Category: Daily News

Preventable Pandemic indeed: WHO helped infect the world, kill 3 million people, now wants $50b?

In 2020, the WHO did not protect even one country, but now says they just need more money and more power. The WHO should be disbanded, it failed at the one most important job it was set up to do  —  stop pandemics.

It’s only a year too late, but the WHO is finally telling people they could avoid deadly pandemics. A new report is out, with former New Zealand PM Helen Clark admitting only that the World Health Organisation was a week too late in calling it an emergency. After that tiny mini-culpa, then she blames slow nations for “wasting the month of February”. Though Clark seems to have forgotten the same stupid nations were all following WHO’s advice at the time.

This is what failure looks like —  Tedros, the WHO Director General on Jan 29, last year

When he could have saved the world, he was being a one man Xi Jinping fan club. Listen to this shameless rave:

…Tedros said it is admirable that the Chinese government has shown its solid political resolve and taken timely and effective measures in dealing with the epidemic. President Xi’s personal guidance and deployment show his great leadership capability, Tedros said.

He said that China has released information in an open and transparent manner, identified the pathogen in a record-short time and shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus in a timely manner with the WHO and other countries.

China’s measures are not only protecting its people, but also protecting the people in the whole world, he said.

So the WHO was the main enabler of bioweapons

The West wastes $5 billion dollars every year on an organization so corrupt it has been captured and turned into a Chinese advertising agency that directly works against the interests of the Western nations that fund it.

Here’s Helen Clark, forgetting:

“The WHO didn’t get enough information quickly enough. “

If only they had a twitter account, they could have seen the carnage live?

So many delays but we also looked in our report at the month of February when most countries took a wait and see approach rather than aggressively moving to either keep the disease out or contain the spread and that proved to be very, very harmful as well.”

As it is, Helen Clark has 1,000 words on the ABC and doesn’t say “border” once. And Leigh Sales helps her get away with it.

 Tedros is up for relection and wants another five years to cover up for China. 

As I said on Feb 1, there were $13b reasons why Tedros went out of his way to praise President Xi of China…

The WHO Director General is Tedros Adhanom of Ethiopia. From 2012 – 2016 he served as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the one party government that rules Ethiopia. This is the same party that borrowed billions from China to build a railway line, then struggles to pay it back.  In Africa, Ethiopia is the second largest debtor nation to China — owing $13 billion.  As Foreign Minister Adhanom praised China for African loans, looks like he was the man to line them up. We also note that the one-party ruling party of Ethiopia is called the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front which was once a Marxist Lenninist far left group — labels it dropped after the Soviet Union collapsed. (Thanks Maurice for these tips).

A million people signed a petition to sack him but he’s still there.

10 out of 10 based on 1 rating

via JoNova

May 13, 2021 at 01:53PM

Study claims: Climate Change Increasing the Risk of Space Junk Collisions

Before you ask, it’s not because of all the climate satellites NASA plans to launch in the next few years.

via Watts Up With That?

May 13, 2021 at 12:06PM

Biden’s Not-So-Clean Energy Transition

By Paul Homewood


From Wall Street Journal:



The International Energy Agency, the world’s pre-eminent source of energy information for governments, has entered the political debate over whether the U.S. should spend trillions of dollars to accelerate the energy transition favored by the Biden administration. You know, the plan to use far more “clean energy” and far less hydrocarbons—the oil, natural gas and coal that today supply 84% of global energy needs. The IEA’s 287-page report released this month, “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,” is devastating to those ambitions. A better title would have been: “Clean Energy Transitions: Not Soon, Not Easy and Not Clean.”

The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.

The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks.

The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining.
Spooling up production can’t happen overnight. The IEA observes something every miner knows: “It has taken on average over 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production.” Start tomorrow and new ETM production will begin only after 2035. This is a considerable problem for the Biden administration’s plan to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035.

In what may become the understatement of the decade, the IEA concludes that such long lead times “raise questions about the ability of suppliers to ramp up output if demand were to pick up rapidly.” The conditional “if” is a discordant qualifier given the IEA itself has endorsed, and nearly all its member states have already pledged, a rapid transition. The clear consequence is that “deployment of clean energy technologies is set to supercharge demand for critical minerals.”
Credit the IEA for acknowledging that this will require a global mining boom that leaves in its wake all manner of environmental implications. “Mining and mineral processing require large volumes of water”—a serious issue when around half of global lithium and copper production takes place in areas of high water stress—and “pose contamination risks through acid mine drainage, wastewater discharge and the disposal of tailings.”
The IEA falls backs on the usual admonition that mitigating these risks will require “strengthening international collaboration” for everything from pollution to labor practices. But the history here isn’t promising. IEA data show that expanded ETM mining will occur mainly in countries with “low governance scores” where “corruption and bribery pose major liability risks.”

The IEA may be the first major agency to flag the geopolitical risks of the energy transition, again with copious data. Today the oil-and-gas market is characterized by supply diversity. The top three producers, among them the U.S., account for less than half of world supply. The top three producers for three key ETMs, however, control more than 80% of global supply. Here we find China utterly dominant while the U.S. isn’t even a player.
Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars.


Most of this has already been discussed, but what is really significant is that this comes in an official report from the IEA, who usually slavishly follow the renewable agenda.

By the way, the WSJ report includes a video interview with Steve Koonin, which is well worth watching.


May 13, 2021 at 12:03PM

Plans for Scotland’s first power station that captures carbon revealed–Subsidies demanded first!

By Paul Homewood



Energy giants SSE and Equinor are planning to build the first power station in Scotland to use carbon capture technology.

The gas-fired power station at Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, could capture up to 1.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide from its emissions each year.

The development, which is still dependent on securing sufficient investment, is hoped to be ready by 2026.

SSE and Equinor are also developing two low-carbon power stations in North Lincolnshire, announced last month.

The Peterhead power station would achieve 15pc of the Government’s target to capture 10m tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030, according to major Scottish energy supplier SSE.

The technology will capture around 90pc of the site’s carbon emissions, which will be stored at the Acorn Project’s site, located about 100km offshore in rock formations deep below the North Sea. Shell is one of the companies involved in building the Acorn CO2 storage site.

Both the Acorn Project – run by a subsidiary of UK low-carbon tech firm Storegga Geotechnologies – and the power station were given funding by the Government in March as part of Scotland’s move towards net zero infrastructure.

A final decision about proceeding with the Peterhead project will depend on government subsidies for carbon capture and storage, as well as construction of the infrastructure needed to store carbon emissions deep under the North Sea.


Government subsidies!

This of course is the whole crux of the matter. There is no doubt that we have the technology to capture and store CO2, it is all a question of cost. And the 1.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide stored is tiny, compared to the UK’s total emissions of about 320 Mt.

Peterhead, along with Drax, were awarded £1bn of govt funding in 2012, to develop carbon capture. Both pulled out a few years later because of the difficulties involved. I very much doubt whether this new scheme will come cheap.


May 13, 2021 at 11:33AM