EXCLUSIVE: Firm Tied To China’s Military Industrial Complex Plans To Roll Out Massive Battery Chemical Plants In U.S. thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Firm Tied To China’s Military Industrial Complex Plans To Roll Out Massive Battery Chemical Plants In U.S.

By The Daily Caller

The Chinese manufacturer of chemicals for electric vehicle batteries planning to build two U.S. factories has long-standing ties to China’s military industrial complex, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

Capchem Technology USA, the wholly-owned subsidiary of China-based Shenzhen Capchem Technology (Capchem), plans to build factories in both Ohio and Louisiana that would produce components for electric vehicle batteries. Chinese government documents reveal the Chinese chemical giant was selected over a decade ago to conduct aerospace research for China’s military industrial complex as part of a program overseen by a blacklisted Chinese government agency.

Corporate reports show the company, as recently as 2023, received payments from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology — a government agency spearheading the Chinese government’s so-called “Military-Civil Fusion” efforts.

“This network of [Chinese Communist Party] military-linked companies proliferating across the United States is a great example of why blind economic engagement with China is a national security threat,” Bryan Burack, senior policy advisor for China and the Indo-Pacific at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, told the DCNF.

The DCNF’s investigation is based, in part, on information provided by the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action.

Capchem specializes in manufacturing chemicals for electric vehicle batteries, and for years, the firm has advertised its products’ military uses in annual reports and online. Indeed, until very recently, the firm’s website boldly stated its products were used in “high-end military equipment.”

Yet, Capchem denied supplying the Chinese military, and the reference to “high-end military equipment” was scrubbed from the firm’s website within 24 hours of the DCNF reaching out for comment.

Capchem “does not have products used by Chinese military, or any other military organizations,” a spokesperson told the DCNF.

“When the English/U.S. website was developed, the ‘military’ reference was inadvertently included,” the spokesperson said. “You brought it to the company’s attention, and it was removed just as it had been in the Chinese version in 2020.”

However, the military reference also appeared on Capchem’s Chinese-language website when the DCNF reached out for comment. The reference on Capchem’s Chinese-language site appears to have been removed around the same time as their English-language was being scrubbed.

Capchem business filings and corporate announcements from 2023, along with Chinese financial service research reports from as recent as January 2024, also note the firm’s products had military applications.

‘Military-Civil Fusion’

Capchem’s work with China’s military industrial complex extends back to at least 2012. That year, the Guangdong province Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced Capchem was one of 70 companies selected to serve as a “Guangdong Provincial National Defense Science And Technology Industry Military-Civil Fusion Superior Work Unit.”

The work unit focused on “critical components within the aerospace field,” including “space flight-grade, high-reliability and core electronic components, high-end general chips, base software, etcetera,” the 2012 Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announcement reads.

The project was overseen by China’s Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense, which is “under direct supervision of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology,” and responsible for “nuclear weapons, aerospace technology, aviation, armament, watercraft and electronic industries,” according to China’s State Council.

China’s “Military-Civil Fusion strategy supports the modernization goals of the People’s Liberation Army by ensuring it can acquire advanced technologies and expertise developed by PRC companies, universities, and research programs that appear to be civilian entities,” according to the U.S. Defense Department.

Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi recently sent a letter to the Treasury and Defense departments noting the U.S. government’s blacklist of Chinese military companies extends to companies working with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

“Among other qualifying considerations, a company is a ‘military civil fusion contributor’ if such company is ‘affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, including research partnerships and projects,’” the lawmakers wrote in January 2024. “The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology was formed in 2008 and is key to the PRC’s military-civil fusion strategy.”

Capchem’s annual reports show the firm has received millions of dollars in payments from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology since 2017. The ministry paid the firm approximately $1.5 million for an “Industrial Foundation Project” in 2017, according to Capchem’s annual report for that year.

Capchem’s most recent annual report shows the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology had a subsidy of just under $1 million earmarked for the firm at the end of the 2023 mid-term reporting period.

Despite this, Capchem initially denied getting any “money/subsidies/donations from the Chinese government” in an email to the DCNF, though a spokesperson did say the firm had received “economic development tax incentives.”

However, the spokesperson changed their tune when the DCNF pointed to the firm’s own annual reports.

“The last time the company received any Chinese government subsidies besides standard incentives or awards provided for all eligible companies was between 2016 and 2018,” the spokesperson said. “Any reference to subsidies in company reports apply to those received during that time. The company has received no such subsidies since 2018.”

Capchem’s corporate reports list $26 million in subsidies from various Chinese government entities. The company’s 2023 mid-term report lists roughly $10 million worth of new government subsidies in a section labeled “Programs Involving Government Subsidies.”

Heritage’s Burack said Capchem has been “subsidized by the Chinese government” and “manufactures for China’s military.”

“There’s no question who these companies really work for,” Burack said. “There’s no such thing as a private Chinese company.”

‘Aerospace And Military Industries’

Capchem has long advertised the dual military-civilian use for its products. For instance, Capchem’s 2009 annual report touted how the company’s products are used in “aerospace and military industries.”

The vice president of Capchem’s research institute, Liu Zhongbo, discussed the military application of the company’s sodium-ion batteries at a July 2023 battery forum in Jiangsu province.

“Lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries are representative of new battery types serving as an important foundation for supporting the wide application of new energy sources in the domains of electricity, transportation, communication, military, etcetera,” Liu said during the event, according to Capchem’s website.

“In the future, Capchem will closely follow the national strategy to support the mass production of sodium-ion batteries,” Liu said.

More recently, a January 2024 research report from Chinese financial service firm Huaan Securities identified Capchem’s “fluorinated polyimide” product as being used in the nuclear industry and by the military, and the firm’s “perfluoropolyether oil” product’s use in aerospace landing gear, rudders and aircraft control mechanisms.

‘Security Risks’

Capchem’s plans to expand their U.S. footprint come as federal and state officials move to prohibit the ownership of U.S. land by Chinese entities. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson recently issued an executive order in January 2024 banning entities tied to China from purchasing agricultural land within 10 miles of any “critical military facilities” in the state.

Capchem USA is planning on building an approximately $120 million factory in Lawrence County, Ohio, Capchem announced in June 2023. County commissioners recently approved a 50% tax abatement for Capchem USA’s facility, the Herald Dispatch reported. The facility will serve as a “production facility for the manufacturing of battery chemicals,” according to Capchem.

Capchem USA is also considering a $350 million plant in Louisiana, according to Louisiana Economic Development, a government agency.

Ohio Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s congressional district includes Lawrence County. Barbara Boland, Wenstrup’s press secretary, told the DCNF that the congressman has “warned of the potential security risks to our supply chains, intellectual property and national security posed by Chinese-owned companies operating in the U.S.”

“Congressman Wenstrup recommends local governments and those pursuing economic development opportunities to fully vet any companies seeking to establish a footprint in their communities,” Boland said.

AUTHOR

PHILIP LENCZYCKI

Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter, political journalist, and China watcher. Twitter: @LenczyckiPhilip.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Republican Attorney General Urges Biden Admin To Restrict Foreign Land Ownership Near Major Military Base

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DAVID BLACKMON: The Energy Transition Has Become A Big Green Hot Mess thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: The Energy Transition Has Become A Big Green Hot Mess

By The Daily Caller

We spend a lot of time talking and writing about the green energy subsidies contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. That’s appropriate given that bill’s content of a raft of incentives and subsidies the CBO estimated would amount to $369 billion over 10 years, a number that some analysts have estimated will be a small fraction of the real final price tag of that bill.

Receiving less attention is the set of similar subsidy programs that were contained in 2021’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), one of which allocated the princely sum of $5 billion to the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Transportation (DOT) to serve as grant money to subsidize the installation of fast-charging EV charging stations around the country. In late February, Nick Pope reported at the Daily Caller that, more than two years after passage of the bill, this government program has resulted in the opening of just two locations – in Ohio and New York – that include only 8 such charging stations.

The slowness of this process should not come as a surprise to anyone, given that this subsidy program incorporates the massive bureaucracies at two federal departments. It is the nature of government agencies to find ways of slowing whatever process over which they have purview, not to speed them up. That’s not a slam on the people who staff those agencies, but a simple recognition of the realities they face in attempting to conform their actions to the complexities of the laws they are required to enforce, of which the IIJA is merely one.

This tension between the nature and complexity of western law and the need for speed the Biden White House hopes to achieve with the setting of hyper-aggressive goals and timelines related to the adoption and enforcement of its Green New Deal policies always has been and remains the central conundrum of the energy transition in the United States. The pace of the multi-faceted, $300 trillion transition is already drastically behind schedule, both in the US and across the rest of the world. There is little prospect for that pace to catch up to the desired timelines anytime in the future.

This reality is not unique to the world of electric vehicles and their associated infrastructure needs, which are massive and hugely expensive. There is also the need for dramatically expanding the electric grid, which provides power to every aspect of not only the transition but to society as a whole. The needs there were already unimaginably huge even before the rise of AI, a power hog of unprecedented proportions.

While the IRA and IIJA included incentives and subsidies that address a subset of the thousands of moving parts of an integrated energy transition, many major elements – such as the gigantic transmission expansion needed for the power grid – were left out entirely.

When the IRA was passed, I warned that the Biden White House viewed it as not a stand-alone subsidy bill, but merely as a down payment for what it viewed as a series of even larger subsidy efforts to come. If one accepts that the climate is really in an emergency condition – as the climate alarm lobby’s propaganda claims – then the passage of a perhaps unending series of debt-funded subsidy bills becomes a moral imperative, after all.

One of the big dangers there is that the momentum behind this fear-driven need for speed begins to be used as justification for the limitation or even abrogation of guaranteed rights of all stakeholders. We see this already starting to happen in states like California and Massachusetts, where Democrat Governors Gavin Newsom and Maura Healey are pushing efforts to overrule the rights of local governments to deny permits for new wind projects and other “green” energy priorities.

The slowness of federal bureaucracies only serves to heighten this sense of alarm, the worst possible motivation to justify the allocation of trillions of debt-funded dollars. It is the worst of all possible worlds, one in which policies motivated by politics promote investment decisions free markets would never create on their own and result in outcomes that do not begin to solve the problem allegedly at hand. It is, in a word, a mess.

The views and opinions express in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DAVID BLACKMON: Will An Election Year Finally Make The Biden Admin Get Serious About Natural Gas?

Biden Admin Touted EV Charging Company To Support Climate Agenda. Now, Its Stock Is Tanking

Why Are There No EV Charging Stations at Interstate Rest Stops? Blame the Feds!

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

How I ‘Made Sea Level Rise Go Away’! thumbnail

How I ‘Made Sea Level Rise Go Away’!

By John Droz, Jr.

A short story behind the story


Some readers may be surprised that I’m more than a pretty face. Through persistence, invaluable help from allies, and dumb luck, I’ve had some influence on a wide variety of issues, on local, state, and national levels. A reward for this is that I’ve been repeatedly targeted by anti-science, anti-citizen, anti-American parties.

What’s interesting, is that none of the targeting involves an accurate recounting of the relevant facts. This is a short summary about such a recent case. This example is about a major state’s legislative process, where I was a player. The scene is 2012, and North Carolina legislation about Sea Level Rise (SLR) had just became law.

Once that happened, the S hit the fan, as alarmists were outraged that Real Science took precedence over their political science. The “audacity” of our NC law became national news — even warranting a major hit piece by Colbert on late-night TV!

There are two major sagas here: 1) how this law came about, and 2) what happened after it was passed. Part one is a fascinating tale, but it is too long to cover today. If I get inspired (and have the time), I may write about that in a future episode.

Re #2, a LOT happened after the law was passed, and this commentary is about just one interesting part — where I again became a target (because I was instrumental in the NC SLR law being written and passed).

I’m writing about this now as Left-wing alarmists continue to bring this up. For example, this lengthy hit piece appeared March 12, 2024. It attempts to tag me on a few different matters, but my Teflon shield ensures me that none of them will stick, any more than their slings and arrows have in the past. (BTW, the author here, Ms. Burns, did not contact me, so there is not even a pretension of any fact verifications.)

As part of her ammunition to discredit me, she references this well-known article in Scientific American (September 2013) “The Man Who Makes Sea Level Rise Go Away.”

The first thought that comes to mind is “one lies and the other swears to it.” In any case, today’s brief commentary is about how that article came about…

In early 2013, I received a phone call from a contract journalist, who I did not know. He said that he had been hired to do an in-depth report about my role in bringing about this unique North Carolina SLR law. I asked him several questions and he seemed to be on the up-and-up. He requested an in-person interview.

Since he was three hours away in Raleigh, I invited him to come and visit us on the coast, promising that we would provide a very good lunch. A week or so later he did come and we had a cordial and productive four-hour session (including a superb home-made lunch). I requested that he send me a draft of what he was proposing, so that we could discuss any factual errors. He agreed to do that. Things were going well!

A week or so later he sent me the draft of his report. I thought that he had written an interesting, accurate, and informative story about my involvement with this NC law. I suggested a few minor edits, which he agreed to make. Still going OK!

A few weeks later he contacted me with the news that his editor had rejected his submission! I asked why and he said that the editor didn’t think that it was controversial enough… Hmmm, so for an article about what happened, the facts are not what will be reported… I asked him what he was going to do, and he said that he wouldn’t get paid unless he scrapped what he had written and started over…

So what eventually got published was version #2, where he injected things he knew were not accurate, just to make the editor happy. (For example, he wrote that I “spends much of his time quietly and effectively plying the halls of power in Raleigh…”) The reality is that I go to Raleigh about once every 3 years, and stay for just a few hours. He also did not send me any drafts of version #2 to comment on.

Fortunately, the article still has some remnants of truth in it — which is a credit to the journalist. In many cases (e.g., with Ms. Burns) we are not dealing with writers whose goal is to be objective and factual, but rather activists promoting undeclared agendas, posing as journalists.

It’s fascinating that the media continues to bring up matters where I was successful over ten years ago. Don’t they realize that it’s embarrassing to them to refresh people’s memory about their past failures? (E.g., despite all their alarmist rhetoric about the NC SLR bill, here we are 12+ years later, and what harm has it caused? None!)

Since the Left is generally adept at PR, it would seem that they would realize that they should move on. Yet they don’t!

What they are EXTREMELY concerned about (and they can’t help themselves) is that there will be more educated, critical-thinking citizens. That is the single greatest threat to their plans to promote unscientific, anti-American ideology.

Towards that end, take much of what you read in mainstream media about Science-related matters, with a very heavy dose of salt.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

It’s Climate Fact Check Time thumbnail

It’s Climate Fact Check Time

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Another month, another load of unvetted climate exaggerations and misrepresentations that climate campaigners set bouncing about the media echo chamber.

Fortunately, CFACT and our partners are on the job correcting the record.

Each month we work together to publish a scholarly climate “fact check” that debunks Green propaganda with verifiable data.


Read the full February “Climate Fact Check” at CFACT.org.


This month we remind readers about natural El Nino / La Nina cycles and the impact they have on our weather.  It was warm during the 1998 El Nino, it is warm during this one, and it will be warm during the next one, whether we live in a free economy or not.

The media wants you to know that Dallas hit 93 degrees on February 26th, 2024.  That’s a hot February day.  Dallas also hit 93 degrees on February 25th, 1918.  A touch of history adds valuable perspective, don’t you think?

The Washington Post is alarmed that recent Canadian wildfires kept on burning underground.  They called it a “zombie fire.”  We reproduced a newspaper ad about underground Canadian fires from 1988.

Nothing wrecks an alarming narrative like a touch of history.

Our February “Climate Fact Check” is chock full of facts like these and more.


Read the fact check at CFACT.org


©2024. Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. All rights reserved.

One of Saturn’s Moons has More Oil and Natural Gas than Earth. Why? thumbnail

One of Saturn’s Moons has More Oil and Natural Gas than Earth. Why?

By Dr. Rich Swier

Greenies, a.k.a. the Biden regime, are bent on ending the use of all fossil fuels. They argue that fossil fuels cause climate change.

It that true? If the Greenies get their way and end all use of fossil fuels, then what will happen to mankind?

Here’s an interesting take on fossil fuels by Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and a geoscientist based in Salem, Massachusetts.

WATCH:

Ep. 62 If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains.

TIMESTAMPS

(01:49) Fossil Fuels in Space
(14:27) Global Warming Throughout History
(25:31) Outside… pic.twitter.com/GMaDkDl8z9

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 9, 2024

On December 4th, 2023, The Daily Caller’s Nick Pope reported,

Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the president of this year’s United Nations (UN) climate summit, said that there is “no science” behind calls to eliminate fossil fuels to counter global warming, according to The Guardian.

Al Jaber also said that getting rid of fossil fuels would not allow for sustainable economic growth “unless you want to take the world back into caves,” according to The Guardian. He made the remarks during an exchange with Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change, during a virtual event held on Nov. 21.

“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5,” Al Jaber told Robinson, referencing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for increase in global average temperatures that many scientists and activists point to as critical to stay below, according to The Guardian.

©2024. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Amazon Streaming Eco-Terrorism film ‘How to blow up a pipeline’! thumbnail

VIDEO: Amazon Streaming Eco-Terrorism film ‘How to blow up a pipeline’!

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

A young girl in a hoodie draws a knife, kneels beside an SUV, and slashes two of its tires.  She slaps a paper on the windshield — “Why I sabotaged your property.”

This is the opening scene of a movie you can stream right now on Hulu, or rent from Amazon, called “How To Blow Up a Pipeline.” It is adapted from a book by the same name.

Here’s the book blurb on Amazon:

In this lyrical manifesto, noted climate scholar (and saboteur of SUV tires and coal mines) Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop–with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.

“We have to show how vulnerable the oil industry is by hitting something big, like a refinery,” says the hoodie-girl (looking to move up from slashing tires), “what do you know about Texas?”  What do you know about building a bomb?” her friend replies.

Next scene they’re wiring a bomb.

What better way to normalize eco-terrorism than invite us to follow along and identify with an appealing PC cast of multicultural young people as they attack our nation’s infrastructure?

Watch CFACT’s Marc Morano explain on Fox that government officials are lining up in favor of eco-terror, which has even entered the curriculum at universities.

“This is coming not from just some lone nut like the author of the book “How to Blow Up a Pipeline”; this is coming from NPR, Bloomberg, and the New York Times.  It’s coming from NASA. In 2010, NASA’s lead global warming scientist endorsed a different book that called for ridding the world of industrial civilization.  He literally said they should essentially be blowing up dams.  James Hansen, the former NASA scientist in endorsing this book said the author has it right, the system is the problem… This is nothing short of eco-porn in the form of hard core terrorism.”

“If the American empire calls us terrorists,” the movie bomb-maker says, “than we are doing something right.”

Who will be held accountable when an impressionable young person watches this anti-American call to violence and translates their sick fantasies into action?

For nature and people too.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Another Day, Another Regulation’: DOE Continues War On Appliances, Locks In Regs For Clothes Washers And Dryers thumbnail

‘Another Day, Another Regulation’: DOE Continues War On Appliances, Locks In Regs For Clothes Washers And Dryers

By The Daily Caller

The Biden administration finalized regulations for residential clothes washers and dryers on Thursday.

The Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it is locking in the “energy efficiency” regulations for residential clothes washers and dryers, marking the latest development in the Biden administration’s wide effort to shape markets to decidedly favor more energy efficient appliances in the coming years. The agency stated that the rules will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money on their water and electricity bills over the course of many years.

“For decades, DOE’s appliance standards actions for clothes washers and dryers have provided loads of savings for American families while also decreasing harmful carbon emissions,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said of the finalized regulations. Her agency contends that the rules could save Americans as much as $39 billion on their energy and water bills, while also reducing about 71 million metric tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions over the next three decades.

REPORTER:

“We’ve seen them go after gas stoves…how many more home appliances will Americans eventually have to replace?” pic.twitter.com/JgjQyiPGK0

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 24, 2023

The regulations increase the minimum water and energy efficiency levels that washers and dryers must meet down the road in order to remain on shelves. In many cases, more energy efficient units do not work as effectively or quickly as older and less efficient models, O.H. Skinner, the executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Another day, another regulation from the Biden administration to remove products from the shelves and limit what people can buy in the name of their ideological goals. At this point, consumers have gotten the message: if it moves or has a motor and it is in your house, Biden would like it to cost more and probably be less effective,” Skinner told the DCNF. “Their primary rationale is that it will cost you less in the electricity bill, but don’t worry, in places like California, politicians are busy trying to drive up electricity bills, too.”

In a January opinion relating to a separate legal battle over DOE appliance energy efficiency rules for dishwashers and clothes washers, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals notably pointed out that some appliances favored by Biden administration policy “make Americans use more energy and more water for the simple reason that purportedly ‘energy efficient’ appliances do not work.”

Beyond clothes washers and dryers, the Biden DOE has also promulgated energy efficiency regulations for common household appliances like dishwashers, water heatersfurnaces and pool pump motors. The administration has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars on helping state and municipal governments pursue building codes that phase out natural gas infrastructure and favor electrification.

The DOE did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Rolls Out Slew Of Regs Targeting Americans’ Appliances On Last Friday Of The Year

The Conspiracy Theory That Could Completely Blow Up The 2024 Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Mercedes-Benz Walks Back On Huge Electric Vehicle Commitment Amid Slowing Demand thumbnail

Mercedes-Benz Walks Back On Huge Electric Vehicle Commitment Amid Slowing Demand

By The Daily Caller

Mercedes-Benz on Thursday walked back plans to have an all-electric line-up by 2030 as consumers decline to adopt electric vehicles (EV) at the rate automakers expected.

The company has changed its expectations to have only 50% of its sales be EVs by 2030, announcing that it will be updating its current line-up featuring the internal combustion engine into the next decade, according to Mercedes-Benz in its fourth quarter report. EV sales grew 21% year-over-year in 2023, but total car sales remained relatively the same, bucking hopes that EVs would fuel growth as the automaker pushes electric models.

“It is almost like we will have a new lineup in 2027 that will take us well into the 2030s,” Ola Kaellenius, CEO of Mercedes, said following the report, according to Reuters. Kaellenius noted near the end of last year that even European markets, which are more likely to adopt EVs, might not be able to reach the 2030 all-electric goal due to consumer reservations about issues like lack of charging infrastructure and appealing models.

We just released our 2023 full year results.
For all details: https://t.co/K6Cne3C8GI#MercedesBenz pic.twitter.com/hM5NA9jW4U

— Mercedes-Benz (@MercedesBenz) February 22, 2024

The Biden administration has sought to ease charging concerns as the president pushes for an EV transition, allocating $7.5 billion for charging infrastructure. Despite the huge investment, lack of demand, regulations and union requirements have stalled construction, with only two charging stations having been built as of December 2023.

Mercedes-Benz also posted its fourth quarter results, with revenue declining a disappointing 1.8% year-over-year but up slightly by 2.1% comparing 2023 to 2022, according to a release from the company. Net profit was down 21.5% in the quarter year-over-year and 1.9% for 2023.

The company also announced a 3 billion euro stock buyback in an effort to boost its stock price, according to the fourth quarter report.

Other automakers have also had to cut EV goals, including Ford, which announced that it would be reducing production volume of its F-150 lighting as of January after losing a total of $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023. General Motors reported a $1.7 billion loss in the fourth quarter in the production and sale of its EV line, despite being profitable otherwise.

“Our overall goal remain unchanged: Our Ambition 2039,” Mercedes-Benz said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Thereby, the ambition is to make our entire fleet of new vehicles net carbon-neutral along the entire value chain and over the vehicles’ entire life cycle by 2039. Therefore, we continue to put our company in a position to go all electric.”

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Upscale Rideshare Platform Abandons Commitment To All-Electric Fleet After Missing Mark

POST ON X:

Joe Biden’s EV Mandate “Vision” For America Is In Full Collapse https://t.co/qFfBmZ4JRO

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 23, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read The Lie Filled Letter I Got From Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. thumbnail

Read The Lie Filled Letter I Got From Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

By Dr. Rich Swier

I received a letter, below, from Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. in response to my concern about the rising cost of energy in America.

After reading his letter I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry. It was so filled with myths, lies and propaganda.

Here are some of the lies in the letter below:

  1. Biden blames Russia for our energy crisis, when in fact it is due to his green energy policies, which are anti-fossil fuels, anti-drilling and anti-building new pipelines to deliver oil and natural gas nationwide.
  2. It claims that by releasing millions of barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve it brought prices down at the pump. The truth is that prices at the pump in some areas keep rising and that robbing oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and don’t drill policies are making the U.S. energy dependent on foreign oil and natural gas.
  3. Biden wrote, “When I signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, we made a historic move to transition America to a clean energy economy and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process.” This statement is false as many of the “green companies” that Biden sent our hard earned tax dollars to have either gone bankrupt or are losing billions in revenue a year. These green companies are barely staying afloat only because they are being subsidized with billions of our tax dollars.
  4. Biden claims that the Inflation Reduction Act, “It will make it easier for families to install energy efficient appliances and make home upgrades so they can save on household energy costs. ”  This is a lie because now were are seeing this act used to eliminate certain appliances and the use of things like natural gas stoves, home heating and cooling units and even gasoline driven lawn mowers.
  5. Finally Biden wrote, “And it [the Inflation Reduction Act] will make it easier to buy electric vehicles so that more Americans never have to pay at the gas pump again.” This again is a lie in that many of Biden’s charging stations are either not working or are being provided electricity from diesel generators. In fact, there are NO EV charging stations at Interstate rest stops because of Biden’s policies. On August 16th, 2023 even Newsweek wrote an article titled “One Year Later, President Biden’s ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ Is a Total Flop.” One paragraph states, “The legislation mostly consisted of green energy subsidies, healthcare subsidies, tax increases, and more funding for the Internal Revenue Service. Yet the President sold it to the public as a way to bring down the crushing inflation that continues to bankrupt the American people. (The typical U.S. family spent $709 more on monthly expenses last month, July 2023, than it did in July two years ago.)”
  6. Biden ended his letter with the BIG LIE! He wrote, “At this critical inflection point, we are finally taking historic steps to break our reliance on foreign energy, lower energy costs for American families, and protect our children’s futures from the impacts of climate change.  And we’re bringing true energy security to America, making us stronger and cleaner than ever before.” Since January 20th, 2021 America has become less and less energy secure. Biden has take historic steps to see that we are not energy secure via his Green New Deal policies. Never before have I feared that the future of our son, his wife and our two grandchildren is in such great peril. Finally, I don’t give a damn about climate change because mankind cannot control the weather let alone the climate. Climate change is a hoax and a myth to take control of all of our choices on what cars we buy, how to heat and cool our homes and made everything more expensive all at the same time.

America is going bankrupt, its people are deeper in debt and our nation is no longer safe. Put that in you pipe and smoke it.

Letter from Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. I reply to my dissent to his energy policies:

I received this letter from Joseph Robinett Biden, Jr. that is filled with lies. First it blames Russia for our energy crisis when it’s Biden’s policies that are the cause. It also states the Biden is depleting our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, rather than drilling for more oil. pic.twitter.com/GUtCDJgIKn

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) February 22, 2024

On November 5th, 2024 we have a choice between Biden’s failed energy policies or Trump’s drill baby drill and make American truly energy independent policies.

Chose wisely.

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Whatever Democrats Say, Trust the Opposite is True

American Food Spending As Portion Of Income Hits More Than 30-Year High

State Department Warns Staffers against ‘Misgendering’

Biden has nothing to offer but empty gestures and lefty boondoggles

California Budget Deficit Projected To Skyrocket To Record Levels Under Newsom, State Watchdog Warns

Woke Investment Managers Pull $15.7 Trillion from Climate Activism Pact thumbnail

Woke Investment Managers Pull $15.7 Trillion from Climate Activism Pact

By Family Research Council

BlackRock and other U.S.-based investment management conglomerates have chosen to withdraw from a controversial initiative, Climate Action 100+ (CA100+), that pressured companies to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” to “net-zero emissions by 2050 [or] sooner,” in pursuit of “limiting global average temperature increase” to 1.5 degrees above “pre-industrial levels.” The withdrawals follow financial and legal pressure from U.S. state officials, as well a new phase of cooperation for CA100+ that would move “from words to action.”

As of last June, more than 700 firms had joined CA100+, controlling a breathtaking $68 trillion, or nearly 2.5 times the U.S.A.’s annual GDP.

However, last week, Reuters reported that some of the world’s largest investment managers had withdrawn from CA100+. BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm with $9 trillion assets under management (AUM), withdrew its U.S. arm, worth $6.6 trillion. State Street (4th largest with $4.1 trillion AUM), J.P. Morgan (6th largest with $3.1 trillion AUM), and PIMCO (14th largest with $1.9 trillion AUM) all withdrew entirely. However, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, and Franklin Templeton (U.S. firms among the world’s 20 largest asset managers) are still signatories.

With the withdrawal of these four firms, CA100+ lost influence over the $15.7 trillion in assets they managed, cutting its influence by 23%.

At least in part, the withdrawals were triggered last summer, when the Steering Committee for CA100+ announced a “Phase Two” for their campaign of corporate climate activism, expected to last until 2030. “In phase two, the overarching goal is to go from words to action,” explained CA100+ Steering Committee Chairman Francois Humbert. The new phase would mean “more accountability, more transparency, more seniority.” The new guidelines would require investment managers to disclose how they vote on climate-related motions at shareholder meetings, as well as how often they lobby corporations and policymakers with their climate agenda.

When CA100+ upped the ante, several major U.S. investment firms promptly folded. BlackRock and State Street cited independence concerns, J.P. Morgan said it had developed “its own climate risk engagement framework,” while PIMCO claimed it “operates its own portfolio-relevant engagement activities with issuers on sustainability.”

In other words, these investment managers do not object to leveraging their fiduciary trust to pursue climate activism. All four of them are still doing climate activism on their own. They did object to the loss of independence of having an international organization micromanage their climate activism — how very American.

However, independence concerns over CA100+’s move to “Phase Two” does not fully explain the abrupt withdrawal of these investment management firms. After all, they still basically share CA100+’s goal of leveraging the investments they manage to advance their climate activism agenda. And these firms did decide to join CA100+ in the first place, knowing that it might inevitably lead to phases that required more action and accountability. Here, grasping the full picture requires viewing the scenery from more than one vantage point.

On March 30, 2023, 21 state attorneys general wrote a letter to the largest U.S.-based asset managers, expressing concern over their political activism and warning that such behavior could violate federal securities laws. The letter, led by Montana AG Austin Knudsen (R), specifically highlighted the CA100+ agenda as “potential unlawful coordination” to “push policies through the financial system that cannot be achieved at the ballot box.” It put investment managers on notice that “ongoing investigations” would “continue to evaluate” whether the firms were engaged in “potential unlawful coordination and other violations … as part of Climate Action 100+, Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative [NZAM], or the like.”

Woke asset managers have sustained considerable pressure from state governments in recent years, as the vast scale of their political activism became known. State officials have issued opinions declaring political activism with public funds illegal, published blacklists of politicized corporations the state won’t do business with, opposed woke companies’ purchases of public utility shares, and demonstrated the public support for doing so by winning subsequent elections.

Asset management firms are wilting before the ire of these state officials. Last summer, after 11 state governments pulled more than $5 billion in assets from his firm’s management, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared he was abandoning the acronym “ESG” (for left-wing “environmental, social, and governance causes) — but not the spirit. In December 2022, Vanguard (the world’s second largest asset manager, with approximately $7 trillion AUM) announced plans to withdraw from the NZAM after pressure from state governments.

The mini-exodus from CA100+ seems to be undertaken with the same goal in mind. The firms withdrawing from the climate pact haven’t abandoned their commitment to climate activism, but they would prefer not to become the next Bud Light in doing so. Re-asserting their “independence” from CA100+ frees them to evaluate the political or legal costs of any particular deed of climate activism and avoid provoking uncomfortable investigations or costly lawsuits. Even without changing their behavior, distancing themselves from the climate organization can help them avoid charges of “unlawful coordination” without distancing themselves from the climate agenda.

The backdrop to this performative calculus is that much left-wing corporate activism is neither essential nor profitable. In a 2022 survey of top executives, 59% of CEOs said they would “plan to pause or reconsider their organization’s ESG efforts” in response to a recession. That’s the sort of numbers you would expect from an optional extra — like a soft-serve machine in the breakroom. It might keep the workforce happy, and it might help mute outside criticism, but it doesn’t help a business achieve its core mission — to produce, move, or sell a product, or to provide certain services.

In the case of asset management firms, they provide the service of managing assets, in hopes of providing a better return for investors than they could obtain on their own. Climate activism is not relevant to the goal of asset management. In fact, climate activism can hamper an asset manager’s goal (obtaining the best return for his client) by forcing a company to adopt costly “green” policies that reduce its profitability and thus the profitability of assets invested in that company.

“Broadly, [federal securities] laws require you to act as a fiduciary, in the best interests of your clients and exercising due care and loyalty,” the attorneys general wrote the asset management firms. “Simply put, you are not the same as political or social activists and you should not be allowing the vast savings entrusted to you to be commandeered by activists to advance non-financial goals.” Asset management firms aren’t yet convinced of this argument and continue to pursue climate activism, but changes in their behavior indicate the pressure is having an effect.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Understanding Solar Flares and What They Can Do To Us thumbnail

Understanding Solar Flares and What They Can Do To Us

By Amil Imani

The sun, our life-giving star, is a dynamic ball of constantly changing plasma.  Among the most spectacular phenomena it produces are solar flares, intense bursts of light, and energetic radiation that erupt from its surface.  While these events capture our imagination, they also raise concerns.

Solar flares originate in the sun’s atmosphere, specifically in regions with intense magnetic activity.  These areas, known as “sunspots,” exhibit complex interactions among magnetic fields, leading to the sudden release of enormous amounts of energy.  This energy manifests as intense radiation across various wavelengths, including visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays.  Additionally, solar flares can propel streams of charged particles into space, known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

Fortunately, Earth possesses several natural barriers that protect us from the brunt of solar flares.  Our planet’s magnetic field acts as a shield, deflecting most harmful radiation and charged particles.  The atmosphere further filters out a significant portion of the remaining radiation.  However, this protection could be better, and the intensity of a solar flare can determine the extent of its impact.

Solar activity exhibits cyclical patterns, with periods of high and low activity.  The sun is in the rising phase of its 11-year cycle, which means that an increased frequency of solar flares can be expected in the coming years.  While most flares are relatively minor, large flares can trigger a cascade of effects on Earth.

Radio blackouts: Intense X-rays can temporarily disrupt radio communications, impacting air traffic control, navigation systems, and emergency services.

Power grid disruptions: Induced currents in power grids due to geomagnetic storms can cause transformer failures and widespread blackouts.

Satellite malfunctions: Energetic particles can damage sensitive electronics aboard satellites, impacting GPS navigation, communication networks, and scientific observations.

Aurora borealis and australis: Increased charged particles create stunning auroral displays but pose radiation risks to astronauts and high-altitude aircraft.

Solar flares are indeed powerful events.  However, while they are a natural phenomenon we should be aware of, it’s important to maintain perspective and not let fear overwhelm us.  Here are some key points to consider:

Solar superflares are rare: While observed on other stars, superflares from our sun are highly uncommon.  Evidence suggests that the sun experiences powerful flares roughly every 10,000 years, and even those may not be as devastating as the worst-case scenarios depict.

Scientific warning: Solar activity is closely monitored, and scientists would likely anticipate a superflare with some lead time.  This allows for potential mitigation measures like shutting down power grids to minimize damage.

How to prepare: Although complete protection might not be feasible, taking steps like hardening critical infrastructure, developing backup systems, and raising awareness can still significantly reduce the impact.

Not everything dies: Even in a worst-case scenario, the extent of the damage would depend on the characteristics of the flare and our preparedness.  Life might persist in sheltered areas, and the planet would eventually recover.

Focus on what you can control: Instead of dwelling on worst-case scenarios, let us focus on actions that empower.  Staying informed about solar activity is one; supporting efforts to improve preparedness is an extra step.  Advocating for resilient infrastructure should be a continuous effort.

Understanding and predicting solar flares is crucial for minimizing their impact.  International organizations like NOAA closely monitor solar activity and issue timely warnings of impending events.  This allows critical infrastructure operators to take precautionary measures, such as switching to backup power systems or shielding sensitive equipment.

Research into space weather forecasting and mitigation technologies is ongoing, aiming to better predict and defend against future solar storms.

From understanding their mechanisms to mitigating potential effects, proactive preparedness remains vital in confronting the challenges posed by solar flares.  This ensures a more resilient future where our planet and its technological infrastructure can weather these natural phenomena.

We should do everything to approach this issue with informed caution and proactive solutions.

As an end note, this post only briefly overviews solar flares and their effects.  Please refer to authoritative sources like NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center for the latest information and warnings.

Copyright 2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents — Block TV Ads Opposing Biden’s EV Mandate. thumbnail

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents — Block TV Ads Opposing Biden’s EV Mandate.

By The Geller Report

The objective of the climate complex is to remove as much of our freedom as possible.

JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock and State Street have confirmed they are exiting the world’s largest climate alliance which seeks to push investors away from funding the fossil fuel sector. It’s a hoax. So the truth must be crushed.

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents

Progressives move to block TV ads opposing the Biden EV mandate.

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2024:

If President Biden’s electric-vehicle mandate is as popular as progressives claim, why are they trying to censor critics who want to inform the public about the mandate’s costs?

That’s the story this week, after the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) launched ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio and Montana to educate Americans about the Administration’s back-door EV mandate. Mr. Biden is “rushing to ban new gas-powered cars” and wants “to force you into an electric vehicle,” one ad says.

The Biden team doth protest. “There is no EV mandate,” a Biden campaign official declared. No? The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards that would effectively require that EVs make up two-thirds of auto maker sales by 2032. The standards will “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” EPA said.

EPA’s proposed emissions rules are so stringent that auto makers will be able to comply only by producing an increasing number of “zero-emission vehicles” or by buying regulatory credits from EV manufacturers like Tesla
. Americans shopping for a new car will have no choice but to buy an EV or pay a fortune for the few gas-powered cars still available.

Yet Mr. Biden and his allies don’t want voters to know that banning gas-powered cars is their end game. That’s why the progressive umbrella group Climate Power on Tuesday shot off a missive to broadcasters demanding that they pull the AFPM ads—or else. These “advertisements include obvious lies aimed at deceiving the public and must be pulled from the air immediately,” Climate Power chief operating officer Jill Shesol wrote. But who’s actually trying to deceive the public?

The letter cites a PolitiFact report claiming it is “wrong to say there is a ‘Biden mandate’ to replace gasoline-powered cars with [electric vehicles].” PolitiFact is a liberal opinion operation. Was it also wrong for the New York Times
last May to report that EPA’s proposed rule is “designed to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while ending the use of gasoline-powered cars”?

“The EPA does not have the authority to demand such a mandate,” the Climate Power letter says. Correct, which is why the EPA is using regulation to impose the de facto mandate. The Obama Administration similarly tried to force a transition to renewable power by setting unfeasible emissions standards for fossil-fuel power plants.

Climate Power warns local broadcasters that the Federal Communications Commission could pull their licenses if they continue broadcasting the ads. “Failure to prevent the airing of ‘false and misleading advertising’ may be ‘probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility’ that can be cause for the loss of a station’s license,’” the letter says.

EDF Action on Tuesday also sent stations a letter claiming that the AFPM ad “appears to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish the politicians . . . who may support policies that reduce air pollution and save lives.” But President Biden isn’t trying to reduce air pollution or save lives, and the EPA rule doesn’t aim to do either.

Opponents of “cleaner alternatives,” the letter adds, “do not have the right to mislead voters and spread disinformation on public airwaves.” But they do have a First Amendment right to critique public policies that damage their livelihoods.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

DAVID BLACKMON: The Billionaire Class Is Fueling The War Against Abundant American Energy

Biden Admin To Ease Electric Vehicle Goals In Bid For Union Support: REPORT

POSTS ON X:

When America leads the world in producing and exporting energy, America’s economy, energy security, and allies all benefit. 

This week, the House passed Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act to depoliticize the LNG approval process and unleash American energy producers from… pic.twitter.com/7458foNFma

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) February 17, 2024

Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. “What I’m describing is military rule,” says Mike Benz. “It’s the inversion of democracy.” pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized thumbnail

Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized

By Leo Hohmann

“And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the Earth.” -Rev. 11:18


Bill Gates, ever the demented snake oil salesman, has long argued in favor of a bizarre plan to fight global warming by using experimental geoengineering to partially block the sun’s rays from reaching Earth.

Well, he’s apparently about to get his wish.

Scientists plan to begin pumping chemicals into the sky over the next few weeks and months from several countries around the globe, including the U.S., Australia and Israel.

The idea, promoted by Gates and leftist billionaire George Soros, involves pumping manmade white clouds containing chalk dust and other chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth’s surface.

Blocking the sun’s light would allegedly lower the planet’s temperature enough to reverse global warming.

Never mind that fruit trees and vegetables require sunlight in order to grow and produce food for the masses. Not to mention, sunlight is the primary source of critical Vitamin D, an essential nutrient for human immunity. Gates, a known eugenicist who goes around giving talks about how we need to reduce the global population, likely sees these dark possibilities as exciting side effects of the nefarious sun-blocking plan.

Soros is similarly excited about the plan. He says the technology will help to prevent ice from melting in Greenland, which he claims could doom human civilization.

How ironic that the very globalists who are doing everything in their power to destroy human civilization claim to be worried that global warming might speed up the process.

Globalists like Bill Gates and George Soros are doing harm to the environment through their genocidal climate agenda on multiple levels. They advocate blanketing our fertile farmland with toxic solar panels, while filling more acres of farmland with wind turbines that kill birds and other wildlife. They also push electric cars which run on toxic lithium batteries that are going to create an environmental nightmare in the years ahead because, like with the solar panels, there’s no way to safely dispose of them.

Chloe Aiello of Inc. magazine reported on February 13, 2024, that a Bill Gates-Backed Startup Just Raised $145 Million to Source Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric VehiclesMuch of the lithium mined in the world today is done on the backs of child labor in poor countries of Africa and Asia. But don’t tell that to Bill Gates, George Soros, Larry Fink and their buddies at the World Economic Forum.

Despite their destructive plans, these globalists insist they are our saviors and we should look to them for answers on how to live a sustainable lifestyle. Please.

About the devious sun-blocking formula, Soros said: “Our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by 7 meters. That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization.”

Of course this is all nonsense meant to stoke fear. A fearful population will beg for solutions to the imaginary problem, inviting their own enslavement. More than 20 years ago, Al Gore made the exact same dire predictions about ice melting, polar bears dying, hurricanes increasing, and whole cities being submerged in water. None of these apocalyptic predictions have materialized.

According to a report by Slay News, the tactics advocated by Bill Gates involve spraying aerosol concentrations into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth.

Gates has been funding a major project at Harvard using balloons to deploy aerosols. The Harvard project was shut down following public backlash.

But now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that another group of scientists has been advancing Gates’ idiotic and, frankly, dangerous plan.

Marine Cloud Brightening is a research project led by Southern Cross University as part of the $64.55 million, or 100 million Australian dollars, Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.

The program involves modifying clouds to make them reflect sunlight away from the Earth to supposedly stop global warming.

Slay News reports:

“This week, researchers aboard a ship off the northeastern coast of Australia near the Whitsunday Islands started spraying a briny mixture through high-pressure nozzles into the air in an attempt to brighten low-altitude clouds that form over the ocean.

“Scientists hope bigger, brighter clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth, shade the ocean surface, and cool the waters around the Great Barrier Reef.”

In Israel, another startup called Stardust Solutions has begun testing a system to disperse a cloud of tiny reflective particles about 60,000 feet in altitude.

These geoengineered clouds reflect sunlight away from Earth to cool the atmosphere in a concept known as solar radiation management.

And, in Massachusetts, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution are preparing to pour 6,000 gallons of a liquid solution of sodium hydroxide, a component of lye, into the ocean 10 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard this summer.

Some would argue that “cloud seeding” has been going on for years. Take a look at this shot I took of the sky above my house a few weeks ago.

Does the sky in the photo above look normal?

With all these chemicals being sprayed above us, what could possibly go wrong?

Let’s pray this ill-advised experiment fizzles out before it can do too much damage.

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved.


LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent reader supported, not beholden to any, ads, sponsorships or other streams of income form government, corporate or nonprofit entities. If you appreciate my reporting and analyzing of the most important news and would like to support my efforts, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card.

Kill Them All — O’Biden/Globalist Net Zero Agenda thumbnail

Kill Them All — O’Biden/Globalist Net Zero Agenda

By Karen Schoen

Let’s start out with a little humor. Remember this: Humor

What a week this was I hardly know where to start. One thing we should have learned is that when we call our legislators and conduct oversight it works. Because of our efforts the non-border border bill was killed. But fear not the RINOS and the Communists/Globalists in the Senate will twist enough arms, threaten enough people so that they will offer another bill with aid for Ukraine again. Think about how important Ukraine is to these criminals. Are they getting paid off? Do they need to give their lobbyist contractor friends money? Need to continue their human sex trafficking? Need to continue their drug pipeline? One thing is true they will never stop. We have to make sure that we never stop either. We have to continue our calls or emails to our legislators.

We can see clearly now that thugs/grifters are running this government and they will do anything to maintain control. But the people are smarter. We now see when we act we take back our power. The shift of power makes them crazy. We must make sure this election is overwhelmingly crushing against the globalist. We’re off to a good start. Nikki Haley lost to none of the above in Nevada. Trump won with an overwhelming majority and the US Virgin Islands . We have to see that in every state.

If you have not seen the report from Special Council Richard Hur on dementia Joe he proves what we already knew. Hur said even tough Joe committed multiple felonies, his is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” No, sorry if he is well enough to be President and destroy the county, he is well enough to be prosecuted.   In the meanwhile  Trump gets all the wrath because he is mean MAGA man who committed no crimes. seniors if you commit a crime or get in trouble remember you new defense “I am well-meaning, elderly man/woman with a poor memory.”

The government favors the globalists. Joe has dementia and is pathetic. So what do we do about it? We need to call the House and Senate oversight committees and tell them that  Obiden is a compromised leader and if he is not well enough to be prosecuted for a felonies which he committed by taking classified material as a vice president when he had no right to classify material, then how can he be in charge of negotiation for anything good for Americans. Part of dementia is illusion and that’s what he is living under while forcing it upon us. Sadly the alternative will be Affirmative Action Graduate Kamala who maybe worse. But I think not because Joe was never really running the country anyway.  The question is: Will the lying DNC take Joe out themselves or make him go through article 25? Or impeachment? Or leave him in office without ability to make any America killing policies.  But regardless it is a disgrace to see what the leadership thinks of America. Remember Trump can not do this alone. We must vet candidates to get him support in both houses.

Another lie this week was the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  BLS reported that we had the biggest job growth beating all expectations. Zero Hedge said it was the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history. Why would they say that? Was BLS lying? They weren’t really lying, they just manipulated the numbers. Does that count?  Basically they changed the amount of hours they reported so it looked like more people had jobs and got higher wages.

This is the way the new economy works. The Feds print money out of thin air. The Feds give the money to the government, who gives the money to the UN, who gives the money to the NGO’s, who gives the money to illegals to invade our country, who then buy things to support the donors of the Globalists, who gives the money back to the Globalists.  Then the lying media and globalist government reports that the economy is doing great as another trillion is added to the debt that the American people must pay.  And the rich 1% get richer.  That is modern day fascism aka slavery.  If you want to see the theft in action see: The Great Taking

Globalists tell us it is our fault for eating too much meat, using to much fossil fuel, turning on the air conditioning. They dream up programs to force us to live in 15 minute cities so they can monitor our every move. And once again they get richer. Read what is going on in South Florida since DeSantis sold the state to his developer friends. Then you will know what to look for in your state. This is the Great Reset or the destruction of the American Dream.

Let’s tackle the greatest lie which we have been told over and over again.  No it’s not China.  No it’s not illegals.  No it’s not Iran, or the Middle East. No it’s not Russia.  Can you guess?  It’s climate change. The farmers are rising up in Europe and the truckers are rising up in America as people all over the world reject world wide slavery and hunger. We must peacefully protest.  They want civil war so they can declare a national emergency and stop the election. Too many western countries are having elections in 2024. Too many nationalists are running for office. This is the big threat. It’s numbers that count,. We must vote. Remember every time they tell you net zero, to get rid of CO2, to get rid of nitrogen, to stop farming or that agriculture is bad they want us dead.  Globalists are putting in place a plan that will kill humanity. CO2 is one of the most necessary gases to sustain life. The biggest emitter of CO2 is water vapor. The Earth is 75% water.  Humans have no control over the weather.

Great video to share with your friends.

Remember: 

Everything is connected. Nothing is random, Everything has a plan. All plans are lies. All Globalists want is MONEY, POWER, CONTROL Don’t give them yours. Challenge them with the truth. Doing Nothing is affirmation.

RELATED VIDEOS:

The Crime of Breathing

TIK History: The Cult many are in but don’t realize (explaining Hegelian dialectics)

Copyright 2024. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

CONSERVATION NATION VIDEO: The Biden Threat to Alaskan Mining thumbnail

CONSERVATION NATION VIDEO: The Biden Threat to Alaskan Mining

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

We just released a new episode of our “wildly” popular original video series, Conservation Nation.

Please watch our Conservation Nation videos.

In this latest program, host Gabriella Hoffman (who also serves as a CFACT senior policy analyst) journeys to Alaska to look into how mining operations are carried out in this beautiful, yet remote state.

As CFACT supporters know, Alaska is chock full of critical minerals needed to run our modern society. Gold, silver, copper, zinc, graphite, cobalt, lead, and rare earth elements are all found in abundance up there. That’s why domestic mining in the region is necessary for supplying America’s technological and electricity generation needs.

Sadly, our ability to get these minerals is being hampered by the Biden Administration and radical Greens. In fact, as the latest episode points out, the Biden administration is actively blocking new Alaska mining projects in the name of fighting climate change. One of these being targeted is known as Ambler Road –an infrastructure project supported by Alaskans to reach the Ambler Mining District.

If the Green radicals succeed in taking this project down it would be bad news for all of us.

Alaskan mining is a big positive.  Viewers will learn that the Alaskan mining industry supports 10,800 total direct and indirect jobs, paying an average annual wage of $118,000—more than any other sector of the state’s economy.

And, of course, there’s also a little fun added in.  You’ll get to see Gabby attempt to pan for a little gold and land a wild Alaska salmon.

Make sure you don’t miss this program.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

What is ‘The Fifth Crime Ecocide?’ Is Ecocide coming to America or is it already here? thumbnail

What is ‘The Fifth Crime Ecocide?’ Is Ecocide coming to America or is it already here?

By Dr. Rich Swier

Marc Morano, founder of Climate Depot, appeared on the Glazov Gang to warn about Ecocide coming to America.

WATCH: ‘Ecocide’ Charges – on the Horizon

In a January 17th, 2024 Breibart article titled “Davos Speaker Demands International Criminal Court Prosecute ‘Ecocide’, Punish Farmers Alongside War CriminalsKurt Zindulka reported,

The International Criminal Court should add “ecocide” to its brief alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to criminalise the side effects of farming, fishing and energy production, a green activist argued during the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Greta Thunberg ally and CEO of Stop Ecocide International Jojo Mehta demanded during a WEF Davos panel dubbed “Where Nature Meets Conflict” on Tuesday that a new international criminal category of “ecocide” to prevent the “mass damage and destruction of nature”.

Mehta, who co-founded Stop Ecocide in 2017 alongside the late green legal activist Polly Higgins, said at the globalist World Economic Forum meeting: “What our organisation and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognised legally as a serious crime because one of the issues that pervades this discussion is that we have a culturally engrained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property.”

While proponents of the legislation have often pointed to disasters such as oil spills and nuclear meltdowns, Mehta suggested that ecocide could be extended to include necessary functions of humanity such as agriculture and energy production.

“If you are campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture all of these things are serious crimes, but there is no equivalent in environmental space. Unlike an international crime like genocide that involves a specific intent, with ecocide what we see is what people are trying to do is business, is to farm, is fish, is produce energy, but what is missing is the awareness and the conscience of the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that,” the green activist said.

Mehta argued that creating the criminal category of “ecocide” would “steer” individuals, businesses, and governments around the world in a “healthier direction”, presumably out of concern of facing prosecution at the International Criminal Court and potentially lengthy prison sentences.

The green activist has previously explained: “One can envisage, for example, once the law is in place, that a decision that leads to a new coal mine or a decision that leads to the opening of new fossil fuel projects will potentially have to be really seriously rethought.”

Jojo Mehta, founder of Stop Ecocide Now and an ally of Greta Thunberg, tells a WEF panel about her desire to criminalize the side effects of making money from farming, fishing, and creating energy.https://t.co/aJiaQfZlkb pic.twitter.com/4RQqTRUZsN

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) January 16, 2024

Read more.

The Bottom Line

There is no crime of Ecocide, rather there is a war going on between those who want to “save the plant” by eliminating us humans. You see these humans see us humans as evil and worthy of punishment.

Punishments like:

  • Taking away all fossil fuels, including liquid hydrogen.
  • Taking away your food, like meat and poultry,  and replacing them with eating bugs.
  • Taking away all of your freedoms to life, liberty and happiness.
  • Farmers can be classified as “war criminals” if Ecocide laws are enacted.
  • Finally, those who are pushing Ecocide are now pushing extending “personhood”, the rights of people, to plants, animals, trees, rivers, lakes and even robots and AI programs.

They want nothing other than total control of how you live, what you purchase, what you eat and what you drive.

This is the definition to totalitarianism.

©2024. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Ecocide” may be another $hakedown of the U.S.A.

As the Climate Crisis Grows, a Movement Gathers to Make ‘Ecocide’ an International Crime Against the Environment

Ecocide: Should Destruction of the Planet Be a Crime?

POSTS ON X:

Farmers could face criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

Some might soon be labeled as guilty of “ecocide,” which was among the more controversial positions that came from the 2024 WEF conference in Davos. pic.twitter.com/8L0x1mk2Zw

— EpochTV (@EpochTV) January 31, 2024

.@monicalennon7 is consulting on a proposed Member’s Bill to protect the environment in Scotland and deter environmental damage by introducing the crime of ecocide into Scots law.

Share your views before the consultation closes on 9 February 2024: https://t.co/nhtIO9DGKs pic.twitter.com/LgboGYssVy

— Scottish Parliament (@ScotParl) February 2, 2024

Already, there is a growing movement to grant human rights to plants, animals, rivers, and even artificial intelligence.

This is raising concerns over what it means for the value of human life if everything is treated on the same value as a human life.https://t.co/qRe7m01o9w

— EpochTV (@EpochTV) January 31, 2024

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’ thumbnail

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’

By The Daily Caller

As Republican lawmakers prepare to grill a senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official about one of President Joe Biden’s massive green grantmaking programs, several questions about the program’s structure and potential beneficiaries remain unanswered.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sitting on a $27 billion fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s landmark climate bill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on the program featuring Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator Zealan Hoover on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with Republican lawmakers describing the program as possibly spawning “the next big government boondoggle.”

The GGRF intends “to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis” using several subprograms, according to the EPA. The program’s expeditious timeline, as well as the connections that several of those groups share to the administration and the broader Democratic party apparatus, have attracted the scrutiny of government watchdog groups and elected Republicans alike in recent months.

House Passes EPA Spending Bill That Defunds Several Biden Climate Initiatives https://t.co/zNv0XTR3v5

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

How is the EPA ensuring that political connections do not interfere with selecting grantees?

Up to $14 billion of GGRF cash could go to so-called “green banks,” or financial institutions that provide financing specifically for climate-related investments, according to the EPA. Three of the five “green bank” consortiums reportedly on the shortlist to potentially receive multi-billion dollar payouts from the GGRF have considerable ties to the Biden administration or the wider Democratic Party and its allies. The coalitions are variously composed of environmental groups, nonprofits and smaller “green banks” that would distribute the awarded funds to projects they deem worthy of the material support.

“Many prospective recipients and sub-recipients are chock full of political operatives as well as individuals and organizations with ties to the current administration and its Democratic predecessors,” Michael Chamberlain, the executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization that has closely monitored the GGRF, told the DCNF. “This raises serious questions about the likelihood of the GGRF being used to advance partisan interests or reward former political appointees and those who helped elect the President or create the program.”

For example, the board of directors for the Coalition for Green Capital — one of the groups reportedly in contention for a major payday — includes David Hayes, a senior fellow for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and formerly a climate adviser for Biden; Cecilia Martinez, who is now the Bezos Earth Fund’s chief of environmental and climate justice after a stint in the Biden White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Julie Greene Collier, chief of staff for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

The committee could choose to dig into these connections and call on Hoover to provide a detailed description of internal EPA safeguards to ensure a competitive grantmaking process on Tuesday, as well as whether the agency is concerned about potential appearances of ethical impropriety or political patronage with its award decisions.

Why did the agency meet with major green groups about the program in November 2022?

The EPA met with several organizations connected to officials in the agency and the wider administration behind closed doors to discuss the fund in November 2022, about 11 months before the application window closed in October 2023. The meeting served as a chance for groups like the NRDC and the Center for American Progress to “provide early feedback” and “ask clarifying questions” about the GGRF process.

“Holding a chummy meeting with special interest organizations with deep connections to political leadership isn’t a good look,” Chamberlain said at the time.

Protect the Public’s Trust described the meeting as “highly irregular” back in September 2023, and Republican lawmakers could test his theory by asking Hoover to explain why this meeting was held, what specific issues were discussed and whether it is standard EPA practice to meet with activist organizations about major programs like the GGRF behind closed doors before the application window has closed.

How is EPA ensuring due diligence while also rushing to get funds out by September 2024?

The agency is endeavoring to shell out the bulk of the GGRF money by September 2024 per the terms of the IRA, but elected Republicans have suggested that this timeline significantly raises the risks of inadequate oversight. Watchdog groups that have previously raised the alarm on the program concur.

“Haste really does make waste, as we should have learned from the government’s COVID response. When federal programs are fast tracked at the expense of appropriate oversight, they’re vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse,” Pete McGinnis, the spokesman for the Functional Government Initiative, told the DCNF. “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund sure looks like a taxpayer-financed $27 billion slush fund for Biden administration insiders pushing unproven technologies.”

Other similar government programs designed to boost green energy development with taxpayer-funded cash infusions have also shelled out money with a sense of urgency, leading to potential lapses in the due diligence process. the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO), one such program reportedly trying to move funds quickly, agreed to provide one fledgling company a $375 million loan package while it was allegedly defrauding its investors, and another $3 billion package to another company that reportedly exploited elderly customers by having them sign long-term, expensive solar panel installation contracts.

Given the relatively quick timeline and the fact that GGRF grantees may serve as functional grantmakers outside of typical agency controls, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee could press Hoover for detailed plans that demonstrate the agency is prepared to give out the money in a way that appropriately mitigates the inherent risks.

“While we are heartened to see the GGRF on the radar of Congressional overseers, we are equally disturbed about the reasons it has come to their attention. Members of the committee have expressed similar concerns as ours about the tremendous potential for abuse, conflicts, and cronyism inherent in this massive program,” Chamberlain told the DCNF. “The more details that emerge about the $27 billion GGRF, the more disturbed we become of the possibility this could turn out to be a colossal Greendoggle, or worse.”

For its part, the EPA has expressed to the DCNF that it is administering the program by the book.

“All applications submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund competitions are being put through a rigorous evaluation and selection process in line with the high standards of EPA’s Competition Policy, which ensures that the competitive process for EPA funds remains fair, impartial and free of undue influence,” an EPA spokesperson previously told the DCNF.

There are several key questions about the program that remain unanswered, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has a chance to address the underlying risk factors when they convene Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill to hold a hearing examining the program.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Lawmakers Want To Earmark $1,000,000 For Activists To Build ‘Environmental Justice’ Center

Dems’ Energy Permitting Reform Bill Includes Billions For Eco-Activist Groups

California Solar Companies Hit The Skids After Receiving Huge Handouts From Biden, Dems

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy

By The Daily Caller

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced it was invoking a hold on permitting processes for proposed new export projects for liquefied natural gas (LNG). It was a nakedly partisan act designed to appease the Democrat party’s climate alarmist funder base, one that will create ripple effects across the global economy and energy space. It will also create uncertainty and alarm among consumers of US LNG, especially among European nations who are supposedly America’s allies.

Reacting to the policy decision, Tom Pyle, President of the DC-based Institute for Energy Research, told me that, “With this decision, President Biden is continuing to place his environmental donors over the American people.  A delay of a decision on [permitting] until after the November 5, 2024, U.S. presidential election could spare President Biden from criticism from environmentalists, but it will likely cause havoc to markets and the energy security of our allies who may question the reliability of the United States as a secure energy supplier.”

Fortunately for the United States and its LNG customers, an array of new export facilities already in the construction phase of development will add up to 12 billion cubic feet per day of new export capacity over the coming three years. These projects would be unmolested by this latest authoritarian move by the White House, absent efforts to expand it.

One of the biggest of these is the Rio Grande LNG project being constructed outside Brownsville, Texas near the mouth of the Rio Grande River. Operated by developer NextDecade, Rio Grande LNG will have the capacity to export 11.74 million tonnes of LNG per year once its three trains go into service in the coming years. That equates to enough energy to heat and cool 34 million households, more energy than all the Biden administration’s planned offshore wind projects combined.

Even better, Rio Grande LNG is being designed to produce LNG that will rank among the lowest carbon-intensive production in the world. That’s because NextDecade is simultaneously building out a massive carbon capture and storage project in conjunction with the export facility.

But, even though Rio Grande LNG and other planned facilities under construction appear to be untouched by the Biden delay, no one should think they are moving ahead unopposed. A pair of activist groups, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) and the Oregon Investment Council (OIC), groups with no real connection to the community, have worked to drum up opposition to the project that is providing hundreds of jobs and ultimately billions of dollars in economic impact for the local area. Ironically, this PESP group is working in opposition to the development despite major investments being made into it by ESG-focused investor groups, potentially including Larry Fink’s BlackRock if a planned acquisition is completed.

Part of the opposition’s advocacy claims to be protecting the interests of the Carrizo Comecrudo Nation with a somewhat specious claim that the project is being sited on sacred lands. But this Carrizo nation is not a federally recognized tribe, likely because a review of its history indicates it is in fact native to Mexico rather than Texas. The claim of sacred lands appears to hold no merit and be purely motivated by politics, no different than the White House delay on permitting announced Thursday.

An email missive from PESP that landed in my email inbox this week also claims that “… the facilities would significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping and natural tourism industries putting communities’ livelihoods at risk.” But the only evidence offered in support of these claims is a “study” authored by a group of leftwing climate alarm groups like the Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club. If the claims had been truly quantified by any credible source, the Biden administration would have no doubt been eager to act on them to advance its Green New Deal-based agenda.

The world needs America’s LNG, and is likely to need more and more of it as time goes on. The White House’s action to delay the already-ridiculously slow permitting process in such an obvious political move is as reprehensible as it is, frankly, stupid.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Greens Claim Their Policies Will Benefit Minorities And The Working Class, But Experts Say They’re Dead Wrong

White House Touts Support Of Confrontational Enviro Group That Harassed Admin Officials, Dems

DAVID BLACKMON: The Legacy Media Is Still Totally Wrong About The Texas Power Grid

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DISASTER: Biden Regime Kills Enormous Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Left-Wing Extremists thumbnail

DISASTER: Biden Regime Kills Enormous Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Left-Wing Extremists

By The Geller Report

“[Environmentalism]  as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.” — Ayn Rand


The illegitimate regime is KILLING us. They are killing the country.

Democrats are pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources.

The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy, and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred—many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end.’ Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

‘White House halts enormous natural gas projects in victory for environmentalists

‘This isn’t just bad policy, it’s bad politics,’ former FERC chairman

By Thomas Catenacci, Fox News, January 26, 2024:

Dems pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources

The White House is halting the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects over their potential impacts on climate change, an unprecedented move environmentalists have demanded in recent months.

In a joint announcement Friday morning, the White House and Department of Energy (DOE) said the pause would occur while federal officials conduct a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects’ carbon emissions, which could take more than a year to complete. Climate activists have loudly taken aim at LNG export projects in recent weeks, arguing they will lead to a large uptick in emissions and worsen global warming.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Corporate Media In Crisis As Outlets Grapple With Biden’s Economy

Jon Stewart’s Latest Move Signals How Desperate Democrats Are Getting Ahead Of The Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Victory! SEC Drops ‘Natural Asset Companies’ thumbnail

Victory! SEC Drops ‘Natural Asset Companies’

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Read CFACT’s official Submission to SEC: “Natural asset companies” are a ploy by the anti-development crowd to thwart safe and constructive land use.  The SEC should not sanction non-use over optimal use of resources.


To: Securities and Exchange Commission

From: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Re: Order Instituting Proceedings: “Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the NYSE Manual to Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies”

File No.: SR-NYSE-2023-09

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is pleased to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on a proposed rule change by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) creating Natural Asset Companies (NACs), which would be traded on the NYSE. The SEC is seeking comments on whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. CFACT has grave concerns about this proposal and they are explained below.

The SEC was created in the aftermath of the stock market crash of October 24, 1929. Two landmark statutes, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, set the parameters of the SEC. At its inception, the new federal entity had a mission statement that is worth bearing in mind:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees securities exchanges, securities brokers, investment advisors, and mutual funds in an effort to promote fair dealing, the disclosure of important market information, and to prevent fraud.”

Under the proposed rule, the NYSE would add to its Listed Company Manual the listing of common equity securities of National Asset Companies, or NACs. According to the proposed rule, this would be “a corporation The SEC should not sanction non-use over optimal use of resources, whose primary purpose would be to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the values of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services.” Notably, the proposed rule characterizes “the distinct purpose of a NAC” as “protect[ing] and grow[ing] the natural assets under its management.” The proposed rule also specifically defines the term “Natural Asset Companies (NACs)” as “[c]orporations that hold the rights to the ecological performance of a defined area and have the authority to manage the areas for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.”

Origins Rooted in Cronyism

NACs, as a concept, owe their existence to Intrinsic Exchange Group Inc. (IEG). According to a September 2021 press release by the Rockefeller Foundation, “IEG was founded in 2017 by entrepreneur and environmentalist Douglas Eger. IEG received critical funding from IDB Lab, Inter-American Development Bank, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Aberdare Ventures and Intrinsic Entertaining Ideas.” It is worth noting that The Rockefeller Foundation alone donated $750,000 to IEG in 2019 and $1 million to IEG in 2021, according to comments on the proposed rule already submitted to the SEC.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s press release indicates that NACs are a joint project of the NYSE and IEG. The release quotes Eger as follows:

“This new asset class on the NYSE will create a virtuous cycle of investment in nature that will help finance sustainable development for communities, companies, and countries[.] … Together, IEG and the NYSE will enable investors to access nature’s store of wealth and transform our industrial our industrial economy into one that is more equitable.” (emphasis added)

The release goes on to quote NYSE’s then-president Stacy Cunningham as follows:

“With the introduction of Natural Asset Companies, the NYSE will provide investors with an innovative mechanism to financially support the sustainability initiatives they deem critical to our future. Our partnership with Intrinsic Exchange Group is another example of the NYSE tapping into our community to drive meaningful progress on ESG [environmental, social, and governance) issues with a solutions-based approach[.]” (emphasis added)

In addition to the open acknowledgement of cozy relationships between the NYSE and other entities supporting the creation of NACs, key terms or phrases like “community,” “communities,” “equitable,” “our future,” “virtuous,” “sustainable,” “sustainability,” “sustainable development,” and transform” are conspicuously left undefined in both the Rockefeller Foundation press release and in the proposed rule. Furthermore, the release admits that “the value created by NACS is not fully captured by traditional economic metrics.” This is another way of saying that NACs will not and cannot make a profit. NACs will invest in “nature” where the only value created is the purported protection of nature.

In other words, NACs would not be investment vehicles into which ordinary Americans can put their money with a reasonable expectation of receiving a good return. Instead, they would be state-sanctioned instruments of environmental policy as favored by narrow, if powerful, elites ensconced in wealthy foundations, the United Nations, and the NYSE, and corporations with well-positioned bureaucrats in federal agencies.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the role NACs would play in serving as a funding mechanism for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) recent proposed rule, “Conservation and Landscape Health,” which would authorize BLM to grant “conservation leases” on public lands. BLM assures the public that such leases would be “for the purpose of ensuring ecosystem resilience through protecting, managing, or restoring natural environments, cultural or historic resources, and ecological communities, including species and their habitats.” The proposed BLM rule provides that “once the BLM has issued a conservation lease, the BLM shall not authorize any other uses of the leased lands that are inconsistent with the authorized conservation use.” (emphasis added)

This means that once BLM issues a conservation lease, productive economic uses such as grazing, logging, or mining will no longer be allowed unless they are deemed “consistent” with the lease’s environmental purposes.

In short, the NYSE’s rule is an effort to circumvent federal laws governing how public lands are to be managed, not least the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA). FLPMA mandates that BLM manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” This means that BLM must provide for a “combination of balanced and diverse uses,” of which the “principle or major uses” include, “and are limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.” Nothing in FLMPA authorizes the granting of “conservation leases,” and the BLM rule’s restrictions on productive economic uses of lands under such a lease put it at odds with congressional intent as clearly laid out in FLPMA.

By violating the clear language of FLPMA, the proposed BLM rule is illegal and is destined to be overturned by the courts. Yet its provision creating “conservation leases” is inextricably linked to the NACs rule currently before the SEC. Such leases will not provide financial returns to the leaseholders. On the contrary, they are specifically designed to lock up lands to prohibit any economic use thereof. So which entities would sink money into the unprofitable leases?

The answer is NACs. Like conservation leases, NACs are not designed to make money. NACs are strictly limited in their ability to conduct “revenue-generating” operations and can only do so if those operations are “consistent with” the NAC’s “primary purpose,” under which the operation will “not cause any material adverse impact on the natural assets” under the NAC’s control.

Not in Accordance with Law”

As the Attorney Generals from 25 states noted in comments submitted to the SEC on January 9, 2024:

“The BLM rule authorizes BLM to issue leases that limit public lands to no use or to extremely limited uses. The NYSE’s proposed rule change in turn provides the mechanism by which companies can obtain the funding necessary to pay for those money-losing leases. In this way, the proposed rule is part of an interlocking scheme designed to facilitate another agency’s violation of the law – namely, BLM’s issuance of illegal ‘conservation leases.’ Facilitating another agency’s violations is a textbook example of ultra vires agency action ‘not in accordance with law.’”

Furthermore, FLPMA does not define conservation as a principle or major use of public lands. The NAC rule cannot categorically dismiss these clear multiple-use and sustained yield FLPMA directives. The NAC rule unlawfully proposes to substitute non-use for multiple-use on public lands. Under the proposed NAC listing rules before the SEC, NACs would be prohibited from permitting mining, logging, fossil-fuel development, and industrial-scale agriculture on NAC-held lands because these activities are explicitly and categorically defined as “unsustainable.”

Given the shaky legal ground on which the NYSE proposed NACs rule stands, it has little chance of surviving what promises to be a multitude of court challenges. Additionally, the economic and social harm to everyday Americans by the scheme’s plan to lock up so much of the nation’s natural resources in perpetuity is incalculable. For these reasons, CFACT urges the SEC to reject the proposed NAC rule in toto. Only in this way can the SEC remain true to its mission statement cited above.

Thank you very much.

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Washington, D.C.

https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-09-Comment-Letter-to-SEC-re-File-No.-SR-NYSE-2023-09.pdf

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.