Month: June 2022

In early 2019, just before the COVID-lockdown crisis hit the world, the southern Polish city of Kraków introduced a ban on burning coal and wood in a campaign against smog.

The move means residents face fines for using such fuel in their stoves, boilers, fireplaces and even for cooking on stationary barbecues. Lighter, portable barbecues are exempt.

Inspectors will monitor air pollution levels using a drone, thermal imaging camera and a dust monitor, state news agency PAP reported.

Fast-forward three years, with millions of refugees surging across the border from Ukraine and energy prices at record-er and record-er highs, it appears the Polish government has changed its mind on ‘smog’ and ‘climate change’ as it reminded citizens on Friday they can forage firewood from forests to keep warm.

The government said it was taking steps to make it easier for people to collect firewood in an effort to ease the pressure created by sky-rocketing energy bills and shortages of coal.

“It is always possible, with the consent of foresters, to collect branches for fuel,” said deputy climate and energy minister Edward Siarka.

However, it’s not quite as ‘easy’ as wondering into the forest with your axe.

The polish government demands that those wishing to gather wood must first undergo training and obtain permission from the local forestry unit. Additionally, they went on to clarify that people can only take branches already lying on the ground, and cannot cut down trees.

“Only branches can be gathered. At the same time, the collected branches cannot be thicker than seven centimeters,” said Katowice Directorate of State Forestry official Marek Mroz.

Interestingly, while Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s government is blaming the Russian invasion of Ukraine for driving up costs (Putinflation), as Euronews reports, critics, however, say the war is only partially to blame. They argue that costs have risen for seven years under Law and Justice’s social spending policies, which include cash handouts to families with children and the elderly.

“We will all be collecting brushwood,” said Donald Tusk, leader of the opposition Civic Platform on Friday.

“Because this seems to be the latest idea to prevent Polish poverty that Law and Justice has prepared for all of us.”

The Law and Justice party has said it is seeking ways to alleviate the energy crisis, stating that eight ships carrying more than 700,000 tonnes of coal are on their way to Poland.

Greta will not be happy at all!! (has anyone else noticed how quiet she has been during this crisis). Who cares about the ‘climate’ when your fingers have frostbite and you can’t heat your food…

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A Norwegian feminist faces up to three years in prison for saying that biological men can’t be lesbians.

Yes, really.

Christina Ellingsen, of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), is under police investigation for making the claim in a tweet in which she criticized the trans activism group FRI.

“Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?” Ellingsen allegedly tweeted.

She also questioned the legitimacy of FRI’s advisor Christine Jentoft identifying as a lesbian despite being born a biological male.

“Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?” Ellingsen reportedly said.

“You are a man. You cannot be a mother,” Ellingsen allegedly told Jentoft.

“To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

“Amnesty International is also accusing Ellingsen of harassment for saying that Jentoft is a man on national television,” reports Reclaim the Net.

Norway’s hate crime laws were made more draconian last year to make criticizing gender ideology a crime and Ellingsen faces up to three years in prison if she is convicted.

“To certain groups, the fact that women and girls are female and that men cannot be women, girls, mothers or lesbians, is considered hateful,” Ellingsen told Reduxx, adding that the police are investigating her for “for campaigning for women’s rights.”

“The fact that police are legally able to investigate and persecute women who engage in women’s rights is concerning,” said Ellingsen

“This is new territory in Norway, so the outcome of the investigation is important, both if the case is dismissed and if it leads to trial,” she added.

However, the precedent has already been set by a 2021 case where a Norwegian man was jailed for three weeks and fined for “misgendering” someone who identifies as transgender on Facebook.

While Americans merely face social media bans for saying men can’t be women, in some European countries, making the claim risks actual imprisonment.

Similar threats are also made against those who criticize the LGBT movement.

Former Finnish minister Päivi Räsänen faced hate speech charges for citing Bible verses which described homosexuality as “shameful” and “unnatural,” although she was later acquitted.

As we highlighted last year, a Christian pastor in the UK was arrested by police on the streets of London after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Last year, officers in Merseyside took part in an electronic ad campaign outside a supermarket which claimed “being offensive is an offence.”

In 2019, UK police investigated the potential “hate crime” of a transgender woman being turned down for a porn role because she still has a penis.

A video published by the UK government Home Office in 2020 also suggested that insulting someone’s appearance now constitutes a “hate crime,” despite this not being the law.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Britain is joining the US is supplying longer range rockets to Ukraine, despite fresh threats from Russia’s president Vladimir Putin who says he is ready to expand strikes to ‘decision-making centers’ if these escalations from the West continue.

The Guardian is reporting Monday that “The UK will send a handful of tracked M270 multiple launch rocket systems, which can hit targets up to 50 miles away, in the hope they can disrupt the concentrated Russian artillery that has been pounding cities in eastern Ukraine.”

The announcement comes as there’s widespread acknowledgement that the tide of war is changing particularly in the east, where Russian forces are now making steady gains over the Donbas, with the Ukrainians saying they are suffering chronic supply shortages, including ammo and weapons.

In what appears a reference to the situation in the Donbas and the south, UK defence secretary Ben Wallace said the move to ship longer range rocket launchers is justified “as Russia’s tactics change, so must our support to Ukraine.” However, he didn’t speculate over Russia’s potential response.  

“As Russia’s tactics change, so must our support to Ukraine. These highly capable multiple-launch rocket systems will enable our Ukrainian friends to better protect themselves against the brutal use of long-range artillery, which Putin’s forces have used indiscriminately to flatten cities,” Wallace said.

Putin made weekend statements vowing further retaliation if the US proceeds with its HIMAR and MLRS rocket systems delivery. On Sunday five Russian cruise missiles slammed into the Ukrainian capital of Kiev – which was the first time the capital came under Russian fire in over a month. Russia said it targeted a depot that contained Western-supplied tanks – something which Ukraine denied.

Like the Biden administration before, the UK government is attempting to assure that the fresh rocket transfer will not be used to strike within Russian territory:

A British defence source said the weapons will be used “to defend Ukraine, in Ukraine”. They added: “We have confidence that the weapons will be used appropriately.”

A UK defense ministry statement indicated the new rocket systems will be ‘gifted’ to Ukraine, and that training of the Ukrainian personnel on the weapons will take place on British soil.

Russian MoD video showing Russian Msta-S howitzers occupying hot positions and firing on Ukrainian targets.https://t.co/vPthb7B5Z4 pic.twitter.com/45ezAtrdWN

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) June 6, 2022

Meanwhile, there’s been widespread speculation that Russia could threaten Western cities directly if its territory is targeted by these new Western weapons systems. Putin warned on Sunday his military is ready to hit “objects that we haven’t yet struck.” And Monday the Russian foreign ministry warned:

LAVROV SAYS THE LONGER THE RANGE OF WEAPONS SENT TO UKRAINE BY THE WEST, THE FURTHER RUSSIA WILL MOVE AWAY FROM ITS BORDER THE LINE FROM WHICH ‘NEO-NAZIS’ CAN LAUNCH STRIKES

It hasn’t been disclosed how many MLRS systems the UK will be sending, but likely it will be akin to what the US is shipping – at least a handful.

* * *

Below: US Army Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) in action…

By Josh Owens of Oilprice.com

The global energy market is in turmoil, with electricity bills around the world soaring and scant options when it comes to securing new supply. A combination of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, years of underinvestment in new projects, and the rapid return of demand after covid have overwhelmed the energy market. The price of everything from coal to natural gas, oil, and even lithium is soaring. And while it may be impossible to conjure up new supply in the short term, now is certainly a good time to reconsider how best to invest in our energy infrastructure going forward so as to fortify it against future crises. In particular, it is time to revisit the debate over nuclear power, consider why it fell out of favor, and if it is time to bring it back.

The state of nuclear power today

Following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, nuclear power fell out of favor around the world. Most notably, Japan and Germany moved to phase out nuclear power altogether. Then, following the shale boom in the U.S. and the remarkable cost reduction of solar and wind energy, the economics of nuclear power grew increasingly unattractive. More recently, however, interest in nuclear energy is bouncing back. China has committed to building 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, the Biden administration is investing $6 billion in saving financially distressed nuclear reactors, and the European Commission declared that some nuclear energy investments would be labeled as ‘green’. This sudden rush to support nuclear is perhaps unsurprising if you consider that the IEA’s road map to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 had nuclear power generation nearly doubling. Despite that roadmap, nuclear has been struggling to gain support.

Globally, nuclear energy made up 10% of global electricity generation in 2021, down from 17% in 2000. It did, however, see a 4% increase from the year before, adding 100Twh to reach a total of 2,736 TWh. It seems nuclear power could be on the brink of a renaissance, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could well speed that up, but there are still plenty of reasons to be wary of the energy source.

The argument against nuclear power

Ultimately, the argument against nuclear power comes down to three key factors – safety, cost, and time.

The most visible problem with nuclear power is the danger of a nuclear meltdown. The fact that by simply naming two cities, Fukushima and Chornobyl, one can evoke images of a nuclear catastrophe is evidence enough of the fear that is associated with nuclear energy. A nuclear meltdown and the resultant radiation can poison the surrounding environment, force citizens to permanently flee their homes, and cost lives. Beyond that more direct threat, there is also the safety aspect of disposing of nuclear waste. Roughly 3% of nuclear waste is so radioactive that it has to be securely stored for 50 years. While there isn’t a huge volume of waste to deal with at the moment, an expansion of nuclear energy will only add to this risk. From the risk of an explosion or nuclear meltdown to the very real and unsolved problem of dealing with nuclear waste, nuclear energy undeniably poses a degree of risk.

The second, and arguably more important, weakness of nuclear power is the large up-front cost associated with completing a project. Nuclear energy advocates have long been claiming that costs will fall, but project after project has overrun its budget. The latest example of this is the Vogtle 3 and 4 nuclear-generating stations in Georgia, which are now due to come in 250% over budget. In 2017, two unfinished nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned due to cost overruns, wasting roughly $9 billion. Those nuclear projects that have succeeded in the U.S. have been supported by government research, development, and insurance. Realistically, financing a nuclear project is way beyond the balance sheet capacity of most utilities in the U.S. While proponents may promise that prices will fall, the track record of nuclear power projects running over budget is hard to argue with.

Finally, opponents of nuclear power will frequently point to the time it takes to bring nuclear power projects online. Yes, we need energy now, yes we want low-carbon energy, and yes we need it to be reliable, but if we sign off on building a nuclear power plant today, it will take 10 years or more to produce its first drop of energy. The nuclear power plants in Georgia that are 250% over budget are also six years behind schedule. It’s fine to sell the dream of nuclear energy, but why waste money on an energy project that, if it avoids being abandoned, will be providing energy for a market that will look very different from today’s? 

For the past decade, this argument has been difficult to counter, but as the geopolitical, environmental, and technological context has shifted, it has become necessary to revisit the debate.

Why it’s time for a nuclear renaissance

The main strengths of nuclear power are that it is clean, reliable, and space-efficient. It is these characteristics that have made it the dominant source of clean electricity in the United States. Ultimately, the reason it has not been expanding over the last decade is that the cost and risks associated with nuclear energy have been deemed to outweigh the benefit of this clean and reliable energy. Today, with energy prices soaring, global emissions rising, and nuclear costs potentially falling, that calculation has changed. Firstly, if governments around the world are serious about their commitment to cut emissions, nuclear energy will have to be a central part of their energy mix. Secondly, the geopolitical instability and supply chain problems the world is currently experiencing have thrown the importance of energy security into sharp relief. Finally, new technologies and approaches for nuclear energy production could counter some of the cost and time concerns of critics. While nuclear energy is far from a silver bullet, it would undoubtedly make the global energy mix both cleaner and more resilient.

If governments and international organizations are serious about the aggressive emissions reduction targets they have set, then then they will need a clean and consistent energy supply. That means an energy system that uses renewables combined with battery storage, fossil fuels combined with carbon capture, geothermal energy, or nuclear energy. Of those options, nuclear energy is the only one that can provide energy at scale currently. This fact means that every gigawatt of nuclear energy that we lose is a gigawatt of clean energy that is likely to be replaced by coal or natural gas. This is a phenomenon that was seen in New York when it closed the Indian Point plant. The argument for nuclear energy is even more compelling when you add the need to decarbonize transportation and industry, a task that will require huge amounts of new energy supply to create hydrogen and ammonia. Finally, there is the physical footprint of nuclear energy, a footprint that is set to shrink with the advent of small modular reactors. While renewable megaprojects face resistance due to the threat they pose to ecosystems, modern nuclear reactors pose relatively little threat to the immediate environment. From an environmental perspective, the world is undeniably better off with nuclear energy than it would be without it. 

There are few events in modern history that have highlighted the importance of energy security more than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The fact that Russia is both at war with Ukraine and paying Kyiv for natural gas flows is difficult to get your head around. Ultimately, access to energy is existential. Europe cannot afford to stop importing natural gas and Russia cannot afford to stop selling it. When considering nuclear power in this context, it represents a more diversified and therefore more resilient energy mix. Russia is a major exporter of uranium, so any expansion of nuclear energy would have to include a diverse and secure supply chain. But if Europe and the U.S. had backed nuclear energy a decade ago, there is no doubt energy markets would be in a very different place today. Another geopolitical issue of importance is the influence that a large nuclear energy actor can have over nuclear proliferation. According to the IEA’s pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050, two-thirds of new nuclear reactors will be built in emerging markets and developing economies. Meanwhile, of the 72 nuclear reactors being built outside Russia, less than 3% are being built by U.S. companies. China and Russia are building 20% and 50% of those reactors respectively. In short, that means both Russia and China are in an incredibly strong position to influence the international nuclear industry. Between the energy security concerns highlighted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the national security concerns associated with influence over the global nuclear regime, the geopolitical role of nuclear energy is increasingly important.

The final reason to reconsider the role of nuclear power in the modern era is the technological advancements the industry has undergone in the past decade. Nuclear energy is becoming smaller, safer, and faster. While it is necessary to take the promises of new nuclear technologies with a grain of salt, projects like the Rolls Royce SMR are expected to significantly reduce the price of nuclear energy. Bill Gates, predictably, is also getting in on the action with an SMR that is expected to reduce the cost of nuclear by 50%. Other approaches include new technologies to reduce the amount of waste created, new safety features that eliminate the need for offsite electricity, and new coolants such as helium or molten salt. While it could be argued that promises of new nuclear technology are just as valid as promises of miracle batteries and nuclear fusion, the development of SMRs is considerably further along than either of those energy innovations. It is important when considering the future of nuclear energy to recognize that the industry itself is developing and costs and timelines could well fall. 

Ultimately, while the promise of new nuclear technology may not convince critics, the need to reduce emissions and increase energy and national security is going to become increasingly hard to ignore.

The Best Way To Embrace Nuclear Energy

If we are to embrace nuclear energy, the most difficult problem to overcome will be the cost. In order to deal with this problem, one must reimagine the role of nuclear power in our society. It will be necessary, as argued in a previous article on Oilprice.com, to treat our nuclear power in the same way we treat military jets. These are necessary, regardless of the cost. A private-sector contractor will submit a bid, have it approved, and then build the system. The first project may run over budget, but it will be completed and the following projects will likely be progressively cheaper – bringing the average cost down. This is a matter of energy security, environmental protection, and geopolitical influence. It does not have to be, and quite possibly never will be, a commercially viable power source.

As energy prices, geopolitical tensions, and global carbon emissions soar, the call for nuclear energy will only grow louder. In the words of Voltaire, the best is the enemy of the good, and nuclear energy is looking like an increasingly good solution. 

As a stagflationary storm looms over the UK economy, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) chairman warned of a tsunami of small business closings without new support packages from the government. 

FSB chairman Martin McTague, recently told BBC Radio 4’s Today, “there is still a massive problem with small businesses. They are facing something like twice the rate of inflation for their production prices, and it’s a ticking timebomb. They have got literally weeks left before they run out of cash and that will mean hundreds of thousands of businesses, and lots of people losing their jobs.”

McTague referred to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, showing that 2 million (or about 40%) of the UK’s small businesses had less than three months of cash in reserves to support operations. He noted that 10% (or 200,000) were in grave danger, and 300,000 only had a few weeks of cash left. 

“It is a very real possibility because … they don’t have the cash reserves. They don’t have any way they can tackle this problem,” McTague said. 

FSB chairman’s warning comes as April UK inflation hit 9%, the highest level since 1982. Inflation has been widely sparked not just by loose monetary policy conditions during the virus pandemic but now soaring energy costs as Europe tries to ween itself off Russian fossil fuels and monetary tightening by the central bank. 

McTague gave one example of a hotel owner in Scarborough, a resort town on England’s North Sea coast, which had profits wiped out because soaring power bills were five times higher than normal levels. 

“They weren’t able to trade any longer without essentially trading at a loss and therefore damaging the future of their business and everybody that worked for them,” he said. 

Soaring inflation and faltering growth is a perfect recipe for a stagflationary macro backdrop that is already crushing small businesses and households. ONS data showed the economy contracted by .1% in March, and the economy appears to be sliding into what could be the beginning of a recession. 

Meanwhile, Bloomberg data shows the Bank of England is on an aggressive hiking path this summer to quell inflation. Tightening into a downturn will only add even more pressure on small businesses by making lending more expensive and stifling demand. 

Recession fears and economic turmoil have sent the pound to a two-year low. 

A combination of higher energy prices, a slumping pound, faltering economic growth, a deteriorating environment for small businesses, weak households, trade restrictions on Russia, a central bank that is tightening, and overall inflation at four-decade highs have all produced a toxic environment for the UK economy. 

No wonder the UK Misery index is soaring to the highest level since 1994. 

Meanwhile, Barclays’ small and medium-sized enterprises barometer shows 75% of British firms are worried about the challenging macro climate and how it could dramatically impact their operations. 

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced it will launch military drills with 7,000 troops in the Baltics. The provocative war games will include Sweden and Finland. Stockholm is hosting the exercises after applying for NATO membership last month.

The war games, dubbed Baltic Operations (BALTOPS 22), are based in Stockholm. BALTOPS 22 will primarily consist of naval operations and run from June 5-17. The drills will involve 45 ships and 75 aircraft. Sixteen nations will participate, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The annual war games are taking on increased significance as Helsinki and Stockholm recently submitted their applications to join NATO. The USS Kearsarge is in the Swedish capital city for the war games. According to Chairman of the Joint Chief, Gen. Mark Milley said, part of the ship’s mission is a show of force to Russia.

“I think the Kearsarge being here is a pretty strong statement,” Milley said. “This is a big exercise with 7000-8000 soldiers from 16 countries, two of which are not NATO members.”

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson added, “This shows President Biden’s security assurances are followed by actions.”

Several NATO members gave security guarantees to Sweden and Finland as they go through the membership process. The security guarantees are meant to prevent a Russian attack before Stockholm and Helskinki receive protection under the alliance’s mutual defense pact.

Russia says it will not react to Finland and Sweden joining the North Atlantic alliance but warned against a military buildup in the Nordic counties.

How could NATO’s expansion stabilise the Baltic region?

Exercise Hedgehog might have been planned long before #Russian troops invaded #Ukraine, but the huge war games in Estonia are a prickly reminder of NATO readiness.

Read more: https://t.co/ib8Ku9gOoo#maritimesecurity pic.twitter.com/jwBJ3fBSW5

— Dryad Global (@GlobalDryad) May 23, 2022

Antti Pelttari, head of Finland’s intelligence service, confirmed Moscow had not targeted Helsinki with reprisals since it submitted its NATO application. “It has been rather quiet, and let’s hope it stays that way,” he said in an interview with Financial Times. “It’s a positive thing that nothing has happened.”