green bonds

Virtue Signaling With Long-Term ‘Green Bonds’

‘Green Bonds’ are the increasingly popular instruments to finance Sustainable Development, Green Economy and Green New Deal, aka Technocracy, but wrongly-diverted money only causes greater economic dislocation. ⁃ TN Editor
 

While still small, sustainable financing is growing. There’s been $165 billion of so-called “green”-bond issuance from companies and countries this year – more than double 2016’s total – according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And, under pressure from ‘the people’ demanding policymakers “do something” to save the world from almost certain climate-driven doom, Bloomberg reports that central banks are putting their money-printing malarkey to work in sustainable financing, opening up a new source of demand for the budding asset class.

Most major central banks have signed on to promote sustainable growth, offering incentives that encourage green financing.

“Central banks are important institutional investors, and the fact that they are participating in this market, it gives the market almost like a seal of reliability and maturity,” said Christian Deseglise, global head of central banks and global sponsor of sustainable finance at HSBC Holdings Plc, the biggest underwriter of the bonds this year.

“It’s not so much about adding demand, because we already have demand,” he said. “It’s the quality of that demand that’s really important.”

The European Central Bank has been buying the debt as part of its asset repurchase program.

Hungary and France’s central banks have each created funds dedicated to ecological investments.

Now Peru is considering buying green bonds, too.

While the Federal Reserve, with nearly $4 trillion on its balance sheet, is notably absent from the Network for Greening the Financial System, regional branches have published research on the topic, and Chairman Jerome Powell maintains that it’s a “longer-run issue.”

However, as Bloomberg notes, pricing and liquidity are still limiting factors. As green bonds become more mainstream, investors are offered little additional incentive to buy them as they price comparably to non-green debt.

“As soon as the green-bond market becomes sizable you’ll see central banks investing more in green bonds,” according to Massimiliano Castelli, head of sovereign strategy at UBS Asset Management.

Of course, as most are aware, “green”-bonds are largely a marketing gimmick, and if central banks really do escalate their buying, then you don’t need a crystal ball to forecast that there will be a rise in companies’ “Greenwashing” their issuance – using green labels to spend on not so green things!

Nevertheless, The San Francisco Fed is quick to explain the ‘benefits’ of these “Green bonds” – and

The Forest Resilience Bond (FRB) is a financial tool that enables private invest­ment in forest enhancements on public land. The FRB promises to accelerate the pace and scale at which critical work to restore the health and functioning of the nation’s forested landscapes is undertaken.

It does so by engaging private capital to cover the upfront cost of activities to improve forest health and by bringing together stakeholders that benefit from this work to share in the cost of reimbursing investors over time. These beneficiaries sign contracts that jointly cover the project cost plus a modest return to investors, meaning that no one stakeholder shoulders the burden of repayment alone. The result is a collaborative finance model that yields clear ecological, social, and financial returns.

While perhaps less obvious, the FRB model also unlocks opportunities for positive social impact in rural communities across the country. In addition to the direct impact of job creation, FRB projects can catalyze infusions of capital into rural areas by sending signals to the market that there is a steady supply of raw material to fuel forest-based industries. Against a backdrop of declining rural prosperity, this article envisions how the FRB could play a role in assisting rural areas – especially those with historically forest-based econo­mies – transition to a more resilient ecological and economic future.

What differentiates the Forest Resilience Bond (FRB) from other approaches is not only its use of investor capital to fund restoration quickly and at scale, but the collaborative model of cost sharing between beneficiaries.

This approach engages a range of stakeholders to split the cost of repaying investors and involves them in project development. As such, the FRB model encourages a collaborative systems-level response to forest health challenges that makes use of funds, experience, and expertise from a range of public, private, and civic stakeholders.

Or, put another way, it’s a public-private partnership that levers taxpayer funds to support ‘green’-led initiatives, without the need for voting (because the central banks are unelected!)

So, to summarize, the concept of “green”-bonds is becoming more and more mainstream – who cares if we don’t get any yield, at least we are signaling just how virtuous we are – and as various ‘wealthy’ western nations hit the monetary and fiscal policy wall, the rhetoric around “People’s QE” or a Modern-Monetary-Theory-driven (MMT) redistribution spreads positively among many (especially the socialism-supporting Millennials).

Read full story here…




UK Faces Huge Loss From Electric Vehicle Adoption

Climate change mania and the policies it generates will drive Britain into an oblivion of economic ruin unless it regains a bit of sanity to reject Green Economy thinking, which has caused the biggest global malinvestment scheme of all time. ⁃ TN Editor

If Great Britain keeps its commitment to switch over its vehicles to electric by 2050, the government will see a whopping loss of 28 billion pounds ($35 billion) paid by motorists driving traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

That comes from a study released Friday by London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies examining the impact of the UK’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions law adopted in June and signed by previous Prime Minister Theresa May. England became the first G7 country to set the goal of reaching zero net emissions by 2050.

Fuel duties on petrol-powered vehicles make up almost 4 percent of total government receipts — and all of that will disappear unless urgent action is taken, according to think tank IFS’ study. The government may need to take a new approach to taxing motorists as all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles become the norm, the study advises.

The UK’s mission to switch over to EVs and renewable energy by 2050 represents “a huge long-run fiscal challenge” for the government, according to the study.

The government faces other hits on tax revenue. The UK will be seeing a drop of about 20 billion pounds a year ($24.5 billion) from the government’s new policy of freezing tax duties to help people struggling with the cost of living, the IFS said. There’s also concern that another 1 billion pounds ($1.229 billion) could be lost if Prime Minister Boris Johnson follows through on his commitment to cut duties by 2 pence per liter of fuel.

“The government should set out its long-term plan for taxing driving, before it finds itself with virtually no revenues from driving and no way to correct for the costs -– most importantly congestion –- that driving imposes on others,” said Rebekah Stroud, an IFS economist who co-authored the report.

Duty on unleaded gasoline and diesel has remained frozen at 57.95 pence per liter since 2011, accounting for 1.3 percent of England’s GDP. The fuel recently has been costing 126.9 pence per liter, of which 57.95 pence is duty — about 45 percent of the total fuel cost.

The think tank recommends implementing taxes on EVs soon, as car owners are becoming used to avoiding these duties on their fuel. New motoring taxes should reflect distance driven and vary according to when and where the trips take place in the vehicle. A flat-rate tax per mile driven could be another taxation model used, according to the study.

Prime Minister Johnson used his platform at the Conservative Party conference last week to advocate for continuing support in the net-zero emissions mandate by mid-century. Johnson has a strategy to be put into place advocating investments made in EV production, energy reduction in all new homes, and the planting of one million trees to combat climate change.

Read full story here…




Goldman Sachs: Driving Globalization With Global Warming Fears

Goldman Sachs is pitching its own services as the report concludes, “urban adaptation will likely need to draw on innovative sources of financing.” The global elite see only green (pun intended) by rebuilding everything on earth.  ⁃ TN Editor
 

Goldman Sachs released a report on the effect of climate change on cities around the world and the results made for grim reading.

The bank’s Global Markets Institute, led by Amanda Hindlian, warned of “significant” potential risks to the world’s largest cities, which are especially vulnerable to more frequent storms, higher temperatures, rising sea levels, and storm surges.

Cities generate about 80% of global GDP and are home to more than half of the world’s population, a share that Goldman says, citing the United Nations, is projected to reach two-thirds by 2050. About 40% of the global population lives within 100 kilometers of a coast, it says, and 1 in 10 live in areas less than 10 meters above sea level.

Goldman highlighted three cities which would be subject to those storm surges and in the future could face harmful flooding — New York, Tokyo, and Lagos. Miami, Alexandria, Dhaka, and Shanghai face major flood risks due to being less than 11 meters above sea level.

Goldman’s researchers said that when starting the study they took a broad consensus that human activity, namely emission of greenhouse gasses “is causing the earth to warm in ways that are affecting the climate.”

Natural ecosystems would be damaged, and risks to human health would rise, as well as pressures on food and drinking water.

Agriculture would also be massively affected: “Warmer temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns could reduce yields and nutritional quality as well change growing seasons and agricultural zones around the world.”

Goldman gave some fairly stark warnings about potential outcomes:

  • More frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting heatwaves. The consequences will affect human health, productivity, economic activity, and agriculture. “Higher surface temperatures could exacerbate the warming process by causing permafrost to melt, releasing further methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.”
  • Destructive weather events, including storms, winds, flooding and fires. It’s not just New York, Tokyo and Lagos. “Other major low-lying coastal or already flood-prone cities include Shanghai, Dhaka, Mumbai and Karachi – each of which has a population of 15 million people or more.”
  • Changing disease patterns. “Warmer temperatures could cause disease vectors to migrate from the tropics to regions where people have less immunity; this is true not only for viruses like malaria and dengue fever but also for water-borne and food-borne diseases.”
  • Shifting agricultural patterns and food shortages. “Livestock could be affected by higher temperatures and reduced water supplies. Ocean acidification is likely to put stress on aquatic populations and affect current fishing patterns. Some of these changes are already underway. Some climate scientists, for example, estimate that coral reefs will be all but extinct over the course of the century due to ocean acidification.”
  • Water. “Half of the world’s population will live in water-stressed areas as soon as 2025,” Goldman notes, citing the World Health Orgnization. “Even in non-stressed areas, the quality of surface water could deteriorate as more rain and storms drive erosion and the release of toxins. These dynamics could affect everything from the availability of drinking water for people to a shortage of water for livestock and crops (with negative effects for the food supply) to decreases in hydroelectric power generation.”

Read full story here…




Homelessness

Green Economy Turns Brown As Homelessness Surges In Bay Area

The applied policies of the UN’s Agenda 21 and the New Urban Agenda is wreaking havoc in American cities, but no one is admitting that the homeless crisis is a direct result of those policies. ⁃ TN Editor

San Francisco recently released the results of its 2019 point-in-time homeless census conducted in January, and the news appeared nothing less than disastrous, as SF’s homeless headcount increased by the hundreds despite the city’s seemingly ceaseless efforts to provide relief.

However, the San Francisco count alone does not provide the whole story. The 2019 homelessness spike in SF came amid a tide of similar baleful results across the Bay Area.

Five out of nine Bay Area Counties—i.e., all of those not located in the North Bay—saw their homeless counts spike during the same period, with each other county showing worse homelessness surges than SF:

  • To review, San Francisco’s report to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development cited a count of 8,011 homeless persons, an increase of 6.8 percent from 7,499 in 2017. Note that the city’s own internal count is higher (at more than 9.700 persons) because SF uses a broader definition of who counts as homeless. Since that standard is unique to San Francisco, it’s hard to compare the figure with other counties. [Correction: The count submitted to HUD for 2017 count was 6,858, making for a 16.8 percent increase over two years. The 7,499 figure was the local count.]
  • San Mateo County’s homeless count spiked up to 1,512, more than 20 percent more than the 1,253 count from two years ago, and up from 1,483 in 2015.
  • Santa Clara County reported a count of 9,706 for 2019. In 2017, the count was 7,394, making for an increase of more than 31 percent. But in 2015, the homelessness estimate was 6,556. Note that although Santa Clara County has a higher homeless population than SF it also has about double the general population of SF County, at more than 1.9 million.
  • Alameda County’s figure came in at 8,022, up 42.5-plus percent from 2017’s figure of 5,629. On a slighter longer timeline, the increase is even worse, as this latest count is nearly double that of the 4,040 in 2015. Like Santa Clara County, Alameda has a larger homeless population but also more people in general, meaning that SF’s per capita homelessness rate remains the highest in the Bay Area.
  • Contra Costa County saw a similar surge, spiking up to 2,295. That’s 42.8 percent more than the previous count of 1,607, although that count was down significantly from 2,030 in 2015. Since Contra Costa County conducts its counts annually, we see from the 2018 report that almost all of that rise happened between 2017 and 2018 when the figure was 2,234.

Read full story here…




Economist: Modest Carbon Tax Would Hurt Future Generations

Famed economist, Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, concludes that even a small carbon tax today will cause economic loss to at least two future generations, and possibly more. In short, carbon tax will do just the opposite of what climate alarmists claim. ⁃ TN Editor
 

One of the main themes of my writings on climate change at IER has been warning the public that the “consensus science” they are hearing from the media, pundits, and certain political figures is utterly divorced from the actual published literature, especially when it comes to the economic analysis of government policy. A new, cutting edge working paper from some big-name economists — including Laurence Kotlikoff and Jeffrey Sachs — confirms my point.

In this case, here is the shocking fact that their paper tries to grapple with: Even with a relatively modest carbon tax, the rise in energy prices is so painful that it swamps the benefits of slower climate change, and this is true for our kids and grandkids. It is only when we get to our great-grandchildren that humanity on net would start to actually benefit from even a modest carbon tax introduced today. So the next time you hear someone say, “We need to take vigorous action on the climate for future generations!” you can clarify, “Actually, your proposals would hurt the next two future generations. You want to hurt us, our kids, and our grandkids, in order to help our great-grandkids and beyond — who will all be fantastically rich compared to us, by the way.”

The Kotlikoff et al. paper is quite technical, so I’ll just summarize the take-away points for a lay audience. I will also spend time at the end of the article explaining what their proposed solution is, for this thorny problem. To avoid confusion, I want to be clear: The authors of this new paper are for a (modest) carbon tax. But they are warning that the current discussion, even among economists, tends to look at “what’s best for humanity from now until the end of time,” rather than checking to make sure each generation gains from a new climate policy. As we’ll see, Kotlikoff et al. suggest a massive fiscal transfer that allows present generations to run up a huge (additional) government debt that our descendants must then effectively pay back with higher taxes, in order to compensate their forebears for suffering through higher energy prices due to a carbon tax.

The point of my article isn’t to endorse the overall recommendation of Kotlikoff et al.; along with climate scientists at Cato, I’ve published a comprehensive critique of the usual economist’s case for a carbon tax. Rather, by shining a spotlight on the cutting edge in the development of the literature on carbon taxation, I want readers to see just how detached the actual discussion among experts is from the breezy claims about “we have 12 years left to save our children” that we hear from pundits and political officials.

How An “Optimal” Carbon Tax Can Punish Into the Third Generation

To set the stage for my interpretation, let’s first quote from the authors’ own description of their results. (Note, readers who don’t have access through the NBER link above can also see a version of the paper posted at Kotlikoff’s website.) The title of the paper is, “MAKING CARBON TAXATION A GENERATIONAL WIN WIN.” Here’s an excerpt from the Abstract:

Carbon taxation has been studied primarily in social planner or infinitely lived agent models, which trade off the welfare of future and current generations.Such frameworks obscure the potential for carbon taxation to produce a generational win-win. This paper develops a large-scale, dynamic 55-period, OLG [Overlapping Generations — rpm] model to calculate the carbon tax policy delivering the highest uniform welfare gain to all generations. The OLG framework, with its selfish generations, seems far more natural for studying climate damage. Our model features coal, oil, and gas, each extracted subject to increasing costs, a clean energy sector, technical and demographic change, and Nordhaus (2017)’s temperature/damage functions. Our model’s optimal uniform welfare increasing (UWI) carbon tax starts at $30 tax, rises annually at 1.5 percent and raises the welfare of all current and future generations by 0.73 percent on a consumption-equivalent basis. Sharing efficiency gains evenly requires, however, taxing future generations by as much as 8.1 percent and subsidizing early generations by as much as 1.2 percent of lifetime consumption. Without such redistribution (the Nordhaus “optimum”), the carbon tax constitutes a win-lose policy with current generations experiencing an up to 0.84 percent welfare loss and future generations experiencing an up to 7.54 percent welfare gain. [Kotlikoff et al., bold added.]

Although I realize this is difficult technical language for the layperson to parse, here’s what the authors are saying: If we take the “gold standard” (their term later on) in this literature and use Nordhaus’s 2017 model calibration, it will recommend an “optimal carbon tax” that correctly — according to standard economic theory and the best estimates from the climate science research — balances the tradeoff between reducing emissions and harming economic growth.

However — and this is a huge caveat — Nordhaus’s approach assumes there is a benevolent, overarching “social planner” who lumps all of humanity together, and only makes a technical allowance for a (modest) discount on the happiness of future generations in accordance with standard economic theory.

In practice, the authors point out, Nordhaus’s “optimal carbon tax” would actually mean that people living or born today and in the near future will be harmed on net by the policy, because they will suffer worse economic harm from higher energy prices, than they will be spared in climate change damages from reduced emissions. It’s only when we get several generations into the future, that Nordhaus’s “optimal carbon tax” actually starts making human beings better off, compared to the status quo.

This is a critical point for Americans to realize. They are constantly being hectored that if they “cared for their children” they would support a large carbon tax and other aggressive interventions. But we see that this isn’t true: If we even adopt a modest carbon tax — one that still allows 4 degrees Celsius warming (over twice the 1.5 degree currently touted by climate activists as the necessary target), according to the authors (p. 22)1 — then we are harming ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren, relative to the “do nothing” baseline. It’s only our great-grandchildren, who (on average) are going to be fantastically wealthy compared to us, who will actually start reaping net benefits from even this modest reduction in the path of emissions.

Read full story here…




Anatomy Of A Failed Solar Power Project: A ‘Large Taxpayer-Funded Pile Of Scrap’

The world will be littered with failed solar and wind projects like this one that are pointedly unable to ever deliver on their utopian promises. Meanwhile, taxpayers get hosed while fat-cat Technocrats get paid hefty salaries. ⁃ TN Editor

It was supposed to supply cheaper, greener energy to up to 5000 homes but after six years and tens of millions of dollars, a cutting-edge solar energy project has produced nothing other than a large taxpayer-funded pile of scrap.

Three thousand solar panels sit unused on a concrete pad after the pioneering Kogan Creek Solar Boost project was shelved due to rusting pipes and “rapidly moving clouds”.

Now the site’s manager alleges the Commonwealth and Queensland governments breached their contractual requirements by never inspecting the doomed $105 million project.

Run by French nuclear group Areva for Queensland state-owned power utility CS Energy, the project was designed to increase efficiency and reduce carbon emissions at the coal-fired Kogan Creek power station near Chinchilla.

The plan had been to use thousands of mirrors to focus solar energy to pre-heat steam used to drive power-generating turbines. The technology’s inventor, Australian scientist Dr David Mills, in 2014 received an Order Of Australia for his work on solar power from the Abbott government.

But CS Energy scrapped the unfinished scheme last year, blaming “technical and contractual problems”. It won’t reveal exactly how much it cost, but recorded a $70 million impairment in its 2016 accounts because of the scheme.

Half that amount came from the Queensland Government’s Carbon Reduction Program.

Commonwealth body the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) was to put up an additional $35 million in funding, although it told Fairfax Media it ended up handing over only $6.4 million.

The plan had been to use thousands of mirrors to focus solar energy to pre-heat steam used to drive power-generating turbines. The technology’s inventor, Australian scientist Dr David Mills, in 2014 received an Order Of Australia for his work on solar power from the Abbott government.

But CS Energy scrapped the unfinished scheme last year, blaming “technical and contractual problems”. It won’t reveal exactly how much it cost, but recorded a $70 million impairment in its 2016 accounts because of the scheme.

Half that amount came from the Queensland Government’s Carbon Reduction Program.

Commonwealth body the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) was to put up an additional $35 million in funding, although it told Fairfax Media it ended up handing over only $6.4 million.

Meanwhile, a shipment of steel Areva imported from China was of such poor quality it had to be buried as scrap; then a company in Newcastle making another key component went into administration.

He said at one stage Areva flew 40 workers to the site from the US but they arrived without appropriate safety gear or training.

“They had no safety boots, they thought it was alright to go on site with normal shoes. I said: ‘Pack them back on the plane’.”

Mr Canham estimated that Areva received between $45 million and $48 million for the project but spent as much as $95 million, representing a loss to the company of nearly $50 million.

According to Mr Canham, the head contract required regular site visits by the funding bodies.

“ARENA never came to the site,” he said.

“They were supposed to come every three months. They were really into this solar thing and they never came once.

“With the state government – the same thing. Never saw anyone.”

Read full story here…




new york

New York State Lawmakers Set To Mandate Green Economy

Political madness and rampant deception have suckered the entire State of New York into creating its own private version of AOC’s Green New Deal. It will cost taxpayers trillions in wasted capital and in increased living expenses. ⁃ TN Editor

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said yesterday he has reached an agreement with legislative leaders over a bill to slash New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, setting the stage for one of the most significant state climate victories since President Trump took office.

The announcement, coming just days before the close of the legislative session, represented a big victory for climate activists, who have spent three years pushing for major legislation to curb greenhouse gases in the Empire State.

Lawmakers were still working on final amendments yesterday, but the outlines of the deal were becoming clear. The legislation calls for reducing emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 85% by 2050. The remaining 15% of emissions would be offset, making the state carbon neutral. The bill would also require that all electricity generation come from carbon-free sources by 2040. A Climate Action Council would be established to ensure the state meets its targets.

“I believe we have an agreement, and I believe it is going to pass,” Cuomo said in a radio interview on WAMC.

The comment ended months of speculation over the fate of climate legislation in New York. Democratic lawmakers, who seized complete control of state government when they took over the state Senate last fall, had been pushing a bill called the “Climate and Community Protection Act.” The bill would spend 40% of the state’s clean energy revenues on energy efficiency measures and renewable installations in disadvantaged communities.

That drew repeated public objections from Cuomo, who said he wanted to ensure that environmental revenue was spent on environmental programs. Ultimately, the two sides settled on a compromise: At least 35% of revenues would go to disadvantaged communities. That funding could rise as high as 40%, which would amount to $370 million in fiscal 2018-19.

“It was a question of the distribution of the funding,” Cuomo told WAMC. “I understand the politics on these issues. Everyone wants to make all these advocacy groups happy. Taxpayers’ money is taxpayers’ money. And if it’s taxpayers’ money for an environmental purpose, I want to make sure it’s going to an environmental purpose.

“This transformation to a new green economy is very expensive. We don’t have the luxury of using funding for political purposes.”

Business interests had urged Cuomo and Democratic lawmakers to slow down, saying the legislation threatened 40,000 manufacturing jobs in the state. The Business Council of New York State called zero carbon emissions “unrealistic.”

But Democratic lawmakers forged ahead, working through the weekend to iron out a deal with Cuomo before a filing deadline for legislation Sunday. They argued that the risks of climate change, coupled with the benefits of a green energy economy, outweighed the potential costs.

“It means that on Father’s Day, when I see my grandchildren next year, I’ll have a lot less uncertainty about their future than I did yesterday morning,” said Democratic Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a champion of the climate legislation. “It means we are going to be in the vanguard among states, tackling a problem that will affect every jurisdiction here and around the globe. New York will lead the way.”

State Sen. Todd Kaminsky (D) said New York’s action would send a major signal to markets, helping companies plan for a cleaner future. But ultimately, he said, lawmakers were responding to voters.

“Our constituents told us, ‘Don’t come back without doing something on climate,'” Kaminsky said. “The future is now. I think we’ve taken that important step.”

‘Policy mandate with teeth’

Republican control of the state Senate meant climate policy in New York had been centered in the governor’s office until this year. Cuomo has pumped out executive orders banning hydraulic fracturing, calling for the closure of the state’s remaining coal plants in 2020 and targeting a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030, among other things.

The legislation enshrines many of Cuomo’s targets into law, ensuring they will outlast the current governor. The new Climate Action Council would be required to issue recommendations on how to install 6 gigawatts of distributed solar by 2025, 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035 and 3 GW of energy storage by 2030.

Read full story here…




Ohio

Ohio Rejects Renewables Mandate To Back Nuclear, Coal

This only proves that renewable energy is not a fait accompli as Sustainable Development wonks suppose. The partial rejection of renewable energy favors nuclear power over wind and solar, but has pitted the oil and gas industry against nuclear.  ⁃ TN Editor

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed a bill 53-43 that would subsidize nuclear and coal plants while eliminating a green energy mandate that now pushes utilities to more renewable energy and efficiency resources.

The “clean air program” would raise $190 million annually, charging ratepayers up to $1 monthly through 2026, mostly to fund First Energy Solutions’ Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants. The bill would also allow electric distribution utilities to charge customers a monthly fee, which requires state regulatory approval, to recover part of their ownership stake in Ohio Valley Electric Corporation’s (OVEC) Kyger Creek and Indiana-based Clifty Creek coal-fired plants.

The bill is expected to pass the Senate due to the support of Republicans and Gov. Mike DeWine, R, according to research firm ClearView Energy Partners VP Tim Fox, although state senators haven’t gone on the record to support nuclear subsidies. Ohio is expected to enact a nuclear assistance program before June 26, based on the deadlines FES has set to continue operation of its nuclear plants, Fox said in a note to clients.

While the House brought back some renewable provisions that had been stripped out in committee, advocates for renewable energy, natural gas and consumer rights bemoaned the passage of the bill, hailing it as a way to achieve President Donald Trump’s goal to subsidize coal plants.

By repealing the state’s broad renewable portfolio standard, the bill would eliminate a monthly surcharge of less than $5 from residential customers to help utilities obtain 12.5% of their power from renewable resources by 2027.

But while the bill eliminates the mandate, it contains other renewable provisions that helped garner support from 10 of 38 Democrats.

One amendment helped reduce permitting risk for the approval of small on-site industrial wind facilities, increasing the maximum from 5 MW to 20 MW for on-location self-generation wind-farms that could avoid Ohio Power Siting Board review. Another made room for five large-scale solar power projects to qualify for funding from the “clean air” program, after a House committee had stripped the bill of most of its renewable components.

But while some were glad to see at least some renewable provisions in the bill, oil and gas groups blasted the nuclear support provisions as unnecessary.

Read full story here…




Europe Embraces China’s Belt And Road Initiative

As a Technocracy, China is driven to create infrastructure and develop the global supply chain, both of which are central to its Belt and Road initiative. Europe is playing both sides of the fence with America on one hand, and China on the other. ⁃ TN Editor
 

The multipolar transformation that is occurring across the Eurasian continent confirms the industrial and diplomatic cooperation between China and the European continent in spite of strong opposition from the United States.

Xi Jinping’s visit to Europe confirms what many of us have been writing about over the past few months and years, namely, the reality of an ongoing global transformation of a world dominated by the United States to a pluralistic one composed of different powers collectively shaping a multipolar world.

Europe therefore finds itself in fortuitous position, balanced as it is between its old world links to the United States on the one side and the fledgling Eurasian one being ushered in by Russia and China on the other.

Countries like Germany and France, but even the United Kingdom, have long implemented commercial policies that encourage integration between the countries of the Eurasian supercontinent. In 2015, the United Kingdom was among the first Western countries to join the Chinese Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which finances projects of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The Chinese BRI mega project kicked off in 2014 with the ambitious goal of integrating trade between China and Europe by sea and by land, in the process incorporating all the countries in between. The idea, as a natural consolidation of trade, is to shorten the delivery times of goods by rail and integrate sea routes. The project covers not only ports and rail lines but also the construction of technological infrastructure to achieve global interconnectivity using the 5G technology developed by the Chinese tech giant Huawei.

Germany and France have over the years deepened their partnerships with Beijing. Paris in particular boasts historical ties with China stemming from the nuclear cooperation between China General Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) and Électricité de France (EDF) stretching back to 1978, as well as the aerospace one between Airbus and the Chinese aviation companies that has been ongoing since 1985.

Italy has in recent months approached the BRI as a result of the new government consisting of the Lega Nord and Five Star Movement (M5S). The decision to sign a memorandum of understanding between Beijing and Rome underlines how the new government wants to maintain a balanced position between Washington and Beijing in certain sectors. This is exactly the approach of Germany, which has elected to continue deepening its ties with Moscow vis-a-vis hydrocarbons and Nord Stream 2 in the face of pressure from Washington. Moreover, both Germany and Italy have confirmed that they want to rely on Huawei for the implementation and management of 5G traffic, which is fundamental to a world dominated by the internet of things.

The decisions of Germany, France and Italy to continue their cooperation with Moscow and Beijing in various fields flies in the face of the narrative advanced by the American-controlled scaremongering media controlled that attempts to discourage European politicians from acting in the interests of their countries and engaging with Russia and China.




Tim Ball On Green New Deal: Not New, Not Green, Not A Deal

The Green New Deal exposes the ultra-radical nature of UN policies of Sustainable Development. The UN is sworn to overthrow Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and it using global warming as a battering ram. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Here is what to do when the title is a lie. Confirm it also lies within the text. Confirm the lies in a historical and political context. Expose the lies and the people responsible. Explain, in ways the people can understand, why they can safely ignore the hysteria and actions it recommends. Attack those people and politicians that demand you pay for the lies. Then, adopt the policy of not believing anything in the new, fake news world.

.It is not “new,” it is not “green” other than in name, and it is not a “deal.” In other words, it is a technocrat’s delight because it revisits and resuscitates their goal of total government control without appearing to do so. Proponents of the original idea that humans were causing global warming are losing the war one battle at a time. They did what they always do. Ignore the evidence and move the goalposts. That is what they are doing with the New Green Deal. It is the same use of false or deliberately created science to convince people that they can save them from the sky falling. Chicken Little reappears as Big Turkey.

The last major example occurred in 2004. From 1998 onward CO2 levels continued to increase, but temperatures stopped increasing. This completely contradicted their major assumption and brought them face-to-face with Thomas Huxley’s (1825 – 1895) observation that,

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

The emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that instead of revisiting the science they changed the name from global warming to climate change. This clever but deceitful move allowed them to avoid any evidence that contradicted their hypothesis by removing the hypothesis. It also allowed them to identify any weather event as support for their claims of human interference.

From its emergence onto the world stage in 1988 the claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) was a front for the need for not only local government control, but an over-arching one-world government. Elaine Dewar summarized the goal of Maurice Strong, the architect of Agenda 21 and its subsidiary the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as follows.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda. 

A major piece in the platform was the creation of a global threat. It must be global to transcend national boundaries, so they could argue that no one nation could cope. They produced the major piece through the artificial construct of global warming.

It began at the 1988 US Joint Congressional Hearing when James Hansen falsely testified that he was 99% certain that humans were the cause. That was not true then, and it is not true now, but it continues as a justification for the New Green Deal. The person who organized that Hearing was former Senator Timothy Wirth. I say, former Senator because after one term he resigned and took an appointment as President of the United Nations Foundation. This organization was created from a 1998 $1 billion gift from media mogul Ted Turner. He is listed as a member of the Club of Rome along with George Soros and Wirth.

I will not dissect the New Green Deal here because it so wrong it requires a book, but it is sufficient to show the scientific inaccuracies underlying just one portion. The plan is to eliminate North American cattle because they produce methane, a greenhouse gas. Methane is 0.36% of all the greenhouse gases and only 0.000179% of total atmospheric gases. There are approximately 85 million cows in North America, but if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is serious why not eliminate the 200 million cows roaming the streets of India? Why not stop the re-introduction of Bison in North America? 150 years ago, there were an estimated 65 million producing methane. If you want to use science, then deal with variables on both sides of the formula, not just the ones that fit your political agenda.

The insanity of the New Green Deal is in the persistent attempts to do what consistently fails. Every country that tried a “green agenda” failed miserably and abandoned or is in the process of abandoning it.

The insanity includes crippling at best or destroying at worst your economy because of those countries that are forging ahead with development using fossil fuels. It is reasonable to assume that AOC and her supporters are concerned about the poor and politically handcuffed citizens. Look at any country that tried a green agenda and you see that the rich got richer and the poor became poorer. It is a classic Communist Manifesto that appears good on paper but creates exactly the opposite results. In Britain, for example, the government subsidies of alternative green energy resulted in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich. It also resulted, as one report showed, that Consumers ”Grossly Overpaying” for Electricity.

 

Here is what to do when the title is a lie. Confirm it also lies within the text. Confirm the lies in a historical and political context. Expose the lies and the people responsible. Explain, in ways the people can understand, why they can safely ignore the hysteria and actions it recommends. Attack those people and politicians that demand you pay for the lies. Then, adopt the policy of not believing anything in the new, fake news world.