Connect with us


Saudis evict locals with lethal force to build ‘green’ city in line with globalist goals: report


6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

One villager who refused to relinquish his property reportedly was killed and 47 who wouldn’t leave have been arrested during the building of ‘The Line.’

Saudi Arabian officials have reportedly allowed the use of lethal force against local villagers to clear land to construct the “green” city named ‘The Line’ that is being built in conformity with globalist agenda-linked 2030 green plans with help from Western-based construction firms.

As per a recent BBC report, former Saudi Arabia intelligence officer Col Rabih Alenezi, who is now in exile in the United Kingdom for fear of his security, noted he was given orders to evict villagers from a local tribe to clear land for the ‘The Line’ project.

Reportedly, one person was shot and killed after refusing to leave the area. Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti refused to let a land registry committee value his property and was shot by Saudi authorities one day later, when the clearance mission to evict the villagers was taking place. It was reported that he had posted videos on social media protesting the evictions.

As noted by the BBC, the Saudi state security at the time claimed that al-Huwaiti fired on security and that he was then shot in retaliation. However, human rights groups have said he was killed for refusing to leave the area and comply with eviction orders.

While the BBC noted that it was not able to “independently verify Col Alenezi’s comments about lethal force,” it said a “source” who was familiar with the inner workings of Saudi intelligence told them that Alenezi’s testimony about the clearance mission, as well as the details about it, were accurate in terms of that such clearance missions entail.

Another 47 villagers have been arrested for not going along with evictions, many of them being leveled terrorism-related charges.

Alenezi noted that he does not regret his decision to ignore his clearance orders for the project, saying, “Mohamed Bin Salman will let nothing stand in the way of the building of Neom.”

“I started to become more worried about what I might be asked to do to my own people,” he noted.

‘The Line’ is the flagship “green” project of what is known as Neom, a $1.5 trillion development on the area’s Red Sea. It is being built as part of Saudia Arabia’s 2030 strategy, which looks to move the kingdom’s economy away from oil and its vast reserves.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda that also promotes population control.

“The Line’ itself is a 170-kilometer-long “car-free” city that is in the northwest of the Gulf country, according to renderings. It will “run into the Red Sea,” where an extension of its structure will serve as a port for ships.

The Neom project is being built by dozens of global construction companies, many of them Western based. According to an analysis conducted by the BBC, satellite images show that three villages’ schools, and hospitals have been demolished to make way for the project.

Future of ‘Dystopian’ project in doubt

‘The Line’ project is being built based on the Saudi Arabian legal system, which is mostly based on Muslim sharia law that criminalizes anyone who “challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the King or Crown Prince. According to Amnesty International, two of 81 men executed by the Saudi Arabian government in 2022 were “convicted of crimes related to their participation in violent anti-government protests.”

When plans for ‘The Line’ were revealed, its promo video noted, “For too long, humanity has existed within dysfunctional and polluted cities that ignore nature. Now, a revolution in civilization is taking place.”

However, the future of the 170-kilometer-long project remains in doubt.

As per a recent Bloomberg report, it appears that only a 2.4-kilometer portion will be completed by 2030, according to a source familiar with the project.

Plans to have 1.5 million residents living in ‘The Line’ will not pan out as planned, sources said, and it is expected there will be less than 300,000 when the project finally comes online.

Some commentators slammed the project as “dystopian,” with one describing it as a “blatant greenwashing PR exercise by the heads of this rotten regime,” pointing out that “it’s an attempted distracting cop-out” since “Saudi Arabia is still at the very bottom for human rights (just pick next to women, any minority).”

Tech blog Engadget has raised concerns that The Line “is expected to be loaded with countless sensors, cameras, and facial recognition technology that in such a confined space could push government surveillance to almost unthinkable levels.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author


Trudeau’s environment department admits carbon tax has only reduced emissions by 1%

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Trudeau Liberals had first seemed to claim that the unpopular carbon tax had cut emissions by 33%, only to explain that the figure is merely a projection for 2030 and the actual reduction thus far stands at 1%.

The Liberal government has admitted that the carbon tax has only reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 1 percent following claims that the unpopular surcharge had cut emissions by 33 percent.   

During a May 21 House of Commons environment committee meeting, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault testified that the carbon tax cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent, before his department backtracked to explain that the figure is a projection for the year 2030, and that the true figure sits at a mere 1 percent.

“I will be the first one to recognize it is complex,” said Guilbeault, according to information obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter 

“If you want simple answers, I am sorry. There is no simple answer when it comes to climate change or modeling,” he said, adding, “Carbon pricing works. This has never been clearer.”  

“Carbon pricing alone accounts for around a third of emission reductions expected in Canada,” said Guilbeault, explaining this number was based on “complex statistical calculations.”  

However, Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) pointed out that the numbers provided by Guilbeault’s department do not add up to a 33 percent decrease in emissions, as the department had characterized.  

“How many megatonnes of emissions have been directly reduced from your carbon tax since it was introduced?” Conservative MP Dan Mazier questioned.  

According to Guilbeault, after the introduction of the carbon tax, emissions reduced by five megatonnes in 2018, fourteen megatonnes in 2019, seventeen megatonnes in 2020, eighteen megatonnes in 2021, and nineteen megatonnes in 2022.  

According to Blacklock’s, Guilbeault failed to explain how the environment department calculated a 33 percent benefit.

Conservative MP Michael Kram pressed Guilbeault, saying, “I want to make sure I have the math correct.” 

“In 2022 emissions were at 708 megatonnes and the carbon tax was responsible for reducing 19 megatonnes,” he continued. “By my math that works out to a three percent reduction.” 

Associate deputy environment minister Lawrence Hanson explained that the department’s 33 percent emissions cut is a projection of the emissions cut by 2030, not a current statistic.   

“It’s the distinction between how much the carbon price might have affected emissions in one year versus how much in 2030,” said Hanson. “So when you heard us talking about its responsible for one third of reductions we were talking about the 2030 number.” 

This explanation was echoed by Derek Hermanutz, director general of the department’s economic analysis directorate, who said, “When we talk about one third, it’s one third of our expected reductions. That’s getting to 2030.” 

“Yes, but three percent of the total emissions have been reduced as a result of carbon pricing?” Kram pressed.   

“No, emissions have declined three percent in total,” assistant deputy minister John Moffet responded.  

“And so only one percent of that three percent is from the carbon tax?” Kram asked.  

“To date,” Moffet replied. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost Canadian households hundreds of dollars annually despite rebates. 

The increased costs are only expected to rise. A recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050. 

Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of $170 per tonne by 2030. 

On April 1, Trudeau increased the carbon tax by 23 percent despite seven out of 10 provincial premiers and 70 percent of Canadians pleading with him to halt his plan. 

Despite appeals from politicians and Canadians alike, Trudeau remains determined to increase the carbon tax regardless of its effects on citizens’ lives. 

The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – which are in lockstep with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades. 

The reduction and eventual elimination of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum, the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved. 

Continue Reading


The EV battery ‘catch-22’

Published on

From The Center Square

While setting aggressive goals for electric vehicle market share, the Biden administration also wants tariffs and or restrictions on the importation of vehicles and the minerals needed for their batteries – creating heightened concerns over supply chains in what can be described as a “Catch-22” situation.

Solutions to some of the problems include battery recycling and increased domestic mining, however, the U.S. is currently limited in its capacity for both. Federal funds are spurring new recycling plant projects, but questions remain on whether there will be enough used material to meet projected needs.

In his e-book, “The EV Transition Explained,” Robert Charette, longtime systems engineer, and contributing editor for IEEE Spectrum, says making the transition is harder than anyone thinks. He recently told The Center Square it is truer now than it ever was.

“None of this is simple,” he said.

His argument centers on the lack of planning and systems engineering on initiatives that are politically, not engineering, driven. While change is possible, he suggested it would require trillions more in government spending and enforcing those changes through law.

Charette identified many serious issues in setting up the EV battery infrastructure – and even if those challenges are met, he said, there may be tradeoffs between affordability, security and environmental concerns.

Profitability. Battery recycling is a still-developing process which is time consuming and expensive. The cost of purchasing recycled materials may be more costly than buying them new.

Manufacturing demand and potential backlog. The U.S. will require eight million batteries annually by 2030 to meet the government’s EV target, with increases each year after that.

Standardization. Batteries vary in configuration, size, and chemistry.

Domestic mining. While decreasing our dependency on outside sources, what are the environmental impacts? It can also take years to acquire permits and get a lithium mine up and running.

Mineral shortfalls. Secure and sustainable access to critical minerals like copper, lithium, cobalt, and nickel is essential for a smooth and affordable transition to clean energy. An analysis by the International Energy Agency indicates a “significant gap” between the world’s supply and demand for copper and lithium. Projected supplies will only meet 70% of the copper and 50% of the lithium needed to achieve 2035 climate targets.

The report said that “without the strong uptake of recycling and reuse, “mining capital requirements would need to be one-third higher. The agency also emphasizes China’s dominance in the refining and processing sector.

Transportation of discharged batteries classified as hazardous waste is one of the costliest steps of the recycling process. Experts suggest updates to federal EPA and DOT regulations for how battery-related waste is classified. In addition to health and safety, they say clearer definitions of what constitutes hazardous waste would help reduce transportation costs. Many recycling plants are being built in regions where production sites are located to address this.

Supply chain and skills gap shortages. The timetable set by the government is not aligned with the capabilities of the current supply chain. Software plays a key role in the management and operation of an EV battery, and automakers are competing for a limited supply of software and systems engineers.

Competing interests. The goal is to create a circular battery economy, reducing the need for raw materials. However, an EV battery that is no longer useful for propelling a car still has enough life left for other purposes such as residential energy storage. Experts propose a battery material hierarchy where repurposing and reusing retired EV batteries are more favorable to immediately recycling them, detouring them out of the cycle.

Charette says the biggest problem with recycling projections is that they are built on assumptions that have not been tested.

“We won’t know whether these assumptions hold until we reach a point where we are recycling millions of EV batteries,” he said.

Because most EV lithium-ion batteries produced through 2023 are still on the road, the International Council on Clean Transportation reports that the majority of materials being used as feedstock by recycling plants currently come from scrap materials created during battery production.

According to Charette, manufacturers also claim future generations of batteries will last 15 to 20 years, which he says would put a bigger kink in the used-battery supply chain.

Another issue contributing to consumers’ reluctance to buy an EV is the inability to determine the overall health of your battery. Current testing methods are inefficient and costly.

EV adoption has so far not met projections and with all the competing interests, Charette said the market will ultimately tell us what direction the situation is headed. He is also intrigued over the impact government pressure will have on the eventual outcome.

He said many individual components have yet to be worked out, adding that although there is a vision, “we’re a heck of a long way from that vision to getting where we need to go.”

In his opinion, battery recycling issues are even further behind than transitioning the electric grid to renewable energy sources.

Continue Reading