Tag: Money

UN ‘biodiversity’ summit advances global control over land, money, & resources

Private property rights, free markets, access to resources, and national sovereignty suffered another series of blows at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17).

The Yerevan Pathway retains the push to eliminate, phase out, or reform incentives deemed “harmful to biodiversity,” despite opposition that softened some language. Under the broader UN framework, governments are supposed to reduce such incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030.

Satirical cartoon of a UN biodiversity summit promoting global control of land, resources, and funding, with officials surrounded by maps, money, and paperwork.
AI generated by Meta

From CFACT

By Alex Newman

Panel discussion at the UN Biodiversity Conference COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, with five speakers seated on stage.

YEREVAN, ARMENIA — Private property rights, free markets, access to resources, and national sovereignty suffered another series of blows at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17). In Armenia’s capital, bureaucrats and tax-funded activists advanced an agenda extending far beyond protecting endangered species: expanding international influence over land, financial resources, and economic activity.

The headline outcome was the so-called “Yerevan Pathway,” a response to the first Global Review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Expressing “deep concern” that the UN’s 2030 targets are at risk, the agreement calls for accelerating implementation, reforming subsidies deemed harmful to nature, mobilizing additional funding, and aligning national economic decisions with biodiversity objectives.

In practice, the measures represent another step toward subordinating private property, free markets, and national sovereignty to UN-approved priorities.

Americans Join UN Push—Without US Ratification

COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, acknowledged the agenda’s sweeping implications. “Our work here in Yerevan can influence how natural resources are used, how goods are produced and consumed, and where public and private financial resources are directed,” he said. Biodiversity policy, he added, “should extend beyond the purview of environment ministries” into finance, agriculture, and economic development.

In an interview with CFACT, Matevosyan celebrated the participation of American officials, NGOs, and financial institutions, despite the United States never ratifying the underlying treaty. “We are pleased to see so many delegates from the United States,” he said.

Indeed, the UN’s controversial “30 by 30” agenda has already made significant inroads in America. In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14008, directing federal agencies to develop a strategy to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. California adopted the same target under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, later enshrining it in state law.

While UN biodiversity agreements do not bind America, their objectives can be advanced through domestic legislation, executive actions, and land-use restrictions. President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order in 2025, but California’s program and other schemes across America continue to advance.

CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker told CFACT that a small federal delegation attended alongside roughly 70 participants from California. Expressing hope that Washington would eventually join the treaty, she said the UN was engaging with Americans “as much as we can.”

Money, Subsidies, and Central Planning

The Yerevan Pathway retains the push to eliminate, phase out, or reform incentives deemed “harmful to biodiversity,” despite opposition that softened some language. Under the broader UN framework, governments are supposed to reduce such incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030.

Critics warn that the definitions could encompass subsidies or incentives affecting conventional agriculture, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and other productive activities. The result would be greater government influence over where capital flows and which industries prosper.

Nearly $2 billion in funding pledges were announced at COP17, largely from governments and publicly funded institutions. But that represents only a fraction of the hundreds of billions the UN says will be required.

Another mechanism is the Cali Fund for Digital Sequence Information, established at COP16. The arrangement seeks financial contributions from companies commercially benefiting from genetic information derived from plants, animals, and other organisms, including applications involving synthetic biology. Those funds would then be distributed through a global slush fund.

Despite the marketing slogans, these arrangements represent an expanding system of global economic planning, with international bureaucracies exercising growing influence over private enterprise, capital allocation, and national budgets.

Indigenous Groups Gain Influence

The summit also advanced the formal role of indigenous organizations within the UN biodiversity apparatus. Under the Sevan Guidelines, a permanent committee will provide indigenous representatives an ongoing role in the process, including a co-chair nominated through an indigenous selection mechanism rather than by a national government.

The UN is also promoting greater reliance on “traditional knowledge”—much of it overtly pagan in nature—in conservation and management of genetic resources.

Religious elements were prominent at the summit. Prayers invoking river deities and forest gods could be heard, while one indigenous participant interviewed by CFACT described his tradition teaching that people originated from the sea.

The institutional implications extend beyond religious practices. Nongovernmental organizations representing indigenous interests are acquiring a more formal role in shaping international biodiversity policy, raising questions about representation, accountability, and national sovereignty.

Expanding Global Oversight

COP17 also strengthened mechanisms for monitoring governments’ progress toward UN biodiversity targets. A new expert group was established to support reporting and review, with the Global Environment Facility asked to finance related work.

The decisions further encourage governments to integrate biodiversity objectives into economic planning at every level, including state, provincial, municipal, and private-sector activities.

Negotiators also advanced work involving synthetic biology, invasive species, wildlife management, and the integration of biodiversity with climate policy through so-called “nature-based solutions.”

Together, these measures expand the international framework for influencing decisions traditionally made by national governments, local communities, and private property owners.

The Bigger Picture

The agenda has been advancing for decades. The UN’s 1976 Vancouver Declaration criticized private landownership as a contributor to wealth concentration and called for stronger public control over land use. Today’s biodiversity initiatives continue raising fundamental questions about who should control land and natural resources.

The immediate target remains conserving 30 percent of the planet’s land and waters by 2030. But the broader ambitions extend into agriculture, industry, finance, and virtually every sector of economic activity.

Not everything went according to plan in Yerevan. Negotiators softened some proposals, while the Cali Fund remains far short of its financial ambitions. Nevertheless, COP17 advanced additional mechanisms for international oversight, financial mobilization, and influence over domestic economic policy.

For Americans, the stakes are especially high. The United States never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, yet policies promoted under its auspices continue finding their way into American government programs.

Whether decisions about land, resources, and economic activity remain with free people, property owners, and their elected representatives—or increasingly fall under the influence of unelected international bureaucracies—is a question that cannot be ignored. Defending self-government begins with understanding the threat.

Featured image UN publicity photo

Nation’s first congestion pricing tolls back on track for New York City

It was all an election-year head fake by New York Governor Kathy Hochul – and an all too obvious one.

Earlier this month the governor decided the nation’s first congestion tolls for motor vehicles will become a reality on January 5th for entering the lower half of Manhattan Island in New York City after being paused last summer by the governor during the heat of election season.

From CFACT

By Peter Murphy

With the election passed, NY climate masochism continues apace

It was all an election-year head fake by New York Governor Kathy Hochul – and an all too obvious one.

Earlier this month the governor decided the nation’s first congestion tolls for motor vehicles will become a reality on January 5th for entering the lower half of Manhattan Island in New York City after being paused last summer by the governor during the heat of election season.

So much for this mendacious governor’s claim last June that she “cannot add another burden to working middle-class New Yorkers.”

In sum, congestion tolling is all about the money, combined with the pretension of reducing emissions to “fight climate change!” It was so from the very beginning of this more than five-year quest, as CFACT contended at the time.

Call it another nail in the Empire State’s climate coffin.

Congestion tolls were sold to the public to reduce vehicle traffic entering midtown and lower Manhattan to help cool the planet by some fraction of a quadrillionth degree – except they won’t. Rather, many of those vehicles will not disappear, but remain in motion to park in upper Manhattan and New Jersey, emitting carbon just the same. Reduced traffic in midtown and downtown neighborhoods, including Wall Street, will mostly shift to further jam the streets in Harlem, Washington Heights, the South Bronx and New Jersey.

Yet, impact studies on the congestion toll scheme downplay or ignore this traffic shift scenario, though it is a major concern of those in opposition.

New York State’s and New York City’s combined budgets exceed $350 billion annually, but it’s not enough for cash-greedy politicians who always want more. In this case, the new tolls on drivers of cars and trucks entering Manhattan will amount to nearly $1 billion in user taxes annually to finance billions more in debt for mass transit capital projects for subways, commuter railroads and buses.

The New York State Legislature in 2019 passed legislation that was signed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to authorize this first-in-the-nation congestion toll system, which then took five years to implement, more than twice the time it took to erect the Empire State Building. The scheduled commencement of the tolls was last June, until politics intervened.

The Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, who represents part of Brooklyn, successfully lobbied Gov. Hochul to stop the new tolls from taking effect to boost the chances of his fellow Democrats to win more seats, flip the House majority, and make him Speaker.

Turns out, Democrats defeated two Republicans in suburban districts in the city’s metropolitan area and retained Democratic members in two other contested seats. Congressman Jeffries, however, will remain minority leader since the GOP gained seats elsewhere in the country and will remain the majority in the U.S. House. Oh, well.

Will the elections over—surprise!—the pause in congestion tolls is over, and will take effect after all. And, with the early January start, Gov. Hochul will avoid a possible effort by the incoming Trump administration to undo the toll project.

No one should be surprised at this transparent dishonestly to New York City metropolitan voters, who will pay congestion tolls six months after Gov. Hochul’s “pause”.

Toll rates formerly approved last week by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority include $9.00 for passenger cars entering Manhattan, which is lower than the $15.00 that was to go into effect last summer (but, of course, higher than the current zero dollars). Truck tolls will be more than double this amount. The nine-dollar fee will increase to $12.00 by 2028 and $15.00 by 2031. Considering Gov. Hochul’s flim-flam on this issue, expect those increases to hit much sooner, say, immediately following her expected re-election campaign in 2026.

Another punitive aspect of the city’s congestion tolls is they will be effective around the clock, albeit at lower rates during overnights and weekends when heavy commuter traffic dissipates. The congestion tolls in London and Stockholm, Sweden, for example, do not charge during these after-hours. There also is no exemption for non-emission electric vehicles, which further discredits the talking point that congestion tolls are about mitigating traffic or curtailing climate change. Rather, it’s another voracious cash grab.

New York’s congestion toll scheme is another example of the long-term dysfunction and decline of the Empire State, especially as it continues to pursue fantasy climate change-related schemes, from subsidizing off-shore wind turbines, banning gas- and coal-powered appliances, imposing electric-only building codes, blocking hydrofracturing and natural gas pipelines, to closing nuclear facilities.

Climate-change policies in New York, including congestion tolls, will continue to drive up the cost of living and employment. Absent repeal of such climate lunacy, thousands of New Yorkers will continue to pack-up and head for the exits to saner, more energy-efficient and affordable states.

COP29 Leaves Poor Countries Fuming

So, poor nations, who demanded $1.3 trillion, were eventually forced to accept $300 billion

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

So, the whole charade trundles on for another year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8jykpdgr08t 

So, poor nations, who demanded $1.3 trillion, were eventually forced to accept $300 billion, a figure widely derided:

And India’s representative made it absolutely clear that the money would not alter her country’s energy policies:

But it is all academic anyway, as they won’t even get that much if the US pulls out, as expected to.

The UK’s share of $300bn, if averaged out by GDP, would be about $18 billion, or $36 billion if Trump pulls out, which is nearly three times the current Overseas Aid budget.

In all likelihood, most of the money will be provided, as now, by repayable loans and private sector investment. Neither of these are of much use for the Third World, as they cannot afford the repayments, or the profits businesses will look to extract.

Needless to say, developing countries will not be obliged to cut emissions in return for their Danegeld. Back in the heady days of 2009, the naive Barack Obama believed that throwing dollar bills around would magically lower the world’s emissions. We now know the reality!

Nor is there any obligation for China, India or Middle Eastern oil states, all still classified as “developing”, to cough up a penny.

And more fundamentally, COP29 never even addressed the issue of emission reductions. No new pledges were made, no NDCs updated. No even a timetable for discussing them in future.

Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Conference was the first day agreement on carbon markets.

As the BBC explain, a poor country with lots of trees can sell carbon credits to richer nations, so they can continue to burn fossil fuels.

Apparently, carbon emissions are alright, as long as you pay a penance!

Meanwhile I look forward to Ed Miliband telling where Rachel from Accounts is going to find all the money he has signed away.

COP 29: Watch Morano on Sky News TV: “UN climate slush fund”

“They want to go from 100 billion a year to 1 to 2 trillion dollars a year for this UN climate slush fund.”

From CFACT

WATCH NOW

Climate Depot’ Executive Director Marc Morano claims COP29 was all about money and labelled the conference a “UN climate slush fund”.

“This whole conference was about money, money, money,” Mr Morano told Sky News host Chris Kenny.

“They want to go from 100 billion a year to 1 to 2 trillion dollars a year for this UN climate slush fund.”

The Green Industrial Complex: The CEO of WWF is paid up to a million dollars to save “nature”

If these green groups were really tin-rattling charities supported by Mum and Dad donors, there would be outrage that so many funds were diverted from forests and fluffy animals to lining the pockets of the staff. But apparently the largest donors to these groups don’t care either, because the money keeps on flowing.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

It takes a lot of money to get a Green saviour out of bed…

If these green groups were really tin-rattling charities supported by Mum and Dad donors, there would be outrage that so many funds were diverted from forests and fluffy animals to lining the pockets of the staff. But apparently the largest donors to these groups don’t care either, because the money keeps on flowing.

According to E&E News the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, Carter Roberts, takes home a nifty $1.2 million each year in compensation. Similarly the president of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) gets close to one million each year, and the head of the Nature Conservancy gets three-quarters of a million. It takes half a million dollars to get the chief of the “Rainforest Alliance” to turn up for work, and $415k to feed the account of the president of the Wilderness Society. The two co-directors of Greenpeace USA get about $330,000 a year each. “Nice work if you can get it”…

Thanks to Climate Depot:

Meet the top-paid green group bosses

E&E News by Politico

The heads of influential groups including the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund and Nature Conservancy are among the top-paid leaders in the environmental movement, according to an E&E News analysis of 29 groups’ most recent tax filings.

1. Carter Roberts, president and CEO, World Wildlife Fund

Roberts, who has led the massive international conservation group since 2005, remains one of the environmental world’s top-paid leaders. His base pay in 2022 was $904,841, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s tax records. Roberts’ total reported compensation that year was $1,204,775.

The WWF gets about $470 million USD in revenue each year, of which “government grants” amounted to a nice $74 million last year (did you vote for that?). The WWF is hardly going to bite the hand that feeds it, so no wonder the WWF is missing in action when Big Government policies wipe out whales or kills koalas.

Last year WWF spent $145 million on things classed as “public education”, whatever that means. In the hands of a political activist, it might look a lot like a disguised election fund. Or in the hands of an industry player it might look like advertising, speaking of which, did you know WWF worries about climate change but actively opposes nuclear power?

Their home page (shown below) looks like an advert for the renewables industry.

Can anyone see any wildlife worth protecting here?

WWF appear to be trying to save the solar industry…

Purely hypothetically, if President Xi is not funneling money through to the WWF, he’s missing an opportunity to sabotage the West. And if he was funding the WWF through large philanthropic trusts, who would know?

WWF is deep within The Machine

To understand just how embedded the WWF is with the powers that be, consider that billionaires and bankers have been funding it for years.  Among the original founders in 1961 was Godfrey Rockefeller.  One of the largest donors has been the Moore Foundation, set up by Intel Founder Gordon Moore. Recently Jeff Bezoz gave the WWF at least $100 million, while bankers like HSBC have pledged “multiple millions”.

One former President of the WWF was William K Reilly, who was also at one time director of DuPont,  ConocoPhillips, and of Royal Caribbean. He was Administrator of the US EPA from 1989 to 1993 and headed up the US delegation to Rio in 1992 while he was also President of the WWF. Get the picture?  It just goes to show how the WWF is just another arm of Big Government and Big Business.

In terms of where the $450 million in revenue end up each year, about $44 million was used just for fundraising. And according to InfluenceWatch salary expenses were $70 million in 2020 plus another $4 million in “executive compensation” and $17 million for “other employee benefits”. So that’s a third of the budget. It is a machine that feeds itself.

Environmental non-profits are corporate conglomerates and political lobby groups masquerading as a charity.

Hey Look, Solutions to All the World’s Big Problems with the Napkins to Prove It! Now Send Money.

We can solve the world’s obesity/health problem in a matter of months. Start by closing all fast food chains immediately. Ban all kinds of fattening food like chocolate, or anything deep fried. Ration sugar.  Coke and slurpees and ice cream and pie – all illegal.

From BOE REPORT

By Terry Etam

Sheesh, what’s with all the drama? The news is full of bad-news stories about doom and gloom; can’t everyone see we just need to roll up our sleeves and get to work? Most of this stuff isn’t even all that hard!

We can solve the world’s obesity/health problem in a matter of months. Start by closing all fast food chains immediately. Ban all kinds of fattening food like chocolate, or anything deep fried. Ration sugar.  Coke and slurpees and ice cream and pie – all illegal.

We can solve the world’s drug problems. It’s not that hard; it’ll just cost a few bucks. Spatially, we know where most drug problems occur. It’s not in the middle of a wheat field or a forest or a mountain or the Sahara desert. The actual problem zones are not that big as a percentage of the world’s surface. So for those regions, we will train an army of, I don’t know, say 20 million soldiers – a tiny fraction of the world’s population. We’ll place them on a grid at a rate of let’s say 11 people per acre or for high rise buildings at a rate of 1 per 19 cubic metres (preliminary estimate) in all trouble zones. They will be equipped with tasers and guns and stun grenades, and smiley face stickers so that the children aren’t too frightened

We can solve the world’s dating problems, good lord how hard can it be? It’s just data scraping and machine learning. You say you like Thai food and travel and quiet afternoons on a cool fall day with a fuzzy sweater and a good book and social events with friends? Hey, possibly there is someone else in the world with the same wild and wacky outlook on life, just need to get y’all catalogued and cross referenced and your new tailored mate will be waiting for you in your favourite first-date spot within the next two weeks at a time that doesn’t annoy you. AI will solve it all!

We can solve the world’s emissions problems by September. Immediately ban all flights except those for medical emergencies. All cruise ships will be abandoned immediately or, ok, as soon as they get back to home base if we can afford the delay. Shut down tourist resorts; everyone has to travel to get there, ergo they are a huge part of the problem. You want travel? Walk outside and turn left. Or right, it’s up to you. Keep going until you’re had your fill, then turn around.

If you don’t like the sound of those ideas, hey, there are other ways. Here’s another way to ‘save the environment’, one that will be far less disruptive and will be far more pleasant. What’s the world’s average unemployment rate? Let’s call it six percent. Six percent of eight billion people = 480 million people. Order 480 million shovels from Amazon and a hundred seedlings apiece, boom: 48 billion new trees, unemployment solved, climate saved. Next!29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

OK, fine. Those are all moronic ideas. Well, not so much moronic as just wildly impractical, or run counter to human necessities, or are solutions that citizens simply won’t stand for. And the main point of outlining such wild scenarios isn’t to be a smartass (that’s a secondary objective)

The point of such a weird and silly catalogue is to highlight that, from a high level, huge problems are easily solved – in theory. Some sound easy if we just throw money at them, or just try a little harder. 

I can recall personal examples of where I learned these follies first hand. In university, in business school, one of my favourite courses was organizational behaviour. I found it fascinating how the professor could outline logical processes and programs that would vastly improve a business’s functioning. 

Like most grads, I was eager to put these practices into work at my first job out of university, at a big company. Some corporate deficiencies were obvious; I recognized them from class! But implementation? Wow did the veteran employees laugh at the suggestions. “Thanks college boy, we’d never have thought of that.” The real world has problems with budget realities, with ingrained habits/behaviours, with personal issues and personnel issues. Irrational circumstances can exist in a prolonged state simply because someone in a position of power likes it that way. And that is ultimately what one learns as they get far enough away from university: positions of power dictate everything. 

Currently, however, in the energy transition realm, human optimism, or the prevailing wisdom that we ‘have to’ transition energy sources, overrides realists. Those in the positions of power want to adopt the ideas of the theorists, because they view it as an existential necessity to change course radically – that is what an ‘emergency’ dictates. 

Consider the following three climate plans, each of which forms the backbone of at least one major government initiative, thought process, or plan. They all have major institutional pedigrees or standing: one from one of the US’s most senior politicians who very nearly led the Democratic party; one from a Stanford University engineering professor; and one espoused by the hallowed news source Bloomberg. All have substantial academic support, backing, and seal of approval.

Here’s a plan from Bernie Sanders, which has garnered much support in the US under the Green New Deal banner. It’s from way back in 2019: a $16.3 trillion plan to eliminate fossil fuel use in the US by 2050 with the standard formula: new wind, solar, and geothermal power sources across the country. The total includes a, hmm, well it’s kind of paltry in comparison, $200 billion transfer to poor nations to help them fight the good fight. Sanders announced this will be good business to boot, it will ‘pay for itself’ within 15 years. Hey, it’ll even create an estimated 20 million jobs!

Oops, sorry, that’s way out of date. Bernie was way off! Here’s one from a prominent Stanford professor: again with the wind and solar, but this one’s global and has a price tag of… $62 trillion. Quit your whining, it’s a bargain, the prof says – this one pays for itself in 6 years! And would create 28 million jobs around the world. Kind of a pathetic jobs total though; Sanders’ plan would cost about $815,000 per job, the Stanford model about $2.2 million.

Rats, there I go again, that plan is from 2022, way out of date already. Just a few weeks ago, Bloomberg came up with the latest thinking, which puts the tab for zeroing out the world’s carbon emissions by 2050 – same fight, same renewables recipe – at…$200 trillion. And, Bloomberg notes enthusiastically, that’s a bargain!

Your head should be spinning as you try to think about what $200 trillion actually is, in terms of spending power, but put those thoughts aside for a minute. They’ll break your head anyway. For now, focus on the following realities that should be pertinent.

The Geological Survey of Finland has calculated that there won’t be enough minerals in known reserves to complete the energy transition as hoped by 2050. So resource wise, it’s kind of a nonstarter anyway. But even if you poo-poo that position, as climate hawks do, consider that, per the International Energy Agency, it has historically taken 17 years for a new mine to come into production, a number that is sure to grow as regulations tighten in much of the world. Consider that that same IEA report estimates that “the energy sector’s overall needs for critical minerals could increase by as much as six times by 2040.”

Consider that the above total energy transition scenarios contemplate a complete transition to renewable energy, which means rebuilding almost everything in the energy world. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there are enough raw materials in the world to construct all the infrastructure required for an energy transition, as inconceivable as that might be (think of replacing all hydrocarbon based industries/processes/infrastructure – the fuel that supplies more than 80 percent of global energy).

Then consider this study of major industrial projects over the past 100 years, a study covering 16,000 major projects in 136 countries, and the resulting mind-blowing statistics: 

  • 91 percent of major projects go over budget by a mean cost overrun of 62 percent
  • Less than 1 percent are achieved on time and on schedule and deliver the benefits expected

Here’s a concrete example that drives the point home rather bluntly. It is one from the bundle of initiatives critical to reducing hydrocarbon consumption in a meaningful way. California proposed a high speed rail link between LA and San Francisco in 2008 at a then-estimated cost of $33 billion, with an in-service date of 2020. A recent cost estimate is $105 billion, due to “slow land purchases, delays in environmental documents, employee turnover and litigation over the last 14 years” that has extended the in-service date to “unknown”.

And it’s actually far worse than that: the $105 billion estimate, the most current, was made in 2019 based on data known at the time – meaning that a current estimate would have to be adjusted upwards by some unknown but surely significant amount, due to the supply chain madness/shortages/financing costs that have risen substantially since. 

The US Green New Deal envisioned building high speed rail lines throughout all major population centres in the US. Tell us again about a 15-year payback, when the very first example has no completion date in site and a current cost estimate somewhere in excess of three times the original.

If you’re still paying attention after the unfortunate blast of statistics, consider California’s experience in conjunction with the professors’ plans to rewire the entire world, in conjunction with their cost estimates, in conjunction with their ludicrous timelines, and with their truly daft estimates of payback periods. Paid out within 6 years! 15 years! Whatever! The model, the model! Peer reviewed by the same people that build and use these wingnut calculators! Publish! Or perish! Above all, do not bite the hand that feeds!

In future elections, you will be faced with waves of candidates who will promise you all sorts of things. Many will rip pages from these playbooks, and promise you the moon. It’s easy to fall for them; ask the average citizen if they would rather get all their power from the wind and the sun or from dirty old oil, as if it’s just a simple choice, they will of course choose the former. Who wouldn’t? And proponents of the former will be happy to brandish studies from professors laying out how simple and cost effective this all really is.

The vision will be just like every other theory that over-simplistically solves a world problem. Don’t buy it. There are no shortcuts.

If all goes well, we will begin to value natural habitat far more than we do currrently, and act to protect it. We will reduce emissions in significant ways, using methods and techniques that recognize the reality that global citizens want a certain standard of living and will fight to the end to get it. We will integrate exciting new technological developments at a pace the system can allow, at a cost citizens can bear. Or we won’t do it at all.

Pay attention to global developments; pay attention to how billions are now voting for energy security above all; pay attention to cold hard reality. 

Stay well clear of adults promising you things that are too good to be true.

Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

Offshore wind opponents rally in Trenton, call for halt of projects

The message was clear: Halt all work on wind farm projects up and down the coast until the answer to the recent spate of whale and dolphin deaths can be determined.


From Down Beach

By MADDY VITALE

Protesters rally in Trenton to oppose the construction of offshore wind farms along the coast. (Photo courtesy of Protect Our Coast NJ Facebook page)

TRENTON – The message was clear: Halt all work on wind farm projects up and down the coast until the answer to the recent spate of whale and dolphin deaths can be determined.

Protect Our Coast NJ, an independent grassroots organization opposed to offshore wind energy farms, held a rally Thursday at the Trenton State House Annex to demand that Gov. Phil Murphy halt the projects.

Numerous advocacy groups, some formed to address what they call the “transformative industrialization” of the ocean, have been speaking out against the construction of offshore wind farms.

“I’m just a mom from Ocean City. I am not a global speaker. I am not a political anything. I’m not an activist of any kind,” said Suzanne Hornick, of Ocean City, one of the founders of Protect Our Coast NJ. “I’m just a mom who cares about my beach, my environment, my ocean.”

During the rally, wind farm opponents held signs that read, “Stop the Wind Farms,” “Murphy Sold Our Coast,” “Don’t Touch Our Ocean,” “Stop Ocean Surveying” and “Save Our Whales.”

They applauded, cheered, and at times chanted “Save Our Whales” and “Stop the Wind Farms” during the hour-plus-long rally.

They also presented an online petition that has nearly 500,000 signatures. The petition demands a halt on wind farm projects following the whale deaths.

Since December, at least 30 dead whales have washed up on the East Coast shoreline, including 10 in New Jersey. On March 21, eight dolphins beached themselves in Sea Isle City. Two of the dolphins died almost immediately, while six others were euthanized after their condition deteriorated.

Gov. Murphy, a strong supporter of offshore wind technology, wants New Jersey to become a leader in green energy. So far, New Jersey has approved three offshore wind farms and is looking to add more. Murphy’s goal is to have offshore wind farms producing 11,000 megawatts of power in New Jersey by 2040.

He has continued to say that there is no proof that the deaths are connected to sonar mapping of the seabed for wind farms.

Some lawmakers, including state Assemblymen Antwan McClellan and Erik Simonsen, spoke out strongly against the wind farm projects at the rally.

McClellan and Simonsen represent the First Legislative District, which includes all of Cape May County and parts of Atlantic and Cumberland counties.

“Anytime you puncture our ocean floor and put four acres of rock around it and run cables on the shore, it’s not a good thing,” Simonsen said of the proposed wind turbines. “This whole thing has been a money grab. It doesn’t produce enough energy. And, for those who didn’t know, turbines are not recyclable. Where they get green energy from, I do not know. I think it’s just about greenbacks — that’s money in their pocket.”

Assemblyman Antwan McClellan, at podium, speaks about the petition. (Photo credit: Robin Shaffer)

Like Simonsen, McClellan said there was only one thing to do.

“It’s time for us to take our seas back,” he shouted into the microphone. “We’re tired of all those selective environmentalists.”

He said sonar testing is “scaring the animals.”

“We need to stand up for the coast. We need to stand up for the communities and we need to stand up for our rights. Let’s continue to fight,” McClellan said. “Let’s continue to make sure we fight for our animals and fight for our Jersey Shore. We won’t let them kill our tourism, our animals or our Jersey Shore.”

U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, whose district includes the shore towns of Atlantic and Cape May counties, introduced a resolution earlier this month calling for a congressional investigation of the potential negative impacts of offshore wind development.

The resolution demands the halt of wind farm activity pending an investigation of the cause of the whale deaths.

In a related development involving the wind farm activity, Van Drew’s amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act passed the House of Representatives on Thursday.

“The Lower Energy Costs Act is essential in relieving Americans’ burden at the pump and regaining American energy independence,” Van Drew said in a release.

Van Drew continued, “However, I needed assurances that fast-tracking offshore wind development would not be included absent adequate investigations into what the potential adverse effects of these projects would have across all sectors, including our environment and the economy.”

During the rally, some speakers said that the wind farms are being fast-tracked by Orsted, the Danish wind energy company, as it prepares to build the projects.

Point Pleasant Mayor Paul Kanitra criticized the governor for his support of wind farms.

“Murphy still has his head in the sand. He will run for president. He doesn’t care,” Kanitra said. “But all these guys behind me are up for election in June. The way we get change here is to put your money where your mouth is. If you don’t know where your mayor stands – vote them out.”

Another speaker, Mike Dean, who said he works with a number of the concerned anti-wind farm groups, gave the crowd an overview of the scope of the wind farm industry.

There are 25 leased properties, covering 2 million acres of land along the coast from Massachusetts to South Carolina. There are close to 4,000 proposed wind turbines and 10,000 miles of cable buried under the ocean floor, Dean said.

“There will be dozens of substations in the water up and down the East Coast,” he noted.

Keith Moore, one of the founding members of Defend Brigantine Beach, another coastal group, called the work of the wind farm companies “rushed, reckless and dangerous.”

“Money and power are the motives for these operations,” Moore said. “Building these massive turbines — ratepayers will pay the bill. They will be the dominant feature on our coastline.”

Throughout the rally, speakers repeatedly vowed to continue their fight against the wind farms.

Hornick said in closing remarks, “This is one of the most important issues New Jersey faces. This is what New Jersey will be. It’s our right and our responsibility to stand up for what we believe and ensure that our politicians are working for us.”

Suzanne Hornick, one of the founding members of Protect Our Coast NJ, addresses the crowd. (Photo credit: Robin Shaffer)

Climate Activists Are Coming for Muslim Zakat Donations

The $1 trillion Yusuf Jameel and Gaelle Perrier urge Muslims to spend on climate action will buy less than 0.1C global cooling. It will never be possible to verify whether the money made any difference.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to the Jakarta Post, الزكاة or Zakat, a Muslim religious obligation to donate 2.5% of savings to charity, should be spent on climate action.

If you’re Muslim and care about climate change, read this 

Yusuf Jameel and Gaelle Perrier San Francisco, California/Salt Lake City, Utah, United States   ●   Thu, April 6, 2023

Versi Bahasa Indonesia

Ramadan is here. Billions of Muslims worldwide abstain from food and water from dawn to sunset. As we experience a month believed to be blessed in Islam and in which good deeds are emphatically encouraged, a vast majority will opt to simultaneously complete the third pillar of the Islamic faith by distributing their annual zakat.

Briefly, zakat is a mandatory donation of 2.5 percent of a person’s annual savings to those in need, with the goal of alleviating inequalities. It applies to Muslims who hold certain assets such as cash, gold, and investments, and it can be paid to eight categories of recipients, including the poor, the needy, and those in debt.

Much of the zakat fund is managed informally, so it’s hard to say exactly how much we’re talking about. One estimate places the global zakat collection between US$200 billion and $1 trillion. In the United States, a 2022 study by Indiana University estimated that the average Muslim American household donated $2,070 of zakat to humanitarian charities in 2021, amounting to a total of $1.8 billion. It’s safe to say that zakat represents a vast pool of money. 

…

Traditionally, zakat has been used to cover medical needs and education; buy food, water, and clothing; sustain orphanages; and help people who are struck by natural disasters. For instance, a significant portion of the zakat this year is expected to be directed—and rightly so—to the disaster relief work in Turkey and Syria following the devastating February earthquakes.

Such assistance will always be critical. However, it does not solve the underlying problems. For lasting change, zakat should be targeted to address systemic causes of suffering—including climate change.

…Read more: https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2023/04/06/if-youre-muslim-and-care-about-climate-change-read-this.html

The $1 trillion Yusuf Jameel and Gaelle Perrier urge Muslims to spend on climate action will buy less than 0.1C global cooling. It will never be possible to verify whether the money made any difference.

The $1 trillion Yusuf Jameel and Gaelle Perrier urge Muslims to spend on climate action will buy less than 0.1C global cooling. It will never be possible to verify whether the money made any difference.

I leave it to religious scholars to determine whether any Islamic laws have been broken, by people who urge the giving of money to those who have near zero power to make a difference, but who don’t reveal to their audience how insignificant an impact all that money would have on the global climate.