The Globalist War on Humanity and Nudging

The globalist war on humanity continues. The billionaire crowd of the World Economic Forum and U.N. cohorts are attacking humans from every angle because their goal is to reduce the global population to a billion by any means necessary in order to “save” the planet from an imagined Armageddon hundreds of years from now. They are putting in danger 345 million poor people who cannot afford to eat and heat their homes due to escalating energy prices, prices made so high through political decisions toward fossil fuels created by President Biden in his first day in office.

“A new United Nations report on hunger shows that the number of acutely hungry worldwide is increasing as fuel and food prices soar. The war in Ukraine has intensified the crisis.” https://www.dw.com/en/un-record-345-million-people-marching-to-the-brink-of-starvation/a-62389284

Human behavior is regulated and controlled by a small group of people who know better what is best for humanity in order to sustain life on planet Earth which is an imagined danger. Such dire predictions have been made constantly for the past hundreds of years, none of them proven true, all of them based on computer modeling and assumptions made by persons who do not have the scientific qualifications to make such dire predictions.

According to some, the global population would serve the future planet best at half a billion or a billion people. What exactly are they planning for the other 6-7 billion humans?

Paul Ehrlich wrote in 1968 his book, “The Population Bomb,” advocating for a “green revolution” as a way to avoid world-wide famine. He wrote that “in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

As I remember the 1970s, the western economies did well, and nobody starved to death. On the other hand, people living under communism in various countries did suffer from hunger and malnutrition due to poor economic planning and political ideology. Currently, it appears that the green politicians and billionaires from developed nations are causing world-wide famine.

Ehrlich argued that there cannot be more people on Earth than we can feed. “Clearly, other things being equal, fewer people will do less damage to the planet.” … “Population growth puts increased pressure on everything else …”

One of the subtle goals of U.N. Agenda 21/2030 has been to “nudge” people to behave the way globalists think we should behave. Nudge is a concept in behavioral economics and other fields.

The nudge concept was popularized in the 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Nudge units exist at the national level as well as international level such as World Bank, United Nations, and the European Commission.

If nudging is unsuccessful, authorities move to unsustainable rhetoric, change economic policy to affect pricing, supply and demand, tax the undesirable behavior, and enforce punishments for those who violate directives.

One example of nudging, presented as helping consumers save energy and money on gas bills, came from our gas company. They compared our gas use to other homes in the area (shaming or praising) and attempted to “explain” why our gas use was higher than the previous year, i.e., “using more hot water than usual or a long-term guest may have raised your energy use.” There was no mention of the fact that temperatures may have been colder or that older people cannot afford to drop temperature in their homes 5-8 degrees F from 68 degrees recommended because they would get sick.

Such intrusion disguised as a home energy report raised alarm bells in my mind. I recognize this nudging and shaming/praising because in my former life under communism, activists would visit homes and urge wearing extra layers of clothing in frigid temperatures inside our apartments, all for the good of the country. The commies in power were warm in their abodes. No matter how little gas or water we received on the strict daily schedule, we were using too much, they said.

As good citizens, the communists told us, we were to sacrifice more - cook less, bathe less, and shiver, they said. "We are building a socialist man." Eventually, they were not nudging us anymore; they were threatening us with punishment if we did not comply like good little collectivists.

 

The war in Ukraine and deliberate policies from Washington to make fossil fuels scarce and very expensive in order to discourage consumption and make room for their green energy, wind and solar, have made people in poor countries even poorer and right down desperate. For example, in Romania, energy prices are huge. The minimum income is $400-500 per month, yet the average December natural gas bill and electricity were a combined 2,900 lei, approximately $750.

 

Before the U.S. became a crony capitalist economy protected by the political class, goods and services were delivered abundantly, based on supply and demand, and a company did not care how much consumers used any product or service as long as they paid for them. We certainly had plenty of natural gas, there was no shortage until the “green” globalists decided to advance their green energy agenda to the detriment of fossil fuels.

 

The insidious side of nudging may not be obvious to the young and old who prefer a communist economy to a capitalist economy. But they must be careful what they wish for. Once they are under globalist [read communist] control fully, it will be impossible to vote it out at the increasingly globalist-controlled ballot box.

 

 

My Rant

Romania is practically in the backyard of both Ukraine and Russia. As such, the Romanian people had to accept Ukrainian refugees and to live in fear of an eventual Russian occupation. Strangely though, non-western sources reported that more Ukrainian refugees have sought refuge in Russia than anywhere else in Europe.

Lately, Romanians are up in arms because, as part of EU, they must tighten their belts too and reduce electricity consumption in order to satisfy the EU-regime's demands that they all punish Putin and place economic sanctions on purchases from Gazprom gas.

I am not sure that the EU elites have consulted their citizens in making such a decision. After all, the elites are not going to suffer during any harsh winter when the temperatures will drop – they will be cozy in their well-heated mansions.

The German grocery chains in Romania, to be in lockstep with the directives from the EU-mother ship, are reducing their daily operating hours in order to consume less electricity and natural gas.

Romanians who had lived and suffered under the communist regime’s draconian shortages of electricity, water, natural gas, and hot water, are in fear of finding themselves again in the dark and cold like they were under the brutal and inept communist control of Ceausescu and his Bolshevik cronies.

The younger population fears nothing – they were not alive during such horrible times. Generation Z and others, tethered to TikTok and social media via smart devices, are enchanted by the fact that there are some NATO troops, especially American, on Romanian soil at the air base in Kogalniceanu.

They are sure that the NATO troops, especially the Americans, would defend the country against an onslaught from Russia, should the crazy Putin decide to invade. Older generations are too lulled into a false sense of security under the banner that used to be true during WWII period, "the Americans are coming, and they will save us."

Falling Oil Prices and the Climate Change Agenda

The latest falling oil prices to $55.96 (West Texas Intermediate), dropping from a high of $105 per barrel in June 2014, as a result of increased domestic oil production from fracking, is making the price of $150 per barrel of renewables look ridiculously expensive, not counting the wasted government subsidies in bankrupt solar power companies. The green agenda, which has become a climate change industry, is very lucrative for wealthy climate alarmists and for the United Nations.

Dick Morris said, “The oil price drop is really gutting Obama’s green agenda.” And the reasons are clear:

-          There is no longer a dire need to fund the green agenda

-          There is no climate change other than natural changes occurring over the millennia

-          There is no need to dole out the $3 billion dollars U.S. promised to fund U.N.’s International Climate Fund, a foreign aid slush fund to distribute money to third world dictators in the name of environmental justice; fortunately, Congress has stripped the $3 billion dollars from the budget

-          Natural gas is replacing coal at a faster pace, with half the emissions

-          The administration and progressives can no longer use the faux outrage against oil companies

-          Domestic oil production is destroying the dependence on foreign oil, while OPEC revenues are dropping precipitously

Despite multiple evidence of climate change/global warming fraudulent data and claims, United Nations just concluded its most recent meeting to promote their profitable climate change industry.

According to Newsmax, on December 11, 2014, Walt Cunningham, Craig Rucker, and Marc Morano were rushed from stage after 18 minutes of their approved 30 minute talk at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Lima, Peru.

The three were told to “wrap up” their talk in order to accommodate U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who was there to promote the U.N. climate treaty (LOST) which failed ratification by the Senate. With all the serious geo-political and economic issues facing humanity, Kerry said that “climate change may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet.”

Marc Morano of Climate Depot reported that after the three speakers left, the room remained vacant for 35 minutes. Executive Director Craig Rucker from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) said, “We are one of the few skeptical voices of reason here at the conference. To interrupt our press conference smacks of a cheap form of censorship.” In his opinion, based on factual data explained in the pamphlet “Global Warming: Facts Versus Faith,” climate alarmism is “one of the biggest frauds in the field of science.”

Walt Cunningham, a NASA astronaut who flew with the Apollo 7 mission in 1968, told the United Nations that “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Earth’s climate history indicates CO2 is not a major factor in climate change. The U.N. has twisted science in order to enrich itself and inflate its own importance.”

Craig Rucker continued, “It is mind-boggling that, as the world rushes toward adopting a climate agreement, the alleged scientific ‘consensus’ behind global warming is being blown apart. With Antarctic sea ice at record high numbers, polar bears thriving, and no global warming for 18 years and two months, you would think there would be a need to pause and reconsider the evidence for a climate catastrophe.”

As I’ve stated in my book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy, the global warming/climate change agenda did not spring overnight, it has a long history of deception, its insidious and highly profitable agenda covers every facet of our society, it is a master plan of global wealth redistribution, and it will take a miracle to dismantle it. http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy/dp/0615716474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419266185&sr=1-1&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy

 

 

 

 

Abundant Energy Supply Strangled by Environmentally Driven Regulations

The Committee on Energy and Commerce convened on March 25, 2014 to hear testimony on H.R. 6, the “Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act,” introduced by Rep. Cory Gardner. This bill was precipitated by the Energy Information Administration’s statement that “America’s natural gas has been raising since 2006. EIA projects such increases to continue through 2040, and expects domestic production of natural gas to remain well above domestic demand.” 

Chairman Fred Upton believes that our natural gas surplus is needed by “our allies around the world” and we should engage in “a mutually beneficial trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG).” In his opinion, federal policy has not yet “adjusted to the new reality of American energy abundance, and in fact Obama administration red tape often stands in the way of the potential benefits of the energy boom.”

Besides job creation at home, “constructing and running the LNG export facilities and additional energy industry jobs as natural gas producers expand their output to meet the increase in demand,” Chairman Upton believes that H.R. 6 would help Ukraine and Eastern and Central European countries who are dependent on Russian natural gas. Russia would have less “leverage over these nations” and prices of LNG would come down. https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/hr-6-domestic-prosperity-and-global-freedom-act

The Hoover Institution agreed that “the hydrocarbon boom in the United States has been driven by fracking.” Shale-gas production through fracking in North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York accounts for 44 percent of total U.S. natural gas output. http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/170026

Predictions in the 1970s indicating that America would run out of natural gas were wrong. Even the production of oil fell (1990-2008), increasing our oil dependency on imports from unstable and hostile nations. The International Energy Agency reported that in 2013 U.S. production of crude oil increased by 991,000 barrels a day and oil imports declined by 16 percent.

Newsmax.com wrote that “America produced an average of about 12.1 million barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and biofuels a day in 2013 – that’s 300,000 barrels a day more than Saudi Arabia and 1.6 million more than Russia, the two previous leaders.”

Gary D. Libecap, Economics professor at the University of California and research fellow at Hoover Institution, said that “fracking and natural gas production have been good for the economy, good for democracies worldwide, and good for the environment.” Environmentalists would probably disagree since complaints have been lodged with the EPA about the deleterious effects on soil and ground water from fracking and horizontal drilling.

Energy experts believe that the Obama administration slows or prevents drilling on federal lands by delaying and denying permits. Consequently, production on federal lands fell 23 percent since 2007. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the federal government owns 28 percent of U.S. land, 62 percent in Alaska and 47 percent in 11 western states. http://www.ipi.org/

The current administration chooses instead to concentrate on very expensive and insufficient wind and solar energy generation, particularly solar. In addition to the 34 failed green companies funded with taxpayer dollars, of which Solyndra was the poster child of a $535 million colossal failure, the Aqua Caliente Solar Project in Yuma, Arizona takes the top spot with $967 million in federal loans. Yuma has an unemployment rate of 26.1 percent. So far, the Yuma project created 10 permanent jobs. When completed at the end of this year, the solar facility will have 16 permanent employees. It will only cost taxpayers $60.4 million per job creation. http://lastresistance.com/5226/obama-spends-967-million-create-10-solar-energy-jobs/

Fracking on the other hand, creates real jobs and helps towns like Midland, Texas to increase per capita income three times the national average and to reduce unemployment to a low 2.9 percent, while extracting oil which is needed to produce energy and to run our large economy.

Because the current administration believes that carbon pollution drives climate change, the proposed budget for FY 2015 includes a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund to fight man-made (anthropogenic) global warming. Our electricity generation from “dirty” coal will then be curtailed by EPA’s expensive job-killing and coal fire-plant closing regulations and we will be stuck with huge electric bills and potential shortages.  

Our way of life depends on electricity - lights, refrigerators, air conditioning, furnaces, computers, internet, radios, TVs, ATMs, banks, grocery stores, cell phones, chargers, medical devices, life support systems, operating rooms, gas pumps, electric cars, plants, farms, refineries, water purification, sewer systems – 68 percent is generated by fossil fuels, 20 percent by nuclear, and 7 percent by hydro power. http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2014/03/22/us-electricity-system-in-regulatory-and-terrorist-crosshairs-n1812722/page/full

According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), net energy generation from coal has dropped from 49 percent in 2007 to 37 percent in 2012. Right now, the shortage is partly offset by increases in natural gas.

EPA’s retrofitting regulations and the requirement to use non-existent carbon capture technology, has resulted in coal fire plant closures. This prompted Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, to propose an amendment to H.R. 3826 (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3826)

that would make sure that EPA’s standards for all types of new power plants use existing technology.  Rep. Smith said, “By requiring carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that doesn’t even exist, the EPA’s new power plant proposal effectively bans new coal power. There is no coal power plant anywhere in the world that can meet the EPA’s radical proposal.” http://schweikert.house.gov/press-releases/rep-schweikert-cosponsors-amendment-to-curb-epa-overreach-on-power-plant-emissions-standards/

Robert Romano explained that “largely as a result of coal plant closures, overall electricity generation in the U.S. has dropped from 4.005 trillion kWh in 2007 to 3.89 trillion kWh in 2012, meanwhile end use has only decreased from 3.89 trillion kWh to just 3.832 trillion kWh. The difference between electricity generation and end use, or implied spare capacity, has dropped from 115 billion kWh to 58 billion kWh from 2007-2012.” This decrease of 50 percent is troublesome - steady demand would cause eventual brownouts. http://netrightdaily.com/2014/03/epa-lost-mind/#ixzz2vaOr9QUP

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), approximately 11.5 million American homes use wood burning stoves for heat. EPA issued new rules on emissions of particles and gases released from residential wood stoves and other wood-fired heaters built after 2015 and the rules will be more stringent in five years.  EPA “estimates that 85,695 wood stoves will be manufactured and sold in 2015.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-moves-to-regulate-new-wood-stoves/2014/01/03/b08cb232-7484-11e3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html

The airborne particulates allowed change from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12. Bob Adelman put it in proper perspective, “Secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed-car exposes a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.”  According to John Crouch of the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, particulate pollution from wood burning stoves often occurs because consumers use insufficiently dried wood.

I wrote about cook stoves in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” The drive to replace cook stoves with “clean cook stoves” with chimneys came from the United Nations and translated into grants of $100,000 to $750,000 awarded by the Department of Energy through the “Clean Biomass Cook stove Technologies” initiative.  The grants were intended to help 100 million households in third world countries by 2020. http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396282329&sr=1-1&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy

Two studies evaluated the “clean cook stoves” and found that they delivered the same amount of measured pollution as the previous stoves. RESPIRA (Randomized Exposure Study of Pollution Indoors) showed improved air quality but not overall health.  “Up in Smoke,” a much larger study from MIT showed same amount of measured pollution and no significant change in overall health. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is forging ahead with studies in Ghana, Nepal, and Kenya in spite of the two studies’ results.

Should our power grid fail because of a solar flare, EMP, cyber, or terrorist attack, we will experience a civilization setback and population demise that is hard to fathom. While our administration concentrates on environmental issues, on April 16, 2013, terrorists attacked a power substation near San Jose, California as reported by the Wall Street Journal on February 5, 2014.  The fact that this very important piece of information was not reported by the media until a year later is disturbing. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778

Terrorists cut fiber optic cables and destroyed 17 transformers by causing them to leak oil coolant, resulting in overheating and failure. The targeted attack which lasted one hour indicated that the terrorists were very knowledgeable. The repairs took 27 days. Those maintaining the grid were able to reroute power and avoid blackouts.

Electricity is delivered to us through “a complex, interconnected system of power lines, substations, and transformers called the power grid. The entire United States is divided into just three separate grid segments: East, West, and Texas.” (Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek)

Billions are spent on “climate change prevention,” and on expensive smart meters that endanger and harm our health and attack our privacy, while our complex grid is easy prey to sabotage and attacks, protected only by cameras and chain link fences. It is not just that electricity prices must “necessarily skyrocket,” as our President promised, our grid is a sitting duck to potential attacks, and our energy production is being reduced significantly by overly stringent EPA regulations.

 

Butler on Business, February 21, 2014

Liberty Express Radio - my seven minutes on Ukraine with Alan Butler. I come on at the 2.5 minute mark.
http://host1.cyberears.com//24711.mp3

The Unsolicited Opinion on Executive Order on Natural Gas

http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-04-19-12.mp3
Radio commentary on Executive Order on Natural Gas. I come on in the second hour.

Power Grab for Natural Gas - New Executive Order

It is Friday the 13. If you are superstitious, then the new Executive Order issued today, “Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources” must give you pause.

The order states, “While natural gas production is carried out by private firms, and States are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas activities, the Federal Government has an important role to play by regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, encouraging greater use of natural gas in transportation, supporting research and development aimed at improving the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities, and setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement Federal law and augment State safeguards.”

Because natural gas produced 25 percent of our energy in 2011, the federal government must control this source of energy in order to deliver on the promise of making gasoline prices rise to $10 per gallon, bankrupt the coal industry, and cause energy prices to skyrocket.

An interagency working group is tasked to “facilitate coordinated Administration policy efforts to support safe and responsible unconventional domestic natural gas development.” This working group bureaucracy will be chaired by the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and has several curious members that have no direct involvement with natural gas production:

 

-          the Department of Defense

-          the Department of the Interior

-          the Department of Agriculture

-          the Department of Commerce

-          the Department of Health and Human Services

-          the Department of Transportation

-          the Department of Energy

-          the Department of Homeland Security

-          the Environmental Protection Agency

-          the Council on Environmental Quality

-          the Office of Science and Technology Policy

-          the Office of Management and Budget

-          the National Economic Council

The Chair may invite other agencies or offices to participate in the working group.  The working group will “support [read control] the safe and responsible production of domestic unconventional natural gas by performing the following functions: coordinate agency policy activities, share scientific, environmental, technical and economic information, coordination with federal government in long-term planning, and “consult with other agencies as appropriate.”

The White House Blog explains this new bureaucracy as a step in eliminating “redundancy.” What is there redundant about each state controlling and exploring their natural gas? The federal government is concerned, since natural gas volumetric exploration in 2011 was so large, it eclipsed the all-time high production record of 1973, it must “ensure that we can successfully tap this critical resource for decades to come, we must develop it safely and responsibly.” Translation, we must control it and reduce its production so that our air and water are safe according to the EPA dictates. This is interesting because natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy.  

The White House Blog continues, “At the same time, as the administration develops a framework for safe and responsible production that builds on steps already taken by states across the country, we must ensure that those efforts continue to happen in a coordinated way.”

There we have it; we cannot let states continue business as usual. We must interfere and impose federal power and control over the states. We cannot let cheap natural gas interfere with our plan for expensive alternative sources of energy. Fossil fuels and frakking are tampering with our power grab plans.