To understand the diabolical nature of the Davos deities, read this book.
This is not the first book to appear in recent times critiquing the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and related matters. Some of these volumes I have already reviewed. But this is the newest and perhaps the best. At nearly 500 pages, the collection of essays found here is first-rate.
The editor has assembled a great lineup of leading intellectual heavyweights, including Douglas Murray, Victor Davis Hanson, Conrad Black, Roger Kimball, Angelo Codevilla, David Goldman and a number of others. All upthe book has 16 important essays, plus introductory and concluding pieces by Walsh.
All the key issues are examined here: Covid tyranny, socialism, globalism, economics, politics, China and the social credit system, Big Tech, national sovereignty, the WHO, the WEF, Schwab, Bill Gates, critical theory, green energy, population matters, politicised science, cultural Marxism, climate alarmism, health fascism and so much more.
It is good that all the bases are so carefully covered here. Given the rapid pace at which the nefarious agenda items of the Davos elitists are being realised, this book could not be more timely. The plans the activists have for their globalist utopia are not something that lies ahead — all this is already well underway.
Walsh explains early on why such a volume is so very much needed. It will be too late if we wait around for the history books to look back on the Great Reset. The issue NOW is whether “the formerly free world of the Western democracies will succumb to the paternalistic totalitarianism of the oligarchical Resetters.”
He is right to speak of how the secular left West is so receptive to all this: “In an age of atheism and disbelief, note the religious fervour of neo- and cultural-Marxism and the messianic quality of Schwab’s anti-humanistic Great Reset.” Quite so. Once you ditch Christianity, plenty of false religions will rush in to take its place.
His closing paragraph nicely informs us of just where we are heading in the Schwabian dystopia:
“The satraps of Davos don’t want to simply reset a post-Covid world. Or a post-fossil fuels world. Or even a post-racial world. They want to run it, forever, and while they no longer have need of a god, they’ll always need an enemy. They may not believe in a power higher than themselves, but they certainly believe in demons, and their most irksome devil is you.”
Others pick up on the quasi-religious nature of all this. As Hanson puts it in his essay, “When ‘great’ is applied to a proposed transnational comprehensive revolution, we should also equate it with near-religious zealotry.” Marxism and radical greenism have both been pseudo-religions, and they come together in the Great Reset.
He and others of course note how Schwab and Co have capitalised on Covid, and want the whole world under their thumb in order to ‘keep us safe’ from further pandemics, including climate change disasters they assure us are just around the corner.
Many of the writers give us terrific descriptions of who these folks are and what they want. But I especially like how Conrad Black characterises our Davos Divines:
Davos is for democracy, as long as everyone votes for increased public sector authority in pursuit of green egalitarianism and the homogenization of all peoples in a conformist world. …
The Covid-19 pandemic caused Davos Man to break out of his Alpine closet and reveal the secret but suspected plan: the whole world is to become a giant Davos — humorless, style-less, unspontaneous, unrelievedly materialistic, as long as the accumulation and application of capital is directed by the little Alpine gnomes of Davos and their underlings and disciples.
John Tierney carefully looks at how science and medicine were politicised during Covid, and concludes his chapter with this dismal outlook:
The Great Reseters will create jobs for the laptop class and subsidies for crony capitalists while stifling the economic growth that lifts people out of poverty. While promising “environmental justice,” they will burden the poor and the despised middle class with regressive taxes and higher energy costs. Their war on fossil fuels will be devastating to sub-Saharan Africa, where half the homes still lack electricity, but it won’t stop technocrats from flying to Davos for conferences on “climate equity.”
Hmm, did we not pretty much see all of that during the past few years? We will just be getting more of the same. The elites then, as during the past few years, will not feel any ill effects from this. It is us mere peons who will fully face the awful consequences.
Revisionism and Fake Compassion
History of course is under attack here. As Jeremy Black writes:
History’s place at the fore of culture wars is no surprise. The destruction of alternative values, of the sense of continuity, and of anything short of a self-righteous presentist internationalism, is central to the attempt at a “Great Reset”.
Moreover, in a variety of forms, including cultural Marxism and, particularly and very noisily at present, critical race theory, such a “reset” is part of a total assault on the past, one that is explicitly designed to lead the present, and determine the future.
With the assault on history goes an assault on open discussion and free debate. He continues:
“What is possibly most striking is the apparent suspension of any real sense of critique of the new order. Maybe, debate is so beneath you when you possess all truth. Much better just to steamroll people into compliance. Debate is seen as oppressive. Those who hold contrasting views are readily dismissed and shunned…”
Of course, freedom itself is going to be the biggest casualty here. As Walsh says in his concluding piece: “The Great Reset’s gambit is to mask and cloak itself, like an obedient handmaiden, in good intentions while stealing you blind and enslaving you. It positively radiates concern for its billions of fellow men even as it consigns them to indefinite house arrest.”
But on a lighter note, humourist Harry Stein manages to find a ray of hope in all this:
When the Soviets banned typewriters, the good guys produced samizdat by hand and continued on with the business of undermining an empire. We’ve now got podcasts and Substack and the emergence of alternative social-media platforms. We’ve got Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais, and The Babylon Bee. The truth is, we couldn’t be more fortunate in our enemy.
Dissident wise guys looking to bring down the Iron Curtain had only the likes of anabolic women weightlifters and a glowering Leonid Brezhnev as material, but in our current war with the elites we’ve got high school “girl” track stars with balls, a non compos mentis Biden, and largely peaceful demonstrators trashing our history and burning down our cities. Tell me that isn’t funny. Better yet, tell it to Klaus Schwab and his band of anti-merry men. We’re already laughing at them, too!
It should be noted that a wide spectrum of views is found here with the authors. Sure, they all oppose Schwab and the Davos madness big time. But other differences exist. Consider religious convictions: we have Christians and non-Christians writing here. Walsh for example prefers talking in terms of ‘Greek and Roman’ instead of ‘Judeo-Christian’. Contrast that with how James Poulos concludes his helpful chapter on Big Tech.
He says our “technoethical elites” are worried about whether they can “wield powers denied them by God. In this fateful moment, our digital politics is revealed to be a spiritual war. To survive victorious, we must remember: the greatest spiritual weapon against errant human reset is divine revelation.”
In sum, the revolutionaries always want to create a new world order, but always end up destroying man and civilisation in the process. Nothing new here. But the Davos elites have no interest in history. We should, however. If we will not learn from history, the prospect looks very bleak indeed. Hopefully, a volume like this will wake up enough people to take a united and forceful stand against this great globalist evil.
Between 6-18th November, the UN climate conference COP27 was held on the Sinai Peninsula in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. What may not be so well-known is that religious leaders from across the three monotheistic faiths signed the “Jerusalem Climate Declaration” just prior to the climate conference. Their stated aim was to encourage and empower religious communities around the world to curb climate change.
It has been revealed that at the conference, interfaith leaders also gathered to call for “climate justice and a ceremony of repentance”, during which a “New Ten Commandments” was conceived. The organisations responsible for co-ordinating this were: the Elijah Interfaith Institute and its Board of World Religious Leaders; the Interfaith Centre for Sustainable Development (ICSD); the Peace Department, a US non-profit; and climate activist Yosef Abramowitz.
The newly developed “Ten Principles for Climate Repentance” are:
We are stewards of this world
Creation manifests divinity
Everything in life is interconnected
Do no harm
Look after tomorrow
Rise above ego for our world
Change our inner climate
Repent and return
Every action matters
Use mind, open heart
Long in the Making
However, the new 10 commandments are not so new. The 10 commandments of climate change were devised some time ago by Pope Francis. An article from 2015 cites Pope Francis calling for a ‘cultural revolution’ to halt the ‘disturbing warming of our planet’. The actual document is 184 pages, but the summarised commandments can be seen here.
It is no surprise that Pope Francis is a leading voice in promoting the coming together of world religions to address what is widely perceived as an existential crisis. He has always encouraged interreligious dialogue and collaboration. This was clearly demonstrated in the first ever ‘Pope Video’ message on his ‘Monthly Prayer Intentions’ (2016), where he makes the assertion that regardless of religion, we are all children of God:
“Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God.”
The video features representatives of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, who proclaim their respective beliefs in God, Jesus Christ, Allah and Buddha; and who then declare their common belief in “love”. See here:
Scripture, however, disagrees with the Pope — we are not all children of God.
“The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognise Him.He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” ~ John 1:9-13
Moses, the Ten Commandments, and Religious Environmentalism
In our times, the focus of this interfaith movement appears to be what is commonly termed the “climate crisis”.
One of the plans was to hold a large ceremony of repentance on Jabal Musa (purportedly the biblical Mt Sinai site). However, only a small group of faith leaders were allowed due to security concerns. As we know, Mt Sinai is a sacred place of revelation. It was the place where God’s Ten Commandments were revealed to Moses and written by the finger of God on two stone tablets.
On one of Moses’ Mt Sinai ascensions, he was away so long that the Israelites, thinking he may have perished, demanded Aaron make an idol for them to worship and to go before them as their god. Aaron made a golden calf, and the people rejoiced. When God revealed this to Moses, he descended in a rage, and witnessing the celebrations, smashed the stone tablets in anger — perhaps to demonstrate how badly the Israelites had broken God’s Law.
In a mock representation of this historic event, climate activist Yosef Abramowitz smashed two tablets atop Jabal Musa to symbolise the world’s lack of action on climate change. In doing so, Yosef was expressing anger at man’s disregard for the earth, rather than man’s rebellion against God’s eternal Law (as per Moses’s action). One of these tablets was painted with the words “broken promises” in Hebrew; the other was painted green to symbolise the “green commandments”.
Yosef Abramowitz smashes tablets atop Jebel Musa in Egypt, thought by some to be the site of Mount Sinai, to symbolize the world’s lack of action on climate change, November 13, 2022. (Sue Surkes/Times of Israel)
“The Climate Crisis is a Spiritual Crisis”
Rabbi Yonatan Neril, the founder of the ICSD, stated:
“The climate crisis is a spiritual crisis and therefore we need the world’s religious leaders to address the problem. We will do everything to unite as many religious leaders as possible in the world to act on the climate issue.”
The interfaith re-dress of the “climate crisis” has now been initiated, with representatives of all the world’s major religions gathering on Nov 13th simultaneously in London, Sharm El Sheikh, Jerusalem and other locations around the world to hold a Climate Repentance Ceremony.
It’s interesting to note that the places chosen are the high points: London’s Parliament Hill, and high points in Jerusalem, Salt Lake City, Ecuador, Australia, India’s Mt Abu, and Mt St Francis in Indiana. Biblically speaking, the high places were the sites of pagan rituals.
Here, the leaders walked together in a “prayerful, penitential march” with scrolls bearing the Ten Principles for Climate Repentance. This was followed by a planned series of climate change events for religious leaders all over the world: uniting for the sake of the planet.
Global religious leaders on Parliament Hill, the highest point in London, with scrolls in hand.
Creation Care vs Gaia Worship
All Christians agree that God has commanded us to be good stewards of the earth, and in this, we could certainly do better. Care for God’s creation is supported by a number of passages in the Bible: the original call to stewardship being in Genesis:
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” ~ Genesis 1:28
Others include (not an exhaustive list): Leviticus 25:23-24; Ezekiel 34:2-4; Isaiah 24:4-6; Jeremiah 2:7; and Revelation 11:18.
And so, there is no dispute that we are charged to look after the planet we live on. However, God’s first two commandments clearly state that we are to have no other gods before Him and are not to make idols. Therefore, questions need to be asked regarding the spirit of this movement. Have God’s commandments been replaced by new commandments? Has the earth become an object of worship rather than stewardship?
There is no doubt that in addition to emotional manipulation, religious language and imagery are being used by this movement: new prophets, new commandments, new covenant, and even a new “Eco Bible” (an Amazon Kindle #1 best seller) are examples. A quick google search will also reveal an ever-increasing and evolving pantheistic worldview, through the popularity of Gaia worship and other manifestations of earth worship, which emphasise worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.
What appears is be occurring is that our “climate crisis” is acting as a catalyst for a new religion embraced by many belief systems. This new religion is a non-judgemental, feel-good religion of ecumenism and inclusion, and acceptance of all people and all lifestyles. Notably, the only exception — the only people being rejected — are the followers of Jesus Christ.
God Never Forgets His Covenant
Regardless of this humanistic movement, and the object of worship that unites them, it’s comforting to know that God remains in control. He is sovereign and rules over the earth, its climate and all the events to come:
And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember My covenant between Me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” ~ Genesis 9:12-16
So Joe Biden went there. To borrow a phrase, he said the green part out loud. On November 4, he pronounced of coal plants, “We’re going to be shutting these plants down all across America.” Immediately, the Republican National Committee tweeted, “Joe Biden celebrates coal plant workers losing their jobs.” Then Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) fired back in defense of his state, and the White House then backtracked, albeit in a grudging way, saying that Biden’s comments had been “twisted.” In point of fact, they weren’t twisted at all: Biden was quite specific in his comments about the defects of coal. As he said on the 4th:
I was in Massachusetts about a month ago on the site of the largest old coal plant in America.Guess what? It cost them too much money. They can’t count. No one is building new coal plants because they can’t rely on it.
We can surmise what happened. Biden was in Massachusetts, got a dose of green propaganda (beyond what he hears at the office every day), and then said it out loud. But voters were paying attention, so it blew up–and so Biden’s words were blown away. But then on November 6, Biden blew up again, saying, “No more drilling. There is no more drilling.”
Since the recent midterm elections, which Biden clearly regards as a vindication for his approach, he’s been at it again. Asked by a reporter at the White House if he planned to do anything differently in the next two years, he answered, “Nothing.” Then he flew (by carbon-fuel-burning jet) to the COP27 climate change conference in Egypt to declare, “It’s more urgent than ever that we double down on our climate commitments” on climate change. Indeed, he rededicated his “urgency of the need to transition the world of its dependence on fossil fuels.” Take that, West Virginia! (And Texas, Wyoming, and on and on.)
President Joe Biden speaks at the UNFCCC COP27 climate conference on November 11, 2022, in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Perhaps as much as anything, it will be energy–from jobs for energy workers to revenues from energy states to gasoline prices–that could define the fate of Biden’s presidency. It’s happened before to a U.S. president.
Supply and Demand One, Biden Zero
On October 19, President Joe Biden patted himself on the back for bringing down gasoline prices, but added, with a tone of threat in his voice, “they’re not falling fast enough.”The Biden administration has, indeed, been jawboning the oil companies on prices, trying to cajole them down. And on October 31, Biden took his rhetoric up a notch, accusing the oil companies of “war profiteering””
Yet since angry words from the president haven’t been working well enough to cut prices (no surprise), the administration has continued with another midterm-election-minded strategy: emptying out the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).This unprecedented politicization of the SPR led former Texas governor and U.S. energy secretary Rick Perry to declare, “It is unacceptable for the Biden administration to use our emergency oil reserves as a political tool to temporarily lower gas prices ahead of the election.”
Like it or not, the Bidenites are doing it.One architect of this plan is White House chief of staff Ron Klain, who wakes up at 3:30 a.m. every morning to check gasoline prices as part of his own very ambitious social-media operation.On October 27, he tweeted news of a gasoline-price dip and added a chortle: “It’s time to update the narrative.”
Klain’s SPR-steering may work to help the Democrats on November 8, but only if the voters don’t know what’s coming.As the New York Timesreported on October 25, “U.S. officials are bracing for another potential price surge in December, if a European embargo on Russian oil goes into effect and the Saudis refuse to increase oil production to make up for the anticipated reduction in supply.”In other words, it’s possible that the Biden administration will be able to time a price-decline just in time for the election.But after that, watch out.(In the meantime, Klain really ought to be known as the White House chief of campaigning.A watchdog group, America First Legal Foundation, noticed a May 22 tweet which included the pitch, “Get your Democrats Deliver merch today!”America First filed a complaint, arguing that such partisan spieling violates the Hatch Act.)
Klain’s best spin notwithstanding, the fact remains that U.S. gasoline prices are up about 60 percent since Biden took office.This should be no surprise, since oil prices are up 70 percent.
So what to do?Democrats who don’t control the SPR are sticking with that old standby: demagoguery.For instance, California governor Gavin Newsom has regularly attacked energy companies and pledges to hold them “accountable.”Newsom is widely seen as a possible candidate for president, perhaps as soon as 2024.And two other once-and-perhaps-future Democratic presidential hopefuls, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, also want the government to investigate Big Oil (and, for good measure, the wheat market, because you never what Big Wheat is up to).
Valero’s new profits are out. They experienced a 500% increase in profits this year.
So why are gas prices so high? Time to hold these oil companies accountable.
Yet the facts of energy rebut the demagoguery.Today, U.S. oil production is down about ten percent from its peak under former president Donald Trump.And while U.S. natural gas production is up slightly, the curve of increase has flattened.It’s plain as day that American energy production has been stifled, and this at a time when it’s much needed.
That’s because oil and gas imports to the West from another big producer, Russia, have been all but eliminated by the Ukraine War.Which is why energy prices in Europe went parabolic, bankrupting venerable companies.In such a situation, a sellers’ market, one would expect producers to produce more.And that would be happening, except for two things: the Biden administration’s foreign policy, and its domestic policy.
President Joe Biden greets Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at Alsalam Royal Palace in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on July 15, 2022. (Royal Court of Saudi Arabia/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
On foreign policy, Biden went to Saudi Arabia in July to ask the Saudis to increase production, thereby pushing down prices.And yet even the Main Stream Media had to admit that the trip was a bust for Biden.It seems that his long-expressed hostility to Saudi Arabia—back in 2019, he called it a “pariah”—has poisoned the U.S.-Saudi relationship, at least for as long as Biden is in the White House.Indeed, in the wake of Biden’s visit, the oil kingdom actually cut production.Oof.The anti-woke investor-activist Vivek Ramaswamy sums it up: “The U.S. President goes hat-in-hand begging foreign dictators to produce more oil when we could simply be doing more of it right here at home.”
The U.S. President goes hat-in-hand begging foreign dictators to produce more oil when we could simply be doing more of it right here at home. pic.twitter.com/foLA7iHPja
That’s exactly right.We could be producing more energy here at home, but we’re not.Why not?Because Biden chose to put “green” ahead of not only “national prosperity,” but also, “national security.”
In the words of free-market-minded observer Steve Milloy, “The most effective action to counteract the cut in Saudi oil production would be to ease the regulatory burden and offer unabashed support for the American oil and gas industry…. But Biden won’t do so.”
And that’s a shame, because the U.S. that Biden took over in 2021 was probably as energy-secure as it’s ever been.In fact, during the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net energy exporter for the first time since World War II.And since energy is at the root of the economy, it’s also at the root of our security.As Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) likes to say, “energy security equals national security.”
But Biden had a different idea.In 2020 he campaigned on a pledge of “ensuring that the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”That’s the Green New Deal in all but name.Economic pundit Josh Barro nails it:
Biden entered office pursuing a fossil fuel agenda animated by the idea that additional North American production should be discouraged. He canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, and he essentially paused the leasing of federal lands for oil and gas production.The theory behind this agenda was coherent— restricting the supply of fossil fuels would push consumers toward renewable energy and accelerate the green transition—but that’s a strategy that inherently involves pushing prices up.High prices are the mechanism that would cause consumers to transition.
With goals such as that, with policies such as that, higher prices were the feature, not the bug.That is, the goal was higher prices.And if that didn’t prove to be very good politics with the voters—as Democrats seem to have realized too late—well, the greens and the wokesters do have that in common: It’s not in their nature to worry about ordinary people.
Dominance and Submission
In fact, we’ve been down this road before.This author, a Baby Boomer who remembers the 1970s well, has felt called to chronicle the many parallels between the 39th president, Jimmy Carter, elected in 1976, and Biden, #46, today.Their energy policies, too, have overlapped, as was first written in February of last year.
In the 1970s, a big issue was price controls, which a Republican president, Richard Nixon, had first imposed in 1971.Such controls were a foolish move, and soon enough, Nixon realized it and removed them.Except, fatefully, he left the controls in place on oil, and so Carter inherited those controls when he came into office in 1977.For his part, Carter was happy to leave them in place, because regulating the economy is what Democrats do.In addition, long before Newsom, Booker, or Warren, Carter had a demagogic streak of his own; in October 1977, he accused the oil companies, without real evidence, of “the greatest rip-off in history.”Such hot rhetoric, of course, does nothing to actually encourage producers to produce more energy. Indeed, Carter followed up by enacting a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies–and that didn’t help, either.
Unsurprisingly, U.S. oil production drifted downward in the 1970s, even as U.S. oil consumption increased.So of course, with domestic production down and domestic consumption up, net imports spiked by about 400 percent.Prices spiked, too, from $3 a barrel in 1979 to $40 a barrel in 1980.
We can step back and see: Carter was giving himself the worst of all possible worlds.He was squelching domestic production (which was price controlled) while encouraging imports from foreigners (no price controls on them).Thus we were enriching the Arab oil states and other OPEC countries, while starving our own producers.And then, in 1980, Carter slapped on a “windfall profits” tax that further depressed American production.
So that’s how foreign oil producers piled up “petrodollars,” that is, the dollars we sent them.(Today, three Arab oil states sit atop sovereign wealth funds totaling more than $2 trillion, and the oil-producing Norwegians—the so-called “blue-eyed Arabs”—have their own $1.5 trillion.)
Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Fahd shakes hands with President Jimmy Carter during arrival ceremonies at the White House on May 24, 1977. (AP Photo/Toby Massey)
The Carter policy could be summed up in two words: Not smart. Fortunately, the voters wised up on him, and he was defeated in a landslide by Ronald Reagan in 1980. The new 40th president immediately decontrolled oil prices; predictably, production started increasing.In fact, producers, fully incentivized, began exploring new techniques to produce more.The result was fracking, which extracted still more energy out of seemingly exhausted fields.The success of that entrepreneurial innovation is a big reason why we got to what Trump called “energy dominance.”
But then Biden came in, embracing a strategy that might be calledenergy submission.That is, why be strong when you can be weak?Unlike in Carter’s time, the key issue today isn’t price controls, but rather, another way of throttling production that’s just as effective: regulating and banning in the name of climate change.
Gasoline dealers demonstrate against President Jimmy Carter’s oil policies outside the White House on August 1, 1979. (Marion S. Trikosko/Getty Images)
Demonstrators in favor of expanded oil drilling protest outside the Carter White House in January of 1980, after President Jimmy Carter tightened restrictions and raised taxes on oil drilling. (Leif Skoogfors/Corbis via Getty Images)
Ray Phillips, operator of a Conoco Station in Denver, CO, inspects sign that was to be installed at all Conoco stations due to President Jimmy Carter’s 10-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax set to take effect on May 14, 1980. (Ed Maker/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
As we have seen, the result of this submissive policy is shrunken production.And that means, just as it did back in the 1970s, that oil (andnatural gas) consumers, bereft of their own production, are transferring huge amounts of wealth to oil and gas producers who aren’t so green.Recently the Associated Press reported that European governments—which embraced energy submission long before Biden—have “allocated 576 billion euros (over $566 billion) in energy relief to households and businesses since September 2021.” In other words, the Europeans have shelled out more than half-a-trillion dollars to protect the well-being of European energy consumers—and all of this money goes overseas.That’s right: for the virtue-signaling green-moral elevation of not drilling and digging themselves, the Euros are sending their wealth to those who happily drill and dig. (And on November 1, the Biden administration indicated that it would start doing the same thing–providing new subsidies to help consumers pay the higher prices for energy that could have been produced at home, but wasn’t. So instead of producing more here, we’re paying more overseas.)
Actually, it’s worse than that—even from the point of view ofthe greens.You see, once the Europeans realized that green assurances of energy adequacy were hollow—that solar panels and windmills couldn’t assure even basic survival in the winter—they did a policy 180.Today, the Europeans are actually burning more carbon fuels, including the dreaded “c” word, coal.In fact, coal prices are up more than 700 percent in the last two years, and coal production is rising.As always,China is avidly building coal plants, and in the meantime, coal mines around the world are springing back to life.Indeed, even in über-grün Germany, they’re knocking down a wind farm to make way for a coal mine.
An aerial view of the ships carrying coal transport to unload outside the coal fired power plant on November 11, 2021, in Hanchuan, Hubei province, China. (Getty Images)
The same gold rush is on for other kinds of carbon energy. Bruno Jean-Richard Itoua, minister of hydrocarbons of the Republic of Congo, told Bloomberg News, “There doesn’t need to be any more debate about gas. We need to start producing as much as we can now.” Fortunately for the Third World—and in the long run, for energy consumers everywhere—surveyors keep finding more oil and gas.Just the other day, Exxon announced new discoveries just offshore of Guyana.We can add that this carbon-fuel abundance is providential, because only now is the world waking up to realize that it doesn’t have enough of key components of green energy systems, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries. Oopsie.
Jimmy Carter ignored the need for more energy and paid a steep price when he ran for re-election.Half a century later, Joe Biden is also ignoring it. Indeed, just on October 31, Bloomberg News reported that the Biden administration is likely to replicate yet another Carter policy: a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. That’s clearly a punitive gesture, aimed at stoking up the Democratic base, as opposed to any sort of plan for actually increasing energy production. Interestingly, one who shares that view is Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary and longtime Democratic economic adviser; on November 1 he tweeted about Biden’s windfall profits tax idea, “If you reduce profitability, you will discourage investment which is the opposite of our objective.”
At the same time, jet-setting “Climate Envoy” John Kerry is still saying that the Biden administration wants to “accelerate” the move away from carbon fuels–now what signal does that send to carbon-fuel producers? At the same time, jet-setting “Climate Envoy” John Kerry is still saying that the Biden administration wants to “accelerate” the move away from carbon fuels–now what signal does that send to carbon-fuel producers? In fact, here’s a subsequent headline to ponder: “Americans To See Highest Thanksgiving Gasoline Prices Ever.” Democrats did reasonably well in 2022, especially relative to inflated Republican expectations. Do they really think that high energy prices and the resulting inflation won’t hurt them in 2024?
In his self-defeating confusion, Biden is suffering from what Carter suffered from. The political-science term used here at Breitbart News to sum up the similarities between the 39th president and the 46th president is disjunction.
In their disjunction, Biden’s new plans are very Carteresque. We know what happened to Carter when he sought a second term. And we don’t know what’s going to happen to Biden’s dream of a second term. But a study of history helps us to make a good guess.
I care about the environment. It’s not something conservatives are afraid to say, but it’s also not our main talking point. For instance, I also care about well-budgeted initiatives that actually improve the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, thanks to the Biden administration’s obsession with so-called “environmental justice,” inflation is only getting worse and driving the cost of utilities so high that families can no longer afford the recycling services leftists insist are good for the environment.
My family loves the land. We have a backyard vegetable garden, fruit trees, and a composter, and we work to limit the amount of single-use plastic products in our home. I’ve been hunting and laid down a deer before. There is no cleaner meat than that. I’m a firm believer that self-sufficiency is one of the healthiest forms of living.
Sure, I used to drive a Yaris and shop at Trader Joe’s, but that was before I became a mother of four. During the nearly two years of the Biden administration’s reign, the cost of living in my area has skyrocketed to the point that cutting back is necessary for survival.
But many families have already done so. We’re way beyond just sticking to the basics; we’re being pinched to the breaking point. In September of this year, the Heritage Foundation found that Americans have lost an average of $4,200 in annual income thanks to the current administration.
While inflation continues destroying lives, Biden continues to ridiculously insist that our economy is “strong as hell.” Meanwhile, those of us who have always maintained strict budgets are cutting back more and more, but there isn’t much left to reduce.
As the cost of gas, groceries, clothes, water, heating and cooling, and other necessities continued to climb, I was struck by a massive change in my family’s waste bill. I expected it to go up due to the gas crisis created by the Biden administration’s energy mismanagement, but it doubled over the course of a few months.
At first, I thought this was a mistake. My husband and I had already changed trash services to a cheaper option, but it was by no means inexpensive. And we bundled the usual waste and recycling together.
While the inflation rate is currently recorded at just over 8 percent, our bill increased by 100 percent. In double-checking the breakdown, half of the new bill was due to environmental fees.
While the Inflation Reduction Act was advertised as a form of benevolent relief to the American people, it was filled with social justice initiatives driven by left-wing party preferences and green theories, which have yet to prove helpful to anyone but the bureaucrats collecting more and more tax money, or “fees.”
One such section was vaguely detailed back in August through a White House fact sheet about how the Inflation Reduction Act helps advance “environmental justice.” Under the section regarding improving clean transit technologies, the administration noted that “addressing diesel emissions” is a priority. Just how this will be addressed is not indicated, but given the recent diesel shortage, and the new slew of “environmental fees” being added to waste bills, one can easily deduce that this will manifest in some form of taxation.
So, now thanks to the new attack on diesel which has at least in part led to the ongoing shortage, my family cannot even afford to recycle. I called to have that service removed, and it’s reducing our waste bill by 25 percent. It’s a frustrating prospect because I’m more concerned about plastic pollution than carbon emissions, and price increases still abound, but honestly, I’ve also been contemplating ending our garbage service altogether and just burning our trash or burying it in the backyard to save money.
That’s how tight things are right now. In a first-world country, families are struggling to afford properly taking out the trash.
How this will lead to “environmental justice” is beyond me. Biden’s green initiatives amount to little more than a money-laundering scheme. They do nothing to help improve the state of the environment.
And there are plenty of other alternative approaches that could be undertaken to protect the environment other than the implementation of costly and burdensome regulations. The government could plant more trees, incentivize reduced plastic packaging in manufacturing, offer families tax breaks for growing their own food, and grant land developers tax breaks for leaving an acre or more of natural space between commercial and residential sites. But, most importantly, we should be investing in energy independence. This would easily be more effective and less costly than overtaxing diesel and strangling people’s bank accounts.
If it comes between feeding my children or paying the garbage bill, I’ll do whatever I can to keep the kids nourished. It may seem like a no-brainer, but we’ve already reduced our heating, cooling, water usage, travel, and eating habits. We were never that wasteful to begin with, but I can’t stop thinking about this as Election Day creeps closer and closer.
My family can’t even afford to recycle anymore. And it’s because of green initiatives meant to further “environmental justice” facades. This is unsustainable.
Jessica Marie Baumgartner is a reporter for Go 2 Tutors Education news, and homeschooling mother of 4. Her book, “Homeschooling on a Budget,” comes out August 2nd and is available for pre-order.
Gina Rinehart has skilfully repudiated the attempts of immature netballers to make her bend to their unreasonable whims.
My grandmother hated the Japanese with a passion. After narrowly escaping the Chinese Communist Revolution, she spent three harrowing years under the Japanese Occupation in Singapore, protecting my infant uncle from being bayoneted for the sin of being Chinese.
It is understandable that those who witnessed and survived gruesome war crimes would detest their oppressors. However, though Singaporeans are taught the history of how our nation was forged from the ashes of a cruel occupation, we do not hold the deeds of the past against modern-day Japanese. We can distinguish between generations.
Not so the detractors of Georgina Hope “Gina” Rinehart. The 68-year-old mining magnate and heiress has been roundly chastised by the merciless Left for failing to apologise for remarks made by her father Lang Hancock over three decades ago.
Storm in a Teacup
The furore began when indigenous player Donnell Wallam protested at wearing the logo of Netball Australia sponsor Hancock Prospecting, citing Mr Hancock’s 1984 statement that indigenous Australians should be sterilised to “breed themselves out”.
Rinehart, who has funded charities providing schooling, scholarships, and employment opportunities for Indigenous youth through Hancock Prospecting, declined to be blamed for her deceased father’s words, and pulled the plug on Hancock’s $15 million sponsorship.
Pastor and media commentator James Macpherson contends:
“If Rinehart’s accusers were acting in good faith, and if they were in the least bit concerned about justice, they would not be insisting that a woman answer for the sins of a man. Does anyone really believe that if Rinehart did as they asked, her apology would be graciously received? The mob don’t want an apology, they want a scalp.”
This imputed guilt by association comes swiftly after the Essendon FC debacle, where new CEO Andrew Thorburn was forced out after social media vigilantes dug up 2013 sermons from the church he now attends, expressing pro-life views and advising those struggling with same-sex attraction to seek support against their temptations.
Essendon FC President David Barham said:
“The board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as chairman [of his church’s board], he couldn’t continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as chairman of City on the Hill.”
Even if Thorburn had espoused these beliefs personally, why couldn’t the sport have accommodated his religious beliefs, as they did for Muslim AFLW player Haneen Zreika when she refused to play in the LGBT Pride Match?
Hancock Prospecting has released a public statement on the matter, which reveals that media soundbites may be erroneous, disguising deeper issues in the sport:
“Hancock and Roy Hill were not made aware prior to the proposed partnerships, of the complexity of existing issues between Netball Australia and the Players Association. This includes the Players Association’s endeavours to gain a very substantial increase in wages during a time the sport is reeling financially… Hancock’s proposed sponsorship would have enabled a generous increase in wages for the players…
Contrary to recent media, Hancock has not insisted that its name be worn by the Australian Diamonds in the current Constellation Cup series when overseas, and was advised that the netballers had no concerns in wearing the name on the team dress for the series…
Hancock and Roy Hill do not wish to add to Netball’s disunity problems… it will instead provide a 4-month sponsorship should they and their players wish to accept it, to continue funding the athletes and to help Netball as it arranges alternative funding and sponsorships.”
Ex-Australian netball captain Sharni Norder tweeted upon the news of Hancock’s sponsorship:
“… it’s unacceptable to put our brand alongside an open climate denier. We have put too much into our sport to give social license to a company who’s (sic) profit at all cost attitude puts our future in danger.”
Now employed as a “decarbonisation consultant”, she told ABC News:
“Climate change is a deeply personal issue to me — my netball career was ended from heat stroke.”
Last year, Rinehart prepared a video address for her alma mater St Hilda’s, in which she prompted students to do some critical thinking on climate change:
‘If I may ask a question, for students to ask their teachers, and do their own independent research, and that is: “Which comes first, global warming, or an increase in carbon?”’
Her remarks on the issue were censored by the school.
“Mining and resources companies provide billions of dollars to the Australian economy… Hancock and Roy Hill (have) contributed well in excess of $300M to indigenous Australians…
Mining is critical to securing the minerals essential for everyday life. An often conveniently neglected truth when activists talk emotively about mining is that most, if not all, of the primary products required for the equipment, production, distribution and delivery of renewable energy depend on resources that need to be mined. To quote Australia’s Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia, Hon Madeleine King MP, ‘No mining, no net zero’.”
In a subsequent statement, Hancock added:
“Hancock and its executive chairman Mrs Rinehart consider that it is unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as the vehicle for social or political causes.”
Growing Out of a Victim Mentality
Those who engage in identity politics and demand that the world bend to their whims due to their supposed victim status, often end up shooting themselves in the foot. Mark Milke penned an excellent tome on this matter: The Victim Cult: How the Culture of Blame Hurts Everyone and Wrecks Civilizations. Those who define themselves, not by some past injustice, but by their present potential, are best able to grasp opportunities to build a better future.
In the end, the netballers who pridefully expect Rinehart to pander to their perceived slights have lost the most from their own petty politics.
However, as most solar and wind-energy technology is manufactured in China, the push for renewables is increasing our dependence on China and turns a blind eye to the unethical practices used in Chinese manufacturing, abuses of human rights and appalling environmental record of Chinese industry.
These facts are never mentioned by the Greens or the ALP, and are rarely mentioned in the media.
Nevertheless, the IEA report is positively alarming.
“Global solar PV [photo-voltaic] manufacturing capacity has increasingly moved from Europe, Japan and the United States to China over the last decade. China has invested over $US50 billion in new PV supply capacity — ten times more than Europe — and created more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs across the solar PV value chain since 2011.
“Today, China’s share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels (such as polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells and modules) exceeds 80 per cent. This is more than double China’s share of global PV demand.
“In addition, the country is home to the world’s 10 top suppliers of solar PV manufacturing equipment.”
The hard fact is that the entire world is now dependent on Chinese-manufactured solar panels.
“The world will almost completely rely on China for the supply of key building blocks for solar-panel production through 2025. Based on manufacturing capacity under construction, China’s share of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer production will soon reach almost 95 per cent.
“Today, China’s Xinjiang province accounts for 40 per cent of global polysilicon manufacturing. Moreover, one out of every seven panels produced worldwide is manufactured by a single facility.”
The IEA concludes:
“This level of concentration in any global supply chain would represent a considerable vulnerability; solar PV is no exception.”
While the report states that it is imperative to diversify the sources of solar panels, and build manufacturing plants to do it, it effectively recommends that Western governments increase subsidies for the manufacturing of solar panels, so as to compete with China. However, the report itself shows why this is unlikely to happen.
Slavery and Fossil Fuels
“China is the most cost-competitive location to manufacture all components of the solar PV supply chain. Costs in China are 10 per cent lower than in India, 20 per cent lower than in the United States, and 35 per cent lower than in Europe.”
The report glosses over how this cost advantage has been achieved.
China’s cost advantage relies on the availability of reliable low-cost energy (supplied incidentally by fossil fuels), and because China has an almost inexhaustible supply of low-cost labour (in some cases, slave labour), and environmental standards that would not be accepted anywhere in the civilised world.
The same picture emerges in relation to wind turbines, used to produce wind power.
“Before 2005, there was only one Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer listed among the top 10 in the world; in 2012, four were listed as the world top 2, 7, 8 and 10, respectively.”
More recently, Scientific American reported that Xinjiang Goldwind had replaced US giant General Electric as the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines, five of the world’s top 10 manufacturers were Chinese, and China supplies over half of the world’s wind turbines.
Many of the reasons for the rise in Chinese wind-turbine technology are the same as for solar panels: low-cost energy supplied mainly from coal, very low labour costs, a disregard of environmental standards that apply in other countries, and access to the world’s best manufacturing technology.
Additionally, the Chinese Government requires power companies to purchase the entire output of China’s wind farms, with the cost transferred to consumers.
The massive growth of China’s wind and solar energy industries not only earns billions in foreign currency, but also allows China to masquerade as seriously committed to reducing greenhouse gases through the use of wind and solar energy, while expanding its use of fossil fuels.
And our government and the media have fallen for it!
This Labor government continually promises to reduce the cost of living while increasing the cost of living.
Their strategy to lower prices is to increase prices.
If I could afford to laugh, I would.
Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, the Prime Minister chants zombie-like, as prices rise in direct proportion to his use of renewable energy.
I swear every time he utters the words “renewable energy”, my power bill goes up.
Australians are caught in a kind of twilight zone where we are continually told to expect cheaper power while continually told to expect more expensive power.
Oh, but don’t worry, you’ll still get that promised $275 cut to your power bill. It’s just that your power bill will have gone up by a couple of thousand dollars before Labor cut it by a couple of hundred dollars.
The Prime Minister will then claim, with a straight face, that he has saved us money. And my teenage son worries that he is the one struggling with math!
This is a government that believes it can keep global temperatures in check, when it can’t even keep a $275 promise to struggling families in the suburbs.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers explained today that the delay in providing the promised cut was due to a flaw in the modelling.
“That model was done in 2021, and it referred to an outcome in 2025,” he said.
This Labor government insists that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, or at least it will be, just as soon as they spend another $10b of your money here, and another $10b there.
How much will it cost taxpayers to end up with cheap power?
The answer is always the same.
Just a little bit more.
If you believe the government’s obsession with intermittent energy will deliver cheap power, you have the one prerequisite necessary to do energy minister Chris Bowen’s job — wishful thinking.
Expect him to provide a unicorn with your next power bill.
The government promised it would reduce power bills by $275. Now it says that promise won’t apply until 2025!
The government promised renewable energy would result in cheaper power. Now it says power prices will rise by 56 per cent over the next two years.
The government promised we would become a renewable energy superpower (whatever that means). Now a survey has shown Australians are taking shorter showers, going to bed earlier to keep warm and avoiding using their heating.
The government promised it had a plan. Now we realise they had a target foisted on them by globalists and hastily agreed to, but no plan as to how to realise it without destroying the economy and people’s lives.
Energy policy — or in other words the pursuance of a net zero nirvana promoted by globalists who stand to make billions from our gullibility — has turned us into fools.
We export coal but increasingly refuse to burn it ourselves. We send uranium overseas but won’t use it at home. We know nuclear power would meet energy needs and emission targets but will not consider it.
We are determined to completely dismantle our electricity grid so that it can be rebuilt with technology that is unaffordable and unreliable.
In fact, some of the technology required doesn’t even exist.
But don’t worry, she’ll be right.
Our political leaders assure us at every turn that we are on track to becoming “a green energy superpower”.
Don’t pay too much attention to the fact that green-powered Europe is being held hostage by an actual superpower?
Did I mention the latest Covid variant? And what about Meghan Markle’s new dress!
By the way, while we are becoming a clean energy, renewable powered, emissions-free, WEF-approved, mega superpower, it would be helpful if you didn’t use your appliances between 4pm and 9pm this summer.
Nothing to worry about. It’s just part of the “transition” to our amazing future. (Is that your air conditioner running? We said turn it off!)
Some people like to make a big deal about the lack of any cost/benefit analysis for this complete rewiring of Australia.
And while it’s true that none has been supplied, the rough details are well known and accepted.
It will cost billions, and it will make very little difference to the climate. Don’t say we haven’t done the math.
But don’t get fixated on actual outcomes. If governments worried about outcomes, we wouldn’t have half the programmes we do. And then how would we spend taxpayer money?
The important thing is that we now have certainty about our energy policy.
“Australia is back!” enthuses Energy Minister Chris Bowen as he travels the world posing beside electric utes that will be perfect for Australian tradies, provided they never need to haul equipment or tow anything.
These electric vehicles will be charged for free overnight using your rooftop solar panels, according to the PM.
That is, just as soon as the government figures out how to get the sun to shine at night and how to install solar on the roof of my apartment which is inconveniently located on the fifth level of a 10-storey building.
Again, it’s just details. Don’t worry too much about them. Our politicians don’t.
A lot has been made of the government’s pre-election promise to slash power bills by $275 a year when, in fact, bills are set to rise by 35 per cent next year.
None of this fazes the unflappable Chris Bowen as he flies around the world representing us in climate negotiations while we go vegetarian to reduce emissions like the ones emitted from aircraft.
Sure the average consumer’s bill will go up by around $500 next year, but the government will still reduce bills by $275, he declares triumphantly. So the government’s promise to reduce power prices will be well and truly honoured.
That Australia seems to be buying all of this nonsense really does make us the class dunce.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.