to meet power demand with the existing fleet in non-solar hours.
Post pandemic, the country’s power demand scaled new records on the back of the fastest rate of economic growth among major economies and increased instances of heatwaves.
India saw its biggest power shortfall in 14 years in June, and had to race to avoid night time outages by deferring planned plant maintenance, and invoking an emergency clause to mandate companies to run plants based on imported coal and power.
— Asia Financial
And they are discussing numbers like $33 billion instead of $3.3 trillion. When President Modi wants electrical generation fast, he didn’t say “quick, build 50,000 wind mills, with batteries, gas plants, high voltage lines and pumped hydro.”
Meanwhile the Western advisors sit around at frequent-flyer lounges on the way to UN junkets and tell themselves how the world is transitioning away from coal. And when the UN patsy declares coal is a “stranded asset” they nod obediently and sip more champagne.
When our inept and traitorous scientific agencies calculate energy costs, they won’t even put coal on the map unless they add up the cost of every cyclone in the next hundred years and park it in the “coal” column. Witchdoctors, every one of them.
In April 2024, Russia announced its proposals for the BRICS Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. The priorities for the year of Russia’s chairmanship included: issues of a just transition, adaptation to climate change, natural solutions, carbon markets and carbon pricing. Initiatives to share experience in the development of carbon markets and implementation of adaptation measures, as well as a proposal to foster scientific climate cooperation sparked considerable interest.
The discussion of climate agenda within BRICS already has a certain background. With its proposal, Russia took an important step towards institutionalizing the dialogue by establishing the Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. In 2015, during the period preceding the adoption of the Paris Agreement, at the 7th BRICS summit in Ufa the countries emphasized in their final declaration their readiness to address climate change at both the global and national levels. Despite this declaration, the climate issue has long remained an element of dialogues and cooperation on sustainable development rather than a stand-alone item on the BRICS agenda. The climate issue came out of the “environmental” canopy after the BRICS High-Level Meeting on Climate Change, held remotely in the year of China’s presidency on May 13, 2022.
All of Russia’s initiatives refer to different areas of international climate cooperation – from a just transition, carbon markets and pricing to mitigation of climate change mainly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The interest in carbon markets can be explained by the willingness shared by the BRICS nations to ensure the inflow of foreign investment in renewable energy projects, energy efficiency, and energy infrastructure.
The same argument is generally applicable to climate change adaptation. It is known that international climate finance (from developed to developing countries) is accompanied by a serious imbalance towards the financing of greenhouse gas emission reduction projects, while adaptation measures attract much less financial resources. Even within the Green Climate Fund (GCF), overseen by the UNFCCC, there is a skew in the ratio of financial assistance channeled in favor of mitigation over adaptation. The benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are global, as greenhouse gases are well mixed in the atmosphere, while the benefits of adaptation are largely local and depend entirely on a country’s ability to build a climate risk management system and integrate it with urban planning, emergency response and prevention policies, sectoral regulation.
For a long time, the motives for developing climate cooperation among the “old” BRICS members were driven by political rather than economic interests. Therefore, discussions and references to climate in the summary documents did not go further than that. The BRICS platform was not even used by countries to hold consultations during important processes under the UNFCCC, as is usually the case in the G20.
The events in Ukraine and the expansion of BRICS in membership are likely to change this situation. It is quite unlikely that all priorities will be worked out equally well with partners during Russia’s presidency, so it makes sense to analyze the documents to understand the existing groundwork in this area.
Adaptation to climate change
Climate change adaptation is a relatively new item on the BRICS climate agenda. The BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy 2025 mentioned that many nations were ready to raise climate change awareness risks and open a financial window for adaptation projects in the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB). Indeed, the NDB’s Overall Strategy 2022-2026 contains a target to use 40% of the financial resources raised for projects that address climate change and adaptation (without specifying the fund allocation ratio). The same document stated that the NDB “will, to the extent possible, consider disaster resilience in the preparation and implementation of its projects.” However, the NDB made this decision in line with the general policy of international development banks to strengthen their compliance with the Paris Agreement goals rather than with the BRICS strategies.
BRICS member states (except Iran), as parties to the Paris Agreement, are obliged to provide information on adaptation activities within nationally determined guidelines. In addition, as a result of the Conference of the Parties to the FCCC in 2010, a process was launched for developing countries to prepare and submit National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which is now linked to Green Climate Fund grants and, as it was before, to UN development agencies and the World Bank providing support. Among the BRICS nations, it is Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa that report adaptation policies in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement. Brazil, Ethiopia and South Africa are devising national plans to receive funds from international development agencies. Egypt, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have not yet formulated climate change adaptation policies. Thus, of all the BRICS+ nations that have an adaptation policy, only Russia and China do not link its implementation to the receipt of international aid.
Clearly, in the BRICS context, adaptation financing can only be disbursed on a South-to-South basis, i.e. voluntarily. Meanwhile, finance is an important—but not the only—component of adaptation cooperation. The availability of tools for integrated assessment of the climate change impact on the BRICS economies and, conversely, the climate policies and measures taken by countries that could be used for adaptation planning, are of paramount importance. Such tools are now actively developed by some of the BRICS nations, such as China or South Africa. Other members of BRICS, like India, are working with these countries to develop the said tools. Given that all BRICS states are highly exposed to both physical and transition risks, the contribution of risk assessment tools to adaptation planning cannot be overemphasized. In addition, businesses, municipalities (especially cities) and local communities may be interested in developing climate risk assessment tools that are tailored to the needs of different sectors based on their geographical location.
The 6th coordinated BRICS multilateral project competition within the BRICS Science and Technology Framework 2023 focused on climate change adaptation and mitigation, but among the research priorities there was none that would be directly linked to ensuring adaptation-related decision-making. This is surprising if one considers the current interest in climate risk management among BRICS central banks and financial institutions in general, which perceive climate change risks as a serious threat to their resilience and sustainability.
In the contact group discussions on adaptation in the year of Russia’s chairmanship, it is important to raise the issues of creating climate risk assessment tools accessible to a wide range of users and stimulating applied research on adaptation planning – for example, in cities. It will be equally important to link the results of projects and studies to NDB priorities and policies, to discussions within the interbank cooperation mechanism, and to support them with bilateral agreements on the development of monitoring and natural disaster risk mitigation systems.
A Just Energy Transition and BRICS Carbon Market Perspectives
Fully in line with the ideas of common but differentiated responsibilities actively supported by the new and old BRICS members and seeking to avoid climate measures imposing serious burdens on developing nations, Russia has proposed to discuss a just transition to a low-carbon economy. The very notion of a “just transition” has been extensively used by the European Union since its Green Deal was announced.
A just transition has a very broad meaning, but the main component is the need to mitigate the negative impact of an accelerated transition to a carbon-free economy on the poor, the fossil fuel labor market, and to “ensure that the substantial benefits of the transition to a green economy are widely shared.” But what is meant by a just transition in the framework of the association?
South Africa’s 2023 Chairmanship Program contained a paragraph on “developing partnerships for a just transition,” but this idea did not go any further in the final declaration of the summit. It was noted that the bloc’s member states:
– welcome increased cooperation and investment in supply chains for the energy transition and recognize the need to fully participate in the global clean energy value chain,
– recognize the role of fossil fuels in supporting energy security and energy transition and call for cooperation among BRICS nations on technology neutrality, as well as the adoption of common, efficient, clear, fair and transparent standards and rules for assessing emissions, developing compatible taxonomies of sustainable projects, and carbon accounting.
Thus, “equity” is understood in the BRICS context as the problem of global inequality of benefits gained from the energy transition and the right of nations to determine their own means of achieving the goals set in the Paris Agreement, politically neutral standards and rules for reporting emissions and generating carbon units from climate projects, rather than supporting people and industries in decarbonization programs.
To succinctly describe the emerging consensus on a just transition within BRICS, a short formula would be enough: “more investment in energy”. It describes grid construction, production of renewable energy equipment, modernization of fossil fuel-fired power generation capacity, etc. It is still premature to say whether there’s been an unambiguous political choice of the BRICS member states in favor of green energy.
Currently, BRICS comprises countries with opposite strategic orientations in the field of energy. Importing countries such as China, India, South Africa, Ethiopia and Egypt are interested in reducing their dependence on foreign energy supplies, while Russia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE seek to jump on the last train of the fossil fuel era and establish channels of energy trade for decades to come.
The BRICS nations are now looking for additional sources of financing to address energy poverty and reduce their carbon footprints. Besides, representatives of commercial circles have recently proposed on various platforms of the association to discuss a voluntary carbon market, which could become a source of investment. The initiative can be launched through agreeing on a common methodology for climate projects, approaches to their implementation and verification of results (carbon units) with subsequent mutual recognition of standards for disclosure of information on greenhouse gas emissions.
Of all BRICS member states, only China has a national carbon market, and Russia has only recently created the requisite infrastructure. Therefore, the discussion of the carbon market should be preceded by an exchange of views on approaches to carbon pricing, the role of compensation mechanisms (climate offsets) in achieving each country’s national climate goals. After all, the proposed initiative should take into account the international voluntary market for carbon units that has already existed for many years, as well as the emerging market under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. How should companies from BRICS nations be “locked in” on the association’s carbon market is another difficult question.
Finally, a key obstacle to the BRICS carbon market, including a common registry and methodology for climate projects, lies in the very nature of the climate goals that the countries set for themselves. At present, only Russia, Brazil, Iran and Ethiopia have set economy-wide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This factor predetermines a significant difference in the supply and demand of carbon units, and most importantly – in their “cost”. Companies from countries that do not have quantitative commitments to reduce emissions will be in an obviously more favorable position, while there’s not much clarity on the motive for establishing an external pool of BRICS carbon units instead of stimulating the implementation of climate projects within jurisdictions. Given the existing commitments under the Paris Agreement, the BRICS carbon market is at risk of being left without buyers.
***
The BRICS climate agenda cannot and should not be considered in isolation from the strategic guidelines of its members in terms of trade and investment, energy, and technology. It is not another “sphere” of interaction among the BRICS members, nor is it a continuation of the climate policy that the member states pursue by other means. The climate agenda of any intergovernmental association is a dense tangle of agreements and compromises reached in dialogues on trade and economic issues. The presiding country may propose a specific pool of topics for the climate track, but this is not what sets the dynamics of the relationship. The real driving force will be converging interests—not necessarily national interests, but sectoral and private interests, as well as available resources and opportunities, coupled with the political will to use and/or exchange them.
A serious limiting factor for the climate agenda in the BRICS context is the institutional “laxity” of the association. Since Russia took over BRICS chairmanship in 2024, more than 50 events of various levels have already been held on a wide range of issues, but there is no mechanism for aggregating the results of dialogues, tracking the implementation of agreements and no channel for “spillover” between different formats of meetings. There is no mechanism to account for the results of discussions within the thematic tracks in the final documents of BRICS summits. For example, it would be productive to discuss climate change adaptation issues around recommendations for the NDB, as the results of applied research could be linked to the work of the Interbank Cooperation Mechanism and other platforms with financial institutions participating.
Amid the serious pressure of anti-Russian sanctions on the global energy market and the accelerated transit of the EU and China to carbon-free energy, Russia is now considering the nations of BRICS as important partners in energy trade. There is already ample evidence of this dynamic. In recent years, Russia has significantly increased its natural gas supplies to China and coal supplies to India. Russia and India have started to cooperate in the nuclear industry. The volume of China’s energy trade transactions with BRICS has been growing in 2024, although it accounts for less than 15% of the country’s total trade.
In the meantime, individual BRICS members are actively developing mutual trade in renewable energy technologies, and companies within BRICS, especially Chinese, are expanding access to critical raw materials (lithium, bauxite, cobalt, etc.) needed for the energy transition. Nevertheless, it remains far from clear how the expansion of BRICS might affect green energy technology markets. Meanwhile, this is precisely one of the key issues on the BRICS climate agenda.
Specific initiatives are to be preceded by dialogue on approaches to the relevant policies in both climate change adaptation and a just transition to a low-carbon economy. Even a cursory analysis of the current situation shows that these approaches are still too diverse. At the same time, the experience of the pandemic, EU and U.S. sanctions policies have shown how quickly and easily global supply chains, whereon the developing economies of BRICS heavily depend, can be disrupted. Thus, the threat of de-globalization emerges as the main driver for the rapprochement of countries. Yet, common interests of the BRICS nations can be short-term or long-term. BRICS climate agenda could be essential for building longer-term common interests. To do so, it must be consistent with national goals for low-emission sustainable development, the basis for which has to be established now.
Ekaterina Bliznetskaya is a lecturer at Moscow State Institute of International Relations under the MFA of Russia, Environment and Natural Research Studies.
The word charade has several meanings, and including an act or event that is clearly false (Cambridge Dictionary), something done just for show (Vocabulary.com), or a situation in which people pretend that something is true when it clearly is not (Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary).
The charade I refer to is President Biden’s $7.5 billion dollar investment to install 500,000 electric charging stations along America’s highways by 2030. A reliable and convenient public EV charging infrastructure is critical to achieve the President’s goal of meeting the recent EPA CO2 emission regulations that require nearly 72% of U.S. new light vehicle sales to be fully electric or plug-in hybrid by 2032. Without diving deeper into the announcement, one would likely assume that $7.5 billion is sufficient to construct the 500,000 charging stations, one every 50 miles along the nation’s highways.
To identify the charade, one must first, look at the math: 500,000 charging stations, each with a minimum of four chargers, accomplished with an investment of $7.5 billion dollars. But that is only $15,000 per charging station, installed. A single high capacity charger can cost $100,000 or more, and most stations have multiple chargers. We are now in the second year of the program and only seven stations have been opened so far. At this rate, it will require thousands of years to build all 500,000 charging stations, assuming there are sufficient funds to do so.
Global consulting firm McKinsey and Company estimates that the U.S. will need 28 million charging ports by 2030. There are just two million charging ports today. To meet the goal, about 12,000 new public and private charging ports will need to be added every single day to reach the goal by 2030.
It is true that significantly more government funded charging stations are in the works and will be opened. The stations completed so far cost significantly more than what has been promised. With retailers contributing land to the projects opened so far, the cost of each station has averaged one-million dollars, with the government participation of 80% of the cost. Eight-hundred-thousand dollars for each station is significantly more than the 15,000 committed by the administration. At this rate, the 500,000 charging stations will cost the government $400 billion, not the $7.5 billion the President has promised.
If the administration is so wrong with this program, one must consider how many government programs designed to bring electric vehicles to the masses are similarly defective.
Europe’s leading green energy producer, Statkraft, is drastically scaling back its plans for new wind and solar power plants – due to falling electricity prices and rising costs, so reports Germany’s online Blackout News, a leading site for independent German energy news.
According to company CEO, Birgitte Vartdal, market conditions have become more difficult as the company’s ambitious targets for wind energy and solar power are now being called into question.
The new Statkraft target is two to two and a half GW instead of an originally planned 4 gigawatts annually.
“In the offshore wind energy sector, the Group is now planning a total output of six to eight GW. The original target was ten GW,” Blackout News adds.
The scaleback follows other European countries’ plans to reduce expansion, including Danish energy company Orsted, which “has lowered its targets by more than ten GW” and has also “canceled two offshore wind projects in the USA and reported impairments amounting to 28.4 billion Danish kroner (approx. 3.8 billion euros).”
Portugal’s largest energy supplier, Energias de Portugal (EDP), has also reduced its investment plans – due to the “deterioration in market conditions.” Moreover, French energy supplier Engie earlier had postponed developing hydrogen projects.
Leading officials blame projects having become “much more challenging” and offering “no relative returns.”
As a result, solar and wind equipment manufacturers have seen their values plummeting and ESG equity funds have “recently suffered outflows of 38 billion dollars,” reports Blackout News.
Blackout News is operated by an independent and non-partisan small group of engineers with experience in energy management.
You may have heard about the new “animal-free dairy milk” called Bored Cow. It’s being billed as a more animal and environmentally friendly option to traditional milk that comes from a ruminant’s udders. It all sounds great until you dig a bit deeper to learn that it is produced using synthetic biology (synbio), using genetically engineered (GE) yeast that is then put into a so-called ‘precision fermentation’ system. While the whey protein in it is the same as that found in cow’s milk, that’s only a small part of the overall story. Emerging data from some scientists, like John Fagan from the Health Research Institute(HRI), says the fermentation isn’t as precise as claimed, and there’s a lot of other compounds in the milk, some of which have never been recorded by science before. That might mean that drinking Bored Cow ‘milk’ on a daily basis could have unknown and potentially dangerous human health implications. This might just be one product, but it matters because powerful special interests are working to make synbio the tech platform of our food system moving forward—where farms are replaced with fermentation tanks—in the name of protecting the environment.
What’s happening here is an effort to get consumers to believe they can enjoy all the flavor, mouth feel, and nutrition of real cow’s milk…without the involvement of any cows (hence the “Bored Cow” name). Bored Cow is made with whey protein produced through a process called “precision fermentation,” a form of synbio. This involves taking a gene for whey protein and inserting it into a GE yeast. The yeast is put into fermentation tanks with other nutrients to help it grow. At the end the GE yeast is supposed to be filtered out, leaving only the milk protein. Bored Cow takes this protein and adds vitamins, minerals, and other ingredients to mimic the taste, consistency, and nutritional content of real cow’s milk.
Far from ‘bioequivalent’
The marketing hype behind Bored Cow starts falling apart when you learn that it’s not even close to being equivalent to real milk from pasture. HRI’s independent testing found 92 unknown compounds in this synbio milk. Fagan, HRI’s chief scientist, said these compounds are “completely novel to our food…They are nutritional dark matter.”
The FDA must be on top of this, right? Wrong. Bored Cow has not undergone safety testing at the FDA. Perfect Day, the manufacturer of the synbio whey protein, determined it was “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) and voluntarily notified the FDA of this determination; in response the FDA said it had no questions. Given how rife the GRAS process is with conflicts of interest, this is akin to taking the company’s word for it that its novel synbio whey protein is safe.
Nor is it very likely that Bored Cow is nutritionally equivalent to real milk. Just as meat is more than just protein, milk is far more than a simple combination of whey and various vitamins and minerals. Milkfat contains 400 different fatty acids. Milk has two types of proteins, whey and casein—and there are several different types of these two proteins contained in milk, and a whole bundle of other compounds like lactoferrin and bioactive peptides that help prime the immune system.
Bored Cow is representative of a whole new generation of GE foods that are in development, some of which we’ve written about previously. Older genetically modified (GM) foods were created by modifying the genome of a living plant by inserting, for example, an herbicide-resistance trait. That was nothing compared to what’s going on now. GE yeast or fungi are being used as little factories to manufacture food components that regulators say are biologically equivalent to their natural counterparts, so, they say, no additional testing is required because the foods have been shown to be safe through their long history of consumption. But, as we’ve seen, getting a yeast to make one protein found in milk, fermenting it, then adding nutrients, and slapping “milk” on the label doesn’t make it milk. Nor, for that matter, is lab-grown meat biologically equivalent to pasture-raised meat.
And herein lies the problem. The entire framework for dealing with genetically engineered foods in the US is fundamentally broken. That’s because the federal government decided decades ago that the final product is all that matters, not the process used to create that product. This was codified in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, which was updated in 1992 and again in 2017. Astoundingly, it wasn’t updated to install more robust safety measures to protect Americans from new and previously unthinkable forms of food. It was updated in large part to remove or mitigate “unnecessary costs and burdens” that “limit the ability of technology developers” to “navigate the regulatory process” which also “hamper economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness.” That is, the Framework was updated to make it easier for the biotech industry to ger their frankenfoods onto our dinner plates!
We’re worried that what’s coming are further “updates” to this framework that allow GE foods and those developed using synbio technologies to be considered “bioequivalent” to their natural counterparts—in essence, drinking the lab-grown food industry’s Kool-Aid. If regulators determine that synbio milk is equivalent to real milk, will consumers be allowed to make their own choices, or will we be sold out as we were with the sham GMO labeling law that allowed companies to hide the GM contents of their food in scannable codes?
Some countries are already moving in that direction: Costa Rica just adopted new regulations which treat a wide-range of gene edited products as equivalent to conventionally-bred products. This is something we have to keep a keen eye on.
The advent of lab-grown meat, plant-based meat, and products like Bored Cow show how inadequate our current laws are in dealing with these foods. Of course it matters how these foods are made! CRISPR, the gene-editing technology, is known to produce unintended outcomes. What evidence is there that eating food grown in laboratories from genetically modified yeast—food that is significantly different than the food we have evolved to eat over human history—is safe, much less healthy?
Put simply, the fake meat and milk synbio manufacturers are exploiting old rules never intended for synbio products so they can escape doing any safety testing before their products hit the market. They’re using all-too-familiar revolving doors with the FDA to get their way, and they want to deceive us into thinking they’re saving the planet from those nasty, carbon dioxide-producing animals while offering us foods that are as safe and healthy as those produced on real farms with the help of real animals—without any of it.
We’re watching these developments closely, and we’ll alert you as soon as we see an opportunity to take political action on this critical issue. In the meantime, please share this article widely, as we need a lot more awareness of how synbio makers are using the principle of ‘bioequivalence’ to get their questionable foods into our mouths.
“We The Peoples of the United Nations determined (…) to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”
United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)
The United Nations (UN) Secretariat will hold the next Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024. It is a vast political program covering the noblest of causes including poverty reduction, human rights, environment, climate change, development, and the welfare and rights of children, youth, and women. World leaders are expected to endorse a declaratory Pact for the Future, and commit to act toward its realization.
It all looks wonderful. As in days of old, the rich, powerful, and entitled are coming to rescue us from ourselves and make us live better lives. Freedom, after all, is intrinsically unsafe.
This is the first in a series that will look at the plans of the UN system designing and implementing this new agenda, covering implications for global health, economic development, and human rights.
Climate and Health at the WHO: Building the Authoritarian Dream
Amidst all the hype and posturing regarding the negotiations on pandemic texts at the recent 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva (Switzerland), perhaps the most consequential resolution before the WHA slipped through, approved, but virtually unnoticed. The Resolution WHA77.14 on Climate Change and Health was approved without debate, opening the door for the World Health Organization (WHO) ─ a UN specialized agency ─ to claim a broad swath of normal human activity as a potential threat to health, and therefore coming under the purview of the WHO’s detached business-class bureaucrats.
It was highlighted by a Strategic Roundtable on “Climate change and health: a global vision for joint action,” where speakers, moderated by the Lancet’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, included WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Ghebreyesus, former US Vice President Al Gore (by video message), and CEO of the 28th Climate Conference of States Parties Adnan Amin.
The Resolution was proposed by a coalition of 16 countries (Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Kenya, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Slovenia, United Arab Emirates, and the UK) and passed without changes, mandating the DG to: i) develop a “results-based, needs-oriented and capabilities-driven global WHO plan of action on climate change and health,” ii) serve as a global leader in the field of climate change and health by establishing a WHO Roadmap to Net Zero by 2030, and iii) report back to future WHA sessions.
United Nations System’s “Newspeak” on Climate Change
There is little surprise in this. It is another predictable move on the global climate chessboard. In the last decade, activities and documents from the UN system have increasingly included climate change as a “newspeak” to signal full compliance with the official narrative.
The head of the UN system, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is known for pushing the narrative further. In 2019, he posed in water for a picture for Time Magazine’scoverage on “Our sinking planet.” Last summer, he announced that “the era of global warming has ended…the era of global boiling has arrived.”
On 2024 World Environment Day (5th June), he doubled down on his rhetoric: “In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.” We are, it appears, a poison on our planet.
Satellite entities have wildly added their creativity and imagination: UNEP hammering on the “triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss,” UNICEF reporting on the “climate changed-child,” UNWOMEN discovering the “interconnection between climate change and gender inequality,” OHCHR claiming that “climate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights including those to life, water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development,” and UNESCO fully committed “to addressing the impact of climate change on culture, and to enhancing the potential of culture for global climate action.”
Nomination of First Ever WHO Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health
As for WHO, DG Tedros Ghebreyesus has also demonstrated his mastery of dogmatic claims. Climate change, he insists, constitutes “one of the biggest health threats” and “the climate crisis is a health crisis.” His mandate has therefore been broadened from specific environmental issues including air pollution from particulates and chemicals to the whole climate change spectrum. In 2023, the WHO estimated that “between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.”
Strangely, however, deaths attributable to cold weather, estimated at 4.6 million globally per year, were not weighed in balance. Nor are inevitable deaths from undernutrition related to a lack of accessible energy for agriculture and transport. Accounting for a reduction in such deaths would significantly reduce projected mortality and perhaps demonstrate an overall advantage. For instance, rising CO2has increased plant growth and contributed to the world’s ability to feed 8 billion people, an achievement once considered impossible and is obviously highly critical to maintaining health.
The WHO’s leaders have become bolder. In June 2023, in a minor lapse of equity, inclusion, and transparency criteria, the DG appointed Dr Vanessa Kerry as “the first ever” Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health for being “a renowned global health expert and medical doctor and CEO of Seed Global Health.” The press release overlooked any connection with her father, former US Secretary of State John Kerry ─ a key US Democratic politician, well-known personality at UN climate forums, and first-ever US Presidential Envoy for Climate (January 2021-March 2024). Her nomination, apparently, was purely meritocratic.
It is estimated that $27.6 million is required to create the reports implementing the 2024 Resolution. Now, $20 million will come from WHO’s biennial 2024-25 budget, and the gap of $7.6 million will be raised through WHO’s continued “discussions with Member States, development agencies and philanthropic organizations.” People who will, perhaps, benefit from the WHO pushing the products they have invested in, such as heavily processed substitutes to (climate-harming) natural foods.
Misleading Resolution WHA77.14 on the “Link between Health, Environment and Climate Change”
All of this appears to follow conventional political and diplomatic playbooks. It comes unstuck if one applies a critical look at how Resolution WHA77.14 was built.
It referred to Resolution WHA61.19 (adopted in 2008) on climate change and health, Resolution WHA68.8 (adopted in 2005) addressing the health impact of air pollution, and Resolution WHA76.17 (adopted in 2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste, and pollution on human health as follows.
Recalling resolution WHA61.19 (2008) on climate change and health and welcoming the work carried out so far by WHO in pursuit of it;
Recalling also resolution WHA68.8 (2015) on addressing the health impact of air pollution and resolution WHA76.17 (2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste and pollution on human health, which recognize the link between health, environment and climate change;
Resolution WHA61.19 was adopted based on a WHO report “Climate change and health.” This report stated that “There is now a strong, global scientific consensus that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” (para. 1) and that “WHO has, for several years, stressed that the health risks posed by climate change are significant, distributed throughout the globe, and difficult to reverse” (para. 2). These affirmations were made without assessment of levels of evidence (strong, moderate, weak), of the extent to which (modifiable) human activity is involved, or of the actual positive versus negative impacts of higher temperatures (and atmospheric CO2).
Contrary to the statements by Resolution WHA77.14, neither Resolution WHA68.8 nor Resolution WHA76.17 mentioned climate change in the context of pollutants. Excluding rare natural phenomena, particulate and chemical air pollution do result from human activities, including indoor air pollution (e.g. cookstoves) and transport and industrial waste. Hence, these past Resolutions recognized a link between these pollutants and human health, which is common sense. They did not recognize a link between health, environment, and climate change.
Nevertheless, we can probably relax and wait. The WHO’s upcoming reports can be expected to claim a link. They have $27 million to spend on that.
The Climate Agenda Versus “We the Peoples”
It is easy for wealthy self-proclaimed philanthropists and international and governmental bureaucrats to call for phasing out fossil fuels. Living on tax-paid salaries in secure jobs, in economies made rich through the availability of cheap energy, they are able to renew their commitment annually at the Conference of States Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ignoring the reality that their very ability to be there is due to fossil fuels. The most recent venues ─ Dubai, Sharm-El-Sheik, and Glasgow ─ all built their prosperity on this same energy base.
Being obsessed with the man-made climate narrative, the UN system pushes poor countries to adopt green energies for lighting and cooking, rather than developing the large-scale energy infrastructure that still forms the backbone of wealthier societies.
There seems to be no shame vis-a-vis 2.3 billion people on earth that, according to the WHO, must still rely on dirty and dangerous cooking fuels such as cow dung, charcoal, and wood ─ negatively impacting women and children’s health through particulate air pollution. Increasing the cost of fossil fuels directly increases further deforestation and resultant desertification (and regional climate change) in areas such as East Africa. It feels good, apparently, for the activists of climate COPs and Extinction Rebellion to force African women to walk further each day for firewood, denuding landscapes and their meager savings.
There seems to be no shame either when Western bilateral and multilateral largesse to low-income countries comes on the condition that they pass a “climate check,” or must be spent on developing “green” but unreliable solar and wind generation which barely supplement the base energy supplies of most donor countries. We happily burn Nigerian oil, but our virtue requires Nigerians to do better. After looting wealth through colonialism, this is rubbing noses in the dirt of the poverty left behind.
One can confidently predict that the rhetoric will continue, and more “soft laws” ─ UN declarations, strategies, plans-of-action, and agendas ─ will complement the existing “hard laws” of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Protocols. At the WHO, more funding will come to extend the growing industry of climate change and health, diverting financial and human resources from far greater, but less boutique, health burdens.
A plan of action will be put before a future WHA to agree to a binding document seeking to harden the 2024 Resolution into requirements. Highly questionable assumptions that pandemics and malaria, and even tuberculosis, are worsened because of climate change will be drawn to support the global plan, complementing the coming Pandemic Agreement and the massive surveillance system set up by the freshly adopted IHR Amendments to ensure pandemic lockdowns.
Malaria, tuberculosis, and diseases of undernutrition and poor hygiene are primarily diseases of poverty. People in wealthy countries live longer primarily because of improvements in sanitation, living conditions, and nutrition. These improvements were achieved by using energy for transport, to build infrastructure, and to massively improve the efficiency of agricultural production. Locking future generations in low-income countries into poverty will not improve their health and well-being.
This increasingly charade-like global health circus will, in the end, destabilize the world and harm us all. To address complex issues, the world needs rational and honest debates, rather than games played by a self-entitled few. The WHO is demonstrating that it is no longer the organization to lead us to better health. It is on us to regain control of our own future.
The McCullough Foundation, informative update on the current H5N1 global situation has received considerable attention and garnered valuable feedback. Here are the key takeaways:
Practice of culling (mass destruction of entire healthy flocks) when a PCR test is found positive to “eradicate” the virus is futile and may work to constrain the food supply. The current strain H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4.b is not thus far causing necropsy or radiographic confirmed fatal pneumonia in birds or mammals.
H5N1 host range expansion into migratory birds and mammals likely occurred as a result of gain-of-function serial passage research and a lab leak [or release].
Increased transmissibility of H5N1 has a tradeoff of decreased virulence. Using legacy human mortality rates from cases in Southeast Asia is not appropriate. The US has never had a fatal human case of bird flu.
Fear-mongering promulgated by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is designed to promote mass vaccination of animals and humans with lucrative pre-purchased contracts to the vaccine manufacturers and their NGO backers. Mass vaccination into a highly prevalent pandemic promotes resistant strains of the virus in the vaccinated.
If human-to-human spread occurs in the future as expected by many, it will be the product of gain-of-function research that has gone on for years with the goal of creating harm to human populations.
Be prepared with early prevention and treatment strategies on hand. Courageous Discourse has covered dilute iodine nasal sprays and gargles, oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine, and other antivirals. The Wellness Company has extended its Contagion Kit to cover the case of serious human avian influenza in the event it occurs.
Here in New York, our leaders fancy us to be the “climate leader.” After all, our legislature has enacted the “Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” of 2019, setting out the most aggressive mandatory emissions-reduction targets of all the U.S. states. Allegedly, 70% of our electricity will come from “renewables” by 2030. Nobody can top us!
But can we really catch up to Germany? Germany was in the “climate leadership” game before almost anybody else had even heard of it. It was all the way back in 1990 that Germany adopted its first emissions-reduction target — 25 to 30 percent fewer CO₂ emissions by 2005, compared to 1987 levels. In 2000, while New York was still in its climate diapers, Germany passed its Renewable Energy Act, granting large subsidies for the development of wind farms. In 2010 Germany adopted its “Energiewende” legislation with mandatory emissions-reductions targets of 80-95% by 2050. All along, the country has been on a crash program to build wind turbines and solar panels for well over 30 years.
So sorry, New York. Germany is the true “climate leader.” Perhaps we should check in on how it is going over there.
The share of renewables on Germany’s power grids rose by 6.6 percentage points to 55% of the total last year, the sector’s regulator said on Wednesday, as Europe’s largest economy moves closer to its 2030 target. . . [of] 80% of its [electricity generation].
The achievement elicited some self-congratulatory happy talk from Environment Minister (and Green Party member) Robert Habeck:
“We have broken the 50% mark for renewables for the first time,” Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a statement. “Our measures to simplify planning and approvals are starting to take effect.”
Read a little farther, though, and you find out that only 43.2% of the 55% came from wind and solar generators. Most of the rest (8.4%) came from “biomass,” otherwise known as wood chips imported from the U.S. — probably not what you were thinking of as the supposedly emissions-free “renewables.” (The remaining 3+% consists of hydro and some unspecified “other renewables.”).
Perhaps you are wondering, despite Habeck’s happy talk, how can it be that after 30+ years of a crash program, with enormous subsidies, to build wind and solar generators to provide electricity, Germany is only up to getting 43% of its electricity from those sources? Is there maybe some problem? If you are wondering about those things, you will not find the answer here.
And then there’s the question of whether a huge build-out of wind and solar electricity generation might have any collateral consequences for a modern industrial economy. For example, might wind and solar generation be more expensive than electricity generation by fossil fuels? Here are the latest consumer electricity price data from Eurostat, covering the second half of 2023. Key quote:
For household consumers in the EU (defined for the purpose of this article as medium-sized consumers with an annual consumption between 2 500 Kilowatt hours (KWh) and 5 000 KWh), electricity prices in the second half of 2023 were highest in Germany (€0.4020 per KWh), Ireland (€0.3794 per KWh), Belgium (€0.3778 per KWh) and Denmark (€0.3554 per KWh).
Somehow, great “climate leader” Germany has the very highest consumer electricity prices in all the EU. The 40.2 euro cents per kWh is equivalent to 43 U.S. cents at the recent exchange rate of 1.07. The latest data from the U.S. EIA gives the average U.S. consumer electricity price as 16.68 cents per kWh for March 2024. That makes the German electricity price more than two and a half times the U.S. price.
Aren’t wind and solar generation supposed to be cheaper than fossil fuels? Somehow that doesn’t seem to be working out. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that no matter how much wind and solar you build, you can’t get rid of any of the fossil fuel generators, because you need them all for backup of intermittency. So you end up paying for two redundant systems.
Then there is the effect of high energy prices on economic growth. How’s that going in Germany? Here’s a February 23 report from Euronews, with the statistics from Germany for the 2023 year:
Year-on-year GDP growth was -0.2% in Q4 2023, a notch better than Q3 2023’s -0.3% and also in line with market expectations. For the full year 2023, Germany’s GDP shrank 0.3%.
A guy named Theodor Weimer, head of the Deutsche Börse, gave a speech in April to a group of Bavarian business leaders. The speech became public when it was released on YouTube last week, and it was then covered by theTelegraph. Key quote:
The coalition government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz was, [Weimer] argued, a “catastrophe,” Germany was “economically on the way to becoming a developing country” and “one thing is clear: our reputation in the world has never been so bad.”
And finally, in the European elections just held last week, the German Green Party has been reported one of the biggest losers, going from 21 seats to just 12, a loss of 9, or almost half of the prior total.
Well, maybe being the “climate leader” is not so great after all. At least, maybe, the people are starting to catch on. Here in New York, it will take a while longer.
Euro MPs from Czechia’s populist ANO movement have renounced their affiliation with French President Emmanuel Macron’s Renew Europe political grouping in the European Parliament, citing irreconcilable differences over the Green Deal and mass immigration.
ANO leader and former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš announced the decision to withdraw his lawmakers from the liberal political group during a press conference on Thursday.
“We went to the polls to fight against illegal migration, to change the Green Deal, which is destroying European industry and agriculture and has a negative impact on our citizens,” Babiš told journalists.
“Based on the negotiations, we came to the opinion that Renew simply has a different position than the ANO movement,” he added.
“Above all, we want the Czech Republic to remain a sovereign country,” the former Czech leader told followers on his X account, hinting at the European liberals’ desire for an “ever-closer union” and a road towards a federal Europe.
It means the Renew Europe group will be seven MEPs fewer after the withdrawal of its Czech faction and makes it even more likely the group will be overtaken by the center-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group as the third-largest in the European Parliament.
The move has possible ramifications for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who is seeking reelection among the newly-elected parliamentarians and the arithmetic is becoming problematic.
The old guard of the European People’s Party, Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and Renew is losing control of the narrative in the European Parliament and von der Leyen needs almost all of the votes from these respective parties to guarantee her reelection.
Should 13 percent of the voting bloc refuse to endorse her candidacy, a figure previously seen during her first term and for the election of former president, Jean-Claude Juncker, von der Leyen would fall short of the support she needs to remain in post.
On the future of the ANO and its European affiliation, Babiš remained coy about what was next for his party, but did rule out joining the ECR, which includes lawmakers from Czechi’s governing ODS party.
“ECR is certainly not a solution for us. Representatives of other Czech political parties have a big say in the factions, and the ECR is certainly not our choice. We’ll see, maybe a new faction will emerge,” he said.
“We will now look for partners in the European Parliament with whom we can promote our program,” he added.
The current variant of Bird Flu appears to be a product of human agency, including mass vaccination of poultry with leaky vaccines and possible genetic manipulation in US and Chinese government funded laboratories. Thus, as was the case with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, official narratives about origins, spread, testing, and risk mitigation should be subjected to rigorous examination. Independent investigation, ongoing research, and analysis are critical to understanding the reality of this pathogen and the purported threat it poses to animal and human health.
Still no plausible natural explanation for new clade’s detection in Newfoundland and in South Carolina in December 2021
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse™ | June 17, 2024
As I have noted in previous posts, the conventional explanation in virology circles is that the new variant of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b was purportedly carried by migratory birds across the North Atlantic in 2021, and arrived in North America in the autumn of 2021.
The HPAI H5N1 viruses that were detected in Newfoundland in November and December 2021 originated from Northwest Europe and belonged to HPAI clade 2.3.4.4b. Most likely, these viruses emerged in Northwest Europe in winter 2020/2021, dispersed from Europe in late winter or early spring 2021, and arrived in Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
The first time I read this Conclusion, I interpreted it as suggesting that migratory birds from Northwest Europe arrived in Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
However, this morning I received an e-mail from a friendly reader who pointed out that, in fact, the authors of the “Transatlantic spread” paper proposed that birds migrated from Northwest Europe to Iceland in the spring of 2021. While on Iceland for the summer, these bird theoretically mingled with birds from North America who were also on Iceland for the summer, and then returned to Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
While I humbly confess that I should have read the body text of the paper more carefully instead of jumping ahead to the Conclusion, I would like to reiterate that there is a striking paucity of evidence to support the proposition that the new variant of bird flu—known as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b—was borne across the North Atlantic by migratory birds in 2021.
1). While it apparently took nine years for earlier variants to spread from Europe to the United States, H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b was first detected in the Netherlands October 2020 and then in the United States in late 2021—that is, in only one year. The intercontinental spread of the previous variants are thought to have been from Eurasia to North America over the Bering Straight.
2). The hypothetical spread of a new avian influenza variant by migratory birds from Europe to North America by crossing the North Atlantic has never been documented before and therefore appears to be unprecedented.
3). We are being told that the new clade is highly pathogenic to wild birds, including ducks, which is not consistent with their fitness for flying 1400 kilometers from Ireland or Norway to Iceland, or 2,600 kilometers from Iceland to Newfoundland.
However, retrospective screening of wild bird samples from Iceland showed that an HPAI case was in a juvenile white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) found dead in the southern Westfjords, Iceland, during October 2021.
Just one sick white-tailed sea eagle—a species notoriously susceptible to mortality by ingesting toxic, man-made substances—found in Iceland in fall 2021 is inconsistent with the proposition that large flocks of infected migratory birds spending summer 2021 on Iceland and infecting other large flocks from North America that were also summering on Iceland.
5). Conventional reporting invariably refers to the new variant first being detected in a sick great black-backed gull in a pond in Newfoundland in December 2021. No mention is made of other sick wild birds found in the same area around the same time. Moreover, the genetic sequence purportedly found in this sick gull has not been published in Genbank.
6). While the sick gull found in Newfoundland in December 2021 is frequently reported, I can find no other field biologist reports of sick birds from this variant anywhere on the North American east coast in 2021.
7). During the same month (Dec. 2021) the virus was detected in the sick gull in Newfoundland, it was also purportedly found in ducks in Colleton County, South Carolina—200 miles east of Athens, Georgia. Note that the winter migration from Canadian summer nesting grounds to the American South begins in September, peaks in October, and concludes in November.
CONCLUSION
There remains a paucity of evidence to support the hypothesis that Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b was borne across the North Atlantic by migratory birds in 2021.
The new clade was first detected in the Netherlands in October 2020, not far from the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where the prominent virologist Ron Fouchier—who happens to be a co-author of the “Transatlantic Spread” paper—is known to have conducted dangerous Gain-of-Function experiments on H5N1 bird flu in recent years.
It’s notable that the Erasmus Medical Center, headed by Ron Fouchier, previously collaborated closely with the SEPRL to develop vaccines against H9 avian influenza viruses, indicating the two laboratories likely share virus samples. This raises the suspicion that the Erasmus lab shared a sample of the new clade with the USDA poultry lab in Athens sometime in 2021, and that it somehow got out of the lab and spread to waterfowl on the Atlantic flyway.
The results of the parliamentary elections across the 27 member states of the European Union have been published this morning. They are not complete and final, but they are highly indicative of how it all ends.
The front-page diagram of The Financial Times comparing the outgoing and incoming party affiliations of the deputies tells it all. Though the deck chairs on the Titanic have been rearranged, though the Greens have had losses, the Renew grouping of Macron and Belgium’s Guy Verhofstadt have had losses, the EPP had gains and the net result appears to be that the Center Right-Left coalition that held the European Parliament in its firm grip these past 5 years will continue to have a voting majority of more than 400 seats. This means that barring some accident, Ursula von der Leyen will be reelected and the awful, self-destructive, even suicidal policies of the EU with respect to Russia will continue for the coming 5 years, if there is no Continent-wide war as a result that wipes Europe off the face of the earth.
Here in Belgium, the good news comes from the north of the country. The anti-status quo Flemish parties N-VA and Vlaams Belang came in first and second, garnering almost a third of the seats in the Chamber of Representatives. My estimation of the results comes from applying the old Russian Marxist analytic tool: the worse, the better. The comfy life of our most prominent politicians is coming to an end. Prime Minister De Croo was compelled to resign when his party took a beating. Now he can resume the search for his next sinecure that began one week ago when he called upon Joe Biden in the White House. If only this discomfiture extends to the other incompetent lackeys of Washington that the MR Party has sent to the European Institutions, Didier Reynders on the Commission and Charles Michel at the Council, then I will break out the champagne.
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 