Tag Archives: EEA

Bullshit and Hypocrisy

Yes, two elements, more important, can you tell the difference? Can you tell the difference when it is the media doing both? In this case it is the Guardian who had the hypocritical balls to give us the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/the-guardian-view-on-cop27-this-is-no-time-for-apathy-or-complacency)

To understand this we take a quote, like “That’s why today more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done. Time is running out”, and why does this get to me?

I wrote on August 26th ‘As credibility moves to the arctic’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/26/as-credibility-moves-to-the-arctic/) where I confront Matt McGrath with a few items. Then there was July 31st 2021 where I gave the readers ‘Place with a view’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/31/place-with-a-view/) and not to forget ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) which has the ACTUAL EEA report as well. A report that to the best of my knowledge was never seen on the BBC site and not on the Guardian site either. No Matt McGrath was all about the rich people and their jets, whilst over the last 15 years over 41,000 flights a day were added. I feel absolute certain that at least a third could be scrapped. There is no need to have 15 flights a day between Amsterdam and Stockholm and that is merely one example. That is the first setting, the second was the EEA report, which gives us that 50% of ALL damage is done by merely 1% of the facilities. 50% of all damage comes from 147 facilities and as I can see it they ALL ignored that. Why is that? So please stop the hypocrite bullshit of “more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done”, you should have done your job for years but you would not, you have (as I personally see it) no credibility left. 

As such the laughing suggestion “Impose climate tax on fossil fuel giants, media groups urge”, so how about you 30 do your fucking jobs for a change and have a hard look at these 147 facilities, or perhaps the list of airlines that added over 41,000 flights every day and dig into that part before you look at some ultra rich person with their fuel efficient jets that give a fraction of the carbon emissions that a normal jet gives. 

And the masses, the flammable masses love the idea of taxing fossil fuel giants. So how about this. I am hereby requesting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reduces delivery of crude oil to the West (Europe and America) by 1 million barrels a day, how does that sound? I reckon the first hour idiots like ‘Just Stop Oil movement’ will love me, but that is the first hour. When the deal becomes as long as any of them are still alive, the limitation of oil remains their feelings will change very fast. We are our own worst enemy and the media has become the enemy of all. It is simple, the media are for the most are no longer bringing us the news. They are bringing filtered information, information that is approved by shareholders, stakeholders and the advertisers. So how does that grab you? There is a second solution, we release a biotoxin that removes 80%-90% of the human population, it actually solves everything, but certain greed driven people will think it is over the top.

Until real reporting is done by these 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries, they should shut the fuck up (I apologise for my wording here). But there comes a time when Bullshit and Hypocrisy are just a little too much, especially when out of these 31 groups (me included) I am the only one handing the people the EEA report and looking into it. The media has done jack shit on that element. This editorial was a bit too much to me and it should be way too much to all of you.

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

The simple truth that matters

I saw an article at the CBC which was a month old. The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/aviation-emissions-flying-climate-change) gives us ‘Yearning to fly’, I get it, most love a plane ride, for most it is the official beginning of a vacation. For some it is the beginning of more and for yet more others it is merely a business trip. There we get “Airports around the world — including, infamously, Toronto’s Pearson — buckled under the strain.” Yes we get it, COVID-19 was an element no one has ever lived through, businesses were unable to fathom impact, retention the workforce and keep their KPI on some level of bonus giving. But the problem is a lot larger. Then we get “Many observers say the current growth trajectory is unrealistic — and that the aviation industry isn’t being frank about it.” This sounds nice but there is a part missing. There was more we were also given “To give a sense of just how much we fly, there were nearly 39 million flights worldwide in 2019; that was up from 25.9 million in 2009.” And that is merely the beginning. Now we need to take a step back. On November 13th 2021 I gave the world ‘A COP26 truth’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) with reference to an article two days earlier. I wrote at the time “the larger issue is that over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped.” A statement that implies that we could remove 10,250 flights every day, so how much carbon does that take off the table? And the governments all over the world are unwilling to make that registration, consider one destination Amsterdam International (Schiphol), they get an average of 1166 flights a day, every day. There is not a bone in my body who tells me that this makes sense. London, Paris, New York, Amsterdam, Munich, Atlanta, San Francisco. I truly believe that it has come to the fact that the world has annual 38.9 million flights. If we merely scrap 2%, that amounts to 778,000 flights. So how much carbon emissions do we safe then? And we get some BS reporter at the Guardian give us the the pointing finger at the uber rich? Gimme a break!

They have ignored a EEA report (I think it was 2020) where the report states that 50% of all pollution came from 147 facilities. I initially mentioned it on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) I even included the report. The article titled ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ gives a lot to think about and the Guardian did nothing (well neither did the BBC), so whilst we yearn vacations and in many cases preferably per plane, there is still the matter of Carbon emissions and the essential need to scrap at least 778,000 commercial flights FOREVER. The Dutch KLM flies 15 flights a day to Stockholm. Really? Do that many people travel? If we examine and dig into the manifests of EVERY plane we will see gaps, too many gaps. There is no way that we need 15 daily flights to Stockholm, we can do with 6 easily. That is one route and we scrap well over 50%, we need to dig into these realms and we need to start scrapping presentation flights. The simple truth is that we seemingly think that there are so many people flying, the fact is that the entire setting is loaded from the start and it is time to get rid of a lot of them, if we need to create time we need to cut where we can. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Place with a view

That is the stage, we have a view, we all have a view and we tend to have a point of interest. This ‘mess’ all started a few hours ago when I saw a three day old article on the BBC with ‘The public relations and ad firms refusing fossil fuel clients’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62303026) in the first instance, it is fine to refuse work, it is not always clever, but I get it. We have all kinds of industries that we shun and it is fashionable to shun fossil fuel clients, but it seems a little hypocritical to do so. So when I see “Last year, she decided that Done! would become one of the now 350 advertising and PR firms who have joined a movement called Clean Creatives. Joining the movement means they pledge to refuse any future work for fossil fuel firms, or their trade associations.” I merely shrug it off. It is a little superficial and somewhat hypocrite to do so. 

Why?
Until ALL employees of that firm travel with all means that use no fossil fuel, they still depend on it. Until they have an Elon Musk battery solution for the house heating, the equipment running, they rely on fossil fuels. So to shun fossil fuel firms is a little hypocrite as I personally see it.

The article also gives us “The United Nations (UN) recognises that the burning of fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal – “are by far the largest contributor to climate change”. It says that they account for “nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions”.” That is nice, but the facts are ignored, the MEDIA is doing everything to spin it into another direction. I discussed this in ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) There we see a report by the EEA (European Environment Agency) where the cover gives us that 1% of the plant are responsible for 50% of the damage, so what do people like Matt McGrath (according to some a journalist) state? “Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles” Yea right. Fossil fuels are here to stay. If you wonder why, wonder why the US sells 73% of its oil and then sends President Biden with its hand up to the UAE and Saudi Arabia asking for more cheap oil. The article sounds nice, and it is nice that someone takes a step in any direction, but with staff shortages as they are they can make all the presumption they want. I wonder where those ideals stay when it becomes a dog eat dog situation again. 

So when we see “The fossil fuel industry uses advertising agencies and PR agencies to make it harder for governments to hold them accountable. And ads are misleading and make companies seem more committed to climate action than they really are.” No one is asking when will the media give us the larger game where the US sells 73% of its oil, in that they become the foundation of shortage, but we do not really get to see that story, do we?

Reality
The reality is that we all realise that we need to change gears, we need other solutions and it is there that we see the larger problem. The EU with 147 facilities that the media avoids. The larger station that there are options and Elon Musk has several of them and in 2 years no one made a clear step towards instigating changes that allow for a different approach to the need of fossil fuel.  Not today, not yesterday, not last week. The foundation of options has been out and about for 2 years. Governments all over the world have shunned these solutions, as such the story of some PR firms shunning certain players reads like a joke. Governments are at the centre of inactions, but we do not get to see that part, do we? And all this BS of making the fossil fuel companies the bad player is partly a joke. Yes, they are not innocent, yet the world needs oil, that is clear as day and until the people leave their cars at home they can bloody well shut up. 

So when we see the end of the article “A lot of agencies will come to the point where they have to make the decision if they want to be able to recruit the brightest,” says Ms Townsend. “The young ones don’t want to work with oil and gas [clients].” Yes, that sounds nice and it is good to have ethical boundaries, but lets be clear. The government, the media are all in favour or misrepresenting certain parts, why are they not illuminating that side? Or are we putting fossil fuels quietly with the weapons and gambling branches? Because that has worked so well in the last decade. For me? I am in a different field, but if I can make good money in a branch and it is not illegal, ethical choices when I see the media and governments play catch and release with the truth and facts too shallow for words. 

In the end, I have nothing against Marian Ventura or her point of view, she is entitled to one and she is sticking to her guns (as it seems). But to read this in the BBC whilst Matt McGrath goes on his ‘Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ Don Quijote tour whilst the EEA gave us 1% of the facilities create 50% of the damage and he has not once, NOT ONCE taken a full page investigating that side of things, is just a little too hypocritical to my liking. 

But it could just be me, you judge, the December 10th article I mentioned earlier has that report. 

Yes there is a place, there are many places and they all have a view, but I have some serious issues with the view I am seeing.

Enjoy!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Really? Part 3?

OK, that is not quite right, but it still is. You see 8 hours after my previous article, the Guardian gives us ‘Government policies will not get UK to net zero, warns damning report’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/29/government-policy-failures-are-obstacle-to-uk-net-zero-target-advisers-warn). This gives us “He said net zero policies were also the best way to reduce the soaring cost of living. Average household bills would be about £125 lower today if previous plans on green energy and energy efficiency had been followed through. “If you want to deal with the cost of living crisis, this is exactly what you need to do,” he said.” Yes, tell us something we do not know? OK, I admit that £125 loss of cost is a decent admittance of the facts, but take that amount and multiply it with 27.8 million households you see what I have been trying to say for days. I merely did not want it to hang on an amount. You see £3,475 billions is not merely a small amount, That amount twice over would need to be spend in the UK alone to optionally stem the tide of the energy boom it is costing them and not merely this summer, the next few years twice over. British winters will be as harsh as anything they face and it ill be worse for the US. Even at that same step, that amount is needed for just New York. There is no soft version to that story, it is already too late for that. I reckon that this coming winter will see the application of triage solutions and the people will personally see the harshness of a new doctor in the field. They will first hand see who might make it and who will be a write off. 2022 could start that setting for 3-4 years to come and those thinking that Elon Musk was having a bad week, he owns the IP that half the planet who needs to shake off (reduce) the oil dependancy at present. I reckon that Elon Musk is sitting pretty. Those making fun of him will have to acknowledge that they are clueless on where they actually are at present. Not a bad week I say.

And I believe that other part of Europe as well as the US will soon have to come with cautious articles on the harshness of life expectations. It will not come out in the big places, no it will get started on climate sources, on environmental grounds and then it will pick up to the wider audience. And at some point, someone will make the link with the article I wrote called ‘Ignored by media’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/19/ignored-by-media/) on August 19th 2021 where I highlight an EEA report where we see that 50% of all pollution is caused by 147 facilities. These were not my words, they are the findings of the European Environmental Agency and I found that in December 2020. So why is that not all over the place? I get it, pollution is not the same, but it shows that the media (for some unknown reason) is keeping these 147 facilities out of the media. What else were they keeping from you? And when you realise that the UK was playing footsie with the energy bill of 27.8 million households, what do you think the others are doing? Feel free to doubt me, but the EEA report was out for all to find, so why did we get a source blaming people with. Jet and the 147 facilities did not make the cut? 147 facilities that caused 50% of ALL pollution damage. It might not be the same, but they are pockets on the same jacket we all wear and you were kept out of it all.

And that net zero number will not be met by way too many players, why is that? Consider your energy bill over the next to month and wonder what happens when winter comes (apparently something to do with some game about thrones).

The parts we ignore, or that we are seemingly intentionally not given are connected in other ways. Now I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest person on the planet (merely a top 10 contender), and if I can see that, if I can show the lines, you might tart wondering how misplaced your faith in the media has been, these clever people missed that? Or did they cater to someone else? I will let you figure that out. The 2020 article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) has that EEA report at the bottom, so you read up and try to make sense of certain choices. Choices by the governments and choices by media. And try to enjoy your breakfast.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

The needy, the greedy and Dopey

Yes, a reference if ever there was one. Yet in the stage of an article that was the thought that hit me a second later. The article came from the Guardian titled ‘Fossil fuel firms ‘have humanity by the throat’, says UN head in blistering attack’. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/17/fossil-fuel-firms-un-head-antonio-guterres-blistering-attack) gives us all kinds of ‘information’ And we pause when we see “Fossil fuel companies and the banks that finance them “have humanity by the throat”, the UN secretary general has said, in a “blistering” attack on the industry and its backers, who are pulling in record profits amid energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war.” Yet the truth is not really that profound, is it? We can blame the oil dealers, but the truth of the matter is that for well over 20 years governments were dragging its heels in the investment that was essential for their nation, The US, the UK, Commonwealth nations, EU nations. None of them are without blame. And as such United Tony goes on a ramble of blaming. And with “They exploited precisely the same scandalous tactics as big tobacco decades before. Like tobacco interests, fossil fuel interests and their financial accomplices must not escape responsibility.” And where were the governments? Filling their pockets on that taxation. But that is something we do not get to see either is it? For centuries the world created a commodities environment and that should have stopped 30 years ago, or should have been deflated 30 years ago and now that the hole is deeper than one thought the blame game starts and the pointing fingers commences in earnest, but if you want to see the guilty party you only need to look into a mirror. 

And in the USA, where we see average diesel prices at $5.798. In November 2020 is was $2.462, in May 2008 it was $4.723, In June 1996 is was $1.179. This was a volatile market to begin with, there were clear warnings in 2008, which was 14 years ago and the 12 years before that there were more indicators. So where was the United Nations then? Where were the politicians then? So the tantrum the Guardian is giving us sounds nice, but the lack of actions is overwhelming as such we could go with the blame on ‘fossil fuel producers and financiers’ yet in all this where were the politicians, where was the media? The same media that shorted an EEA report that CLEARLY showed that 50% of ALL pollution was created by 147 facilities and I illuminated that in earlier articles, where was the Guardian at that point where its reporter was eager to blame all those jet owners? 

As such United Tony should get contemplate a decent grip on reality. 

So whilst we now see “The Guardian understands Guterres has been incensed by the recent behaviour of fossil fuel companies, which have been reaping a bonanza from energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war. Much of these bumper profits are likely to be invested in fresh exploration and expansion of fossil fuel resources.” All this with an earlier jab towards Saudi Arabia and the ‘need’ for President Biden to go there. Yes, there is a splinter of truth there, but the larger issues is that oil is a commodity, one many do not have and lets face it. The top three are United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. So if the US is one of the three top producers, why does it need Saudi oil? Did anyone consider THAT part of the equation? The US should have limited fossil requirements decades ago, but did they? So why is United Tony ignoring that part of the equation? And then we see the political ‘outrage’ with headlines like ‘Biden Was Always Going to Need Saudi Arabia’ and “Why Biden Needs Saudi Arabia: to produce oil and deter Iran” yet the simple truth is that Saudi Arabia needs to do what is best for Saudi Arabia and the US needs to produce more oil, or set the stage that less oil is required a simple setting that was out in the open for decades. Yet we also see a lack of actions from the United Nations and United Tony to set a clear agenda to LIMIT the need for oil. We see a lot of noise and we saw that for the longest of times, but how much ACTUAL actions were taken? Consider that one of the top three nations is appealing to Saudi Arabia to produce more. We get that he is not going to Moscow, we get that his actions are limited but this is a train-wreck from beginning to end. And the United Nations are a mere sample of Mukimono on the diner table and we need to realise this. 

So when we see “Fossil fuel firms ‘have humanity by the throat’” we want to blame, but who can we blame but our own reflection? So when people ask me ‘What did you do?’ I can say “I never bothered with a drivers license, I never owned a car. I walked nearly every day to and from public transportation” and in over half a century I only desperately needed a car LESS than a dozen times and they nearly all were part of moving day actions. Who else can make that claim? Yes, some call me Dopey for not having a car. Yet I saw people requiring $80 a week just to park the bloody thing, so who is the Dopey? Them or me?

Dependence on oil is a bad thing, but not addressing that need is worse. The politicians and people are mere junkies for the black goo. They can alter the language and give excuses but that is what a junkie does and those who wanted a solution found another way, so which nations have another solution? Yes, I reckon you will not be able to find one, even as New Zealand might be the closest to being one, it is in the same goo, just not as deep as all the other nations. 

It would have been nice for António Guterres (United Tony) to address the needy (US) the greedy (the political players) and tell the Dopey’s (the people) that the first step in addressing this problem is admitting to yourself in the mirror that you have one. Because the people are just as much to blame as anyone else. If you want to make claim that you are not the problem then leave your car at home for a week, for one week do without it. You will be surprised how many excuses you can come up with to grab the car, just like a junkie does. I feel fine, I have been without a car for half a century. So from the time we saw the Morris Marina until the Maruti Swift, I never had any of them. I get that there are times that a car is essential, we all get that, but I throw back at you that this year alone there are 1.446 billion cars, in 1970 the world had 200,000,000 cars. Over 50 years we saw a 723% growth of cars and some are essential, I get that, but 723%? We are all part of that problem, we drove the commodity of oil into the stratosphere and we are too scared (or cowardly) to admit that and the oil producing nations are having a great day, the Ukrainian war is merely an excuse. You see, 50% of that war (Russia) has its own supply and they have plenty. But that part is equally not illuminated. Why is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Is it news? Is it interesting?

Yes, that was the setting I saw today. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/12/lionel-messi-saudi-arabia-deal-tourism) gives us ‘Lionel Messi earned $122m last year. He still felt the need to take Saudi money’, well that is a first, when was that more news? And Saudi money might have an oily smell to it, but does that make it less acceptable? This is a world that is changing so fast that many feel (not entirely incorrectly) that more money becomes an essential sign. This is not about greed, this is about the cost of living taking a massive gander towards the unacceptably high. Yes, there are some ideas about when is enough enough. But even a person like Lionel Messi will need to cash in for as long as he can, because at some point, the well dries up and for football icons they tend to have decades ahead of them when that income well dries up. Lets be clear, they are all on massive incomes, yet they also have a larger spending spree due to social responsibilities, a side the media is always happy to remain silent about. So when I saw the article I went ‘Meh’, it is nice that someone has another income, in this case a Saudi tourist ambassador, but those are not that rare, are they. Many nations have one. In Australia a model got her fame with the line ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ We all respond to different stages and settings and Lionel Messi got this one. As such when I see “Simply put, Messi has enough money that his future grandchildren won’t need to work a day in their lives. He could have politely declined the Saudi offer and still lived out a very comfortable retirement.” I wonder where Karim Zidan gets his point of view. The cost of living goes through the roof and I reckon that by 2025 a lot of people will desire such an extra income, if not they will not be able to afford basic living needs. Now we can accept that Lionel Messi is not in that stage yet, but the events in Europe (Ukraine) implies that Europe, the EU and the US are facing all kinds of hardships and if some plans go through, the US will face its own hardships. You see, it is not merely enough to have cash, you need to have a larger stage of friends who will be there when things go wrong. As such Lionel Messi made his choice and I do not believe it is a bad one. So whilst we are given “Messi has effectively aligned himself with a regime linked to countless human rights abuses, including the infamous assassination of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, its devastating war in Yemen that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe, and its crackdown on intellectuals, LGBTI+ people, reformers, and women’s rights activists.” We are not given a few items.

  1. Yemen was taken over by terrorists, terrorists supported by Iran, we do not see that here, why not?
  2. The crackdown sound hilarious. So hilarious in light of all the abortion laws under fire in the US, there we see “A leaked supreme court draft ruling shows the US is set to end 50 years of a woman’s right to choose” as such I wonder where human rights are, I reckon they do not exist in the hypocritical setting of feigned christian believes. There is even a setting that over the last millennium, Islam was constant, Christian faith nothing more as a political vessel for those who needed power and those relying on faith to keep them in power. From a christian point of view there are issues with the Arabian nations, but culturally? Misplaced honesty in history has shown a greed driven extermination in the middle east that started on 18 Nov 1095 (council of Clermont) and did not end until 1291 (Siege of Acre) and even as we were told one thing in schools, we were never informed on the greed driven powers behind the crusades, including the Vatican seat. 

There is a lot more, but you can find that in other articles I wrote. Are there issues? Yes, there are and there always will be, but the first step in opening dialogues and starting conversations. A person like Lionel Messi is such an optional enabler. So there is no real surprise when we are given “In Messi, the Saudi government has a premier athlete with a built-in audience and platform ready to be utilised for political gain. While Messi was once lauded for his humanitarian efforts with Unicef and his own charitable foundation, his recent alignment with Saudi raises concerns that he is willing to blatantly disregard human rights in exchange for lucrative deals with brutal dictators.” Yes, and we take a closer look at “he is willing to blatantly disregard human rights in exchange for lucrative deals with brutal dictators”, I wonder who is looking into the abortion issues in the US, the long lasting stage of inaction when it came to wealth in Luxembourg, or the inactions of Strasbourg when it came to a whole range of issues. And when we take a gander towards places like “Global Corruption Barometer EU: People worried about unchecked abuses of power”, we see that the media stays interestingly quiet, all making waves in one direction (rich people with planes) whilst the larger issue is ignored (147 facilities create 50% of all pollution) in at least two events (by the Guardian) the EEA report was muzzled and ignored. As I see it western logic is faltering and it keeps on faltering, too many ego’s and not enough common sense. We might consider that Messi is the only one showing common sense, but that would be too much, would it not?

Is Saudi Arabia perfect? No, it is not, but at present not many nations and almost non in the EU can make that claim. I reckon that New Zealand is the only one who can make the claim of being close to perfect and I am Australian. There are ways we work and ways we think, but it is not on others to copy our way of working, and the abortion issues in the US are clear evidence of that. The misrepresentation by the Vatican is evidence of that. It seems that we need to adjust our vision too and to a much larger degree, but in that I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Religion

When anger takes over

On November 19th I wrote ‘Uranium, Iranas, Iran it again’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/19/uranium-iranas-iran-it-again/). In that article I wrote “the absence of strong language and the absence of clear shot time lines, I feel that my point will be made and I only need to see one of the three to be proven correct. This has been going on for 7 years, enough is enough I say”, that was a week ago. Now we get to see:

Reuters, 10 hours ago ‘IAEA’s Grossi says in Iran that he wants to deepen cooperation’, and this gives us “detailing its conflicts with Iran, from rough treatment of its inspectors to re-installing cameras it deems “essential” for the revival of the nuclear deal”, as well as “The agency is seeking to continue and deepen the dialogue with the government of Iran…We agreed to continue our joint work on transparency and this will continue”, in this, as I personally see it, we see Director General Rafael Grossi of the IAEA playing some ego game, pretending to be a diplomat, all whilst the clear setting is that the other party (Iran) is playing its own game which includes stalling as the essential part of their strategy. They are playing for time.

Arab News, 8 hours ago ‘Iran taking ‘arbitrary measures’ against IAEA inspectors, says Saudi representative’ where we are treated to “Iran is taking “arbitrary measures” against International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, Saudi Arabia’s governor at the UN watchdog said Tuesday”, as well as “Iran’s nuclear policy revolved around “blackmailing the world through its nuclear program

In the mean time, Iran is stopping the IAEA to assess just how much they have enriched, the bully tactics, the delays, and it never stops, it has never stopped. As far as I can tell, Director General Rafael Grossi of the IAEA is on a fools errant and he, and his American ‘friends’ are willing to sacrifice both Saudi Arabia and Israel in the process and that is a side we should be unwilling to accept, if this goes through, the Mediterranean would be in danger in several ways and none of them will look good on France, Spain and Italy. Egypt will take the brunt of that danger as well. All settings that could have been avoided by hitting Iran where it hurts, where it really really hurts. And in this, the bankrupt nations are unwilling to act, too much ego and too little common sense and lets face it, the EU needs the Suez Canal, America has alternatives, And when it does come down we all get to pay the price. In the US Gasoline is set (today) to $3.395 per gallon. When this go south that price will be a loverly memory, it will drive prices up by 100%-350%, there is no clear predictions here, Yet the setting will become that any household will have options to select heating, a car or food and they can only select one, some will be able to afford two, so how does that grab you?

And it is not the setting you might like, but it becomes the one you deserve. You deserve it because when it was time to act, you all preferred to wait it out. I had no issues to design a way to turn their reactor into a meltdown machine, it would end their needs right quick. Will it work? I honestly do not know, if it works great, if it goes boom perhaps even better. But the time of inactions against Iran is over. I (and many like me) are done with that trail to nowhere.

The fact that ego driven people are willing to let two sovereign nations face the consequence of the ego of some politicians is not that funny, not that hilarious and the delay trail has too many bad settings, too many dangers and optionally too many victims. It is not a setting of numbers, with Saudi Arabia and Israel representing 45 million, versus Iran 84 million, I say let Iran fry. It is a choice they made. And in light of the setting that people will not be hit, the idea of a meltdown at Bouchehr is not optimal as it is too close to the Sea of Dammam (what Iran calls the Persian Gulf), yet the benefit is that their gulf side land will become unavailable for decades. I still have to consider what I could do to both Natanz and Fordow, never considered crashing an enrichment site. Do I want to? Hell, no. I never wanted to get involved, but the inactions of the IAEA, its flaccid approach to Iran gave me no option. Israel faced a few extinction events, they have faced their ordeal, Saudi Arabia is crucial to stability in the middle East and to be honest, no one needs Iran. Not anymore. We can just do fine without them. 

I admit, in me anger is taking over, but I have decent ground after watching this shot show go down. Too many players are hoping for their slice of pie and they are willing to sacrifice two nations to get their cake. It is a price I am not willing to face, in this sacrificing one nation means a 50% reduction in damage. When numbers can be used to make a case the individual person always loses out, there has never been a case where that was not happening. If you wonder about that, consider all the articles I wrote where 147 facilities were responsible for 50% of all the damage (pollution), and still the media ignores it. Not my view, the view of the European Environmental Agency given to all a year ago, so why is that?

These matters are intertwined, they all use the same ego driven groups of people. You still think that inaction gets it done?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science

A media spoke or a media joke?

Yup, we all have jokes, we all have jokers and the media is no difference. That is how I personally see it and I was proven right again by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59277977) by Matt McGrath. I always patted myself on the back by not making any attack personal, it is the karmic way to be. Today I am going to break that (kind of) solemn promise. This happened as I saw ‘Evasive words and coal compromise, but deal shows progress’ some hours ago. I touched on his ludicrous stage in ‘Big Oil in the family’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/01/big-oil-in-the-family/) on July 1st 2021. He was all about making the ultra rich not fly through “Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles”, because that would solve a lot. So the 1235 ultra rich people, optionally flying their machines sometimes, all whilst over the last 15 years flights have increased by a million flights every year giving us now an additional 41,000 flights EVERY DAY. How stupid does a person need to get? Now we see “Observes also say there is the “start of a breakthrough” on the key question of loss and damage”, so what is he, the personal BBC jester trying to keep fossil fuel people happy? Lets be clear, I have nothing against fossil fuels, they are essential to our needs, yet we need to get clever fast on how to use them. The part that was in my article and I still ignored by the media is that 50% of the damage comes from 147 facilities. One hundred and forty seven facilities create 50% of all the damage! This is not me making that statement, it came from the EEA, and it is 1% of the European facilities. So why is the BBC and other media not all over that? Where are these polluters? It has been almost a year and the media ignores it, as does that so called environmentalist Matt McGrath. So when we get the headline with ‘promise’ I wonder who spikes his coffee. Anyone who sets some premise that the COP26 showed promise needs to get his head examined. Deforestation will not stop in 2030, these nations will not get the billions and the US remains the largest supplier of lumber. All whilst Brazil beat its own record this year by 5%. We have serious problems and having the media cater to whomever they cater to is a little upsetting, especially when it is not catering to the people, the readers but as I personally see it the shareholders, the stakeholders and the advertisers. 

Should you doubt that, consider the quote I gave you from the BBC article “The global top 10% of income earners use around 45% of all the energy consumed for land transport and around 75% of all the energy for aviation, compared with just 10% and 5% respectively for the poorest 50% of households, the report says” then consider that airlines have increased their flights by 41,000 every day, a gradual increase over 15 years that added 1,000,000 flights every year. And that is increase. I am not even including the flights already going. Now consider what a Gulf-stream takes and what a Boeing takes and consider the 41,000 flights a day that airlines pushed for (and they got them). And then reconsider the top 10% income earners, how many of them ACTUALLY have a plane? The numbers are not panning out end the use of emotional language is them hoping you might not notice. If I can find this flaw, why did he not see this? So comparing that on the people on well-fare, how stupid is that? It is a way to make the numbers sound sexy, but that is not sexy, it has become pathetic. So when we now see something as close to a failure as COP26 seems to be, the words ‘deal shows progress’ should not be coming from the lips or fingers of anyone in journalism. Politicians have has a luxurious stay, all the limelight they can bare, and as I personally see it we have nothing to show for it, again. So do you blame other nations for not abiding by requests when they do not end up getting anything? That part is missing as well and anyone taken in by the graphs on where we are (52.4Gt) and where we need to be (26.6Gt), all whilst by 2030 we will have close to 50% of the forests we had around 1918 we should see a very different graph soon enough, but who will bring it? Will we hope for actual journalism? In the age of digital lobbyists, you can hope, but you are most likely to hope in vain. 

So, enjoy breathing for now, you might live to the day when that too is a luxury you can no longer afford.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The riddle

Yes, there is a riddle here. It is not a riddle that is on you, or for you. It is a riddle that is within me. Even as I am about to dig into a matter I have dug in before. There is another play in motion. I set the stage, I left the clues and it is all linked to Toronto (a village in Canada). I cannot tell whether the people will catch on, but the gains are massive. The problems is that if I give away the game, the profit dwindle too much. It is a stage where one side gets the group $25M-$45M, yet the unspoken one, if left under the radar gives the group $400M-$600M. It is quite the conundrum, and it is not about greed. It is about some wannabe’s should not ever be allowed to get to this goal. I am willing to give it all away to merely achieve it so that some people get egg on their faces, in public and in the limelight. That is more rewarding to me then the millions I could get. It would give voice to the ‘I told you so’ choir, but not merely 5 voices. A choir like a symphony orchestra giving a few players the ‘You are an idiot’ dialogue with soprano’s and tenors. The view will be magnificent and the window is not that big. I have time, but every month that window shrinks a little more and I am willing to wait, I am willing to lose it all just as long as the wannabe’s openly lose it. It matters that much to me, my feeling of rage and anger is just that big. It comes back to the riddle, the riddle of the two sided sphere. Oh and for the clever people, this is not a clever way to describe a digon (a polygon with two sides and two vertices), no the riddle of the two sided sphere is different and until you get it yourself, you will never truly understand it, giving away the clue defeats the purpose. The riddle was given to me in 1983, it took some time to work out, but when I did doors opened, ways of thinking unlocked and the feeling of that key unlocking is both mesmerising and overwhelming. It gives the larger stage and that stage is kept clean and away from as many eyes as possible at present, winning that, seeing how the other failed means more than millions, it optionally shows I won several wars that others are in denial of.  Yet the limelight also takes away their ability to remain in denial, others will ask these wannabe’s why they never saw it and whilst they come up with excuse and excuse and rely on levels of miscommunication they will enter the blame game and I will stand in the back watching chaos unfold. The idea that I am almost at that stage is exciting, more exciting than holding a KFC bucket filled with diamonds. And I am so close, I can almost taste it.

So that is enough about the riddle, related to the riddle there is also another riddle, and that can be explained. It started two days ago, all whilst some give the setting that the COP26 is a failure. I do not disagree, I merely wonder if some realise the dangerous game the media is playing. To see that, I will have to give you a few stages.

Stage one
Stage one is not new. It started on December 10th 2020 when I wrote ‘Hatred of wealth’ where the BBC article was the centre piece ‘Climate change: Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55229725). There we see Matt McGrath yielding the floor to Oxfam. They give us “The global top 10% of income earners use around 45% of all the energy consumed for land transport and around 75% of all the energy for aviation, compared with just 10% and 5% respectively for the poorest 50% of households, the report says” I debunked that BS in less than 5 minutes. You see Statista also gives us numbers (you can see them in that article, but the setting is that in the last 15 years plane travel went up by well over 15,000,0000 planes, this implies almost a million planes per year more. The article does not give this, does it? The article was lacking a lot more, especially when you consider the reports by the EEA (European Environmental Agency) and the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programs) so whilst I made chop suey of both  Matt McGrath and Tim Gore my work was done. 

Stage two
So what happens? The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/carbon-top-1-percent-could-jeopardise-1point5c-global-heating-limit) gives us on November 5th almost the same BS the BBC gave you all a year earlier. Here too we see “The paper shows that the fight to keep 1.5C within reach is not being hampered by the consumption of most people on the planet, but by the excessive emissions of the world’s richest citizens, said Tim Gore, author of the briefing and head of the low-CO2 and circular economy programme at the IEEP.” As I see it, the same bloody tosser gives us the same shit we got a year ago and the overextension of blaming the rich, whilst we now see TWO media outlets ignoring the report that 50% all ALL damage is created by 147 facilities. Now, if they would be in opposition of the report I gave you all in the earlier stories, if they were in opposition of the EEA numbers, it would be one thing. I have nothing against opposition, it forces us to double check. No these two players openly ignore presented numbers and if you seek those who did, you are not likely to find one. Why is that? Why do we give credibility to some person relying on “the fight to keep 1.5C within reach is not being hampered by the consumption of most people on the planet” whilst not presenting clear documentation of how they got there, all whilst (via statista) I showed that over the last 15 years more flights were created by almost a million flights a year, every year. The media is playing a dangerous game by misrepresenting the facts and this is exactly what COP26 is doing, helping each other being utterly useless in protecting the environment. By aiding some delusional setting to aid politicians and industrials via stakeholders. The question becomes has Oxfam become just such a player, aiding industrials so that their little niche might have some expected virtual protection for a few more months. If we turn back the clock today and scrap the 15,000,000 flights how much more will we save? I will bet decent money that it will be a hell of a lot more than what the top 1% uses with their jets, especially when you realise just how often he flies that thing and the 41,095 daily flights that the extra planes bring to the equation. But that is not how it is presented, yet I remember being on a flight (Amsterdam-Budapest) where there were less than a dozen people on a 767, so how much carbon did these 12 people (including yours truly) bring to the CO2 equation. 

Consider these elements and consider how you are getting played by large media on what they want you to think, and not what is optionally really the case. Playing the introduction towards ‘blaming the rich’ so that a seemingly useless president can play his tax the rich plan as he is now only 6 weeks away from another shutdown as he will hit another debt ceiling. The media has as I personally see it become willing to such a level of catering. And no one asks who are they actually catering to? As I consider it, it cannot be the truth and if that is the case they cannot be newspapers and they should pay their 6% added sales tax, not hide behind a zero tax option, is that not too what they accuse others of?

Enjoy the weekend, it will end in less than 50 hours.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Population One

It might be the most depressing outlook one could ever have. When the population depletes to one, thee will be no reproduction (and no sex either). It does not matter who wins, whether it is a he or a she. Greed is based on the foundation that everyone else must fail. So it ends with a population of one. Yet I did not get there in a single stroke, I went beyond the DNA virus that could kill 97.3% of all people. I went beyond the fake promises of politicians, the calculated misinformation the media aids them with and it all comes down to the man in charge. The most greed driven ding dong on Wall Street. We are all in a stage of self destruction. Whether it is some form of discrimination, whether it is some form of gathering wealth by people who should not be allowed to have a dime in the first place (not referring to the wealthy people like Beff Jezos, Gill Bates or Zark Muckerman), I am talking about the wannabe’s who got creative and turned the law into something productive FOR THEM. I am talking about those who cut corners so that they can scrape a few coins they never worked for and if that results in some gap driven solution where people in the UK find out their house is stolen from under their noses, that is just business. So when you read the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662) and see “the duplicate driving licence issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Mr Hall’s name, details of a bank account set up in his name to receive the proceeds of the sale, and phone recordings of the house being stolen” You would be wrong that this is a fluke. You could optionally accept “We work with professional conveyancers, such as solicitors, and rely on them and the checks that they make to spot fraudulent attempts to impersonate property owners. Despite our efforts, every year we do register a very small number of fraudulent transactions”, and I would too, but in this case we are both wrong. You see, this was not a fluke, this was well thought through, this was orchestrated and this was intent and all parties failed to protect a homeowner. Yet in all this, the banks cut corners. So where was the notary? Oh right, someone gave the clear indication that a notary was no longer required, it is so much faster to get a councilman doing that. It is a mess and the mess is merely increasing, all because some players are crying that things have to move faster and we all complied, we all did this.

But this is not about a house, or a notary, or any form of simple matter. This is a much larger problem and it includes politicians, the media and us. We were always part of the bungle. Me too, I cannot claim innocence, I am a part of this screw up, just like you are. And perhaps it is already too late. 

Step One
In step One I wish to remind you of older articles. On December 10th 2020 I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) There I brought a report to the surface by the European Environment Agency. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme was included at the end of the article. But the most striking part was that the EEA gave us that 147 facilities are producing 50% of ALL pollution damage. That is a clear indication, we saw the Guardian helping out some vague friend by setting the stage that if rich people stopped using their jets, 10% less pollution would be the case (a setting I highly doubt), so whilst we aren’t clearly seeing that, the claim of “Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles”, it amounts to I will fuck the neighbours wife without a condom so that we can safe the environment. Yes, we could all slash high carbon living, but that means we would be able to have a life, and that is not the case (at present).

Then on July 1st 2021 I wrote ‘Big Oil in the family’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/01/big-oil-in-the-family/) there we are given “An unprecedented wave of lawsuits, filed by cities and states across the US, aim to hold the oil and gas industry to account for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels – and covering up what they knew along the way”, you see it is another wave of the blame game. There is truth in the statement, but it also comes with the seal of approval by Wall Street, greed never sleeps and oil was an instant moneymaker. People in the oil industry were printing money on the spot. Do you have any believe that those people give up that gained benefit? I think not

Step two
Here we take a gander. 

we take a small step to Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehailstone/2021/10/01/industrial-air-pollution-costs-europe-2-3-of-gdp/) there we are given “The report – by the European Environment Agency – concludes that half of this pollution is caused by just 211 facilities scattered over the EU”, which is interesting as the images I gave you all shows it to be 147 facilities, but the locations are unknown. In addition we are given “Just 211 sites of the 11,655 facilities reporting emissions caused 50% of the pollution in 2017”, interesting as I was looking at 2020 material, So why is Forbes, in an October 2021 article going back to a 2017 report? And I got to that point 10 months before Forbes did. Someone does not want the whole enchilada out in the open. So where is that stakeholder? My assumption is Wall Street. 

In one of the articles I gave the quote “In the early 1990s, Kenneth Lay helped to initiate the selling of electricity at market prices and, soon after, Congress approved legislation deregulating the sale of natural gas” and now we see prices of Gas explode out of proportions. We see ‘electricity at market prices’ yet they did not upgrade installations and the need for electricity has also exploded out of proportions. Now one of those really wealthy people is sitting on a solution, but governments have not made any interesting move to make it happen, to push renewable industries to a much greater extend, and that is now starting to bite. 

Step Three
Now we get to the good stuff. I see a video by some grandmother named Gina McCarthy pass by. I see the text “the US is back in a leadership position”, it took 3 vials of Haldol to get me back to hysterics. The US has not been in a leadership position for the longest of time, Wall Street is. And in 7 weeks we get to see them flexing their muscles again. You see, we see headlines like ‘Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveils £3bn climate aid commitment at COP26’, where is he getting the money? Where is the US getting the money? Their clock runs out in 7 weeks and they do not have any funds, the larger polluter is China according to some of these reports, but where are they? What are they setting up? In all this the US is seemingly the least powerful player (an empty wallet does that), it is one of the less rich players (Canada) that is making larger and optionally tougher strides, will it be enough? 

You see, it remains to be seen, there are too many eyes on this event, so we are getting all the same messages. Yet it is next month, and January (after Christmas) that counts and it is then that we are more likely than not see more wealthy jet stories (the Guardian) or older reports (Forbes). And that is when you will need to take a stance, will you hold politicians and media accountable for luring you away from the limelight of truth? Consider that one source gives us two quotes. The first is “Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, Warren Entsch won’t attend the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow”, the second is “Mr. Entsch has now confirmed he opted out of the summit after the uncertainty around being able to return home”, so how committed is he? Perhaps he is afraid he’ll miss an episode of Home and Away? #JustAsking

We have global problems, we have problems all over the world, yet to be honest, I never would have guessed that Australians would be guilty of destruction of their Great Barrier Reef by being ignorant. And a similar (optionally even worse) event is happening is Western Australia. We all destroyed our planet, you, me, all of us. We let the Wall Street people act and cut corners to facilitate greed and we let the politicians assist them. As I personally see it, getting rid of 97.3% of all people might have been the humane solution. I will let you consider whether I am absolutely insane, or if I might have a decent case. In the end Greed only requires a population of one, my solution would be an option for 210.6 million people. Around what it was in the year 800. We need to reconsider what we do, we need to reconsider what will work, but flying people all over the world making presentations they cannot keep, enforce or pay for is not the solution. 

I will let you decide.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science