Tag Archives: environment

Trumping it along

That is the setting as President Trump proclaimed publicly “We don’t need Canadian lumber” and then Canadian wood product (lumber and utensils too) got a tariff hike. So as American lumber is needed in construction it would not be starting at a 25% depletion of that market (12 billion board feet) is now going somewhere else, Canada has had enough of this bully tactic and that is going to cost America a lot more than ever considered. It is about to cost America well over an additional $23 billion (source: Capital Briefs) and that was merely the start of this. Now the Financial Times gives us ‘Canada to reroute lumber exports as Trump’s tariffs bite’ (at https://www.ft.com/content/e56e8bb0-6dc0-4447-a907-e95164cec8e5) where we see “Canadian producers are seeking to divert around 10 per cent of the lumber normally sent south of the border to new buyers in the UK, EU and Middle East after the US president in September added a 10 per cent tariff on lumber, on top of an existing 35 per cent duty. The aim to send some 1bn board feet to alternative markets — enough to build at least 75,000 average size American homes — underscores how Trump’s tariffs are starting to reshape some global supply chains, although tensions between the US and Canada over wood exports have simmered for more than half a century.” With the added ““The US simply needs to fact-check better before they end up with a large shortage of lumber that may cause further housing shortages,” said Rick Doman, chair of the Forestry Innovation Investment board of British Columbia, which produces over half of Canada’s lumber. Washington’s escalating trade measures towards Ottawa have led to shutdowns and job losses in Canada’s C$87bn ($63bn) forestry industry, one of the country’s largest employers.” We see that Canadians have had enough of the voice from Washington DC, with Canada shifting towards Europe and Asian Markets, as well as stocking up on renewable products the setting becomes a global setting where America can now no longer fuel its own softwood needs driving housing prices through the roof (except for Florida where the Canadian snowbirds are putting their  houses up for sale, leaving in excess of 175,000 houses empty and deserted). That is the setting America no faces and whilst America accuses Canada itself as a dumping ground, they better come up with the evidence and as we see “Zoltan van Heyningen, executive director of the US Lumber Coalition, a lobby group, said the American timber industry could replace 1bn board feet of Canadian imports “without batting an eyelid”” that person better prove to be true to his word, because as it stands Canada is withdrawing over 3 billion board feet of wood. And the NAHB gives us that  “With American sawmills operating at just 64 per cent of capacity it “will take years” for US domestic lumber production to expand to meet industry demands” and in that meantime it will be shredding nearly every environmental document it has, because as I see it, the nearest place it can go to is Washington State and I reckon it will cost a few more pennies to get all these trucks up and going. In the meantime we see that “the US relies on a further 12bn board feet of softwood lumber from Canada for use mostly in housebuilding. Even allowing for spare US sawmill capacity and average recent American exports of 1.3bn board feet a year, the US is currently 3.2bn board feet short of meeting current demand, according to analysis by Fastmarkets, a price reporting agency.” And the ‘graphs’ all show that America depends on almost 30% Canadian wood, when that all falls away its own wood export collapses to zero. And that gives America a new mess to deal with, because Canada is eager to make long term agreements with Europe and Asia, which means that the next administration inherits this mess in 2028 and there is no going back. And as I see it, the bill will be passed on to Weyerhaeuser, West Fraser and Sierra Pacific Industries who will have to increase their produce by almost 50%, to make up for the shortages it faces, so in what reality did you ever see that happen? 

It might sound like an amazing option for these three, but in the American setting it does mean that nearly every environmental agreement will have to be torn up to even make this work. In the meantime Canada is expertly drilling into a $280 billion market and is seemingly doubling that within the next decade, as Canada is now moving from a resource player to more highly valued products, its margins will increase nearly exponentially and is becoming the new innovator on the block and that will ease the pressures that America thought they would hand them, their plan for Canada becoming the 51st state is blowing up in the faces of Politicians in Washington DC and that is the short and sweet of it for Canada. The hardship handed by president Trump is becoming the opportunity for PM Mark Carney. And Canada is loving the outcome of this setting, because as such high value products are to be made in Canada, giving them the setting from $255.20 towards a more then doubled market that is to come and as China replaces America as the number one export country, there will be additional settings there too. An opportunity that Canada will handle with care while in the same time increasing its export to Europe. As I see it, America merely shot itself in the foot (yet again) and that setting is to be crowned as the number one achievement for the Administration carrying that royal crown. It tried to diminish the economic footprint of its northern partner, instead it opened a new revenue handle and increased its export standing with both the EU and China. And as I see it, at no significant initial loss to Canada and over the next few years it will show a significant surplus to boot. 

A setting the Commonwealth prices and a big round of applause is handed in the direction of Prime Minister Mark Carney who is now seen as the big winner (perhaps he will accept a Nobel peace price in 2026?)

Well, you all have a great day and special mention for Capitol Brief and the Financial Times for their support in this. It is 02:00 now. Time for me to introduce myself to the procedure of snoring.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

A new low

Yup and it is not a bad thing, but a setting of happy happy joy joy. I learned a few hours ago that Saudi Arabia (of all places) was mentioned (at https://renewablesnow.com/news/saudi-arabia-claims-record-low-wind-cost-in-4-5-gw-renewables-awards-1283966/) with ‘Saudi Arabia claims record-low wind cost in 4.5 GW renewables awards’ not the Netherlands, or Sweden (where stormy winds are king) it is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that is heralded as the new low in wind power. I have to admit that it took me by surprise. The mention of “a record-low global cost for wind power generation at USD 13.38 (EUR 11.49) per MWh” for the people in Saudi Arabia. That makes a setting of €0.01149 per kWh (if I calculated that correctly) is is one way to put down the living expenses of people all over the planet and when you consider that in Europe (EU) the price of electricity is approximately €0.1899 we can assume that even at 50% the electricity firms will still make a profit. As I see it, good news for all the people in Europe (and a few more places beyond that) and I never expected that the land of oil would set the charge of renewables, not in my lifetime. So we should see the joy on what Saudi Arabia achieved here. We are given “The government-owned entity, which is responsible for procuring electricity from independent power producers (IPPs), said on Monday that the initiative is part of the sixth phase of the National Renewable Energy Programme, supervised by the Ministry of Energy. The contracted projects are spread across four provinces in the Kingdom and represent a combined investment of more than SAR 9 billion (USD 2.4bn/EUR 2.06bn)” as well as “The wind project, the 1.5-GW Dawadmi in Riyadh Province, has achieved the lowest leveled cost of electricity (LCOE) for wind power generation so far, according to the statement.” So a hip hip and a hurray for the people who made that happen. Because that is the kind of achievement that could help over a billion people getting their expenses down and the setting that we might see a 50% less costs on energy is a new threshold for anyone requiring power. The article also shows a table of the 5 places where this is happening and how much is being generated. As I see it, the wind-farms currently being created might see a revisit from new people with additional insights in this strength of the energy woods and I reckon we will see a lot more additions in a few places soon enough drowning costs for people all over the world.

I feel giddy at this point. It is not often that you see an impressive downing of the cost of living, but this is definitely one we all should applaud.

Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

Where is the west now?

The Arab News gave me an article that made me shiver. No, this is not some BBC article or a similar article by the Guardian. The article (at https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2579777/world) gives us ‘Emergency declared in New Delhi as smog hits highest level this year’. This is not some article about luxury jets. We are given “Pollution in Delhi and the surrounding metropolitan area — home to around 55 million people — reached the “severe plus” category as some areas reached an Air Quality Index score of 484, this year’s highest, according to the Central Pollution Control Board.” It comes with an added “Delhi was ranked as the most polluted city in the world on Monday by Swiss group IQAir, with a concentration of PM 2.5, 138.4 times higher than the World Health Organisation’s recommended levels.” That is not nothing. 138.4 times higher. Or as they might say 13840% of the recommended levels. We see Reuters, AP News, not the BBC and not the Guardian. I reckon that it doesn’t involve jets from the ultra rich. We are given that “Mahesh Palawat, vice president of meteorology and climate change at forecast company Skymet Weather, said people in the capital region are faced with serious health risks.” This is a frightening revelation. I keep on wondering how it could have gotten this bad. I have experienced smog in Europe, but I reckon that the Indians see that as a cool summer breeze compared to what they face. I wonder if there is a to the point card with up to date information (per day) how the rest of the world would react. I also wonder who will get the blame for this. I do believe that there would be enough blame to go around in the Indian political structure. Yet there is in me a realisation that New Delhi needs to do something about the population. As of 2024, the population of New Delhi, the capital of India, is over 33 million people. This is a 2.63% increase from the previous year. So at what point does the setting of ‘full’ apply? Consider that New Delhi has 30% more people than the entirety of Australia (or 90% of Canada for that matter). We at least have a decent amount of land to spread that population around, as does Canada, India seemingly has not. 

So whilst we get “On the AQI scale from 0 to 500, good air quality is represented by levels below 50, while levels above 300 are dangerous.” And the levels in New Delhi are 50% higher than dangerous. So when will we see the Guardian or the BBC offer ‘solutions’.

Have a healthy day, optionally with a decent amount of fresh air.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Science

All the way from Ottawa

Yup, that was the question mark that I had. I saw it at the CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guilbeault-china-saudi-arabia-climate-1.7376007) where we get ‘China, Saudi Arabia should pay up to help the planet cope with climate change: Guilbeault’ OK, I like my sarcasm with plenty of Maple Syrup (a personal choice). A wholesome breakfast as it says. We are given “Guilbeault wants emerging economies to contribute to a new climate goal”. This sounds nice on paper, but it doesn’t hold the pastrami. I feel uneasy as the idea sounds nice, but it seems to have all kinds of unforeseen complications. And as we consider “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said Wednesday he wants China and Saudi Arabia to contribute money to international efforts to help poorer countries struggling with the worst effects of climate change.” You know, America and Europe take its own share of decades of looting in wealth the established setting of the commodity of oil. Oh, and why give OPEC and China that bill? Where is Am Erica for that bill? I am pretty sure that some president of the US give Steven Guilbeault the finger the moment he states that out loud. There is a larger setting. You see, we could decrease the allowed oil for any nation by 10%, then there is my favourite, decrease global flights by 15% (taken in account that there are way too many flights happening). You see, the last 15 years we have seen a million flights per year more. I did a calculation once (in 2021) where I stated “That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day.” I did this on November 13th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) in ‘A COP26 truth’ As I see it, this will have a better result. But Steven Guilbeault does not want that. He merely want to point the finger at China (to get the blessing of some president), he’ll also point the finger at Saudi Arabia which will not go anywhere. As I personally see it, this is a limelight piece. Get the shiny lights thrust upon him whilst the solution goes nowhere, and those poor poor emerging economies? Ad when we consider ““China will become, in fact, one of the biggest historic polluters in the coming years,” Guilbeault said.” What data does he have? In the coming years is speculation, as I see it, Russia will have to become a much larger polluter to get any fingers over the edge of disaster at present. There is no real data to consider that China will be anything like that. I wonder where he got the data, as the ‘data’ in march gave us all “India was declared as the third-most polluted country in 2023, after Bangladesh and Pakistan, according to a report released by Swiss air quality monitoring body, IQAir.” Which is interesting as they have a significant loss of longevity They went from eight position in 2022 to third position in 2023. Of that list of 50 cities 42 are in India. As such I call his bluff and wish him a nice day with what he has. Yes something needs to be done, pretty much everyone agrees with that. What it is, remains the question. Giving the Ace of Spades to China and Saudi Arabia is folly as I see it. The issue with any fire is to take away the air for a fire to breath, take away the fuel that propels the fire or put out the fire (the third is the lamest idea). As such you can limit oil to everyone, which will drive the price up, or take away the air for oil to burn (extremely hazardous to people). As such we are in a bind. Making this about emerging economies is just a bad option, or we lessen EVERYONE’S access to oil and the the emerging countries get their 100% and the largest economies get that limit decrease as well. I wonder how long it will take for everyone to ‘diminish’ the emerging economies. You see Steven Guilbeault blasted his statement to ‘merely’ include China and Saudi Arabia. In 2021 the United States used 20.4% of the petroleum-consuming countries it was number one with 5% more then number 2 (China), as such why didn’t Steven Guilbeault mention America? Oh, and Saudi Arabia isn’t even in that top 5. India (4.8%), Russia (3.8%) and Japan (3.5%) had those positions. As such it makes kinda sense to hand the spade to China, but not before America gets the spade as well. They both Amount to 36.1% of the petroleum-consuming countries. As such, when you consider these numbers. Is he anything more than a windy politician (like the ones from Chicago)?

It’s not all seemingly bad news. We are also given “According to one estimate, $2.4 trillion US in climate finance is needed by 2030 for investments to meet the Paris Agreement targets and related development goals.” Yes, that works with any nation with a gross federal debt surpassing $35,000,000,000,000. That really seemingly works and don’t blame President-elect Trump for that, Harris wouldn’t have been able to do that either. This is the result of sitting on your hands and too many presidents have done that going all the way back to President Clinton, which was 21 years ago. The easiest option is that we allow climate change to kill 27.8% of the population, making the decrease of 49,000 flights a day and 24.1% less oil used a manageable achievement. You see, the solution is very simple if you see the problem as simple as an arithmetic problem. Take away the people using oil and you get the same result. Oh, as a bonus consider that less food is required at that point. All simple solutions towards a conundrum that people aren’t willing to see as a real problem. Did I oversimplify the problem for you?

Have a lovely day and consider how much oil you used this week. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Triviality makes a surprise

You think that cleaning is trivial and for a lot of is it is so. Yet Gulf News surprised me in this. To get that I need to give you a list. Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam, London, Birmingham, Portsmouth, Munich, Geneva, Paris, Orleans, Antwerp, Lourdes, Madrid, Budapest, Istanbul, Tel Aviv, Beer Sheva, Ashkalon, Sharm El Sheik, Stockholm, Goteborg, Malmo, Copenhagen, Sydney, Melbourne, Gold Coast, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Singapore, Bangkok, Buenos Aires and Montevideo. I visited all these places during my life (some very very young). Yet in all these settings, the one place I only saw through video and never visited, namely Dubai, must have been the cleanest city ever seen. As such I was a little surprised to see ‘‘Clean UAE’: Over 7,000 volunteers net more than 10 tonnes of waste in Dubai’ (at https://gulfnews.com/uae/environment/clean-uae-over-7000-volunteers-net-more-than-10-tonnes-of-waste-in-dubai-1.99987248) there we see “As many as 7,327 volunteers from diverse backgrounds collected 10.5 tonnes of waste in Dubai on Saturday as part of the nationwide ‘Clean UAE’ campaign led by the Emirates Environmental Group (EEG)” that is an amazing goal, especially in such a hot environment as the UAE.

I am truly surprised, not merely regarding the amount of people on this, but the amount they still were able to clean. The video’s I saw were from way before this and as such I never noticed. I saw over a dozen walkthrough videos and none of them showed that much rubbish, not even close to the amount cleaned up. As such I am surprised, not merely to the amount of volunteers and to the amount of cleaning achieved, but as I personally see it, it takes national pride for so many people to pick up the hoe, rake and shovel and collect that much rubbish. 

I honestly didn’t think something like this could surprise me, but it did and I reckon I am not alone here. Aren’t you pleasantly surprised by this?

Enjoy the day, Tuesday just started for me. Time to snore.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Tourism

Brain in overdrive

That happens and It just happened to me, the reason being this tweet. Now, that does not me the given facts are true, but I am willing to go on faith here and the setting becomes a weirdly unsettling one.

So here we see the setting that 4 out of 5 women had a miscarriage. That’s 80% and that number should scare anyone. Is it true? We want to reject it, just like we want to reject “What was in the water” but in all honesty we cannot dismiss either, unless you can prove that the 80% statement is wrong. One untested source gives me “For women who know they’re pregnant, about 10 to 20 in 100 pregnancies (10 to 20 percent) end in miscarriage. Most miscarriages – 8 out of 10 (80 percent) – happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy”, this is for the USA. Not sure what other nations are and there is no telling how bad it gets, but the statement is there. To take a little trip in my memory lane, I have known hundreds of women and I am aware of only 3 cases. This does not mean that there were only three, I reckon that most women will not talk about things like that other than to another woman and I get that. But from less than 2% to 80% is a jump and that gives validity to “What was in the water?” You see when these numbers add up to 80% something is driving this and the water is an option. We only need to look back to the Erin Brockovich story to see that things end up in the water and that was BEFORE Shale gas drilling became a fact. Now? I have no way of telling, but in the US big business tends to make policy, not the actual policy makers. 

The second statistic comes into play now. I cannot tell if that number is normal, but it wasn’t and now we see “Most miscarriages – 8 out of 10 (80 percent) – happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy” this does not seem natural, something drives this and water makes sense, but the environment is a lot bigger than water and as I understand it pregnancy is a setting of checks and balances and the balances is where it is at. So what is causing that level of imbalance? I do not know but the data puzzler in me is going into overdrive. In this age of overpopulation I shouldn’t be, but consider that the next two generations are lost to us, what will we be left with? If 35% is entering the ‘old fart’ stage, and we lost the bulk of 2 generations. This implies that our population will dwindle down to a little over 5 billion before 2070, not a bad setting as the planet could use a breather, but what we neglect is that any environmental impact on us could remain for the next 5 generations, and in this who remains? That is a much larger question and a much larger issue to deal with. So is this over-hyped? Perhaps, but can we afford to ignore this setting? I don’t think so. This planet needs relief and I am not willing to set it up a species that has destroyed its own balance to procreate. I do not have any answers and any answer I uncover only needs to more questions. For one, the ‘official’ number is debatable, but there is nothing countering it. One answer was “Most pregnancy losses are due to factors that the person cannot control”, I understand the answer, I merely refuse to accept it. The environment (and the water) is something we do not control, but someone is allowing it to contain toxins. I also see that several ‘official’ sources have EXACTLY the same text, so there is a common source there. Yet In Australia I saw “One study that tracked women’s hormone levels daily to detect very early pregnancy determined a miscarriage rate of 31 per cent.” 31% is a long way of 80% and that should have led to a lot more questions, but I do not see them, do you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Science

Profit in the upright position

Yup, that is as good as it gets. You see, we have heard all the airlines whine about losses and loss of revenue, all whilst they added over 41,000 daily flights over the last 15 years. So whilst we see the stupid people (the Guardian journalists) have a go at people with a private jet, they are merely losing the plot by actually looking into airlines. So it was an interesting sight to see ‘Air Arabia delivers record 2022 net profit of $327 mln, up 70 pct’ (at https://ara.tv/y756m). This led me to the thought what if all those airlines are working with the wrong business model? Alarabiya News gives us “Air Arabia, the first and largest low-cost carrier (LCC) operator in the Middle East and North Africa, announced historic financial results for the full year ending December 31, 2022, almost doubling the profit and passengers’ numbers of the previous year, as the airline continued with its growth plans, delivering remarkable financial and operational performance”, when I see ‘low-cost carrier (LCC)’ on that side and we get “the Japanese domestic operator was Y3.4 billion ($25.8 million) in the black for the nine months to 31 December 2022”, I do understand that this is domestic, but at a mere 7% of what Air Arabia is doing. Now, don’t get me wrong. I do get that I am (to some extent) comparing apples to oranges, but I bet you dollars for donuts that some of these airlines need a business overhaul. As I see it, the 90’s model of just adding flights does doesn’t do it. And the environment is getting hurt in the process which the Guardian wasn’t properly reporting on, but that is my personal view. 

So what can be done? What must be done? We see very little but the numbers are out in force and I wonder who is looking at the options there. Perhaps it is all ‘saved’ by accountant abracadabra, who can tell and that is the problem, no one is actually looking into it and now I have questions. Perhaps my questions aren’t entirely up to the mark and there are factors that matter, but that still warrants my view of their business plan overhaul. So to speak, when the accountants tell them to put their profits in the upright position someone better listen, because as I see it Air Arabia is showing them how (at present) it could be done. As I see it, they have 327 million identifiers that they are on the right flight trajectory. Even more so when we see that their profits are reported to be 70% up, that is not some trivial matter. That is something airlines need to take a closer look at and If I am the first one to mention it, you get to wonder why others are asleep at the wheel, because as I personally see it, that is what it amounts to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media

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

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

The part we seem to forget

I was reading an article on the Guardian when something hit me. You see, we have been told parts of this again and again since the 90’s, for 30 years, more likely than not even longer, were we warned for the issues we now see unfold in Greece and all over the world. 

When we consider that and we consider ‘Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn) we see “Human activity is changing the Earth’s climate in ways “unprecedented” in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now inevitable and “irreversible”, climate scientists have warned. Within the next two decades, temperatures are likely to rise by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and bringing widespread devastation and extreme weather.” Yet what we do not see, not by any media, is the job the media is supposed to do, the part we expect and the part we should DEMAND they will do, but they will not. The media is the bitch of shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and their stakeholders will not hear of it, their friends will not like this. We should demand a list, a list of EVERY scientist who opposed the papers showing these dangers for decades. We should demand a list of these scientists and the corporate links they had, the corporate donations they received. The people are entitled to them, but the stakeholders who are behind the screens will not like this and I wonder why not. Actually, I am not that surprised that stakeholders tend to be bitches too, they will have friends they cater too and they do not like it that they are not the powers they pretend to be, but the game is now in a stage where we should look at that part, even as the media is willing to let that part go, just like they play footsie with people like Martin Bashir. So as the Daily Mail gives the people ‘Diana whistleblower who sounded the alarm over ‘dirty tricks’ used by Martin Bashir to secure interview ‘will be paid £750,000 by BBC after losing career’’ we see that the BBC catered to other needs for 25 years and they do not like the limelight of catering, just like others catered to Jimmy Saville and a few others, all (as I personally see it) due to connections to stakeholders, that needs to end. I believe that any media shown to cater to non-media needs, need to get its 0% VAT status revoked for no less than 10 years, see if that motivates them. 

The Guardian gave us (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment) “Instead of heeding the evidence of the research they were funding, major oil firms worked together to bury the findings and manufacture a counter narrative to undermine the growing scientific consensus around climate science. The fossil fuel industry’s campaign to create uncertainty paid off for decades by muddying public understanding of the growing dangers from global heating and stalling political action.” This is fine, but this was not enough, the scientists who put their name under some of these marketing plays need to be out in the open, they made their choices, the now need to be banned for life. Catering to stakeholders need to come at a price. It is nice to blame the fossil fuel group, it might not be wrong, but it is shallow, there was an entire support engine of academics and politicians, they need to be pushed into the limelight. Politicians that set the agenda of inaction, supported by academic statements, we need those to be out in the open in all nations, so that we can flush out. The stakeholders, a side the media is for the most unable (read: unwilling) to do. So as the Guardian also gives us “Last month, a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of the decade. The same day, in Houston, an activist hedge fund forced three new directors on to the board of the US’s largest oil firm, ExxonMobil, to address climate issues. Investors at Chevron also voted to cut emissions from the petroleum products it sells.” So, where were they in the last 2-3 decades? As I personally see it, these people could react well over a decade ago when the water was up to our necks, they decided to fill their pockets a little longer until the water was up to our eyeballs, optionally making reference that clever people had a snorkel. Yet, snorkels have weaknesses, and the eyeballs might see the waves from one direction, not from all directions in that state, for that the water needed to be at no more than neck level, less would have ben better. 

So as we are in this setting, we are all driven to blame fossil fuel and as most oil comes from the middle east it will be appealing to most, yet the truth, the ugly truth is that they could only preserve their income with political and academic support form the west and we want those names, preferable with the names of the stakeholders. 

I wonder if any media will dig into that part, they might say that they do and they might make efforts, but after 2-3 weeks there will be another crises and some stakeholder will drown the effort, that is how the world runs, greed driven against the needs of everyone and at the cost of everything that is not theirs. It is merely my point of view, but I believe it to be a correct one.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science