Connect with us

conflict

The West’s Green Energy Delusions Empowered Putin

Published

15 minute read

This article submitted by Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe.

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal.

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas.

The question is why.

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy.

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking.

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons.

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine.

Share

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.)

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specificallyexempted energy products so Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs…

Subscribe to Michael Shellenberger to read the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Michael Shellenberger to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

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

conflict

China Poised To Cut Off US Military From Key Mineral As America’s Own Reserves Lay Buried Under Red Tape

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

China is planning to restrict exports of a key mineral needed to make weapons while a U.S. company that could be reducing America’s reliance on foreign suppliers is languishing in red tape, energy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese government announced on August 15 that it will restrict exports of antimony, a critical mineral that dominates the production of weapons globally and is essential for producing equipment like munitions, night vision goggles and bullets that are essential to national security, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Perpetua Resources, an American mining company, has been navigating red tape for years to develop a mine in Valley County, Idaho,  that could decrease reliance on the Chinese supply of antimony, but the slow permitting process is getting in the way, energy experts told the DCNF.

It can take years to secure all the necessary approvals and permits to develop a mine like the one Perpetua Resources is trying to operate. One of the key permitting laws in place is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which also applies to federal land management actions and the construction of certain public infrastructure projects like highways.

“After six years of planning and early engagement, we began the [NEPA] permitting process in 2016. We are now eight years into NEPA,” a Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. The company is hoping to extract antimony from the largest known deposit in the U.S., and Perpetua Resources’ development could also produce millions of ounces of gold as well.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, argues that the Perpetua Resources mine poses real environmental considerations that should be addressed, but production in the U.S. is almost certainly cleaner than production that takes place in China. Moreover, depending on China for raw materials needed to produce key defense equipment poses a clear national security risk, Furchtgott-Roth said.

“The United States has the highest environmental standards in the world for its mines, as well as for some other things, too,” Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “It’s a huge national security risk. Given what we’ve seen with Russia cutting off supplies of natural gas to Europe, we know that countries can cut off important supplies to other countries.”

“If the administration wants to pursue policies that push electric vehicles, green energy and other mineral-intensive technologies, it should look to streamline the permitting process across the board rather than selectively pursuing reform for some favored types of development and not for others,” Furchtgott-Roth added.

Steve Coonen, a former Department of Defense (DOD) official who focused on technology exports to China, agreed that relying on China for raw materials needed to produce crucial technologies presents a clear national security risk.

“The United States has all the rare earth elements it needs, not too dissimilar from its energy requirements,” Coonen told the DCNF. “However, Democrats have enchained U.S. industry by prohibiting the extraction of these materials for misplaced and ill-informed ecological reasons at a significant risk to national security and the United States’ long-term economic health.”

China is responsible for just under 50% of the world’s antimony production, and it is also the source of 63% of the U.S.’ current antimony imports, according to CSIS. The U.S., meanwhile, did not mine any “marketable” antimony in 2023, according to CNBC.

China’s recently announced export restrictions for antimony will take effect on Sept. 15, according to CNBC. To many in the industry, China moving to curb antimony exports would have come as a surprise just a few months ago, so the country’s decision to take action comes across as “quite confrontational in that regard,” Lewis Black, CEO of Canadian mining company Almonty Industries, told the outlet.

In addition to antimony, China has also flexed its muscles by restricting exports of other critical minerals that it dominates globally, like germanium and gallium, since 2023.

“The United States has some of the highest permitting standards in the world, and that’s something to be proud of. But NEPA gets criticism for being inefficient, and much of that criticism is justified,” the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. “When we are talking about minerals we need for America’s national and economic security — not to mention our clean energy future — we need an efficient regulatory process that still maintains robust protections for communities and the environment.”

The company is anticipating that the process — from initial deposit identification to the beginning of mineral extraction from the mine site — will take 18 years, the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. However, the spokesperson added that NEPA has been beneficial for transparency with the public and allowing stakeholder communities to weigh in about the project.

Nevertheless, Perpetua Resources “absolutely supports a commonsense, bipartisan approach to permitting reform” because “good projects should not wither in red tape.”

The antimony curbs may be even more pressing given existing concerns about the strength of America’s defense-industrial base amid wars in the Middle East and Europe, as well as rising tensions with China over Taiwan. Many experts have cautioned that the U.S. is allowing itself to become too dependent on an adversarial China’s mineral supplies at a time when those minerals are playing a much larger role in the American economy, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda.

“In the mid-twentieth century, domestic mining accounted for 90% of the U.S.’s antimony consumption. Today, the U.S. no longer mines antimony; instead, it relies on China, its chief geopolitical rival, for over 60% of its antimony imports,” Quill Robinson, an associate fellow in CSIS’ Energy Security and Climate Change Program, told the DCNF. “Effective China de-risking requires reducing reliance up and down the value chain.”

“Yet, increasing domestic resource extraction, such as critical mineral mining, has proven far more politically challenging than building new solar module factories,” Robinson added. “Addressing this issue will require specific policies, like permitting reform, but also a broader commitment from lawmakers to support the safe, environmentally responsible extraction of the U.S.’ natural resources.”

Independent West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso teamed up to introduce a major permitting reform bill in July, designing the package to simplify the regulatory hurdles that major infrastructure and development projects must clear and expedite timelines without totally defanging regulators’ ability to ensure that environmental concerns and considerations are addressed. That bill has not yet come up for a vote in the Senate.

“There are legitimate environmental challenges that need to be mitigated for projects like this,” Arnab Datta, the Institute for Progress’ director of infrastructure policy, told the DCNF. However, government agencies are more strongly incentivized to avoid legal challenges of their reviews from third parties than they are to thoroughly review the more significant environmental concerns, meaning that regulators tend to chew up lots of time on those minor points and ultimately extend the timelines for permitting, Datta explained.

“The uncertainty from permitting and litigation compounds the challenge of reaching production in what’s often a volatile and uncertain market environment for these commodities,” Datta, who also works for Employ America as a managing director of policy implementation, continued. “These companies need a process with certainty and reasonable timelines and also support that helps mitigate the volatility that arises from China’s actions in the market.”

Featured Image: Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash

Continue Reading

conflict

Col. Macgregor: Ukraine’s ‘useless’ incursion into Russia ‘cooked up at NATO’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

In a new interview, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor explains the escalation of tensions in Ukraine and in Israel as the result of deliberate attempts to destabilize Russia and the entire region of the Middle East.

In a new interview, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, one of the founders of the rapidly growing organization Our Country, Our Choice, explains the escalation of tensions in Ukraine and in Israel as the result of deliberate attempts to destabilize Russia and the entire region of the Middle East.

“Insane as that sounds to most Americans,” warns Macgregor, these actions are undertaken at a time when the “U.S. is dangerously overstretched.”

So far, he says, “we are fortunate that worse things have not happened to us.”

Yet as Macgregor explains, what has happened as a result of the actions of Western regimes is so damaging, and dangerous, that the populations of “the Western hemisphere” must consider removing their own governments in order to survive them.

Macgregor’s video analysis, released on August 20, can be seen here:

Not only are the people of the West excluded from the decisions which are destroying their world, he says, but in the case of Israel, even the U.S. government itself is not deciding American foreign policy. This, he says, has to end – before everything else does.

A global(ist) crisis

The crises faced by the U.S. have stretched it to breaking point at home – and abroad.

“Americans don’t have any control over their government. They’re bystanders … they’re watching other people make policy decisions, in some cases life or death decisions, in the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as here at home with the border. They’re never consulted. They’re never asked anything. They’re just told to shut up.”

Americans, says Macgregor, have tolerated this due to domestic prosperity – which has now vanished.

Macgregor says with falling living standards as a result of this industry of permanent war and a permanent state of emergency at home, “these days are over.”

He says of the U.S, “The world is sick of us,” saying this is why a parallel system to that led by the U.S. is emerging in the Chinese and Russian-led BRICS bloc.

Yet when Macgregor moves to analysis of U.S.-Israeli politics, he says that not only are the American people not in control of their government, but the U.S. government is itself not in control of its own foreign policy.

“The truth of the matter is that Mr. Netanyahu, not Mr. Biden or his administration, is in is in charge of what’s happening in the Middle East.”

Shockingly, Macgregor, a former adviser to the Trump administration, says this means Israel directs U.S. soldiers and its military into action.

“When I say ‘in the Middle East’ I mean he controls what we will or will not do militarily – we don’t,” he says. “Netanyahu has got control of Congress and we are going to unconditionally support him until somehow or another it harms us.”

“Only when it harms us in a demonstrable way – not a way in which it can be concealed.”

This is the reason, Macgregor says, for the focus of U.S. politicians such as Lindsey Graham on promoting a war in Iran, which is “not in the U.S. national interest.”

“This business of blaming Iran or for that matter anybody else in the Middle East for everything that’s wrong is not only misguided, it’s stupid. It’s bad policy, but we’ve adopted it [because] the Israelis have insisted upon it.”

Netanyahu, says Macgregor, does not want peace. Instead, the Zionist leader sees  “a once-in-a-century opportunity to annihilate everyone in the region who does not bend the knee to Israel.”

Moving to Ukraine, Macgregor bluntly explains why everything we are told about the Ukraine war is simply untrue.

“Mr. Zelensky realizes he is dealing with a lot of suckers in the West,” he said. “We are not getting the truth about Ukraine – or about anything our leadership doesn’t want us to know.”

Macgregor supports this viewpoint with reference to the recent incursion by Ukraine into the Russian region of Kursk, portrayed as a blow against Putin which could “change the direction of the war” in Western media.

“This was an idea cooked up at NATO. This made no sense. Worse than a gamble, it was a useless exercise to destroy some of your best remaining troops,” he says, adding that the British and Americans “had a big hand in pushing this.”

His remarks echo those of former U.K. Prime Minister and previous U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who stated on camera in May that Britain’s war policy on Ukraine is “fixed” and will not change with a new government.

Cameron also said that attacks on Russia will be intensified “over the summer” to give the impression that Ukraine is winning.

Macgregor says NATO troops were directly involved: “We are hearing reports up to 2,000 of these troops may have been British and Americans in Ukrainian uniforms.”

Macgregor speaks of “sheep dipping” NATO troops to present them as Ukrainian soldiers.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a statement included in the video that Zelensky would “never have dared” to launch the Kursk incursion into Russia “unless he was instructed to do so by the United States of America.”

Indicating the colossal damage the war has wrought beyond the borders of both Russia and Ukraine, Lavrov went on: “No one now has any doubts … the USA is behind the explosions of Nord Stream, which have left Europe without cheap Russian energy and consequently without a sustainable basis for economic development.”

Western media routinely labels noticing the obvious as a form of treason. To point out that the policies of the liberal-globalist governments of the West are suicidal is to repeat “Putin’s talking points.”

Instead, the mainstream media repeats the words of Zelensky. What does Macgregor have to say about that?

“Anyone who believes anything Zelensky says needs to see a psychiatrist. There is no truth in anything that man says, or for that matter, in anything he has ever said.”

Kursk: a Western media fiasco

Macgregor explains how the Kursk incursion has been a briefly successful media event bought at the cost of total disaster for the ground troops and their tanks and armor, which he says are now encircled and will be “completely annihilated.” Yet the militarily “disastrous” operation has further galvanized the Russian public, he warns. His report was issued as a massive drone attack has been launched on Moscow, a further provocation towards full-scale war between NATO and the Russians.

The Russian population is “enraged and furious,” says Macgregor, “much more than the people in the West understand.” They are demanding Putin “march West” and smash Ukraine totally, he says.

Putin, according to Macgregor, is opposed to this idea, being only concerned with securing the ethnic Russian population in the east of Ukraine.

“We have awakened a beast,” says Macgregor, reminding viewers the Russian government “does not want to govern Ukrainians.” He also insists a chaotic end is in sight for the Zelensky regime.

Despite what Zelensky says in public, says Macgregor, “privately we know his bags are packed.” With homes from Switzerland to Florida, he will be leaving “with cartloads of U.S. cash” as was seen in the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Macgregor explained, before darkly suggesting that “it may be Ukrainian soldiers … which ‘bump him off.’”

With the end of corrupt regimes in mind, Macgregor stated that the liberal-globalist regimes in the West are so dangerous to their own people that they must be replaced.

“I think it’s time for the governments in Germany and other ‘corrupt’ European states to ‘be removed,’” he said.

Citing the escalation driven by these regimes towards full-scale conflict with Russia, he said that if they aren’t removed, European and British populations “could end up in another accident which could be disastrous for Europe.”

Western peoples are being led into Armageddon, he claims, by an elite which seeks to provoke a war which could result in a nuclear exchange.

Macgregor’s warning is bolstered by independent reports of the extraordinary degree of British involvement in the war in Ukraine. Grayzone journalist Kit Klarenberg has written of Kursk being “a British operation” entirely, saying the U.K. is announcing itself with this operation as a “formal belligerent” in the war against Russia.

In a piece titled “Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires,” Klarenberg counts the cost of this “clear suicide mission,” which has seen the “Biden administration distance itself from the action” and has sabotaged  yet another move towards peace.

Echoing Macgregor’s warning to liberal-globalist governments across Europe, that of Germany has now dramatically reduced its support for the war, recognizing that the threat of full-scale conflict with Russia is leading populations to turn against regimes in support of escalation in Ukraine.

Klarenberg also notes the Wall Street Journal now claims Ukraine is solely responsible for the Nord Stream bombings – a framing which is unlikely to improve relations with Germans.

The Western alliance is fracturing, Macgregor suggests, as populations turn on the politicians which have led them to the brink of civilizational collapse.

Fighting back

In the service of the restoration of sanity to the political life of the West, Macgregor is promoting a network he compares to that which kept the American Revolution alive.

A new platform named “Republic,” says Macgregor, is going to be used by his organization Our Country, Our Choice, to provide real news and promote national and international cooperation across the West – along with legal and political tools for subscribers, including contact details for U.S. and European politicians and networks.

“This is like the committees of correspondents during the Revolutionary War. All of the revolutionary congresses or parliamentary bodies had committees, and these committees contacted each other kept each other informed and were part of the lifeblood that kept the American Revolution going through really hard times,” he said.

Macgregor states “this will not be canceled.” His case in defense of life, and that of the Western civilization he wishes to defend as a committed Christian soldier, is being made not only in words but in deeds

He says these measures will help to correct the deliberate exclusion of the American and Western peoples from the processes of power which threaten their very existence.

You can keep abreast of Macgregor’s initiative to “stop globalism” and “defend the U.S. from attacks on its borders, religious freedom, and from endless wars” at Our Country, Our Choice here. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X