E.I.R.STRATEGIC ALERT
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 35, No. 44, November 4, 2021
COP26 Gala : Lots of Money,
Carbon Footprints and Hot Air
It’s one minute to midnight” warned Boris Johnson, adding that we must “consign coal to history.” “The existential threat to human existence as we know it,” echoed Joe Biden. “What we need is a comprehensive transformation of the way we live, work and do business,” lamented Angela Merkel, while UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres accused countries of “treating nature like a toilet” as he warned of a looming “cli
mate catastrophe”.
The COP26 summit, better known as FLOP26, was to be the final nail in the coffin of industrial society, the end of hu man progress, the return to a primitive existence where the wind and the sun would provide enough energy for the fewer than one billion people who survived. The bankers’ Great Re set and Green Transition were to be imposed worldwide.
But that was without reckoning with the opposition of the majority of the world’s population and leaders, who refuse to sacrifice energy security and economic development to unre alistic CO2 objectives. With the exception of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, none of the leaders of the BRICS na tions (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are attending the Glasgow conference.
• Chinese President Xi Jinping, in his written message, did commit to speed up the transition to lower carbon emis sions, but without making any significant pledges. His Prime Minister recently explained that China plans to achieve carbon neutrality 2060, but with the help of clean, modern coal-fired plants, as well as intensified oil and gas exploration.
• Russia has committed to halt net carbon emissions by 2060, but will continue to develop its natural gas resources and nuclear power. President Putin will send a pre-recorded message to one of the COP26 events on forestry and land use.
• Prime Minister Modi’s presence in Glasgow has not brought comfort to the Great Reset clique. He insists that the de veloped countries live up to their pledge to provide poorer countries with $100 billion annually to pay for the “tran sitioning” away from fossil fuels. That money should be used, not for “mitigation” to reduce carbon emissions, but for providing “Clean Tap Water for All” and “Clean Cooking Fuel for All”. India is the planet’s third largest CO2 emitter.
• Nigerian President Muhamaddu Buhari, who is in Glasgow, is expected to defend the position of most African coun tries. In an op-ed published in Newsweek on Nov. 1 titled “The Climate Crisis Will Not be Fixed by Causing an Energy Crisis in Africa,” he states that without reliable energy, it will not be possible to “build the factories that will trans form Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent.” He demands that the “moratorium” which the West has placed on fossil fuel investments be lifted, and also supports nuclear energy for Africa. Ultimately, President Buhari wrties, “no one has the right to deny the advancement of our continent.”
• Another spokesman for Africa is Ugandan President Yow eri Museveni, who had an op-ed published in the Oct. 24 Wall Street Journal titled “Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa.” He cautions that “The continent should balance its energy mix, not rush straight toward renewables — even though that will likely frustrate some of those gathering at next week’s global climate conference in Glasgow.” Despite the predictable failure of the Flop26, one should
not expect the elites behind the Green New Deal and the glob al banking empire to give up their plans for de-industrializing and de-populating the planet.
The G20 Flop in Rome,
Prelude to the COP26 Flop in Glasgow The Rome G20 Summit (Oct. 30-31) may go down in history as the worst ever – but not because the Russian and Chi nese Presidents did not participate or because it failed to set clear climate goals – that is the positive side. Consider that, in an unprecedented move, the Sunday session was opened by Charles Windsor Mountbatten, Prince of Wales, who lectured the heads of state and government on “the last chance saloon” (sic) to save the planet.
Charles made clear that the “green transition” is all about money for his friends, boasting of his success in getting cor porations, with a total investment potential of $60 trillion, to come onboard. On condition, however, that governments provide three conditions: 1) clear policy guidelines and rules; 2) alignment of countries and industries with a road map for green investments, including higher carbon prices; 3) sover eign risk guarantees.
The latter in particular means governments must guarantee
that there will be a return on investment for Charles and his Davos billionaire friends.
As former Italian Economy minister Giulio Tremonti said on the eve of the G20, which he called a “tourist initiative”: “the same elites who have produced emissions are now candidates to lead the Green Revolution. Not accidentally, this one will bring greater financial return.”
As to the G20’s final communique, the failure to rope China, India, Russia and other countries into the de-carbonization agenda is underscored in the passage on carbon neutrality, which de facto sets no deadline: “acknowledging the key rel
evance of achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions or carbon neutrality by or around mid-century”. Otherwise, the G20 leaders:
• took no action on any of the most life-threatening, po tentially mass-murderous economic breakdowns in the world, including those which their own nations had di rectly caused by war, in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. This, although the mobilization to demand release of Afghanistan’s roughly $9 billion in funds seized by the United States, continues to grow, with a coalition of in ternational charities making a direct appeal to the G20 conference to do that.
• created a “G20 Joint Finance-Health Task Force” aimed at enhancing coordination on health threats and joint ac tions, including the investment of funds. The communi qué announcing the Task Force declares the commitment to bring the pandemic under control, but speaks only of vaccines, with no commitment to aid to countries in which hospitals and healthcare systems have completely collapsed and millions are going without food (Afghani stan, Haiti, Yemen, etc.)
• ratified a “global minimum corporate tax” negotiated months ago under pressure from the U.S. Treasury, which “global minimum” has glaring exceptions such as City of London and Wall Street banks, “offshore London” tax havens, and tech giants that pay no sales taxes on their platform products.
• agreed to stop, as of Dec. 31, funding or investing in any coal projects outside their countries (i.e., in developing countries in urgent need of electric power), but would not limit such projects in their own countries.
• The United States and European Union (Joe Biden and Ursula von der Leyen) announced a forthcoming trade agreement to a) define high-carbon, higher-quality steel as “dirty steel”; b) keep “dirty Chinese steel” exports out of European and U.S. markets, and c) replace “dirty Chi
nese steel” with low-carbon, lower-quality steel from the United States, which is a giant leap backward for the world economy.
Energy Price Inflation:
LaRouche’s Triple Curve Explains It In the late 1990s, American physical economist Lyndon La Rouche depicted in the form of a graph his forecast of how the U.S. and European productive economies would collapse in a financial crash. LaRouche called his instructive graphic “The Triple Curve—a typical collapse function.”
This Triple Curve shows the case in which productive eco nomic activity is declining while the total volume of debt bur dening the economy is growing at an increasing pace; and the
money supply is also growing at an increasing pace to keep the debt liquid. At the “crossover point” at which the money supply is artificially increased more rapidly even than the debt itself, a financial crash is looming. In mid-2007, LaRouche publicly announced that that crash was unstoppable except by a complete reversal of financial and economic policy, and it came in late 2008.
During the five-year period from July 2000 to July 2005, almost all commodities prices rose by between 50% and 100% on the way into the 2007-08 crash. The great major ity of them, along with the prices of financial assets (stocks, bonds, other securities, derivatives), collapsed in that crash.
For a decade, the major central banks intervened on an un precedented scale with tens of trillions of dollars to “support” financial assets, vowing that by doing this, they would also re store inflation and economic growth. The value of financial as sets of all kinds grew steadily, at times explosively, and global billionaires sprouted like mushrooms after a storm. But from July 2010 to July 2019, the prices of all of the commodities above (with the sole exception of beef) declined, by anywhere from a few percent to 70%.
Then, at the August 2019 central bankers conference in Wyoming, Mark Carney and a gang of central bankers and executives from BlackRock, Inc. determined to push “regime change” and impose central bank control over government spending and private sector investment flows in order to launch a dramatic shift into “green finance,” sometimes called the Great Reset.
QE5 (quantitative easing) started on Oct. 4, 2019. The COVID pandemic then cut off production across the world, prompting the Federal Reserve and the -European Central Bank to launch in March 2020 a completely unprecedented pace of QE of more than $250 billion/month between them. The so-called “Green New Deal” was driven forward, which reduced productivity, cut production of all fossil fuels, and spread energy chaos. In a “Fed-Treasury partnership” bro
kered by BlackRock, Inc. the U.S. Treasury borrowed $5 trillion in “COVID relief” funds in a year through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Act, to drive private sector spending.
The worldwide collapse of production and productivity, since very early in 2020, continues. At the same time, the $14 trillion provided by the money-printing policy meant that the Triple Curve collapse function would now end in a combina
tion of economic breakdown and an explosion of inflation. And in fact, in just the two years between July 2019 and July 2021, commodities’ prices rapidly skyrocketed: agricul tural commodities rose by 20-25% and most others in the range of 20-50% (but some up to 250%). As for energy commodities, the inflation has accelerated further from July until this present end of October. This is the hyperinflation ary process described by LaRouche’s ’Triple Curve” collapse function.
“Stop the Great Gas Shock Swindle” The reality laid out in the slug above is addressed in a proposal that the Schiller Institute is circulating worldwide, titled “To avoid freezing on Christmas and Starving in Spring, Stop the Great Gas Shock Swindle. The current “gas shock”, the pro posal warns, “will not only loot your savings, but also create a shock wave that will destroy the physical economy on which
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT 2 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER n°44 / 2021
the very survival of mankind depends. Zinc and aluminum, whose production requires much energy, suddenly are pro duced ‘at a loss’.
“Worse, the production of fertilizers, the prices of which were doubled and even tripled in the U.S.A. and in Europe, has been ground to a halt. Farmers are desperate to find and pay the ingredients they need for the next wheat harvest: without fertilizer, the yields will drop by an estimated 40% and the quality might drop to the level of animal feed!
“To allow such a destruction of agriculture at a time when the World Food Program is warning of famines of ‘biblical di mensions’, when 23 million people in Afghanistan are in acute danger of starvation, and hundreds of millions more around the globe, this is condoning genocide! Governments must put ‘the markets’ under control!
“Be prepared to starve next year, if you have survived the coming winter in the cold. Or, join us now in mobilizing the political will to apply the concrete solutions:
“1. Immediately license the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in order to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year from Russia to Europe;
“2. Exclude all financial traders from energy and food markets and put a cap on price variations, similar to what China successfully did.
“3. Withdraw all state support for speculative banks. Just as it was done with the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they are to be strictly separated from ‘normal’ banks managing deposits, savings and credits for the real economy;
“4. Replace spot market mechanisms with long-term contracts among nations. Food and energy prices should not be fixed by speculators and “markets” but among nation states engaged in long term frameworks of mutual develop
ment. That was the initial intent of FDR’s vision of the Bretton Woods agreements, but also that of Italy’s Mattei or France’s de Gaulle.
“5. Establish a ‘New Bretton Woods’ agreement, negoti ated among the major powers and the G20, to create credit for the reconstruction of the physical economy, focusing on basic infrastructure and health systems, and choosing priority targets such as crisis-ridden Afghanistan, Haiti and others.”
Nuclear Power: Is Reality Finally
Forcing a Change in Germany?
Rising energy prices with no improvement in sight, and the massive propaganda in favor of the Green Deal have contrib uted to a resurgence of pro-nuclear arguments in Germany. Some media have offered a platform for them, notably the leading tabloid Bild and Die Welt.The German polling firm CIVEY carried out an opinion poll from Sept. 9 to Oct. 25 asking whether “nuclear power should be used to reach the EU’s climate protection goals”. In all age groups, the “yes” answers were 50% or over, and the “no” answers were less than 40%, Even more interesting is that the highest percent
age of support for nuclear power came from the 18-29 year olds, at 57.7%, against 34.6% (7.7% undecided). Even in the most negative age category -- 40-49 years old – only 39.5% are anti-nuclear, against 50.0% in favor.
Then, on Nov. 1, as world leaders gathered in Glasgow, the print version of Bild carried a huge, page two headline, “Nu clear Power, Yes Please”,with a photo showing a lush green lawn with deer grazing in front of a nuclear plant. The accom
panying article points to the criticism of Germany’s decision to shut down all ““clean” nuclear power plants, and quotes to that effect German economist Hans-Werner Sinn. Former “top manager” Fritz Vahrenholt, a former anti-nuclear voice who changed positions, is also quoted saying that to fill the gap in energy production left by the planned shutdown of the six remaining nuclear power plants by 2022, “15,000 wind more turbines would have to be built”.
That figure, however, appears to be underestimated. Ac cording to the Association of Electronic Industry, one nuclear power plant in Germany alone generates almost as much elec tricity as Denmark’s 6,000 wind turbines. That implies that at least 35,000 wind turbines would have to be built to replace the 12% which nuclear power still contributes to the national energy mix. To date, Germany has 30,000 turbines in total. As for cost, the article notes that electricity from nuclear en ergy costs less than one third of what renewables do -- 2.5 cents per kilowatt/hour compared to 8-11.5 cents.
The monthly Cicero quotes the former CEO of Germany’s chemical giant BASF, Jürgen Hambrecht, who warns that just to make German chemical industry emissions-neutral would require the all of the electricity currently generated in the country. In other words: none of the “renewables” strategies will work, because Germany would live under the constant threat of blackouts.
The recklessness of Berlin’s “green agenda” also provides a wake-up call for non-EU member Switzerland. The Neue Zuercher Zeitung of Oct. 23 called on the Swiss to draw so ber conclusions: as a majority of the Swiss population voted down the government’s planned CO2 tax (cf. SAS 24/21), and since a new treaty with the EU has been rejected because of its green regulations, the Swiss will have to stand on their own two feet -- which means to consider building new nuclear power plants because wind and solar will not suffice.
France to Announce Construction
of Six New Nuclear Reactors?
On Oct. 12, just days before the opening of the COP26, French President Emmanuel Macron announced his intention to make nuclear energy the key for achieving carbon neutral ity. According to a report in the Libération daily, in the context of his plan to re-industrialize the country (“France 2030”), Macron is counting on the construction of “small innovative reactors in France”.
In parallel, the French presidency is leading a group of nine other EU member states that are urging the European Com mission to include nuclear energy in its taxonomy of energies favorable for the climate (cf. SAS 42/21).
It seems that Emmanuel Macron now plans to give a green light to the building of six new European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPR) to replace the aging ones very soon, rather than waiting until after the presidential elections in Spring of 2022.
For pro-nuclear activist Myrto Tripathi, quoted by Libéra tion: “if we want to put an end to coal and gas, we will need both EPRs and SMRs: the former to ensure the security of electricity supply, the latter to replace polluting power plants, to supply electro-intensive industrial sites, to produce green hydrogen….”
President Macron also announced a few weeks ago that France intends to build several small modular reactors (SMRs).
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT n°44 / 2021 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER 3
Each unit would be composed of two, very compact and very safe, small 170 MW reactors.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche Launches
“Operation Ibn Sina” to Save Afghani Lives The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan has reached stagger ing proportions. According to the latest Food Security report released on Oct. 26 by the UN’s FAO and WFP, some 18.8 million people are suffering from “acute food insecurity” out of a total population of 38 million. That represents a 35% in crease since their last assessment in April put the figure at 14 million. Since then, in addition to the severe drought hitting the country, as well as the chaos following the withdrawal of American and NATO forces, not only did international institu tions and western governments cut their development aid to the country following the takeover of the Taliban in August, but the $9 billion in Afghan assets held in the U.S. Federal Reserve and other banks have been frozen.
The Schiller Institute is leading a worldwide campaign to de mand the release of those funds, which rightfully belong to the Afghan people, as well as the lifting of the sanctions, which have paralyzed the banking sector and the entire economic life. Before the withdrawal of the United States, nearly 75% of all government spending was provided by international monetary organizations, which have suspended payments.
The effect on the health sector has been brutal. Until Au gust, the World Bank was funding the institution called the Sehatmandi which, with its 2,300 facilities throughout the country, provided the backbone of the health system. Today, only 390 of them are still operational. Even before the pre cipitous fall of the previous government, health care workers had not been paid for months, and medical supplies and medi cine are unbearably scarce.
UN international organizations are warning that the crisis in Afghanistan threatens to become even worse than that in Ye men, if immediate action is not taken. In that context, Helga Zepp-LaRouche announced that the Schiller Institute’s pro gram for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan would be dubbed the “Ibn Sina Operation”.
In an interview on Oct. 29 with Omar Khalid Butt on the Pakistani television station PTV, she called on the interna tional community to mobilize the emergency aid immediately needed, including the building of a modern health system. Ibn Sina (980-1037), a Persian medical doctor born in today’s Afghanistan, is considered to be the father of modern medi cine and one of the greatest scientists of the Islamic Golden Age. As she explained on PTV, all Afghans, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, and many others in the region, are proud of Ibn Sina, which can serve as a rallying point for building a better future, with adequate healthcare facilities, infrastructure, en ergy and water systems.
Another Challenge to IPCC’s
Apocalyptic Conclusions
When the International Panel on Climate Change released its latest study last August, it set off a new wave of horror sto ries in the mass media about the alleged danger of CO2 for the planet (cf. SAS 33, 34/21). Most commentators, howev er, had only read its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Since then, a review of that summary against the full report has
been carried out by CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence group initiated and headed by Guus Berkhout. consisting of nearly 100 scientists, engineers, and professionals). They found nu merous discrepancies between the two versions, which are
sufficient to challenge the proposed actions to be taken. Just a few weeks ago , the Schiller Institute and CLINTEL published a joint statement titled “A Wake-up Call! The Danger for Mankind Is Not the Climate, but Toleration of a Devious Policy that Uses Climate to Destroy Us!” (cf. SAS 41/21). It refutes the scientific and economic premises underlying the cli mate change hoax and the various “green deals” bandied by an international financial oligarchy and their dupes. We would urge our readers to circulate that statement as widely as possible. In this recent letter to the chair of the IPCC, Dr. Hoesung Lee, Guus Berkhout and Jim O’Brien, chair of the ICSF (Irish Forum on Climate Science), point to the misrepresentations of the latest objective climate science in six key areas, which they found. Firstly, they state that “It is not ‘unequivocal’ that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropo genic and natural influences.”
Secondly, the new “hockey-stick” graph is “a concoction of disparate indicators over the last 2,000 years” that fail to recognise the well-established temperature variabilities dur ing that time. The other discrepancies outlined in the letter concern the incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events (no statistically-significant trends in many categories in the re port), as well as developments in both the cryosphere and the oceans (virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice, and only a “modest rise” in the global mean sea level by 2100), and lastly, they charge that the “likely global temperature increase” does not indicate a “climate crisis.”
As a result, “We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erro neously pointing to a ‘climate crisis’ that does not exist in real ity. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic so cial, economic and human changes through severe mitigation,
while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropri ate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demon
strate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC....” They also note that the SPM “fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agri culture, forestry and human life on earth.” The full statement is available at https://clintel.org.
Save the Dates !
The next online Schiller Institute conference
will take place on November 13-14.
E.I.R. STRATEGIC ALERT www.eir.de
Published by: E.I.R.GmbH, Bahnstr. 4, 65205 Wiesbaden Tel.: 0611/73650, Fax: 0611/9740935, Email: info@eir.com Verantwortl. f. d. Inhalt: Dean Andromidas, Claudio Celani Subscription: EUR 3000/ ISSN 0936-7527
© E.I.R. GmbH Alle Rechte vorbehalten, auch die des Nachdrucks von Auszügen, derphotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, Printed in Germany
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT 4 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER n°44 / 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment