Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Qatar threatens to stop LNG exports to EU over climate rules: Reports

Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

Qatar has warned it may suspend liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to the European Union in response to the bloc’s climate agenda, as outlined in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Die Welt reported on Saturday.

The warning came in a letter from Qatari Energy Minister Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi to the Belgian government.

Al-Kaabi, who also heads QatarEnergy, cautioned that the company may seek alternative markets outside the EU if the directive’s regulations are not revised. The CSDDD mandates companies trading with the EU to scrutinize their supply chains for compliance with sustainable development goals.

“I strongly believe that companies should not be forced to choose between complying with the climate policies of their home jurisdictions and EU regulations,” the minister wrote, criticizing the directive for imposing requirements that, in some respects, exceed the objectives of the Paris Agreement, arguing that it infringes on national sovereignty and the right of states to set their own climate targets.

Al-Kaabi urged EU officials to remove the provision requiring non-EU companies to adopt climate transition plans.

According to Eurostat, Qatar was the EU’s third-largest LNG supplier in the first quarter of 2025, accounting for 10.8% of imports. The US ranked first with 50.7%, followed by Russia at 17%. A withdrawal of Qatari and Russian LNG would leave the EU scrambling to replace over a quarter of its current LNG supply.

Under the REPowerEU plan launched in 2022, the EU aims to phase out Russian pipeline gas by 2027–2028 and end all Russian energy imports by the end of 2027.

Meanwhile, Moscow has warned that the West’s pivot away from Russian hydrocarbons is a strategic error. Russian officials claim that European countries will ultimately face higher prices and increased dependency, buying Russian energy indirectly through intermediaries.

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Kathryn Porter On The Spanish Blackouts

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | July 17, 2025

Kathryn Porter has a detailed analysis of the concise but informative report produced by Red Eléctrica de España (“REE”), the Spanish Transmission System Operator on the Spanish blackouts.

It’s way beyond my pay grade, but it can be neatly summed up by this comment from Kathryn:

The Iberian grid was already in a weakened state, owing to insufficient synchronous generation and excessive reliance on inverter-based renewables. The system failed to withstand a fault that originated with a single solar inverter. This was not an unavoidable technical event – it was the result of systemic underestimation of voltage control risks, poor compliance enforcement, and REE’s failure to schedule or deploy sufficient dynamic voltage support.

This blackout would not have occurred in a conventional, high-synchronous grid. The rush to decarbonise the power system without adequate attention to resilience and enforcement has created an atmosphere of complacency. That complacency – shared by policymakers, regulators, and parts of the renewables industry – led directly to a system-wide collapse that cost eleven lives.

I have seen many media reports which have tried to deflect from the role of intermittent renewable energy in the disaster. They have usually highlighted various failings by grid operators and lack of “investment” in the grid.

But such reports miss the point. It is only because of the inherent instability of wind and solar power that all of these investments and safety measures become necessary.

Maybe in a perfect world the Spanish grid would have worked as intended, and there would have been no blackouts.

But we don’t live in a perfect world.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Decline of the Great North American Decarbonization Charade

By Vijay Jayaraj | RealClear Markets | June 27, 2025

Through ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance – mandates, the titans of global finance positioned themselves as the arbiters of corporate virtue. They pressured companies to divest from fossil fuels. They built an entire moral and financial architecture around the concept of decarbonization.

But this June, two major events confirmed the slow demise of the great North American decarbonization experiment.

First, Nippon Steel finalized its historic acquisition of U.S. Steel, signaling a massive resurgence of energy-intensive manufacturing on American soil. Up North, the government of Saskatchewan announced its plan to keep coal-fired plants alive beyond 2030, openly defying federal regulations and international climate agreements.

They are not minor setbacks to the climate agenda but fundamental course corrections, powerful acknowledgments that the prosperity and security of nations depend on energy-dense resources and the industries they power.

Steel Deal That Shattered Green Illusions

 On June 18, Nippon Steel acquired the legendary Pittsburgh-based company to reshape the global steel industry. The $14.9 billion transaction, one of the largest in recent industrial history, creates a powerhouse with a crude steel capacity of 86 million metric tons.

“Together, Nippon Steel and U. S. Steel are moving forward as the ‘Best Steelmaker with World-Leading Capabilities,’” says the press release. Massive capital will be unleashed across steelmaking facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas, Minnesota and Alabama. The overall investment package is expected to protect 10,000 jobs and create 10,000 more in construction trades through the addition of a new electric arc furnace.

Steel production consumes enormous quantities of energy – primarily from coal and natural gas. The blast furnaces, coke ovens and electric arc furnaces that make up the lifeblood of steel mills are not powered by solar panels or wind turbines. They are powered by carbon-based fuels. Period.

This acquisition alone smashes multiple climate illusions in one blow. One, that emissions-intensive sectors would be phased out in rich countries. Another, that ESG-aligned finance would avoid “dirty” industries. And a third, that international treaties would keep governments and corporations aligned toward decarbonization.

Look who helped push this deal through. Citibank served as the financial advisor to Nippon Steel. Barclays, Goldman Sachs and Evercore were among the advisors for U.S. Steel. These are the same firms that plaster their websites with ESG statements and Net Zero commitments.

The same firms that swore to “align their lending portfolios with climate goals” and pressure companies to reduce carbon footprints. Yet here they are, actively greasing the wheels of a carbon-heavy industrial renaissance.

Saskatchewan Calls the Bluff on Coal Phaseouts

 Then the same week, came another announcement, this time from the political frontier of Western Canada. The government of Saskatchewan made clear that it would extend the life of its coal plants beyond 2030, despite federal mandates to the contrary.

Energy Minister Dustin Duncan was unapologetic. “We’re not going to let federal politicians in Ottawa tell us to turn off the lights,” he said. Citing energy security and cost stability for residents, the province says it will keep coal-fired plants past the 2030 deadline imposed by Canada’s federal Clean Electricity Regulations,

This open rebellion is framed as a strategic return to realism with no use of euphemisms such as “transition” or “temporary extension.”

Collapse of the Climate Narrative

 The Net Zero facade has collapsed massively, undeniably, irreversibly – because no policy survives violations of the laws of physics and market demand. Despite trillions spent on “renewables,” their contribution to energy production has barely budged in two decades.

What we’re witnessing in North America is not an anomaly but rather the beginning of a new phase. In 2023, fossil fuels still accounted for over 80% of global primary energy use. Globally, energy-intensive industries are thriving. China, the world’s largest coal consumer, approved 106 gigawatts of new coal power in 2024 alone.

The thud you hear is the sound of the decarbonization fantasy crashing to Earth. The sigh is one of relief as common sense returns to the public square.

There is no post-carbon future on the horizon, only a post-illusion present. And fossil fuels remain the lifeblood of progress.

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

EU sanctions ‘destroying’ Europe – Slovak MEP

Lucas Leiroz | July 11, 2025

More and more people are admitting that it is impossible for Europe to continue maintaining its anti-Russian sanctions in the long term. Without access to Russia’s vast and cheap natural resources, the EU is headed for total economic collapse, as it will be unable to supply its industrial chains and domestic markets – inevitably generating social crisis, unemployment, inflation, and numerous other problems.

This assessment is echoed by Slovak MEP Milan Uhrik. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, he severely criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s hostile stance toward Russia. Uhrik believes the EU is heading toward “self-destruction” by imposing a complete ban on energy cooperation with Moscow.

Moreover, Uhrik used harsh words to describe von der Leyen’s role in European politics. Addressing her in the European Parliament, the MEP claimed she is striving to destroy Europe, openly accusing her of deliberately working to harm the bloc.

“[Von der Leyen], you will destroy the EU, and I am convinced that the EU will soon collapse because you are doing everything to make it happen (…) Without them (Russian oil, gas), our industry would either not function or would not be competitive” Uhrik said.

Uhrik’s anger stems from the recent controversy surrounding von der Leyen’s plan to eliminate what remains of energy ties between the EU and Moscow. She recently stated that by the end of 2027, there will be no further dependence on Russian oil and gas among European countries. To achieve this, she plans to accelerate the “energy transition” process. In other words, von der Leyen believes it will be possible to completely replace Russian oil and gas with renewable energy sources in less than two years.

Von der Leyen’s plans are utterly utopian. Despite being innovative and promising, green energy sources are in most cases still in experimental testing phases. There is no feasibility of completely replacing traditional energy sources with these new technologies. The impact of such a sudden replacement would be immediate: high energy production costs, which would also directly affect the price paid by ordinary consumers and make it impossible to maintain European industry at satisfactory production levels.

However, there’s something much worse in von der Leyen’s plan. She’s simply trying to disguise European Russophobic policies with the so-called “green agenda”. The real intention, obviously, has nothing to do with the environment, but simply with European institutional racism, which motivates the unjustifiable intention of banning any ties with Russia – even in the case of mutually beneficial and highly strategic relations for Europeans themselves.

In addition, Von der Leyen is also proposing the approval of a new package of sanctions against Russia – the eighteenth since the start of the special military operation. The new measures would focus on boycotting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. So far, the proposal has been frozen by the firm dissident position of Slovakia’s leader Robert Fico – a leader who, like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, continues to demand an end to the sanctions policy and the restoration of Europe’s economic ties with Moscow.

Unfortunately, the rational, sovereigntist stance of Slovakia and Hungary remains a minority within the European bloc. Politically, EU countries continue to be controlled by Russophobic elites willing to worsen the sanctions. However, this scenario does not reflect the real mentality of ordinary people in Europe, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the practical results of the coercive measures.

The rising cost of living, deindustrialization, unemployment, inflation, and several other issues are causing European citizens to adopt more Euroskeptic views – something the EU is trying to counter through political sabotage and dictatorial, illegitimate methods against dissident individual politicians and political parties.

Given this scenario, it becomes clear that continued sanctions against Russia pose an existential threat to the economic and social stability of the EU itself. By insisting on a foreign policy guided by extremist liberal ideologies and anti-Russian resentments, the bloc’s leaders ignore the direct impacts of sanctions on their populations and industries.

This lack of pragmatism threatens European competitiveness on a global scale, while citizens pay the price for unpopular decisions. Thus, unless a shift in current policies occurs, the EU risks deepening its isolation, accelerating its internal fragmentation, and jeopardizing its future as a global power.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Decarbonization myth frays as hydrocarbon use grows

By Vijay Jayaraj | BizPacReview | June 20, 2025

One cannot peruse the morning headlines or scroll through the digital ether without being assailed by the global media’s solemn decree: Society is gracefully, unequivocally and inexorably decoupling from the deathly embrace of fossil fuels.

Many in the “enlightened” professional classes, forgoing independent scrutiny of the issue, regurgitate the declaration with the vigorous conviction of newly converted acolytes. What we have today is a digital amphitheater flooded with hashtags and half-truths, where perception cosplays as accomplishment and misinformation marches under the banner of inevitability.

Take China for example: Online posts about the country’s undeniable dependence on coal is glossed over or misrepresented. Popular reporting has Beijing showing great interest in “net zero” as evidenced by the installation of record amounts of solar and wind energy generators. Cherry-picked are the ebbs and flows of fossil fuel use and investments in “renewable” technology to argue that Chinese hydrocarbon use is waning.

However, the energy sector in China cares little about these fantasies. Beijing began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-powered capacity in 2024, in addition to resuming 3.3 GW of suspended projects. This is the highest level of construction in the past 10 years!

As recently as May, China deployed the world’s largest fleet of driverless mining trucks to fast-track efficient operations, partially to overcome the challenging conditions of harsh winter weather at the Yimin coal mine in northeastern Inner Mongolia.

Indeed, both China and India are pouring colossal sums into wind turbines and solar panels. Yet, let us not, for a moment, confuse this fervent activity with the zealous repudiation of fossil fuels seen in some European countries. The Asian nations are not renouncing fossil fuels but rather grabbing every energy source as would hoarders before an expected crisis.

Speaking at the Heartland International Conference in 2023, I dubbed this the “twin strategy” – a clever diplomatic pas de deux – where Beijing and Delhi strike photogenic “green” poses for the Western press while quietly constructing new coal-fired plants and excavating and importing ever more fuel for them.

The result? Applause from climate summiteers and megawatts from smokestacks – a brilliant balancing act of virtue signaling and strategic realism. The West calls it hypocrisy; China and India call it another day at the office.

Climate doomsayers must advance a narrative of Asian complicity in the increasingly fraying “green” agenda to help keep alive the myth of a decarbonizing world, which for most sensible people has become about as believable as the Easter Bunny.

India’s target for achieving net zero is set for a distant 2070 – 100 years after the first Earth Day, whose observance by then will be about as relevant as tossing virgins into volcanoes. More lasting will be the country’s commitment to economic growth through the use of coal, oil and natural gas – a path to having the highest rate of increase in energy demand going forward.

The case is similar in dozens of other countries across Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, where new discoveries of energy reserves and an appetite for economic progress have the oil and gas industries booming.

Approximately 120 oil and gas discoveries were made globally in 2024, with significant drilling expected in Suriname, Cyprus, Libya and South Africa. About 85% of these discoveries occurred in offshore regions, the bigger ones being in Kuwait and Namibia.

Rystad Energy predicts deepwater drilling to hit a 12-year high in 2026. Once the poster child of climate repentance, the British multinational oil and gas company BP is abandoning plans to reduce production in favor of drilling deeper in the Gulf of Mexico. Norway’s Equinor announced early this year that “renewables” would take a back seat, as the country’s offshore oil fields roar back to life.

The climate commentariat, already breathless from their creative contortions to recast reality, now finds itself rattled by President Trump’s funding cuts that turned off the tap to the climate-industrial complex.

Meanwhile, the digital battleground remains an arena for the ongoing tug-of-war between the realities of economics and physics and fanciful rhetoric about an energy transition. The growth in consumption of fossil fuels continues apace, nonetheless.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.He resides in Bengaluru, India.

Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Miliband ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 23, 2025

Net Zero Watch has belittled the government’s announcement that it will cut electricity bills for large industrial users by 25%. The campaign group has pointed out that the cost of the discount has to be paid somehow. Newspaper reports suggest that industrial gas users will be footing the bill, although details are scarce.

Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

Ed Miliband is once again merely proposing to shuffle costs from one energy user to another. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is all he has to offer, because his mad fixation on decarbonisation means he will not look at the underlying problem, namely the gross inefficiency of a renewables-based grid.

And Mr Montford warned that any relief would be temporary:

This latest wheeze will bring temporary relief for sectors favoured by the Secretary of State, but at the expense of others, who can ill afford it. And in the medium term, bills will continue to rise for everyone. The country can’t afford this madness any longer.

The Telegraph report:

“From 2027, they will no longer have to pay the net zero levies that are normally added to their power bills, such as the renewables obligation, the feed-in-tariff and capacity market charges.

This will be paid for by financial reforms to the energy market and a raid on companies that burn natural gas, through higher carbon taxes, the Government said.”

A spokesman for the business department added that “energy market reforms” will also pay for the changes, including longer subsidy agreements with wind farms – aimed at bringing the overall cost for power down.

Higher carbon taxes will not only punish industrial gas users, many of whom don’t qualify as “large industrial users”, they will also increase the wholesale price of electricity, meaning that while large industries will be better off, the rest of us will have to pay the bill instead.

This gives the lie to Starmer’s claim that “it would not be paid for via extra charges on households”.

The claim about “energy market reforms” is just smoke and mirrors. They will have no effect on existing subsidies for renewable energy, and longer term CfDs are only being considered because nobody wants to build offshore wind farms at the prices on offer. Inevitably the next round will see much higher prices, so there will be no “savings” to divvie out.

As is now routine with this wretched Government, policies are announced which cannot be funded and are sold to the public on the basis of a lie.

It is fantasy economics, something we have seen time and again in the last year.

Electricity prices are higher because of the £20+ billion paid out every year to subsidise renewable energy and deal with the extra costs it imposes.

Until this Government gets a grip with the real problem, nothing will change, no matter what smoke and mirror tactics they employ.

June 23, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | Leave a comment

‘Net Zero’ Is Collapsing in U.S. States

By Steve Goreham – Master Resource – June 16, 2025

From New York to California, state renewable electrical power dreams are collapsing. Power demands soar, while the federal government cuts funding and support for wind, solar, and grid batteries. Renewables cannot provide enough power to support the artificial intelligence revolution. The Net Zero electricity transition is failing in the United States.

For the last two decades, state governments have embraced policies aimed at replacing coal and natural gas power plants with renewable sources. Twenty-three states enacted laws or executive orders to move to 100% Net Zero electricity by 2050. Onshore and offshore wind, utility-scale and rooftop solar, and grid-scale batteries were heavily promoted by states and most federal administrations.

The New York State Climate Action Scoping Plan of 2022 called for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% by 2040. But 49.7% of the state’s electricity came from gas in 2024, up from 47.7% in 2023. A January executive order issued by President Trump halted federal leases for construction of offshore wind systems. New York, nine other east coast states, and California were counting on offshore wind in efforts to get to 100% renewable electricity, but new offshore wind projects are now halted.

Wind and solar have benefited from federal tax credits, loans, and outright grants since 1992. But the Trump administration is now working to slash federal government support for these technologies. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) passed the House of Representatives on May 22. The bill eliminates Production Tax Credits and Investment Tax Credits for renewable systems that begin construction later than 60 days after passage of the bill or for projects that do not complete construction by year end 2028. The bill also halts the sale of tax credits from renewable projects. If the Senate passes the bill, these measures will choke off green energy projects that have relied on federal funding for decades.

Wind and solar advocates attack the OBBB, warning that the bill would create a “nightmare scenario” for US clean energy. These same advocates claim that wind and solar are the lowest-cost generators of electricity but also demand that huge federal subsidies must continue.

Along with federal cutbacks, the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution now drives the nation’s power system, interrupting the renewable electricity transition. Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and other giant firms are building new data centers and upgrading existing data centers to power AI. AI processors run 24-hours a day for months to enable computers to think like humans. When servers are upgraded to support AI, they consume 6 to 10 times more power than when used for cloud storage and the internet. Data centers consumed 4% of US electricity at the start of 2024 but are projected to consume 20% within the next decade.

Artificial intelligence drives a massive increase in electricity demand. For years, state legislators forced grid operators to close coal and natural gas power plants as part of a transition to renewables. More than 200 coal-fired power plants were closed. But now, many states face a shortage of generating capacity. Virginia has the highest concentration of data centers in the world, with power consumption forecasted to triple by 2040. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas estimates that Texas electricity demand will soar from a record 85.5 gigawatts in 2023 to 218 GW by 2031.

In December, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation concluded that that over half of North America risks power shortfalls in the next decade from surging demand and coal and gas plant retirements. Grid operators are now stepping back from the transition to wind and solar. Coal-fired power plant closures have been postponed in Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and other states. Nuclear plants are being restarted in Michigan and Pennsylvania. But the big winner will be natural gas.

More than 200 gas plants are planned or under construction. Gas facilities can be brought online in about three years, compared to ten years for nuclear plants. Gas plants can be built near cities, often on former power plant sites, and require fewer new transmission lines than needed by wind and solar systems.

The latest trend is BYOP (bring your own power). AI firms are building their own gas plants to power data centers. Gas turbine manufacturer capacity is now sold out for years. The gas share of electricity production will rise from 43.6% of US consumption in 2024 to much higher levels. The AI power demand and the push for gas are destroying state plans for a transition to green electricity.

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Texas, and other states are installing grid-scale batteries to try to compensate for wind and solar intermittency. Huge lithium batteries are intended to store excess wind and solar output when the wind blows and the sun shines and then release electricity when wind and solar output is low. But lithium batteries are unproven technology that is prone to spontaneous ignition, creating huge fires that are difficult to extinguish and which endanger residents.

In the last two years, California suffered four grid battery fires, each at facilities less than five years old. The Otay Mesa storage facility near San Diego burned for more than a week and reignited three times. The Moss Landing battery facility, located south of Santa Cruz, caught fire in January. Forty percent of Moss Landing, one of the largest grid-scale battery facilities in the world, was destroyed in the fire. Residents have sued to prevent the restart of Moss Landing. New York also had three grid battery fires in the last 18 months. Battery fires release toxic gases, force evacuations and school closures, and disrupt communities.

In addition, grid batteries are very expensive. To back up a wind or solar facility for 24 hours requires batteries that cost about ten times as much as the wind or solar system itself. But without grid batteries, wind and solar cannot replace coal, gas, or nuclear generation and still provide reliable power.

The cost of wind, solar, and batteries is hurting the renewable electricity transition. Electricity rates in California, the epicenter of green energy, have risen 116% in the last 16 years, more than three times the national average increase of 33%. California’s residential electricity prices are now over 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, the second highest in the nation. Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island complete the top five for the highest US power costs—all states with aggressive green electricity goals.

The Net Zero electricity transition, endorsed by many states for more than a decade, is failing in the United States. Wind, solar, and batteries suffer from the offshore wind cancellation, federal subsidy cuts, inability to meet the demand of the artificial intelligence revolution, grid battery fires, and high cost. A green energy breakdown is underway. States will be forced to return to sensible energy policy.

———————

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

June 20, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

40 Buses Destroyed: Electric Bus Confirmed as Cause in Philly Fire

StacheD Training | June 7, 2025

On June 5, 2025, a massive fire broke out at SEPTA’s Midvale Depot in Philadelphia, destroying 40 out-of-service buses. Speculation swirled—was it arson, a setup, or just bad luck? Now we know: the fire started in an electric bus. And it’s not the first time a Proterra bus has ignited in Philadelphia. Back in 2022, a similar bus caught fire while charging at SEPTA’s Southern Depot. That incident led to a national recall, but no fix was in place.

Link to NTSB Investigation (HWY23IH002): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNum…

Training & Consulting: https://www.stachedtraining.com

June 10, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Video | | Leave a comment

India Spurns Carbon Tax Threat, Promotes Trade and Fossil Fuels

By Vijay Jayaraj | RealClear World | May 24, 2025

Like many developing economies, India faces coercion from the United Nations and Europe to conform to climate policies, especially through the imposition of carbon taxes on imports into their countries. But Delhi is not about to bend to such tactics.

“If they [EU and U.K.] put in a carbon tax, we’ll retaliate,” said India’s Union Minister Piyush Goya at the Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York City. “I think it will be very silly, particularly to put a tax on friendly countries like India.”

That isn’t a bluff. It’s a moral, strategic, and scientific imperative grounded in realpolitik and economic logic.

India and the U.K. have inked a trade deal that promises to boost bilateral trade by more than $33 billion and increase U.K. gross domestic product and wages by many billions.

On paper, this deal is a triumph for both nations, removing duties on 99% of Indian goods entering the U.K. For India, this means greater market access for textiles, agriculture and manufactured goods – sectors that employ millions and drive economic growth.

Yet, the U.K.’s pending Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) remains in place with no exemptions for Indian steel, cement and aluminum, despite the trade agreement.

Starting January 2027, the U.K. is to impose a levy on these “carbon-intensive” imports, supposedly to compensate for the difference between the U.K.’s domestic carbon tax and India’s lower assessment at home. The tax on imports is to prevent “carbon leakage” — the idea that emissions are “outsourced” to countries with fewer regulations.

This hocus-pocus is nothing more than repugnant virtue signaling that penalizes manufacturers in developing countries for using the very fossil fuels that powered the West’s rise in the 19th and 20th centuries.

India’s export of these products to the EU and U.K. are a critical part of its economic engine. In 2022 alone, 27% of India’s iron, steel and aluminum exports went to the EU.

Yet, the EU’s CBAM, set to take effect in 2026 prior to the U.K. tax, would slap tariffs of 20-35% on these goods.

For Indian exporters, this translates to a steep cost increase. India’s predominantly coal-based blast furnaces have higher carbon intensity of around 2.5-2.6 metric tons of CO₂ emissions per metric ton of steel produced in comparison to the global average of 1.85 metric tons of CO2 . This means a higher CBAM assessment for India.

Profit margins for steel exports could shrink, while aluminum exporters might face a sudden surcharge once indirect emissions from coal power are factored in. Take the case of Tata Steel, which employs over 75,000 people and produces 30 million tons of steel annually. A 20-35% carbon tax under the EU’s CBAM would erode profit margins, forcing layoffs or price hikes that could cost it market share.

India’s dismissal of the climate war on fossil fuels is grounded in necessity and science. Economically, the nation aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027, a goal that demands rapid industrialization and infrastructure growth.

Steel, cement, and aluminum are the building blocks of this ambition, used in everything from bridges to skyscrapers, and an important source of export revenue. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, are the lifeblood of these industries, providing the energy needed to keep production costs low and globally competitive.

Coal generates more than 70% of India’s electricity. It powers the factories that make steel and cement. It keeps the lights on in rural hospitals and schools. And it fuels the economic engine that has lifted 415 million people out of poverty in the past two decades.

The modern crusade against fossil fuels is based on the false premise of a disintegrating global environment. But that is not the case. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. It is a colorless, odorless gas essential to life on Earth.

Even the term “carbon emissions” is a sleight of hand. The emissions are carbon dioxide but calling them “carbon” conjures images of potentially harmful soot and smoke. Fear perpetrated by lies have made people less resistant to destructive policies like CBAM.

However, India won’t bow to carbon taxes, and it won’t join an unscientific climate war that sacrifices its future. The U.K. and EU would do well to listen, lest they find themselves on the losing end of an Asian-dominated trade battle over manufactured goods.

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.

June 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

MPs from Left and Right in France vote to ditch “low emission zones” and bans on old cars

Good news — there is one less hyper-complex, pointless, car-hate program in the world

By Jo Nova | June 3, 2025

It all flipped so quickly: Only six months ago President Macron was hurling France into a climate changing roadmap of the Octopus kind. The people of France were going to have to buy EVs, work from home, swap the filet mignon for tofu, and take fewer flights overseas. Even large screen televisions were going to have to shrink, to save electrons. And some bureaucrats were enthusiastically even dreaming that they would reach into homes and set the thermostats to max out at 19C (66F) in winter and to only cool to 25C (78F) in summer.

To beat French car owners around the head, the National government legislated car zoning incentives to make life hard for anyone who wanted to drive an old car. The low emission zones started in 2019 and had already spread like a municipal leprosy to every town larger than 150,000 people.

In these ZFEs (zones à faibles émissions), cars were ranked and given a sticker. Crit’Air 0  were the cleanest and Crit’Air 5 were the most “polluting” vehicles. Different rules applied to each sticker class in each town with a soul sapping complexity. In Paris for example, Crit’Air 3 cars (basically diesel cars older than 2011, and petrol cars before 2006) were banned on weekdays. Fines varied from €68  to €750. It was a case of — if you like your car, you can keep it — (locked in the garage, right?)

But cars older than  1997 were seen as such baby killers they were not allowed to have a Crit’Air Sticker at all, so their drivers would be fined if they were caught on any weekday between 8am and 8pm. Obviously, the bans hurt the poor and the rural workers — who drove older cars. They also hurt the tradies, and small businesses that used a van.

The low emission zones were so unpopular, as the BBC even admits, they “turned into something of a lightning rod for Macron’s supporters”. (The wonder is that it took five years?)

Last week the French National Assembly voted 98 to 51 to scrap the zones entirely. The government had tried to dilute the rules, and save the restrictions to Paris and Lyon, but MP’s were having none of it. Evidently, many politicians were afraid of word getting back to voters that they didn’t vote down the low emissions zones. (Go, democracy).

Interestingly, these car zones were so awful that even some members on the far left of French politics, joined the centre right to get rid of them.

Finally, there are hints of life on the far left:

“Green policies should not be imposed on the backs of the working classes” — Clémence Guetté. 

Guetté is described in the Wall Street Journal as being “to the left of Bernie Sanders”. The Greens and Socialists though, still voted for the car sticker program to change the weather. They probably like having stickers on their cars to tell everyone how smugly clever they are.

French MPs vote to scrap low-emission zones

BBC

A handful of MPs from Macron’s party joined opposition parties from the right and far right in voting 98-51 to scrap the zones, which have gradually been extended across French cities since 2019.

But it was a personal victory for writer Alexandre Jardin who set up a movement called Les #Gueux (Beggars), arguing that “ecology has turned into a sport for the rich”.

The low-emission zones began with 15 of France’s most polluted cities in 2019 and by the start of this year had been extended to every urban area with a population of more than 150,000, with a ban on cars registered before 1997.

Marine Le Pen condemned the ZFEs as “no-rights zones” during her presidential campaign for National Rally in 2022, and her Communist counterpart warned of a “social bomb”.

The head of the right-wing Republicans in the Assembly, Laurent Wauquiez, talked of “freeing the French from stifling, punitive ecology”, and on the far left, Clémence Guetté said green policies should not be imposed “on the backs of the working classes”.

Green Senator Anne Souyris told BFMTV that “killing [the ZFEs] also means killing hundreds of thousands of people” …

The legislation still has to go through the upper house, though it is expected to. And it doesn’t stop tyrant-municipalities from imposing their own small tourist-deterrent zones. But spread the word in case any of our politicians think this idea is not radioactively awful. They need to know it’s been tried and failed so we don’t have to repeat the experiment.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Ship carrying 3,000 cars catches fire in Pacific

© X/USCGAlaska
RT | June 5, 2025

A cargo vessel carrying more than 3,000 electric and hybrid vehicles from China to Mexico has caught fire in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Alaska. All 22 crew members evacuated unharmed aboard a lifeboat and were rescued by a nearby merchant vessel.

An estimated 750 electric and hybrid vehicles were among the 3000 on board the vessel at the time.

The Liberian-flagged and UK-managed Morning Midas sent a distress call on Tuesday afternoon while approximately 300 miles (490km) southwest of Adak Island, according to the US Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard requested assistance from three nearby merchant vessels and dispatched several of its own ships and aircraft to the site of the incident.

Apart from its cargo, the ship is estimated to have approximately 1,900 metric tons of fuel onboard.

The authorities had decided to allow the fire to burn out and not attempt to extinguish it due to the risks posed by the lithium-ion batteries in the vehicles on board, according to Alaska Coast Guard spokeswoman, Petty Officer First Class Shannon Kearney, as quoted by the New York Times.

The battery type can cause an explosion and also produce toxic gases if it catches fire.

Zodiac Maritime, the company managing the cargo ship, said in a statement that the blaze started at around 00:00 UTC on June 3.

June 7, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »