There seems to be a war on food; worldwide, we see national leaders following policies which have been proven to lessen the amount of food, increase prices on food and create social upheaval. The attached article points out that the Netherlands, the worlds second-largest exporter of agricultural goods by value after the U.S., is determined to shut down over 11,000 livestock farms and have another 17,600 farmers reduce their herds. The noble goal is to reduce the amount of nitrogen and ammonia emissions to protect European nature areas.

What is interesting is that the same national leaders are not producing solutions to problems what will occur by their actions. Higher unemployment, higher food prices, a loss of international trade, etc. And these actions fly in the known result of such “green” policies as exhibited in Sri Lanka where widespread rioting led to not only a reversal of “green” policies, but the overthrow of the government. Worldwide, we see similar actions such as in Canada where the government has a goal of cutting nitrates by thirty percent within eight years. Farmers face a difficult choice of submitting to working for less, or spending more by planting more acreage even though the Canadian government has just raised the price of fuel further cutting into practical solutions.

At one time, one could believe that governmental leaders were at least trying to help the citizens have a better life, but it is becoming increasingly difficult as we see policies aimed directly to the detriment of the citizens. Wind power, solar power, cutting agricultural productivity, limiting energy choices, do we really have to put up with leaders to seem bend on policies of de-civilization? Must we boldly march backwards into the fifteenth century?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-green-vision-finds-latest-foe-in-dutch-farmers-angered-by-greenhouse-gas-targets-11659690358?page=1

Since the outbreak of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Western leaders have followed a strategy of providing the Ukrainians enough weapons and support to hold the Russians at bay but not enough to defeat the invaders. The reason is that the West is concerned with what Putin might do if backed into a situation where he is facing defeat; would he go nuclear or unleash some biological weapon? If he did, would such a response be limited to the area of the Ukraine or would he in a fit of anger, target NATO members? While Putin may appear to be unstable or not have a grasp of reality to some, he has been highly successful in keeping the Western nations at bay while increasing his influence with other nations who are not in the immediate area. All the while, the people of the Ukraine bleed to death while attempting to keep the Russian forces at bay, while hoping for a change in Russian leadership. A strategy of attrition by the West using someone else’s blood.

Ever since the unification of Germany in 1870, Germany has stood out as an economic powerhouse. Just prior to World War I, it had surpassed the United Kingdom in several key manufacturing areas and was ready to challenge the United States. By 1914, Germany was producing nearly 50% of the electrical equipment in the world. After the destruction of World War II, the United States realized that the stability of Europe depended not on the victors (the U.K. and France) but on the defeated, Germany. Picking up the pieces, Germany once again stepped up and became the strong core of Europe.

The ability of Germany to take such a dominate role in Europe was based on several factors, including a highly educated, disciplines and homogeneous population, excellent technology, cheap energy, and the luxury of living under the protective umbrella of the United States. When Europe had problems, such as the economic disaster of 2007-8, Germany took a strong lead in insuring stability and continuity in the banking industry. It was Germany, not any of the other Western European states which provided the base for the European type of welfare state. Unfortunately, as history shows, Germany can make many bad decisions for every good one.

You must hand it national leaders from the U.S. and western European states; they are experts at making hypocrisy a fine art. While preaching to their own population and the developing nations about the importance of going “green”, they institute policies that are actually counterproductive to their noble goals; they continue to build coal powered plants, develop and exploit fossil fuel mining in third world countries, mandate bio-fuels which have no positive impacts on the environment and drive up the price of food for the poorest of the poor, and continue to fool their own citizens about the waste of billions of their own currency on “green” projects that have already failed.

How long will we allow our “leaders” to preach to us, the individuals who pay the actual price for their follies? When will we stop believing that without better technology, the concept of achieving their nobility stated goals are nothing but hot air and a waste of valuable resources? Hit the link below for more information on their follies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rich-worlds-climate-hypocrisy-energy-fossil-fuel-wind-solar-panel-india-poverty-power-battery-storage-11655654331?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

A couple of days ago I was driving back from a business trip to Las Vegas; it was 108 degrees outside, but I was tooling along at 75 miles per hour, had the air on plus the radio so everything was fine. I realized that if I were driving an electric car (fueled by oil and coal), that I would have had to turn off the radio and roll down the windows (and thus enjoy the wonderful hot desert air) and reduce my speed to less than 65 to make it home. That is until I ran into a major jam which had me crawling, bumper to bumper for an extra hour. Whoops, I would have been in serious trouble with an electric car. The normal four-hour trip was extended to five hours and had I been traveling at the lower speed, another hour beyond that assuming I did not have to stop for a charge and assuming that I would not have had a dead battery in that massive traffic jam.

I am sure that there are many folks who can find that an electric car will meet their needs for short shopping trips and various chores. I am also sure that given the predicted rolling black outs, and the behind schedule construction of charging stations, there are many others who like me will be reluctant to give up our current vehicles. It is a choice, but we should be realistic about our choices and not live in a fool’s paradise. Nothing is free and anyone who believes that an electric vehicle does not contribute to CO2 is fooling themselves. The link below is worth a view as it helps to put things in proper perspective. Invest a few minutes and see reality.

It was not that many years ago that our friends on the left were outraged and certain that the Russians had interfered in our national election, enough so that Donald Trump became President over the more highly qualified Hillary Clinton. Although they could not provide any proof, other than a “Russian” dossier bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, they (along with Hillary) disputed his Presidency, claiming (again without any proof), that Donald Trump was in the pocket of Putin. Their moral outrage lasted the full four years of a stormy Presidency and nothing he could do regarding Russia could convince the moral arbitrators of the left that he was not guilty. Not when he hit the Russians with sanctions, not when he began to arm the Ukrainians, not when he gave the go ahead for U.S. troops to track down and kill Russian troops in Syria, etc.

The article linked below shows how the Russians at the direction of Putin have been funneling funds and other support to the advocates of the “green” agenda. Putin fully understands that getting the U.S. and other Western nations to move toward inefficient “green” energy and away from efficient fossil fuels will slow the growth of the West and allow Russia with its oil reserves to profit and provide the funds for his strategic vision. While the West is banning plastic straws, Putin works to gain control over much of the energy needs of Europe.

The Soviet Union was well known for its efforts at disinformation and getting covertly involved in other nations political activities and elections. A prime example was during the Viet Nam war, when monies were funneled to various anti-war groups which helped to created pressure on the politicians to withdraw from that war. After the fall of the Soviet Union, most countries seemed to have let their guard down but, Russia kept up its efforts in that area.

Evidence is now coming out that Russia has been passing money to various environmental groups to support the groups efforts to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Is Russia taking such action because its leaders believe in the “green” agenda? Hardly. Putin and his minions realize that the “green” agenda puts additional financial burdens on Western societies which in turn, slows their growth. Russia also realizes that movement away from efficient fossil fuel leads to a weaking of the national infrastructures due to the simple events such as a lack of wind or a cloudy day.

The article linked below is an excellent place to begin to realize that the old Soviet saying of “useful idiot” is still alive and well today. There remain those who have blinders on in their quest for what can be a positive goal, but hopefully they will begin to ask why some of the worse actors in the world also support their efforts.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-investigate-russias-covert-funding-of-us-anti-fossil-fuel-groups

Given the war in the Ukraine, I thought this might be a good time to repost this review which I originally posted in December 2019. Although as written it could be a history, it was written before so many events and was ignored by so many “leaders” in the West who were more concerned about their ideology or keeping their power. Why face reality when those who yell the loudest and demand the most of you are among the villians in this book. I guess that is the story of mankind; take the easy way and let someone else clean up the mess.

Mao Tse-tung once said that “political power comes from the barrel of a gun”, but Vladimir Putin could just as easily say that “political power comes from the end of a pipeline”.  This excellent book analyses how Putin uses his countries gas companies for both tactical and strategic means to his end; to regain the power, and perhaps the territory which was lost by the collapse of the Soviet Union.  How can he do this?  By providing the European nations the energy they need at a below market price and by letting them know that he holds the comfort and economies of many nations within the EU in the palm of his hand.

Of course, he could not pursue this course if it were not for the lack of political will on the part of numerous European leaders and their own ideology regarding energy in the 21^st century.  By pursuing “green energy”, being intimidated by the “green” movement (which is often subsidized by Russia to serve its own ends) and by insuring that the social safety net is kept in place. European leaders have mortgaged their energy futures to a nation which uses its energy reserves almost regardless of short term financial considerations all in the pursuit of increased European dependence on Russian energy.

Consider that the EU has reserves of shale oil and natural gas, but refuses to spend the monies to exploit them.  They would rather purchase the oil and natural gas from the Russians and the U.S. They don’t want to spend their money on their defenses and are more concerned with maintaining their social programs; in short, they are living at the sufferance of other powers.

The link below will take you to an article that points out the pros and cons, the errors, and positives of both sides in the environmental question. Fanatics on either side only hurt their own cause and are a major source of confusion and misinformation which can lead to greater than necessary expenses and be counterproductive.

People are beginning to see and question the cost of ill-prepared actions in facing questions on the environment. Rational individuals realize that moving boldly into the fourteenth century by pushing wind power will never be able to replace petroleum in powering airplanes, ships, trucks, cars, etc. They are also able to see the failure of solar in northern climates and the huge cost of going against nature, as in Germany and other nations which are not blessed with enough clear and sunny days. At the same time, there are technologies, mostly in the infant stage which can help to ease the dependence on fossil fuels, but development will take years and a huge investment.

Recently, the boogieman of nuclear power has begun to be faced by a few countries who simply are more inclined to face reality in this area than others. For a balanced and informative discussion of options for the future in facing whatever climate change we face, click on the link below.

https://quillette.com/2022/01/27/why-environmentalists-pose-a-bigger-obstacle-to-effective-climate-policy-than-denialists/

Have you ever wondered why after worldwide spending of trillions of dollars for years, we don’t seem to see much progress on achieving the “green” agenda? Germany puts out more CO2 than ever before, the U.K. and much of western Europe is facing heating shortages, the cost of EVs has gone up and not down, etc., etc.

The link to the article below presents 41-inconvenient truths about the new energy economy with many uncomfortable technological facts including the incredible inefficiency of solar and wind power. The total cost of going green is just not in the cost of creating a new infrastructure but in the increased cost of storage, transportation, etc.

If you ever wonder why we never hear about how our costs of energy have gone down, or will be going down, then simply invest a few minutes but be prepared to be disillusioned and even disgusted. We have been sold a bill of goods by politicians and special interest groups who have vested monetary interests in the “green revolution.”  We have seen this before as every great movement has a life span of about ten years and then the next great crusade is discovered. When the ”green revolution” collapses under its own financial cost (much like the old Soviet Union), we will find many of the current “believers” installed in the offices of their new causes.

The good news is that when that happens, the market will develop at a reasonable cost, technologies that will answer many of the goals of the “green revolution.”  That type of progress has been seen in human history repeatedly. It is not big government and a hysterical movement that has led to ever higher standards of living, great leaps in food production, etc., but the natural human desire to move forward toward a better life.

https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/