“Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy. More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles.”

We are in the midst of history’s greatest wealth transfer. Government subsidized wind systems, solar arrays, and electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy members of society and rich nations. The poor and middle class pay for green energy programs with higher taxes and higher electricity and energy costs. Developing nations suffer environmental damage to deliver mined materials needed for renewables in rich nations.

Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy. More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles. The world spends about $1 trillion per year on green energy. Government subsidies run about $200 billion annually, with more than $1 trillion in subsidies spent over the last 20 years.

World leaders obsess over the need for a renewable energy transition to save the planet from human-caused global warming. Governments deliver an endless river of cash to promote adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided $370 billion in subsidies and loans for renewables and EVs. But renewable subsidies and mandates overwhelmingly favor the rich members of society at the expense of the poor.

Wind systems receive production tax credits, property tax exemptions, and sometimes receive payments even when not generating electricity. Landowners receive as much as $8,000 per turbine each year from leases for wind systems on their land. Lease income can be quite high for a landowner with many turbines. In England, ordinary taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of pounds per year in taxes that are funneled as subsidies to wind companies and wealthy land owners.

In the U.S., 39 states currently have net metering laws. Net metering provides a credit for electricity generated by rooftop solar systems that is fed back into the grid. Solar generators typically get credits at the retail electricity rate, about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is a subsidized rate, which is more than double the roughly five cents per kilowatt-hour earned by power plants. Apartment residents and homeowners that cannot afford to install rooftop solar pay higher electricity bills to subsidize homes that receive net metering credits. Rooftop solar owners also receive federal and state tax incentives, another wealth transfer from ordinary citizens.

U.S. federal subsidies of up to $7,500 for each electric car purchased, along with additional state subsidies, directly benefit EV buyers. The average price of an EV in the U.S. last year was $66,000, which is out of reach for most drivers. A 2021 University of Chicago study found that California EV owners only drive 5,300 miles per year, less than half the mileage for a typical car. Most electric cars in the U.S. are second cars for the rich.

A mid-size electric car needs a battery that weighs about a 1,000 pounds to provide acceptable driving range. Because of battery weight, EVs tend to be about 50 percent heavier than gasoline cars, which causes increased road damage. But EVs don’t pay the road tax included in the price of every gallon of gasoline. EVs should pay higher road taxes than traditional cars, but today this cost is borne by everyday gasoline car drivers.

Renewable systems require huge amounts of special metals. Electric car batteries need cobalt, nickel, and lithium to achieve high energy density and performance. Magnets in wind turbines require rare earth metals, such as neodymium and dysprosium. Large quantities of copper are essential for EV engines, batteries, wind and solar arrays, and electricity transmission systems to connect to remote wind and solar sites. According to the International Energy Agency, an EV requires about six times the special metals of a gasoline or diesel car. A wind array requires more than ten times the metals of a natural gas power plant on a delivered-electricity basis. The majority of these metals are mined in developing countries.

Almost 70 percent of cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indonesia produces more than 30 percent of the world’s nickel. Chile produces 28 percent of the copper. China produces 60 percent of the rare earth metals. These nations struggle with serious air and water pollution from mining operations. Workers in mines also suffer from poor working conditions and the use of forced labor and child labor practices. But apparently no cost is too great so that rich people in developed nations can drive a Tesla.

To top it off, the European Union recently approved a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The CBAM will tax goods coming from poor nations which aren’t manufactured using low-carbon processes. CBAM revenues will be a great source of funds for Europe’s green energy programs that benefit the wealthy.

In January, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington proposed a wealth tax on billionaires. It’s interesting to note that all seven of these states mandate and heavily subsidize wind and solar arrays and electric vehicles, which transfer wealth from poor and middle-class residents to those same billionaires.

This article was originally published at MasterResource.org

As “climate” dignitaries and world leaders prepare to converge on the Egyptian resort town of Sharm-El-Sheikh in mid November to solve the alleged “climate crisis,” the biggest issues to be decided will involve money — lots of it. Specifically, the questions to be resolved surround how much money governments must extract from the struggling middle classes of the “developed” world to bribe “developing country” governments and kleptocrats into keeping their populations in perpetual poverty and bondage. As “climate” becomes the new COVID, though, freedom is in danger, too.

Under the guise of what is called “loss and damage,” taxpayers in advanced nations such as the United States are expected to pay massive reparations to Third World governments. Relying on the increasingly dubious hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic global warming, the argument is that advanced economies emitted more carbon dioxide as they became prosperous over the last century, and as such, they must compensate poorer, undeveloped nations for alleged climate damages. Everything from storms to droughts is being blamed on Western CO2 emissions. Those advanced economies get no credit for inventing the technologies that make the modern world possible.

The World Economic Forum, the fascistic and globalist Big Business alliance behind the Great Reset agenda, is publicly arguing that “climate reparations” must be “top of the agenda at COP27.” And governments of the world are taking note. Globalists and the Third World regimes demanding more money are calling for trillions of dollars in “reparations” for everything from floods to droughts. “By 2050, the economic cost of loss and damage in developing countries is estimated to be between $1-1.8 trillion,” WEF “expert” and propagandist Abhinav Chugh wrote on the increasingly controversial organization’s website.

A group of largely corrupt governments styling itself the “Alliance of Small Island States” (AOSIS) is demanding that taxpayers in wealthier countries hand over huge sums for a “response fund” that will help “climate victims recover from the loss and damage caused by present and future climate shocks,” according to the WEF. This “Alliance” will be backed by the largest group of governments and dictatorships within the UN system. Known as the G77 + China, the alliance represents about two thirds of the UN’s member governments. And it is openly seeking to turn the UN into an “emblem of global sovereignty.”

Speaking at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which basically serves as Deep State headquarters in the United States, Biden administration “climate” Czar John Kerry indicated a willingness to fork over huge sums of American tax dollars to the UN and its member governments, though he did not offer a specific figure. “We’re very concerned about the impacts of climate on all of these countries,” Special Climate Envoy Kerry explained at the globalist institution, pointing to nations dealing with natural disasters while pretending that these were caused by Americans’ SUVs and power plants.

Former Obama Secretary of State Kerry, who famously flew on a private jet to pick up his “climate” award in Iceland, did caution that there are political realities that must be considered, too. In particular, the prospect of a GOP takeover of Congress next month might mean that all of the administration’s promises are dead on arrival. “We’re all determined to come up with progress, but something real that we can begin to define for everybody,” Kerry added. “You’ve got to make things happen that can work, that can be functional in your own political system.”

While Republicans in Congress may be able to limit the amount that can be extracted from U.S. taxpayers, Kerry made clear that he wants the mega-banks to help, too. “For every $1 invested in low-carbon energy supply, $1.10 is invested in fossil fuels,” Kerry complained, a barely veiled swipe at investors and banks that continue financing critical companies and industries that the UN and the globalist establishment want to destroy. “The math and the science unequivocally make clear, we cannot hit our targets unless we dramatically change that ratio.”

Attorneys general from 19 states are currently investigating the mega-banks for their ties to UN “climate” schemes. That has caused several to scale back their scheming. But while American banks get cold feet about colluding with the UN to destroy America’s energy infrastructure, UN boss António Guterres offered another idea. The well-known socialist who led a global alliance of socialist and communist parties (many with the blood of millions on their hands) recently proposed a massive tax on oil and gas companies to fund the “reparations” slush fund. After all, bankrolling the ongoing controlled demolition of freedom, prosperity, and civilization is expensive.

As Europeans face the prospect of energy blackouts, food shortages, and industrial collapse amid severe energy shortages, tone-deaf European Union bigwigs are promising to double down on the policies that led to the escalating crisis. Other EU policy items on the agenda include implementing “climate action in the agricultural sector,” which is code for stepping up the war on small- and medium-sized farms to pave the way for a fascistic farming sector dominated by mega-corporations in bed with Big Government. Also on the list of EU goals was “address the gender dimension,” without elaboration.

One of the key figures helping to lead the EU delegation, Czech Minister of the Environment Anna Hubáčková, promised that the increasingly totalitarian superstate would further undermine the prosperity of the peoples it rules under the guise of saving the climate. “All eyes will be on us in Sharm El-Sheikh,” she said. “The EU has always been at the forefront of climate action and we will continue to lead by example. Protecting our planet for future generations requires a strong common global action. I am glad the EU has proved today that it is serious in its ambitions.”

Numerous European governments have already pledged to seize enormous sums from their people to shower on Third World regimes. For instance, following floods in Pakistan — a region that has dealt with floods for millennia — Danish authorities vowed to hand over almost $15 million in tax money for “loss and damage” schemes. The German government has also publicly expressed support for putting climate “reparations” at the top of the agenda for the COP27 in Egypt. Ironically, it is sending an environmental extremist, former Greenpeace boss Jennifer Morgan, as its “climate envoy.”

The Communist Chinese regime, meanwhile, is laughing all the way to the bank. As it builds more coal-fired power plants to ensure cheap and reliable energy for the factories and industries fleeing America and Europe to set up shop in China, the dictatorship in Beijing is calling on Western nations to continue committing economic suicide. The regime, which has very close ties with the World Economic Forum and its chief Klaus Schwab, vowed to continue increasing its CO2 emissions until at least 2030. China already releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other nation.

As much as the climate-industrial complex tries to make its victory appear inevitable, there are growing signs that it is in trouble. With Europe facing catastrophic energy shortages due to self-imposed “green” policies such as shutting down power plants, European voters are becoming increasingly skeptical. In Sweden, known worldwide as perhaps the leading proponent of climate hysteria, the new right-wing government just axed its 35-year-old “Environment and Climate” Ministry, sparking howls of protests from alarmists. In the United Kingdom, the pressure to resume exploration and use of hydrocarbon energy is growing rapidly, too, as the prospect of deadly blackouts ahead of winter becomes more acute.

Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded rent-a-mob activists deployed by the climate-industrial complex to provide the appearance of public support for the agenda are expressing concerns about whether they will be allowed to make a spectacle of themselves in Egypt. Considering the nature of the Egyptian government and restrictions placed on public demonstrations in the highly controlled town of Sharm-El-Sheik, there is a very real chance that the usual “climate” antics will at the very least be toned down.

As the evidence underpinning the pseudo-scientific catastrophism continues to be exposed as fraudulent, the hysteria is getting louder and louder. At this point, the global predatory class, including the UN and the Biden administration, are simply working to silence all those who expose the facts using internet censorship and other totalitarian tactics. How the COP27 will turn out remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Middle-class taxpayers across the developed world better hang on to their wallets, because the predatory elites are scheming to loot them blind.

This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.

A National Review article warns of a troubling new collaboration between the European Union (EU)and social media sites including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft to police and censor the Internet.

In a document with Orwellian overtones titled “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online,” the EU announces this unholy alliance. While offering a token commitment to free speech,  assuring protection of even ideas “that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population,” the dominant commitment is to suppressing “hate speech.”

This document makes clear that part of the motivation for global censorship is combatting the use of the Internet to advance terrorism, which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the presumptuous “progressive” project to impose leftist moral and political views on the entire world corrupts even worthy goals.

For clarification of what constitutes “illegal hate speech,” this new alliance (henceforth referred to as Big Brother) directs readers to a document titled “Acts Adopted Under Title VI of the EU Treaty” which states that “‘Hatred’ should be understood as referring to hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.’” “Hatred should be understood as hatred”? Say what?

The initial structure of the sentence suggests a definition of “hatred” is forthcoming, but instead what follows is a list of conditions (i.e., “race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”) toward which rhetorical hatred may not be expressed.

But what constitutes hatred? Does criticism of the tenets of Islam—moderate or radical—constitute hatred? Does criticism of Judaism constitute hatred? Do the vulgar rantings of homosexual bigot Dan Savage who referred to orthodox Christians as “bat sh**, a**h*le, dou**ebags” constitute ban-worthy hatred? (Read more about Savage HERE.)

The list of conditions that these Internet language police seek to protect from public expressions of “hatred” is neither exhaustive nor fixed. Big Brother’s anti-First Amendment Code of Conduct concludes with this portentous statement:

To this end, regular meetings will take place and a preliminary assessment will be reported to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016.

It’s not just undefined “hatred” that is being banned from the Internet. It’s undefined “intolerance” as well. And it’s not just the aforementioned six privileged conditions toward which no Internet-user may express hatred or intolerance, but all other conditions or identity groups toward which “intolerance” could conceivably be directed.

This sentence is poorly constructed in that a grammatically correct reading suggests that it is condemning the forms intolerance could assume. The forms of intolerance could be, for example, hurling epithets at or urging assaults on members of the six groups. But since the phrase “all forms of intolerance” is included in a list that alludes to conditions for which persons may be hated (i.e., racism alludes to race and xenophobia alludes to national origin), it is clear that Big Brother is expanding the groups toward which “intolerance” may not be expressed.

So what might those unnamed groups be? What other groups identifiable by some shared trait might the Internet censors believe must be free from “intolerance”? Perhaps a speech given by the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality can help us discern the gerrymandered boundaries of Internet safe spaces.

Here is an extended excerpt from a speech delivered last October by EU commissioner Věra Jourová to the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe):

I am pleased to lend my support to this vibrant space for discussion on LGBTI rights in Europe and beyond.

We have recently seen homophobic statements made by a number of political leaders. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, First Vice-President Timmermans made it clear that human rights are for everyone and LGBTI people must not be an exception. I fully endorse his views and will not hesitate to speak out against homophobia and transphobia.

We are also seeing that a narrative undermining LGBTI rights is quietly spreading, often disguised as so-called religious principles. This is unacceptable.

First Vice-President Timmermans and I recently held a conference in Brussels on antisemitism and islamophobia, where we also discussed online hate speech and how to combat it. It is clear that we must fight all hate speech, online and offline, whatever group of society it targets. We will work with internet providers to ensure hate speech is taken off the web as soon as it’s reported.

…

[W]hen it comes to social acceptance of LGBT people in daily life situations, respondents are less accepting. Less than half of respondents (44 percent) say they would be comfortable if their son or daughter had a relationship with a person of the same sex, and only 49 percent are comfortable with gay couples showing affection in public. For transgender people, the levels of acceptance are also low….

What we need is to raise awareness of the benefits of diversity. To this end I will launch an EU-wide campaign to promote LGBTI-equality in 2016….The campaign will be part of Commission’s wider effort and actions I plan to implement in coming years to ensure the rights of LGBTI people and their acceptance are enforced.

…

If we want to move the equality agenda forward, we need a united effort from civil society, businesses, straight allies and national governments.

Lest the naïve among us mistakenly believe that Jourová is solely concerned with existential threats against particular groups, take note of one of her concerns: In this speech in which Jourova condemns hate speech and commits the EU to wiping it off the Internet, she offers parental “discomfort” with a son’s or daughter’s homoerotic relationship as something that society, the world of commerce, and national governments should unite to change.

Another clue as to what constitutes “intolerance” can be found in an EU document titled “Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States”:

The term ‘hate speech’, as used in this section, includes a broader spectrum of verbal acts drawing upon or expressing homophobia and/or transphobia in degrading or disrespectful public discourse. Based on available data, it is possible to identify at least three types of hate speech as having particular importance in a homophobic context: hate speech by public figures, hate speech by public religious figures and hate speech published, often anonymously, on the Internet.

…

[A]nti-LGBT statements are mainly articulated by conservative politicians and religious (Catholic, Lutheran or Evangelical Christian) public figures. These statements draw mainly upon the theme that LGBT persons and ways of living constitute a threat to society….it became clear that certain types of arguments were being used over and over again to speak out against lesbians and gays’. Among these are arguments:

• aiming to preserve the ethnic homogeneity and integrity of the nation and the state by excluding or subordinating gays and lesbians;

• drawing upon Christian belief to support the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the ‘moral community’ which is understood as encompassing the entire nation;

• referring to an unspecified morality, often invoking family values to argue for the exclusion or subordination of gays and lesbians. [emphasis added]

To the EU, any expression of the belief–including religious belief–that homoerotic activity is immoral or contrary to the health and integrity of the family and the larger community constitutes hate speech. Chew on that subversive idea for a while.

What do “progressive” leaders of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft view as evidence of hatred? What do they view as evidence of intolerance? Do they view expressions of disapproval of homoerotic activity or relationships as evidence of hatred or intolerance that should be banned? Do they view condemnation of the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages” as evidence of hatred or intolerance of those who believe differently and act in accordance with those beliefs? Do they view criticism of leftist assumptions about gender-dysphoria as hateful and intolerant?

To tolerate means to put up with or endure something objectionable. It does not mean approving of all actions or ideas or refraining from criticism of actions or ideas. And hatred of pernicious ideas does not constitute hatred of persons who espouse those ideas. Will this newly formed alliance of speech vigilantes make these distinctions? Doubtful.

Rather, it appears that in the service of expunging from the global public square ideas leftists don’t like, this alliance will, with Comstockian fervor, whitewash the Internet.