Jump to content

Junior

Members
  • Posts

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Junior

  1. Here is another song from the same artist, the lyrics describe the frauds perfectly.
  2. Well how about that folks, even the best and brightest(me :)) get fooled by the frauds on occasion. I have assumed all along that the kidnap plot against the left-wing governor of Michigan was just what the media was telling us. We saw the typical anti-Trump people posting about this and the usual right wing extremists, always linked to Trump and any conservative really. I should have known better. I haven't followed it in much detail. Just the headlines. Then I was reading this today: "And last week, two of four men were acquitted in a conspiracy to kidnap Whitmer in 2020 in a case that has raised questions about whether the FBI engaged in entrapment." Still don't know the details and maybe these were bad guys, but never, EVER trust the fake news mainstream media. Ignore the frauds, although I have to say that there have been a lower amount of those types of posts on this forum in recent times. I am wondering why and if I was helpful in bringing more truth to this forum. Comment away.
  3. I found some old info on the subject. I guess Jetlines was given an exemption, so hopefully everything is OK. Nice to have a new Airbus operator in the country(ignore the old picture). " Canada Jetlines wins exemption to foreign ownership limit Author of the article: Debora Van Brenk Publishing date: Nov 03, 2016 • November 3, 2016 • 2 minute read Article content An ultra-low-cost airline that’s aiming to include regular London flights as part of its service has won a key concession that will allow it to get off the ground. Canada Jetlines’ plans were hamstrung by a regulation that set foreign ownership levels at a maximum of 25 per cent. But federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau has announced Jetlines can be exempt from that regulation out of interest for the public good, as long as controlling interest remains in Canadian hands. “We want Canadians to feel that air travel is affordable,” said MP Kate Young (L–London West), parliamentary secretary to Garneau. She said talks are under way to allow for a blanket provision that airlines be allowed as much as 49 per cent foreign ownership. Canada is a large country with a small population, which makes it important for airlines to be able to seek additional capital, Young said. “It’s expected to mean more competition, more choice, and lower prices for Canadians.” Calgary-based Enerjet also won an exemption from the existing foreign-ownership rules. The decision clears the runway for as many as 40 different flight routes to and from secondary airports in Canada — including potentially London International Airport — and in several U.S. states, at prices about 30 per cent lower than their competitors’ lowest fare. Jetlines would be based in Vancouver, Hamilton and Winnipeg, and in this region would fly its aircraft out of London, Kitchener and/or Hamilton. “All the airports could have increased capacity,” said Jim Scott, president of Canada Jetlines. London does have good service, he said Thursday, but added there is plenty of room for Jetlines’ point-to-point service from secondary airports such as London’s to major hubs. London International Airport Authority president Mike ­Seabrook said the federal move “is certainly a step in the right direction.” Seabrook said he has been in numerous meetings and discussions with Canada Jetlines and it gives every indication London meets its market and business model. “They certainly have done a lot of market research, a lot of legwork.” Thousands of passengers “leak” out of the area to pick up flights from Toronto, Detroit and Buffalo because of cost or convenience. Canadians take an estimated five million flights a year from U.S. airports near where they live. Those passengers are going to be Jetlines’ primary customers. In an interview earlier this year, Scott said the move here could create 50 full-time jobs, 650 indirect jobs and $150 million in annual economic benefit. The company hopes it can be up and flying by next summer, Scott said Thursday. The cost of a fare would get a passenger the seat, with fees for optional services such as baggage check-in or in-flight food."
  4. Updated information from the Russian Defense Ministry. The pride of the fleet was not sunk or damaged in any way. Any mention of a Ukrainian attack is a blatant lie. Instead, with the extremely successful phase one of the special operation complete, the ship has been re-assigned to anti-submarine duties.
  5. Thanks for the replies guys. I wish them the best. Was a bit curious about their ownership structure in light of the Flair issue.
  6. Just curious how one gets a bunch of high time Airbus pilots in Canada. Maybe a few low time Air Transat pilots on layoff but that would be about it.
  7. Isn't Jetlines working with a company called Global crossing out of the U.S.? I ask this because I have heard that Flair is running into some difficulties based on their business dealings with the company they are associated with in the U.S. It appears that Flair may be in a situation where any money brought in goes to the U.S. partner. I suspect these big U.S. companies want control.
  8. Interesting, but where did these Airbus guys come from? Overseas? And where did they go? Boeings?
  9. I care because he did not have 88 million followers, I was following him 88 million times. That is a lot of replying though.
  10. Time to expose the frauds again with their lie that the rich got richer: "The richest people on Earth are not immune to the coronavirus. As the pandemic tightened its grip on Europe and America, global equity markets imploded, tanking many fortunes. When we finalized this list, Forbes counted 2,095 billionaires, 58 fewer than a year ago and 226 fewer than just 12 days earlier, when we initially calculated these net worths. Of the billionaires who remain, 51% are poorer than they were last year. In raw terms, the world’s billionaires are worth $8 trillion, down $700 billion from 2019." Canada’s Richest Billionaires 2020 – Forbes I suppose the writers at Time has become politicized like so many others and want taxes raised due to their jealousy, the real reason they keep repeating this. I say, donate more. Mind you, most seem to be in the 99% club anyways with almost all wealth going to charity. Way better than going to the Trudeau/Singh coalition. Less taxes, less government spending, more donations.
  11. A little reality of what happens when enough people listen to advice like this: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2411616&playlistId=1.5838060&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1
  12. Looks like the frauds are exposed again. After all their campaigning about how terrible Harper was for choosing the F-35, and putting us through years of this, we will be getting the F-35.
  13. An explanation on why Trump is right when he says the media are the Enemy of the People. Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal Is the Ultimate American Information Operation | Opinion Ben Weingarten 11 hrs ago How did Hunter Biden's depraved behavior and his and his family members' dubious dealings with adversaries and oligarchs compromise and corrupt Joe Biden? What did Joe know, when did he know it and did he directly or indirectly profit? To what extent would—and today, does—the Biden family's conduct loom over vital issues of American foreign policy, and thus national security? %7B We were deprived of the answers to these critical questions during the 2020 election—deprived of hearing the questions asked themselves—because of one of the gravest American information operations in history, masquerading as a defense against a Russian information operation. Now, our Ruling Class' chief organ has admitted it. It took 17 months, and 24 paragraphs into an article at first glance unrelated, but buried in a New York Times report on the apparently sprawling federal investigation into Hunter Biden, the "Paper of Record" revealed the truth we've long known: Hunter's "laptop from hell" is real. We knew this before Joe Biden was elected. But millions of Americans didn't because the corporate media, the Deep State for which it serves as a conduit and the Big Tech that propagates their Official Narratives conspired together to suppress the true story while amplifying the politically beneficial one. One poll shows this operation—part and parcel of a coordinated effort by our Ruling Class to use every lever of power to undermine Donald Trump while protecting Joe Biden—alone may have swung the 2020 election. The people who purport to defend "our democracy," in other words, thwarted the republic by concealing from the public the kind of crucial information on which war and peace hinges. The many layers to this scandal are worth recounting because they so vividly reveal a pervasive rot at the core of our country that is poised to fester absent a massive reckoning. There's the fact the corporate media dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story out of hand, refused to pursue it and even ran interference for then-candidate Biden when directly questioned on it by then-President Trump in debate. There's the fact the corporate media unquestioningly ran with a narrative that the story was "Russian disinformation" to justify its dismissal of it, despite lacking a scintilla of concrete evidence to substantiate that dubious claim. There's the fact dozens of senior then-ex intelligence community (IC) officials—people whose profession ostensibly demands equipoise, analytical rigor and the setting aside of politics—fed the corporate media that narrative, abusing their positions with reckless abandon. The more than 50 prominent IC members, former CIA directors and on down, used their names and reputations to baselessly speculate that the laptop contents and circumstances around their release "ha[d] all the classic hallmarks of a Russian information operation"—naturally in contravention of the ignored Trump administration officials actually in command of the intelligence apparatus at the time, who vigorously denied the charge. The Trump-hating spooks, like the corporate media, presented not one scintilla of evidence to justify their charge. Sure, they hedged, admitting that"we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails...are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement... ." But they knew well Politico and others would run with headlines like: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." How contrived was the operation? Consider that it was a former top aide to former CIA Director John Brennan—perhaps the most Trump-deranged and notoriously dishonest of the overwhelmingly Democrat-serving officials endorsing the letter—who arranged for the letter's distribution to Politico. He delivered it to one of the Trump-loathing Deep State's friendliest of reporters—perhaps most well-known for promoting the notorious Steele dossier at the heart of the Russiagate hoax—surely knowing this would set the narrative in motion. Almost universally, the signatories show no remorse for the con they pulled. It was all worth it for them to replace Trump with someone who spent 50 years getting every major foreign policy issue wrong, and who has kept that imperfect streak alive since he's been in office. There's also the fact Big Tech engaged in Rubicon-crossing censorship, not only preventing people from sharing the story publicly, but in private messages, and de-platforming the sharers. Twitter admitted as much, months after the election, when the damage had been done. This set the precedent for the ever-more widespread, almost desensitizing Wrongthink censorship we see today. Donald Trump is of course banned on Twitter, and the likes of Vladimir Putin and crony Ayatollah Khamenei are free to tweet at their leisure. Chinese coronavirus information that got people banned six months ago is now the official CDC narrative promoted on social media. The Hunter Biden laptop story looms over it all. And where was the aforementioned media on the censorship? At very best, silent. Those who benefit most from the First Amendment have too often become the most outspoken proponents of censorship, particularly when it serves their political agenda. These conspirators cared nothing for combating disinformation. Far from it, they are some of its most prolific purveyors. These conspirators cared nothing about "protecting democracy." Rather than grapple with the New York Post's reporting on the laptop, and the corroborating investigations from Tucker Carlson and elsewhere, they obfuscated in service of a candidacy that would predictably result in disaster for America, liberty and justice. They did so because of the imperative to unseat a president whose agenda was far more aligned with the ruled than the ruling. That is, they did so out of perceived self-interest, which they may believe coincides with the national interest, but which in practice has proven to do anything but. Trump threatened their power, privilege and prerogatives. He had rebuilt our military, fostered alliances and partnerships to deter enemies while reducing America's direct obligations abroad, and confronted and kept our worst adversaries at bay—led by the greatest adversary of all, Communist China. Trump consequently kept America out of wars. Trump was neither the crazed cowboy with the nuclear codes nor the isolationist Russian stooge his adversaries vacillated in attacking him as, depending upon the week. He was a peace-through-strength nationalist, and his record proved it. Was this his great sin in the Ruling Class' eyes? There is still more intrigue to this story. Why did The New York Times feel compelled to admit it only now, after reporters for mainstream publications like the aforementioned Politico had confirmed the authenticity of much of the laptop's contents months back? Is it simply because the case against Hunter Biden, billed as a tax matter, but which the Times reports has evolved into one centering on money laundering and potential Foreign Agents Registration Acts charges, is built so heavily on the substance of the laptop, making it impossible to report on the case while outright ignoring it? Or is there something bigger at play concerning the president, and his troubled son? Regardless, the Times' almost-inadvertent admission perfectly reflects the entire contrived effort. Our Ruling Class' over-the-top obsession with Russian information and influence has served as a diversion from the information operations it has been running against domestic political foes—even in league with foreign actors like the Ukrainians, as my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry has reported. Trump-Russia collusion was an American information operation. Hunter Biden's laptop being "Russian disinformation" was an American information operation. Phony stories, particularly those leaked out by our national security apparatus—like those of "Russian bounties in Afghanistan," or "Trump called dead American soldiers 'losers'"—are American information operations. These operations raise further questions: What other such gambits have they executed that we don't know about? What else could they do, and will they do, to a Trump in 2024, or any other candidate they perceive to be a threat going forward? The American mind, and therefore the body politic, is not imperiled by some Russian troll farm. No, outside of the schools, which cultivate suicidal anti-American self-loathing and Wokedom, the great threat in the information sphere derives from a weaponized, hyper-political national security apparatus unmoored from the people it exists to defend, a progressive press that does its bidding and a like-minded Big Tech behemoth that works hand-in-hand with them to censor and control narratives. It is infinitely more insidious when the institutions we rely upon to keep us safe, to inform us and to enable free and open discourse conspire against those countrymen with whom they disagree than when foreign adversaries themselves meddle. We expect adversaries to attack us. To attack Americans like adversaries is to make America like its adversaries. This is an existential threat to our republic. And if none of these actors are ever held to account, it guarant
  14. Looks like good old Jerry was taking kickbacks. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/jerry-dias-accepted-money-from-covid-19-rapid-test-supplier-unifor-alleges-1.5831006 But wait, like a typical fraud, he is saying that it is not his fault. He has a back problem and all his medications and booze impaired his judgement. Of course, it is just a coincidence that his impairment would never result in him losing money, only gaining money. Gee, I wonder where all those union dues are going. Sometimes it ain’t management screwing the worker around, it is the one claiming to be your saviour
  15. Speaking of the frauds who claim to be such decent human beings, look at their ESG funds where you do good for the world. While trying to crush our oil industry, they are supporting the Russian one. And a couple of the ESG funds were buying more in Russian banks while Putin was massing troops around Ukraine. Folks, they are frauds either with ulterior motives or incapable of logical thought process. And now, by allowing Putin to put the final pieces in his long term goal of invading Ukraine, have placed you in the situation of financing a massacre in Europe. Why ESG funds 'shockingly' buy Russian oil instead of Canadian crude Jeff Lagerquist 17 hrs ago Russia's war on Ukraine continues to expose uncomfortable realities for environmental, social and governance-focused (ESG) investments, prompting calls for the asset management industry to rethink the loosely-defined term as analysts point to "shocking" holdings within some funds. A new report from CIBC Capital Markets shows many of the 10 largest energy holdings across ESG funds have pared down or exited investments in Canada's oil sands, while half stayed invested in Russia. At the end of 2021, the bank found ESG funds owned twice as much Russian oil and gas as Canadian oil and gas. "Perhaps most shockingly, the ratio of dollars held in Gazprom (a Russian state-owned energy firm) was six times that of Suncor," the CIBC analysts wrote in research published on Monday. According to the report, the big four Russian energy companies, NK Lukoil, Novatek, Gazprom and NK Rosneft, accounted for about 0.2 per cent of the global ESG holdings. That's double the size of investments in Canada's TC Energy (TRP.TO)(TRP), Suncor Energy (SU.TO)(SU) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ.TO)(CNQ), the bank said. "Russia and Saudi Arabia may well emit less CO2 per produced barrel of oil equivalent than some North American firms, but they also invariably have less robust social and governance oversight," the CIBC analysts wrote. "This says nothing of the reality many of their energy entities are de-facto state controlled and often aligned (read: weaponized) with foreign policy objectives – many of which will be an affront to mainstream ESG investors." Several of the world's largest companies and institutional investors have moved to cut ties to Russia in recent weeks, amid increasingly violent attacks on Ukraine's population. ESG funds held at least US$8.3 billion in Russian assets before Russia invaded Ukraine, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Those include the country's financial firms. Bloomberg News recently reported that Vanguard Group and Northern Trust upped their stakes in Russia's leading bank through their respective index-based ESG funds in January, as Vladimir Putin's forces amassed on Ukraine's borders. Vlad Tasevski, chief operating officer and head of product at Purpose Investments, says these examples show the need to rebalance the trio of ESG priorities. He says the environmental "E" in ESG is being over-emphasized, likely due to the greater challenge of measuring the social and governance variables, compared to hard carbon emissions data. "I think we are going to see a reassessment both by investors, and the data providers of information for ESG factors," he said in a phone interview. "Work on the 'S' and 'G' has been around for a while, but it's still newer. They're maybe not as straightforward as the environmental factors." Tasevski isn't overly surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for Canadian fossil fuel producers across ESG funds. He says Canadian producers have been "overwhelmingly negatively impacted by the ESG movement," even as the industry has worked to shrink its carbon footprint, and invested in technology like carbon capture and storage. CIBC says global flows into ESG funds were down more than 50 per cent through the first two months of this year, after setting records in 2020 and 2021. The bank says flows out of ESG funds have outpaced net outflows from other asset classes. "Perhaps the recent uptick in ESG fund outflows is simply a reflection of investors becoming aware that simple 'black box' metrics, such as ESG scores, often used in security selection, are inadequate for a topic as multifaceted as ESG," the analysts wrote. Is ESG good for investors? Danielle Fugere, president of the California-based shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, says ESG is an umbrella term that's never been clearly defined. She notes many ESG funds in the United States can be labelled "carbon free," even if they hold fossil fuel assets, under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. On Monday, the SEC released a proposal for what could become its first-ever mandate for what U.S. companies need to tell investors about their carbon footprint. Fugere says investors are better-served when corporate climate analysis is separated from unrelated social and governance measures. "Climate is its own area," Fugere said in an interview. "It should be appropriately removed from issues of human rights."
  16. Is there someone here who knows how to start a petition that will go viral. DiCaprio the fraud has now signed an open letter asking RBC to stop financing the oil sands. I suggest a petition to be signed by millions to get Caprio to permanently ground(not sell) his business jet an his yacht, to show that he is serious about stopping global warming. The petition should state that if he does not pledge to fly only on commercial airlines for the rest of his life, he should be called out as a fraud. Same thing if he just sells them. You can read the important stuff at these three links: Leonardo DiCaprio, Scarlett Johansson And More Stars Sign Open Letter Calling On RBC To Stop Financing Controversial Canadian Pipeline (msn.com) About DiCaprio's bizjet: https://pagesix.com/2021/12/02/leo-dicaprio-takes-jet-round-trip-to-nyc-to-party-in-miami/ About DiCaprio's yacht: https://meaww.com/leonardo-dicaprio-eco-hypocrite-climate-activist-slammed-yacht-carbon-footprint-558245
  17. Are you suggesting that they are frauds? Any strong supporters on this thread of Green New Deal ideas feel like keeping your home heat at 60 in the winter and no air conditioning in the summer.
  18. Thought I might post an article from almost 4 years ago for those who conveniently forgot. Just in case you are thinking of believing the frauds that call him pro-Russian. And remember how the reaction was that Trump had made America the new enemy of Europe. Ignore the frauds. Trump lashes Germany over gas pipeline deal, calls it Russia's 'captive' BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sharp public attack on Germany on Wednesday for supporting a Baltic Sea gas pipeline deal with Russia, saying Berlin had become “a captive to Russia” and he criticized it for failing to raise defense spending more. Trump, meeting reporters with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, before a NATO summit in Brussels, said it was “very inappropriate” that the United States was paying for European defense against Russia while Germany, the biggest European economy, was supporting gas deals with Moscow. Trump was due to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the summit later in the day and will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday. Berlin has given political support to the building of a new, $11-billion pipeline to bring Russian gas across the Baltic Sea called Nord Stream 2, despite qualms among other EU states. However, Merkel insists the project is a private commercial venture and is not funded by German taxpayers. “When Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia,” Trump said to Stoltenberg. “We’re supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia. “We’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France, we’re protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they’re paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. “So we’re supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that’s very inappropriate,” Trump said at the residence of the U.S. ambassador in Brussels. “Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. You tell me, is that appropriate?,” he asked, while Stoltenberg listened. At one point, the former Norwegian prime minister pointed out that the NATO allies in Europe disagreed among themselves on ways to reduce the continent’s reliance on Russian gas. “Germany is totally controlled by Russia, cause they are getting 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline.” Trump renewed his call for other NATO allies to pay in more to the Western alliance after years in which U.S. taxpayers have, he said, borne an “unfair” share of military spending. “I think these countries have to step it up, not over a 10 year period, they have to step it up immediately. Germany is a rich country, they talk about increasing it a tiny bit by 2030. Well they could increase it immediately, tomorrow, and have no problem,” Trump said. “If you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia. They got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear, they’re getting so much of their oil and gas from Russia. I think it is something NATO has to look at. It is very inappropriate.” Trump lashes Germany over gas pipeline deal, calls it Russia's 'captive' | Reuters
  19. Re-read my post as I added to it while you were replying. Stupid policies can have huge effects on other people.
  20. Liberal thought process stupidity(as has now been proven over the whole energy portfolio) - constant. It will not surprise me if the calculations prove that the lefties cost this country a trillion dollars in economic activity. And then there are most of there other ideas. Unhappy as a left wing voter about the cost of things these days? Blame a large portion of it on your own votes. And don’t forget to thank yourself for setting up the perfect situation to have us finance a massacre, every time we do anything that uses energy. If we had kept Harper and Trump along with Europeans not selling themselves out to Russia(and doing incredibly stupid things like shutting down nuclear plants), it is quite possible that Putin would not have had the economic pieces of the puzzle put together to go ahead with this. Junior……thinking years ahead of his time.
  21. If Iran can still fly F14’s, Russia will be able to do something. Use agents to get parts in the west for smuggling, relaxed domestic regulations in a country that already has an acceptance of a high accident rate, etc. Perhaps something can be done on the software front but I suspect the aircraft will continue to operate in ever decreasing numbers of serviceable aircraft and ever increasing amounts of spare aircraft requiring very expensive maintenance checks to ever become airworthy again in the west. Insurance companies might claim war when it comes to coverage leading to court fights.
  22. William McNally: The drawbacks and dangers of oil and gas divestment Calls from environmental activists for investment fund managers to sell off assets in the oil and gas sector — what’s called divestment — have been getting louder. Late last year, for example, some members of University Pension Plan, a large Canadian multi-university pension fund, demanded that the plan’s managers “exclude fossil fuels” from their portfolio. The goal is to starve oil and gas companies of capital and thus end global production of these resources. Will it work? And is it a good idea? Many major firms, including Exxon and Shell, have dutifully committed to reducing their fossil fuel extraction as this sort of activist pressure ramps up. As the west divests, however, Vladimir Putin and others have been more than happy to pick up the slack. Worldwide production has not fallen. Instead, western divestment has helped enrich and embolden non-western actors. And remember, healthy Russian oil and gas profits are what’s financing Putin’s colonial adventure in Ukraine. Besides the fact that divestment gives succour to a madman, here are five other major problems with the argument for it. First, it hurts workers. A well-run pension fund will create a portfolio that seeks to maximize returns based on a pre-selected level of risk. Any significant change in the portfolio’s holdings — eliminating politically unpopular companies, for example — will not cause the portfolio to perform better. It can only decrease returns and/or increase risk. And doing so undermines the retirement finances of all members. Activists are welcome to reduce their own savings’ returns if they want to, but they should leave the savings of others alone. Second, if the goal is to starve companies of capital, activists need to target firms’ access to primary markets, where funds are raised through the initial issuance of stocks and bonds. But divestment occurs in the secondary market. A fund manager who sells Shell on the stock market to buy Tesla isn’t directly affecting Shell’s access to capital. In fact, many oil and gas firms have less need for the primary market these days as their ability to self-finance has improved. And while refineries and pipelines are still very capital-intensive, these needs are occasional and represent only a small proportion of the primary market. Plus, we shouldn’t forget that major western resource companies make up only about a third of the international top 20. The remainder include many state-backed behemoths such as Saudi Aramco, PetroChina, and Gazprom that are typically less vulnerable to activist pressure. In fact, if the price is right, one would expect these companies to be willing purchasers of divested assets. Third, starving the fossil fuel sector of capital only makes sense if other forms of energy are ready to pick up the slack. But if an “energy transition” is already underway, it is very slow-moving: the demand for oil and gas will remain high for decades. Fossil fuels currently constitute 74 per cent of the Canadian and 79 per cent of the U.S. energy mix and the proportion is even higher in China, at 86 per cent. No wonder the International Energy Agency says fossil fuels “will continue to make a major contribution to the global energy mix through to 2050.” Not just a contribution but a “major” contribution. An acceleration of the transition away from fossil fuels will require energy alternatives that are economically, technically and environmentally viable. For my money, next generation nuclear reactors look to be the most promising non-carbon energy option . But, in general, anyone concerned about climate change should stop trying to mandate an end to fossil fuels and focus instead on how to make them irrelevant. Fourth, no one signs up to be poorer. Divestment is a strategy built on sacrifice, as it suggests pensioners and other investors are willing to accept lower returns and greater risk to produce a greener future. But evidence suggests this is not the case. A CBC News poll in 2019 found that although nearly two-thirds of Canadians said fighting climate change was one of their top priorities, half did not want to pay any more than $100 per year to do so. Finally, activists need to improve their awareness of basic economics. The goal of divestment is to limit output and exploration by reducing firms’ access to capital. But if demand for fossil fuels is unchanged, any temporary reduction in supply will simply result in higher prices. And this in turn motivates investors to replace whatever supply was lost by the initial activist pressure. Consider recent drilling statistics in Western Canada. When prices bottomed out in spring 2020, drilling activity fell with them. Since then, however, prices have been on the rebound. And so has drilling. The number of new wells was up 40 per cent last year and analysts expect another big increase in 2022. Experience thus suggests divestment can be partly self-defeating. Divestment won’t stop fossil fuel production because it does nothing to reduce actual energy demand. For individual investors, the only thing divestment will do is lower their investment returns and imperil their retirement.
  23. In the interest of kindly getting along with other members of the forum, I kindly request that you read this response to the quote that started this thread. “ The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production. How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine? There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it. Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe. Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that. The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300. That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal. The math is simple. A child could do it. The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas. The question is why. How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need “degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.) John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.” But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply. As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves. While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy. While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking. The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent. For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.” The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured. Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons. In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine. Michael Shellenberger Mar 1 725 417
  24. It was unfortunate that this thread is from the old days where the politics and airplane stuff were not separate. Sometimes, a person will just like to have the freedom to make their case before a ruling is made. With all that has been said here, I will plan to spend more time away from posting on this forum or stick strictly to aviation subjects. It is best a place for talking about airplanes and prefer to see it stay that way.
×
×
  • Create New...