Category: zerohedge

Every several years it’s same old: not long after the start of the post-crisis era, the investing craze du jour was solar, followed by 3D printers; when that fizzled it was replaced with craft burgers/sandwiches which then morphed into the biotech bubble; when that burst blockchain companies and Initial Coin Offerings were the bubble darlings of the day, which in turn were replaced by cannabis stocks. Not longer after, the pot bubble burst, leaving a void to be filled.

That’s when the virtue-signaling tour de force that is ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance, made its first appearance, which just happened to coincide with the oh so obviously staged anti-global warming crusade spearheaded by a 16-year-old child (whose words are ghost-written by its publicity-starved parents) as well as central banks, politicians, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, countless “green” corporations and NGOs, and pretty much everyone in the crumbling establishment.

After all, who can possibly be against fixing the climate, even if it costs quadrillions… or rather especially if it costs quadrillions – because in one fell swoop, central banks assured themselves a carte blanche to print as much money as they would ever need, because who evil egotistical bastard would refuse the monetization of, well, everything if it was to make sure future generations – the same generations these same central banks have doomed to a life of record wealth and income inequality – had a better life (compared to some imaginary baseline that doesn’t really exist).

And since the green movement was here to stay, so was the wave of pro-ESG investing which every single bank has been pitching to its clients because, well you know, it’s the socially, environmentally and financially responsible thing.

But a problem emerged: there are very, very few companies that actually check the E, the S and the G boxes all at the same time, and their market cap is tiny compared to the massive virtue-signaling inflows that enter the market every day by hypocrite asset managers who engage in all sorts of criminal activity and are thus desperate to show just what model citizens they are by way of their investment choices. As the chart below shows, cumulative inflows into ESG are growing at a staggering pace, which is also why the universe of ESG companies had to be expanded to include the companies with the larget market cap in the world.

So goalseeking capital flows to available market cap, over the years it became the widely accepted standard that tech – for whatever reason – is the pre-eminent industry targeted by ESG funds. Indeed, a quick look at the eponymous ESGG ETF shows the its top five holdings which account for more than 20% of all the invested capital are the well known tech giga-caps: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet and Tesla.

So institutionalized has the “tech=ESG” identity become that a similar look at any other ESG fund will reveal an almost identical roster of top holdings.

There is however one problem: despite the conventionally accepted “wisdom” that tech is green, it actually isn’t. Yes, impossible – conventional wisdom is never wrong… except when it is, like in this case.

In a fascinating report published by BofA’s head quant Savita Subramanian, titled “10 surprises about the S&P 500 for Earth Day” (which pro subs can find in the usual place) and meant to commemorate Earth Day, the find what may be the biggest surprise of all.

“Tech, a big ESG overweight, isn’t all that green”

In a daring challenge to both Wall Street’s hypocrisy and conventional wisdom, BofA writes that  “Technology is one of the most overweighted sectors by ESG funds, but we find it has some of the highest indirect emissions among service industries.“

To prove this point, Subramanian shows a chart revealing the Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions intensity by industry, and finds that while Internet and Tech companies indeed have a low Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions profile, their indirect, or Scope 3, emissions intensity is among the highest in the world, on par with such industries as Autos, and Food and Beverage, and far above household products, media and entertainment, banks, telecom and many others.

To be sure, these aren’t direct emissions – Google may not have a refinery at its headquarters, nor does it deposit toxic water in various streams across the US (that we know of), but its indirect emission profile is simply staggering.

A quick primer: according to the EPA, Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organization’s scope 1 and 2 boundary. The scope 3 emissions for one organization are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. Scope 3 emissions, also referred to as value chain emissions, often represent the majority of an organization’s total GHG emissions.

Scope 3 emissions fall within 15 categories, though not every category will be relevant to all organizations. Scope 3 emission sources include emissions both upstream and downstream of the organization’s activities.

According to the GHG Corporate Protocol published by the EPA, all organizations should quantify scope 1 and 2 emissions when reporting and disclosing GHG emissions, while scope 3 emissions quantification is not required.

However, more organizations are reaching into their value chain to understand the full GHG impact of their operations. In addition, because scope 3 emission sources may represent the majority of an organization’s GHG emissions, they often offer emissions reduction opportunities. Although these emissions are not under the organization’s control, the organization may be able to impact the activities that result in the emissions. The organization may also be able to influence its suppliers or choose which vendors to contract with based on their practices.

Alas, most tech companies do not do this; instead they redirect and scapegoat. A good example is the recent and extremely vocal public outcry over bitcoin mining electricity consumption… which happens to be a tiny, tiny fraction of the electricity consumed, for example, by global cloud servers, or of the electricity consumed by charging Tesla cars, electricity which tends to originate in those evil, polluting coal power plants . But one doesn’t see a coordinated media bashing campaign targeting cloud. Wonder why.

So the next time some self-righteous CNBC talking head or religious ESG prophet talks your ear off about how only Microsoft, Apple, Google and TSLA are the paragons of ESG virtue and worthy of investment, show them the chart above and tell them to do something anatomically impossible.

By Greg Miller of FreightWaves,

Finally, a bit of good news — or at least, less-bad news — for beleaguered U.S. importers. The latest data shows a moderate retreat in the year-on-year increase in long-term contract rates. Norway-based Xeneta collects long-term contract rate data, using millions of inputs per month from shippers and non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs).

“Now, you can see a few minuses,” said Xeneta CEO Patrik Berglund during a market update on Tuesday, referring to contract-rate evolution in some trade lanes over the past three months.

Rates still rising, but by less

Annual contracts in the U.S. market are generally concluded by June. As of Tuesday, Xeneta pegged the average long-term contract rates for Asia-West Coast cargo at $2,030 per forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU), up 33% from a year ago. That sounds bad, but during a presentation a month ago, on March 23, the number was much worse: Xeneta listed that day’s average Asia-West Coast rate as $2,640 per FEU, up 50% year on year.

The same moderation can be seen in Xeneta’s Asia-East Coast estimates: $2,866 per FEU as of Tuesday, up 19% year on year. On March 23: $3,659 per FEU, up 28% year on year.

Berglund also displayed Xeneta’s data for the evolution of long-term contract rates over the past three months. This dataset confirmed the easing of rates from early 2021 highs: for Asia-West Coast, down 22% compared to 90 days ago; for Asia-East Coast, down 18%.

“Though we might have reached a plateau here, rates really remain at record-high levels,” he emphasized. “There is clearly a substantial upward movement on both short-term and long-term rates on a 12-month basis. That means contracts signed a year ago and expiring now — particularly a lot of trans-Pacific contracts — will be facing substantial increases.”

Historic spread between rates

The spread between the individual rates that make up the averages is wider than ever before. “There is an unprecedented spread in the market,” said Berglund. “There are companies paying substantially lower rates [than the average].”

That’s a big plus for the very largest shippers that can negotiate such deals. However, even those shippers face “challenges to get enough volumes to move on those rates … [and] don’t get their full volumes moved against those rates. In today’s market, you have valid rates sitting far lower [than average], but carriers are pushing as much volume as they can over to the short-term market.”

The largest shippers also face steep year-over-year price increases, albeit off a much lower base.

Berglund pointed to the Asia-North Europe market, where both spot rates and contract rates are far above the trans-Pacific (and unlike the trans-Pacific, have increased over the past three months). The spread in this trade between the low end of the long-term contact rate and the spot rate is around $5,500 per FEU.

“That is unprecedented. But even though those rates are substantially lower [than average], if you look at the percentage increase over the last 12 months, it’s up 85% for the really big-volume players that regularly fill the vessels for the carriers.”

Long term-to-spot correlation

According to the Freightos Baltic Daily Index, Asia-West Coast spot rates (SONAR: FBXD.CNAW) were $4,854 per FEU as of Monday and Asia-East Coast rates (SONAR: FBXD.CNAE) were $6,226 per FEU. Xeneta’s assessments are lower, at $4,045 and $5,031 per FEU, respectively.

“Historically, we’ve seen a correlation between the short-term and long-term market,” explained Berglund. “So, if you have a 100% increase in the short-term market, you will see an uptick three to six months later in the long-term market, although by far less [than the short-term increase]. This means that if the short-term market plateaus and slowly starts to go down, it will take time before we see a corresponding move in the long-term market.

“Even though we see this plateau [in short-term rates], the market dynamics don’t really support a massive drop,” he added. “Maybe there will be a slower drop-off in Q3 or Q4. It remains to be seen — especially given that carriers have proven that they’re far more savvy at adjusting capacity to demand.”

According to the guest speaker of the Xeneta presentation, Jochen Gutschmidt, vice president of advisory services at Copenhagen-based Sea-Intelligence, “The question I’m asked almost daily is: Are these rates sustainable? I always answer: No, I don’t think they are.

“Every company has profitability targets. And when we see the financials of the carriers, obviously all of the shareholders have a big smile on their faces, but I don’t think the carriers would ever realistically define long-term targets that equal the profit realities they have today. Nobody would accept that.”

Gutschmidt does not believe the current rate peak will last until 2022. “This is not the reality we will see a year from now — or even, I think, six months from now,” he predicted. “I would almost bet that at the same time next year, you would not be spending $9,000 for a dry box from Shanghai to Rotterdam. That will not be the rate.”

AstraZeneca has faced unceasing criticism since the start of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout due to sloppy communications with regulators and governments that led to several halts during the testing phase (including a month-long halt to a US trial following disturbing cases of deadly blood clots in the UK).

As it would happen, those blood clots – which the company dismissed back during the trials as a freak coincidence – are now at the center of an international scandal that has made all adenovirus-platform vaccines (including the J&J jab, which is still facing a halt in the US) suspect. While AstraZeneca continues to deny a link, the EMA – Brussels’ top drug regulator – has acknowledged a likely connection, and US regulators have drawn similar conclusions about J&J.

But while the EU continues to insist that the risks of taking the AZ jab are far outweighed by its societal benefits, Brussels is still sore about production shortfalls that sabotaged the early pan-EU rollout, which led to international embarrassment and even prompted some member states, like Hungary, to turn to Russia and China.

Now, for all the trouble the British-Swedish drugmaker has caused, the EU is working on a legal proceeding against it, according to reports in Reuters and Politico. Here’s more from Reuters:

The move would mark a further step in an EU plan to sever ties with the Anglo-Swedish company after it repeatedly cut supplies to the bloc, contributing to major delays in Europe’s vaccine rollout.

The news about the legal case was first reported on Thursday by Politico. An EU official involved in talks with drugmakers confirmed authorities in Brussels were preparing to sue the company.

“EU states have to decide if they (will) participate. It is about fulfillment of deliveries by the end of the second quarter,” the official said.

The matter was discussed on Wednesday at a meeting with EU diplomats, where most EU states supported the legal action, two diplomats told Reuters.

However, as Politico pointed out, some of the EU’s biggest members are apprehensive about the lawsuit, arguing that it’s unclear

The European Commission is getting ready to launch legal proceedings against vaccine producer AstraZeneca, according to six EU diplomats.

The Commission raised the matter at a meeting of EU ambassadors Wednesday, during which the majority of EU countries said they would support suing the company on the grounds that it massively under-delivered pledged coronavirus vaccine doses to the bloc.

However, five to six countries, including large states like Germany and France, raised concerns about launching a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, according to several diplomats. One of the concerns, as one diplomat explained, is that a lawsuit wouldn’t guarantee that the EU got more doses.

“What can we do in practical terms if AstraZeneca says, ‘Take a closer look at our production sites: We just have no vaccines,'” the diplomat said, adding that some countries were “not assured this is enforceable.”

The EU Commission said Thursday that no decision has been made at this point in time regarding AstraZeneca, leaving the door open for a lawsuit in the not-too-distant future. According to Politico, the Commission was considering filing a lawsuit in Belgian court by this Friday and is waiting for formal sign-off from EU countries. But some of the countries who have doubts voiced concerns about the tight deadline.

However, as we pointed out a few weeks ago, Brussels is equally at fault for the botched vaccine rollout as AstraZeneca. Here’s a breakdown of five ways the EU mismanaged its vaccine rollout, courtesy of the Brussels Report.

* * *

1. The EU failed to secure vaccines as quickly as the U.K., the U.S. and Israel

Whatever the reason, not as many Covid vaccines were delivered to the EU in the last few months as compared to the deliveries to Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. Even proponents of greater EU centralization, like Renew MEP Guy Verhofstadt, have criticized the EU for this, saying that the reason for the EU’s lackluster performance is because of “the contracts Europe negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies”, which he thinks are “extremely unbalanced. They are precise on pricing and liabilities but weak and vague on supply and on timing, and offer escape routes to the contractual obligations of the pharmaceutical companies involved.”

The EU Commission has come up with all kinds of excuses for this, even accusing one of the vaccine producers, AstraZeneca, of having violated its contractual obligations with the EU, but when the contracts were made public, it was not clear at all that this was the case. What we know, is that the EU closed the deal with AstraZeneca three months later than the U.K. and that it was four months slower than the U.K. and the U.S. in signing the contract with Pfizer. Also, there would be provisions in the U.S. contract with J&J that the U.S. would enjoy priority for its J&J vaccine. Furthermore, Israel would have paid 2.3 times the EU’s price, thereby obtaining 40 percent more vaccine doses than Germany, even if the country’s population size is 12 percent of Germany’s.

In a nutshell: after Angela Merkel forced her Minister of Health to hand the initiative to negotiate contracts for vaccine procurement to the European Commission in June 2020, the Commission failed to do the job well. This doesn’t stop the supranational bureaucracy from calling for even more powers over health policy. One lesson that can already be drawn, is that this is not a good idea.

Some EU countries have already broken ranks with the EU. Austria and Denmark closed a deal with Israel on vaccine production, to “no longer be dependent only on the EU”, while also Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have opted to go alone in various ways, exploring deals with Russia and China.

Perhaps EU governments jointly negotiating with big pharma made sense, but then some kind of technical team directly steered by 27 national governments, rather than a politicized supranational bureaucracy should have been made responsible.

2. When a mistake was made, the EU refused to admit this

For those in doubt that the EU Commission is a deeply politicized institution, it suffices to take a look at how the Commission reacted when the poor results of its actions become apparent. It’s one thing to make a mistake. It’s yet another not to admit it.

In between accusing one of the vaccine producers that had just managed to come up with an incredibly successful vaccine at record speed of “breach of contract”, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attempted to blame her Trade Commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. After dragging her feet, in the end she did issue a half-hearted admission that “mistakes were made” but that “in the end, we got it right.” Also her deputy, EU Commission vice-President Frans Timmermans, has now admitted “errors”, however without much explanation how and not without a sneer towards member states.

3. In a bid to divert attention from its failures, the EU played up vaccine skepticism

In a weird turn of events, EU leaders – or at least some of them – appeared to start badmouthing the vaccine they first were clamoring for. Again EU Commission chief von der Leyen suggested that the U.K. had compromised vaccination “safety and efficacy”, unlike of course the EU. A similar tactic had been used by Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, when he stated in December that the UK was merely faster in approving the Pfizer vaccine because “they have used their population as [guinea pigs] over there.”  Perhaps French President Macron went the farthest of them all, when he stated that the AstraZeneca vaccine was “‘quasi-ineffective” for older people. This flatly contradicted the science, according to which there simply wasn’t sufficient data to conclude it would also protect the elderly. It also contradicted the advice of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which claimed that despite the lack of data, “protection is expected” also for those over 55 years old – something that has been confirmed by now.

A child could predict such statements by the EU Commission President and EU leaders, clearly made in a bid to divert attention from the EU’s own failures, wouldn’t exactly strengthen support for vaccines among the many “vaccine skeptics” in the EU. In practice, these look to have played a role in the low take-up of the vaccine, even if this would also be due to logistical failures of national governments. It also complicates the work to convince people vaccines are safe when actual legitimate worries arise, for example in recent days, when a number of EU member states suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, despite reassurances by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

4. The EU decided to set up a vaccine export restriction scheme, risking retaliation

Another questionable response was to set up a so-called “export certification” mechanism, which allows curbs on exports of vaccines if drug makers fail to meet delivery targets. This was used for the first time by the government of new Italian PM Mario Draghi, when a batch of 250.000 AstraZeneca vaccines destined for Australia were denied an export permit from Italy.

The move was cleared by the European Commission, but may end up hurting the EU. Non-EU countries may retaliate, with or within the context of the WTO. This is also a headache for the EU vaccine industry, which is strongly reliant on imports from North America. Most companies at the forefront of vaccine effort have production capacity in EU to serve the world. Vaccine producers have testified their production capacity was already being slowed down due to these new bureaucratic hurdles.

On the longer term, this kind of politically inspired populist protectionism may also make the EU a less attractive place for investment into this innovative industry for which EU member states are so renown. Long gone are the days – a mere few months ago – when Ursula von der Leyen was pontificating not to engage in costly “vaccine nationalism”. One estimate puts the cost of such “vaccine nationalism” at $9 trillion, because of hampered international cooperation and reduced trade.

5. The EU fought the one thing that has proven to work to avoid lockdowns: travel restrictions

The one thing that seems to have enabled countries to avoid economically devastating lockdowns were travel restrictions. Among Western nations, Finland and Norway, not Sweden, should really be the poster childs of the global “anti- lockdown” movements. They were both even more liberal than Sweden throughout 2020, and nevertheless managed to suppress the spread of Covid successfully, unlike Sweden. Their travel restrictions were key to help avoid the need for lockdowns after Spring, when everybody had been surprised by the virus. The travel checks they imposed weren’t all that burdensome and closely linked to virus infection risk data.

Perhaps it would be harder for countries in the middle of Europe to enforce such restrictions than for those in the periphery, but then well-traveled countries also have more scope to reduce infection risk by limiting non-essential travel. Belgium did so, in any case. Despite all the evidence that it works, in the middle of February, the EU Commission expressed concerns about such bans on non-essential travel. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be the job of the Commission to push for a relaxation when infection rates allow, and of course, it’s good to be mindful about such restrictions, but when the alternative is to inflict much more harm to the domestic economy, it’s obvious what the priority should be.

* * *

The company has projected it’ll deliver roughly 70 million doses by the end of the second quarter of this year, when it was supposed to have delivered the entire 300 million doses secured in the EU contract.

Authored by Phillip Magness via The American Institute for Economic Research,

A fascinating exchange played out in the UK’s House of Lords on June 2, 2020. Neil Ferguson, the physicist at Imperial College London who created the main epidemiology model behind the lockdowns, faced his first serious questioning about the predictive performance of his work.

Ferguson predicted catastrophic death tolls back on March 16, 2020 unless governments around the world adopted his preferred suite of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to ward off the pandemic. Most countries followed his advice, particularly after the United Kingdom and United States governments explicitly invoked his report as a justification for lockdowns. 

Ferguson’s team at Imperial would soon claim credit for saving millions of lives through these policies – a figure they arrived at through a ludicrously unscientific exercise where they purported to validate their model by using its own hypothetical projections as a counterfactual of what would happen without lockdowns. But the June hearing in Parliament drew attention to another real-world test of the Imperial team’s modeling, this one based on actual evidence.

As Europe descended into the first round of its now year-long experiment with shelter-in-place restrictions, Sweden famously shirked the strategy recommended by Ferguson. In doing so, they also created the conditions of a natural experiment to see how their coronavirus numbers performed against the epidemiology models. Although Ferguson originally limited his scope to the US and UK, a team of researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden borrowed his model and adapted it to their country with similarly catastrophic projections. If Sweden did not lock down by mid-April, the Uppsala team projected, the country would soon experience 96,000 coronavirus deaths.

I was one of the first people to call attention to the Uppsala adaptation of Ferguson’s model back on April 30, 2020. Even at that early date, the model showed clear signs of faltering. Although Sweden was hit hard by the virus, its death toll stood at only a few thousand at a point where the adaptation from Ferguson’s model already expected tens of thousands. At the one year mark, Sweden had a little over 13,000 fatalities from Covid-19 – a serious toll, but smaller on a per-capita basis than many European lockdown states and a far cry from the 96,000 deaths projected by the Uppsala adaptation.

The implication for Ferguson’s work remains clear: the primary model used to justify lockdowns failed its first real-world test.

In the House of Lords hearing from last year, Conservative member Viscount Ridley grilled Ferguson over the Swedish adaptation of his model: “Uppsala University took the Imperial College model – or one of them – and adapted it to Sweden and forecasted deaths in Sweden of over 90,000 by the end of May if there was no lockdown and 40,000 if a full lockdown was inforced.” With such extreme disparities between the projections and reality, how could the Imperial team continue to guide policy through their modeling?

Ferguson snapped back, disavowing any connection to the Swedish results: “First of all, they did not use our model. They developed a model of their own. We had no role in parameterising it. Generally, the key aspect of modelling is how well you parameterise it against the available data. But to be absolutely clear they did not use our model, they didn’t adapt our model.”

The Imperial College modeler offered no evidence that the Uppsala team had erred in their application of his approach. The since-published version from the Uppsala team makes it absolutely clear that they constructed the Swedish adaptation directly from Imperial’s UK model. “We used an individual agent-based model based on the framework published by Ferguson and coworkers that we have reimplemented” for Sweden, the authors explain. They also acknowledged that their modeled projections far exceeded observed outcomes, although they attribute the differences somewhat questionably to voluntary behavioral changes rather than a fault in the model design.

Ferguson’s team has nonetheless aggressively attempted to dissociate itself from the Uppsala adaptation of their work. After the UK Spectator called attention to the Swedish results last spring, Imperial College tweeted out that “Professor Ferguson and the Imperial COVID-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths. Imperial’s work is being conflated with that of an entirely separate group of researchers.” It’s a deflection that Ferguson and his defenders have repeated many times since.

As it turns out though, Ferguson and the Imperial College team were being less than truthful in their attempts to dissociate themselves from Sweden’s observed outcomes. In the weeks following the release of their well-known US and UK projections, Ferguson and his team did in fact produce a trimmed-down version of their own modeling exercise for the rest of the world, including Sweden. They did not widely publicize the country-level projections, but the full list may be found buried in a Microsoft Excel appendix file to Imperial College’s Report #12, released on March 26, 2020.

Imperial’s own projected results for Sweden are nearly identical to the Uppsala adaptation of their UK model. Ferguson’s team forecast up to 90,157 deaths under “unmitigated” spread (compared to Uppsala’s 96,000). Under the “population-level social distancing” scenario meant to approximate NPI mitigation measures such as lockdowns, the Imperial modelers predicted Sweden would incur up to 42,473 deaths (compared to 40,000 from the Uppsala adaptation).

The Imperial team did not specify the exact timing of when they expected Sweden to reach the peak of its outbreak. We may reasonably infer it though from their earlier US and UK model, which anticipated the “peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months” following the initial outbreak. That would place Sweden’s peak daily death toll around mid-June, or almost the exact same time period as the Uppsala team’s adaptation.

Figure I: Imperial College Model for Sweden, March 26, 2020

It turns out that Viscount Ridley’s line of questioning was correct all along. The Uppsala adaptation of Ferguson’s model not only projected exaggerated death tolls in Sweden. Ferguson’s own projections for Sweden advanced similar numbers, all wildly off the mark from what happened.

Imperial College’s multi-country model used its earlier and more famous projections for the US and UK to claim validity for its more expansive set of international extrapolations. As Ferguson’s team wrote on March 26, 2020: “Our estimated impact of an unmitigated scenario in the UK and the USA for a reproduction number, R0 , of 2.4 (490,000 deaths and 2,180,000 deaths respectively) closely matches the equivalent scenarios using more sophisticated microsimulations (510,000 and 2,200,000 deaths respectively)” that they released a few weeks prior. If Imperial’s US and UK projections matched, a similar validity could be inferred for the other countries they modeled in the multi-country report.

The Imperial College team fully intended for its multi-country model to guide policy. They called on other countries to adopt lockdowns and related NPIs to reduce the projected death toll from the “unmitigated” scenario to “social distancing” (they also included a third possible scenario for stricter measures on top of general population NPIs, aimed at further isolating elderly and vulnerable people). As Ferguson and his colleagues wrote at the time, “[t]o help inform country strategies in the coming weeks, we provide here summary statistics of the potential impact of mitigation and suppression strategies in all countries across the world. These illustrate the need to act early, and the impact that failure to do so is likely to have on local health systems.”

Failure to act, they continued, would lead to near-certain catastrophe. As Ferguson and his team wrote, “[t]he only approaches that can avert health system failure in the coming months are likely to be the intensive social distancing measures currently being implemented in many of the most affected countries, preferably combined with high levels of testing.” In short, the world needed to go into immediate lockdown in order to avert the catastrophes predicted by their multi-country model.

One year later we may now look back to see how Imperial College’s international projections performed, paying closer attention to the small number of countries that bucked his lockdown recommendations. The results are not pretty for Ferguson, and point to a clear pattern of modeling that systematically exaggerated the projected death tolls of Covid-19 in the absence of lockdowns and related NPIs.

Figure II compares the Imperial College model’s projections for its “social distancing” scenario and “unmitigated” scenario against the actual outcomes at the one-year mark after its release. These projections reflect an assumed replication rate (R0) of 2.4 – the most conservative scenario they considered, meaning Imperial’s upper range of projections anticipated substantially higher death tolls. The countries examined here – Sweden, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea – are distinctive for either eschewing lockdowns and similar aggressive NPI restrictions entirely or for relying on them in a much more limited scope than Imperial College advised. The United States, where 43 of 50 states adopted lockdowns of some form, is also included for comparison.

Figure II: Performance of Imperial College Modeling in 4 Non-Lockdown Countries & the United States

As can be seen, Imperial College wildly overstated the projected deaths in each country under both its “unmitigated” scenario and its NPI-reliant “social distancing” scenario – including by orders of magnitude in several cases.

Similar exaggerations may be found in almost every other country where Imperial released projections, even as most of them opted to lock down. The Imperial team’s most conservative model predicted 332,000 deaths in France under lockdown-based “social distancing” and 621,000 with “unmitigated” spread. At the one year mark, France had incurred 94,000 deaths. Belgium was expected to incur a minimum of 46,000 fatalities under NPI mitigation, and 91,000 with uncontrolled spread. At the one year anniversary of the model, it reached 23,000 deaths – among the highest tolls in the world on a per capita basis and an example of extreme political mismanagement of the pandemic under heavy lockdown to be sure, but still only half of Imperial College’s most conservative projection for a under NPI mitigation.

Just over one year ago, the epidemiology modeling of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College played a preeminent role in shutting down most of the world. The exaggerated forecasts of this modeling team are now impossible to downplay or deny, and extend to almost every country on earth. Indeed, they may well constitute one of the greatest scientific failures in modern human history.

Earlier this month, French farmers fought mother nature in their attempt to prevent frost from wiping out their crops. It appears their attempts have failed as the damage is extensive and could wipe out nearly a third of French wine output for the year. 

In early April, French farmers scrambled to light-controlled fires across their vineyards to stave off frost. Euronews document these efforts in a series of stunning photographs. 

A farmer burns a bale of straw in his vineyard to protect grapevines from frost. This picture was taken on April 7 at the heart of the Vouvray vineyard in Touraine, France.

Winegrowers from the Domaine Daniel Etienne Defaix vineyard in Chablis lit fires across their fields. 

Smoke rises across multiple vineyards in Touraine, France. 

As reported by The Guardian, the French government declared the frost an “agricultural disaster” and planned to provide financial support to farmers. 

Several thousand hectares of farming land, including Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne, and the Rhône Valley, were heavily impacted by the frost. 

Jérôme Despey, the secretary-general of the FNSEA farming union, said this year’s frost could be one of the worst in decades. He said it might be more damaging than the ones experienced in 1991, 1997, and 2003.

Agriculture minister Julien Denormandie said the frost blast was a “completely exceptional situation,” resulting in “substantial losses.”

Exact losses are unknown at this time. But fresh estimates this week by the farm office FranceAgriMer warns at least a third of the country’s 2021 wine production could be affected, reported Reuters. 

Ygor Gibelind of FranceAgriMer said frost damages would be more apparent by the end of the month. He estimates wine output could decrease by 28% to 32% below average volumes of recent years. 

“This (frost) was something exceptional, both in the fact it spread so far south and that is was so widespread,” Gibelind said, adding that the damage was exacerbated by warmer weather early in the growing season and accelerated plant growth. 

Gibelind said Burgundy is the worst-hit area where some farmers lost half their crop. The second worst area is in Languedoc, with about 40% crop loss, then Aquitaine that encompasses Bordeaux at some 30%. 

A decline in French wine output would certainly suggest bottles from the country are about to experience a price surge as supply constraints become realized. 

Authored by Douglas Burton via The Epoch Times,

Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has endorsed an effort to jumpstart the economies of Africa through a bottom-up revolution of African entrepreneurs. That revolution involves countering China’s efforts to dominate the continent while articulating a Christian approach to Africa’s development.

Pompeo gave the keynote speech April 13 at a summit of CEOs and African political leaders called “Equity for Africa” at the Business School of Liberty University in Virginia.

“Greater development improves security for all of us,” Pompeo told the gathering of 160, which included American CEOs and business owners from 14 African nations.

“Terrorist thugs for a long time have taken advantage of less developed countries and used them as safe havens and inflicted enormous harm and enormous destruction of economic prosperity,” he told the gathering.

“As we can increase economic growth and the capacity for new businesses to provide wealth and opportunity for people throughout Africa, America will be a better place,” Pompeo said.

Crediting the phrase “America First” as a moral principle that nations could replicate by doing their utmost to bring security and prosperity to their own citizens, Pompeo noted that “when they did that, they could counter a narrative in Africa that comes from the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Belt and Road

China’s trillion-dollar footprint in Africa known as the Belt and Road Initiative cast a shadow over the three-day gathering.

Launched in 2013, Belt and Road projects may be found in 42 African countries. China is the largest funder of infrastructure projects in Africa, giving financing to 20 percent of all projects and building one-third.

Chinese companies are building roads, railways, and power plants that African nations have lacked for decades, but with the risk that key national assets can be lost through loan defaults.

“It’s a fact that African businesses are inundated with Chinese money,” Ted Yoho, a former congressman from Florida and a panelist at the summit told The Epoch Times.

To compete with China’s dominant investing in the continent, the U.S. Congress with Yoho’s involvement passed “the Build Act” in late 2018, which set aside $60 billion for American companies to use as financing for collaborative projects in the developing world.

“African countries should be wary of authoritarian regimes,” Pompeo said. “We know the absence of religious freedom, the absence of dignity, that comes from tyrannical regimes that intend to spread their tyranny all across the world.”

“It should not be the case that African nations must be dependent on these totalitarian nations for their vital infrastructure,” he said.

Dean of Liberty University School of Business Dave Brat (L); President, Redeemed Christian Bible College and Seminary, Sayo Ajiboye (C); President, Global Strategic Alliance, Kevin Jessip (R) at the Equity for Africa Summit at Liberty University in Lynchburg Va., on April 14, 2021. (Ellie Richardson)

Boom Predicted

Equity for Africa marked an ambitious outreach in thought leadership for Liberty University, founded by the late Baptist Televangelist Jerry Falwell, and until his resignation last year, by Jerry Falwell, Jr., and for its business school headed by David Brat, a former Richmond, Virginia congressmen.

Brat was credited with planning the event with creative contributions from many Evangelical advisors, including Kevin Jessip, founder of Global Strategic Alliance and a bevy of African expatriates in the United States.

Pompeo’s speech coincided with his assumption of a fellowship chair at the University’s Standing for Freedom Center.

“We are here to articulate a national plan for family, development, and economic transformation by meeting the felt needs of the people of each nation,” Jessip told The Epoch Times, warning that China’s vast infrastructure building is attempting to control and contain the peoples of Africa for the long term.

The approach of a “global strategic alliance” by contrast is to enrich African citizens through a boom of entrepreneurism. “The Christian approach means releasing the people and allowing them to control their own destiny,” he told The Epoch Times.

Of the 75 panelists that presented their expertise in the course of two full days of meetings, virtually all asserted their belief that the continent of Africa will bloom as the place of the world’s next economic miracle in the next 20 years.

They included hedge fund manager Rod D. Martin, a Florida GOP power player who told The Epoch Times, “I fully believe that Africa is going to be the place of the next economic boom, just as East Asia was in the 1980s.”

Jessip, an evangelical activist who helped organize a massive Prayer Assembly called the “Return,” on the Washington Mall on Sept. 26, 2020, believes that Africa and Western Christian faithful are entering a so-called Kairos moment, a Greek word which means “a proper or opportune time for action.”

As Western nations settle into near zero population growth, the African nations are facing a population explosion, offering the world a vast resource of skilled and low-skilled labor for industry.

Africa’s population is expected to double by 2050. Nigeria, the most populous nation, is forecast to have by that year 400 million people, overtaking the United States as the world’s third-most populous country.

H.E. Yemi Osinbajo, Vice President of Nigeria, speaking to the Equity for Africa Summit via live video from Nigeria at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. On April 14, 2021. (Ellie Richardson)

Economic Pitches

Several African heads of state or lawmakers gave economic pitches by zoom calls to the conference including Nigeria’s Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, who touted Nigeria’s young resilient population, its reserves of oil and “five-year tax holidays for investments in eligible sectors.”

Nigeria has multiple contracts with Chinese companies to build infrastructure, which is natural, he pointed out, because developing countries have a great need for infrastructure development.”

Osinbajo, a law professor and an ordained pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God, also spoke to the opportunities that Western companies have passed over in Africa in recent years.

“There are fewer investments coming from the West to Africa, which is why the Chinese have taken advantage of that gap and stepped in with favorable investments,” he said.

That is about to change, according to the investors and political activists at Equity Africa.

“God’s about to do a sovereign move,” Jessip told The Epoch Times. “He is going to do His own thing. The purpose of the Global Strategic Alliance is to move the body of Christ to move with Him,” he said.

“We are casting our bread upon the waters,” Jessip said citing Ecclesiastes 11: “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days.”

In Jessip’s telling, the America outreach to African entrepreneurs is being returned by a steady stream of African preachers coming to the North American continent.

Africa holds at least 600 million Christians devoted to their faith, and many are eager to bring the fire of faith back to the United States, which now registers fewer than 50 percent of its population as Christian believers.

“Whereas Africa used to be the mission continent, the United States is the mission country today,” Jessip told the conference, adding: “African preachers are coming to the United States. The bread is coming back, which is good, because we need it.”

Conference panelists included well known names in the conservative movement: Jack Brewer, former NFL star and Africa investor; Herschel Walker, former NFL star and business owner; Steve Green, CEO of Hobby Lobby and co-founder of the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.; and Christopher Miller, former acting secretary of defense, among others.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson. op-ed via The Epoch Times,

As Americans know from their own illustrious history, any nation’s well-being hinges on only a few factors. Its prosperity, freedom, and overall stability depend on its constitutional and political stability. A secure currency and financial order are also essential, as is a strong military.

Perhaps most important is a first-rate inductive educational system. Of course, nothing is possible without general social calm (often dependent on a reverence for the past) and secure borders.

The ability to produce or easily acquire food, fuel, and key natural resources ensures a nation’s independence and autonomy.

Unfortunately, in the last few months, all of those centuries-old reasons to be confident in American strength and resiliency have been put into doubt.

The challenge is not just enemies abroad such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. The greater problem lies within us, as we erode the inherited and acquired strengths that made us singular, both materially and spiritually.

We are now witnessing a concentrated effort to alter the constitutional order and centuries of custom and tradition. The Left believes that’s the only way it can retain its transient power, given the unpopularity of most of its current agenda.

A nation’s institutions are its bedrock. Yet, the Electoral College and the Constitution’s emphasis on individual states establishing voting laws are under assault.

Already gone is the 176-year-old tradition of a pivotal November Election Day. The 152-year-old nine-member Supreme Court, the 184-year-old Senate filibuster, and the 62-year-old idea of a 50-state union are all being targeted by the New Democratic Party.

Given that the last presidential election was hotly contested, that Democratic congressional majorities are minuscule, and that the Supreme Court is unsympathetic, the Left seeks to change the rules to stay in power rather than adjust its unpopular policies.

We are running up vast multitrillion-dollar annual deficits as we race to a $30 trillion national debt.

More worrisome, our elites justify the spending with sophistries about debt being irrelevant, or inflation and stagflation being relics of the past—even as prices are now soaring.

After costly strategic stagnation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, our military is now turning on its own.

Some of the politicized top brass seem more worried about the politics of their own soldiers than the dangers of foreign militaries.

Our public schools and colleges are systematically downplaying meritocratic curricula and substituting ideological, racial, and cultural litmus tests.

Admissions now often hinge as much on race, gender, and ethnicity as on quantifiable achievement. The First Amendment and Fifth Amendment, covering free speech and due process, have vanished from most college campuses.

The year 2020 saw the most destructive riots in American history. Yet very few of the looters, arsonists, and rioters were ever indicted. Most were never arrested.

Whether government arrests violent protesters or those assembling en masse and breaking quarantines is contingent on their ideology.

Private monopolies that control most of the written communications of Americans censor expression entirely on the basis of politics.

Modern Jacobins seek to erase our founding in 1776. Mobs tear down statues and deface monuments with impunity. There is no consistent rhyme or reason to why the names of schools, institutions, and streets are erased overnight—except the relative dangers of a nihilistic electronic mob.

Our officials at the Justice Department and the United Nations either will not or cannot defend the history and reputation of their own homeland.

Record natural gas and oil production has been giving the public affordable heating, cooling, and transportation. Self-sufficiency in energy made the United States exempt from worries over Middle Eastern wars and foreign oil embargos. The more we produced our own natural gas, the cleaner became our air and the smaller our collective carbon footprint.

Yet in just 100 days, energy prices have soared. The Joe Biden administration has canceled the Keystone XL pipeline and limited energy leasing on federal lands, threatening to all but end our gas and oil independence in just a few years.

In the drought-stricken West, key irrigation water is still being diverted from farms to the ocean. Billions of dollars in farm aid are doled out on the basis of race. And promised new regulations and estate taxes may well kill off what’s left of family farms.

Adam Smith said of successful nations that they have a lot of “ruin” in them. He meant that a dissolute, leisured, and ahistorical generation has to waste a lot of its generous inherited wealth before it runs out.

We are learning how much will soon be left of what our ancestors bequeathed. And the rest of the world is watching—some with glee, others with horror.

While scammers have been selling fake or forged COVID-19 vaccination cards, another scam has been discovered involving counterfeit versions of the vaccine. 

WSJ reports fake versions of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech have been found in Mexico and Poland. 

In Mexico, a man who claimed to be a biotech expert injected upwards of 80 people with the fake vaccine – charging $1,000 per dose. WSJ said none of the people had been physically harmed by the injection. 

Dr. Manuel de la O, the health secretary of Nuevo León state in Northeastern Mexico, said fake vials of the vaccine were found in what appeared to be beer coolers. The counterfeit vaccines had “different lot numbers than those sent to the state and a wrong expiration date,” the health secretary said. 

Reports of counterfeit vaccines were also found in Poland, where authorities seized a stockpile from a man’s apartment. The substance found inside the vials was likely an anti-wrinkle treatment, Pfizer said.

“Everybody on the planet needs it. Many are desperate for it,” Lev Kubiak, Pfizer’s world head of security, told WSJ. “We have a very limited supply, a supply that will increase as we ramp up and other companies enter the vaccine space. In the interim, there is a perfect opportunity for criminals.”

Pfizer is also working with law enforcement on counterfeit vaccine cases like those recently uncovered in Mexico and Poland. Johnson & Johnson and Moderna are other top producers of COVID vaccines. They, too, are working with authorities to monitor fake vaccine distribution. 

Across the world, dozens of websites have been shut down for fraudulently claiming to sell vaccines. Some of the websites appeared to be seeking personal information for identity fraud schemes than actually injecting people with vaccines. 

In other countries, including China and South Africa, authorities seized thousands of doses of counterfeit vaccines, according to Interpol. 

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, an investigative arm of the US Department of Homeland Security, has also been investigating fraud related to the virus pandemic globally. Investigators have removed 30 websites and seized 74 web domains, according to IPR officials. So far, no counterfeit vaccines have been found on US soil. 

Countries that are struggling to obtain vaccines appear to be the most prone to fraudulent schemes. 

“Whenever you see this mismatch between demand and supply in certain areas, there are people who are willing to fill that difference with counterfeits,” said Tony Pelli, a consultant with BSI Group who concentrates on drug security. “For new drugs, it’s usually just a matter of time before you see people trying to counterfeit them.”

What appears evident is that low-income countries struggling to obtain vaccines are ripe for fraud. 

Authored by Ethan Yang via The American Institute for Economic Research,

The island nation of Taiwan may be in the spotlight today for handling Covid-19 without a lockdown but it’s about to become one of the most contentious geopolitical flashpoints of the decade. On April 17, 2021, The South China Morning Post reported that,

“The United States and Japan called for “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” in a joint statement released after a meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga who reaffirmed their commitment to counter China’s “intimidation” in the East and South China seas in wide-ranging talks.

It is the first time since 1969 that the top leaders of the two countries mentioned Taiwan in a joint statement, a move that is set to infuriate Beijing.”

The move did in fact attract hostility from the Chinese as Nikkei Asia wrote,

“Hours after Japan and the U.S. named Taiwan in a leader’s summit statement for the first time in more than five decades, China hit back at the communique that also highlighted the two allies’ concerns over Hong Kong and human rights issues in Xinjiang.

“These matters bear on China’s fundamental interests and allow no interference. We express strong concern and firm opposition to relevant comments in the Joint Leaders’ Statement,” a spokesperson at the Chinese embassy said in a statement on Saturday.

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang belong to “China’s internal affairs,” the statement said.”

Xinjiang is a region in Northwest China where the Chinese Communist Party is reported to be engaging in horrendous activities such as ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, and slave labor. Hong Kong, which came under Chinese control in 1997, was promised to have its democratic norms respected in a slow reintegration period set to end in 2047. That promise has now been shattered as the CCP unleashed a brutal crackdown in response to the Hong Kong Protests starting in 2019. China’s treatment of Hong Kong subsequently eliminated any remaining intentions amongst the independent Taiwanese to even consider a peaceful unification with the People’s Republic of China.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen, who is a staunch advocate of Taiwanese independence and national identity, was recently reelected with the greatest popular landslide in the island’s history. It has become abundantly clear to everyone, especially the CCP, that China’s unmoving ambition to annex the island can now only be accomplished with military force. This is frightening not only because of the damage this development will have for democracy, freedom, and economic prosperity not just in Asia but around the world, but the inevitable military conflict with the US and its allies will be catastrophic. Dennis Roy notes in The Diplomat that,

“Among these assessments, none carried more weight than that of Admiral Philip Davidson, chief of the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command. Davidson opined before a U.S. Senate Committee in February that China might try to seize Taiwan by military means “in the next six years.”

Roy also notes that Chinese military assets have been conducting wargames with alarming frequency and Chinese officials have openly stated they are rehearsing for an invasion of Taiwan. Reuters even noted that recently the Chinese air force has intruded on Taiwanese airspace so frequently that Taiwan stopped scrambling jets to intercept in order to conserve resources. Instead, they are now tracking Chinese jets with ground-based missiles. 

The Strategic Importance of Taiwan 

The United States is bound by law to support the ongoing security of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has been instrumental in not only supporting the island nation but core US interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The strong bonds of US-Taiwan friendship are as self-serving for the US as it has been for the Taiwanese. Setting aside Taiwan’s fame as a bastion of freedom and prosperity, preventing China from controlling Taiwan is a core strategic concern for US security interests. China knows this as well. 

Whoever controls Taiwan, controls the Asia-Pacific. A crucial economic and strategic region in the world. 

Joseph Bosco explains Taiwan’s strategic importance in University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Insight when he writes,

“Drawing on historical experience, the question is whether Taiwan would be as valuable a strategic asset to a potential aggressor in Asia today as it was for Japan in the 1940s.”  

During World War II Japan maintained control of Taiwan as a colony. From Taiwan, it was able to launch military pushes into the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia while also servicing forces in Korea and China. That is because of Taiwan’s important position in the center of what is known as the First Island Chain which stretches from Japan down to South East Asia and Australia. This island chain then gives way to the Second Island Chain further east into the Pacific Ocean towards Hawaii. Controlling Taiwan would allow the Chinese military to cut the Asia-Pacific in half and conduct hostilities against major US strategic allies such as South Korea, Japan in the north, the ASEAN countries and Australia in the south. It can then start to expand its naval operations further into the Pacific Ocean much like Imperial Japan did during World War II. 

Taiwan’s deepwater ports would also give the Chinese navy the ability to not only dominate the Pacific Ocean and its trade routes but also exercise more leverage over the South China Sea. The South China Sea saw almost $3.37 trillion worth of global trade pass through in 2016 and 40 percent of the global natural gas trade in 2017. The current status quo maintained by the United States and its allies is one of a rules-based international order dedicated to human rights, trade, and cooperation. A Chinese-occupied Taiwan would allow the Chinese to follow through with their vision of turning the South China Sea, a region with numerous countries laying claim, into a “Chinese Lake.”

Chinese primacy in the region would plunge Asia as well as the world further into authoritarian darkness. China would be able to not only make more territorial demands to more countries but it can threaten to disrupt trade and free movement to any country in the world that questions its authoritarian practices. 

Economic Importance

Although Taiwan may be an island the size of Maryland, it’s one of the richest countries in the world with a GDP (PPP) of $1.3 trillion, an estimated 2021 nominal GDP of over $759 billion, and a population of 23 million. For comparison, that’s a population and GDP (PPP) similar to Australia and a nominal GDP just behind Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Switzerland. Taiwan is also a critical trade partner for the US, being our 10th largest goods trading partner and 6th largest consumer of US agricultural exports. 

Even more important, however, is Taiwan’s place in the global economy. When the Portuguese discovered the island in the 16th century they gave it a name that is still used today: Formosa. That translates to “beautiful isle” to which Taiwan was and certainly is a scenic tourist destination. However, today it is also one of the most advanced producers of semiconductors in the world and a technology hub more generally. Semiconductors are essential for producing everything from data centers, cars, smartphones and other pieces of technology that are increasingly becoming more important to the basic functioning of society. At the moment, there is currently a global shortage of semiconductors which has only been exacerbated by Covid-19 lockdowns and the accelerated transition to a digital society. 

Furthermore, Taiwan has taken large steps in positioning itself as the Silicon Valley of Asia with massive investments in scientific research and startup-friendly infrastructure. Taiwan’s geographic location as a stepping stone to the rest of Asia and its relatively high economic freedom make this vision a decent possibility. As Taiwan emerges from Covid-19 with an economy relatively unscathed by lockdowns, its economic importance will likely only grow as it becomes a more popular spot for investment. That also makes it an even greater prize for the Chinese and an asset to the free world. 

Taiwan as a free and independent country makes it an active agent in making the world a more prosperous and technologically advanced place. Taiwan under Chinese control gives the CCP even more economic leverage over any country that speaks out against its authoritarian model. Not to mention that it will have removed one of the major alternatives to Chinese technology, which has been known to function as an arm of the CCP’s surveillance state. 

Key Takeaways

With the escalating tensions between Taiwan, China, and everyone in between, it is clear that once Covid-19 fades out of the picture, Taiwan will be one of the next global tension points. This seems even more likely as the Biden administration announces its intentions to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and with US-China tensions at an all-time high. During the Obama administration, the US foreign policy establishment announced a “pivot to Asia,” and the reasons cannot be more clear. 

Although Taiwan has always been an important US foreign policy interest for decades, current events will likely make it the most important. The island has been caught in the middle of a perfect storm of global geopolitical tension, radical economic change, and an existential ideological struggle between liberty and authoritarianism. The stakes could not be higher, as one false move could spark a devastating armed conflict between global superpowers. Failure to act sufficiently will jeopardize the future of freedom and prosperity not just in Asia but around the world. 

Mayor Bill de Blasio – having solved all other problems in the city related to the pandemic and the recent outburst of violent crime – has shifted his focus making sure the city is going to be 100% run on renewable electricity by 2025. 

Yesterday, as if the cost of living wasn’t skyrocketing enough for NYC citizens, the city announced that it had signed “a letter of intent in partnership with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) committing the City to pursuing a joint purchase of large-scale renewable source of electricity delivered to the city, which could include Canadian hydropower to the extent selected or its equivalent,” the city said in a statement.

The statement continued: “This joint purchase, which will power City government operations with 100 percent renewable electricity by 2025, will provide additional value to disadvantaged and energy burdened communities as well as all residents of the State, and be a dramatic step forward as part of the City’s comprehensive climate mitigation strategy to ensure the City makes a just transition to a clean energy economy.”

De Blasio commented: “Clean energy is directly linked to a fair recovery” (whatever that means), continuing, “It’s about investing in our future and our frontline communities. Today we’re taking major step forward to secure renewable energy for New York City and power our government with 100 percent renewables by 2025.”

Doreen M. Harris, President and CEO, NYSERDA commented: “NYSERDA’s Tier 4 solicitation is designed to increase the amount of renewable energy delivered into New York City and direct significant benefits to those in the state’s most disadvantaged communities. We welcome the opportunity to share in the cost-effective procurement that will be realized due to the substantial level of competitive interest seen by the initial private sector response. We appreciate the City’s focus to align with the state’s work in reducing carbon emissions from its operations and recognizing the important value a joint purchase would bring to all New Yorkers.”

The release reads:

The letter of intent lays out the parameters the City will take into consideration prior to entering into a long-term agreement to purchase Clean Energy Standard Renewable Energy Certificates (“RECs”) associated with the delivery of renewable energy into Zone J of the New York Control Area. 

The City intends to purchase a sufficient quantity of RECs to secure 100% of its energy needs from renewable resources while preserving the ability to engage in deep energy retrofits, other energy efficiency measures and the deployment of renewable distributed energy resources.

The release says that the program “has set ambitious and aggressive goals for confronting our climate crisis, ending the age of fossil fuels, and securing a livable climate for the next generation”.

Ben Furnas, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Sustainability, said: “This is the electricity of the future, and it can’t come soon enough. With this commitment to vastly increase the supply of renewable electricity to New York City, we will clean our air, correct injustice, and race towards a future beyond fossil fuels. Thank you to NYSERDA for their partnership as we work together to build a safer, cleaner, fairer energy system for New York.”

While we’re hardly power generation experts, all we have to say is: good luck running New York City off of hydroelectric power from Canada at efficient prices.

We find it way more likely that this will just be another reason for current New Yorkers to eventually head out of the city, and down to Florida, once costs from this incredible “project” eventually materialize – that is, if this letter of intent winds up materializing at all to begin with.