How the World’s Energy Problem Has Been Hidden

We live in a world where words are very carefully chosen. Companies hire public relations firms to give just the right “spin” to what they are saying. Politicians make statements which suggest that everything is going well. Newspapers would like their advertisers to be happy; they certainly won’t suggest that the automobile you purchase today may be of no use to you in five years.

I believe that what has happened in recent years is that the “truth” has become very dark. We live in a finite world; we are rapidly approaching limits of many kinds. For example, there is not enough fresh water for everyone, including agriculture and businesses. This inadequate water supply is now tipping over into inadequate food supply in quite a few places because irrigation requires fresh water. This problem is, in a sense, an energy problem, because adding more irrigation requires more energy supplies used for digging deeper wells or making desalination plants. We are reaching energy scarcity issues not too different from those of World War I, World War II and the Depression Era between the wars.

We now live in a strange world filled with half-truths, not too different from the world of the 1930s. US newspapers leave out the many stories that could be written about rising food insecurity around the world, and even in the US. We see more reports of conflicts among countries and increasing gaps between the rich and the poor, but no one explains that such changes are to be expected when energy consumption per capita starts falling too low.

The majority of people seem to believe that all of these problems can be fixed simply by increasingly taxing the rich and using the proceeds to help the poor. They also believe that the biggest problem we are facing is climate change. Very few are even aware of the food scarcity problems occurring in many parts of the world already.

Our political leaders started down the wrong path long ago, when they chose to rely on economists rather than physicists. The economists created the fiction that the economy could expand endlessly, even with falling energy supplies. The physicists understood that the economy requires energy for growth, but didn’t really understand the financial system, so they weren’t in a position to explain which parts of economic theory were incorrect. Even as the true story becomes increasingly clear, politicians stick to their belief that our only energy problem is the possibility of using too much fossil fuel, with the result of rising world temperatures and disrupted weather patterns. This can be interpreted as a relatively distant problem that can be corrected over a fairly long future period.

In this post, I will explain why it appears to me that, right now, we are dealing with an energy problem as severe as that which seems to have led to World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression. We really need a solution to our energy problems right now, not in the year 2050 or 2100. Scientists modeled the wrong problem: a fairly distant energy problem which would be associated with high energy prices. The real issue is a very close-at-hand energy shortage problem, associated with relatively low energy prices. It should not be surprising that the solutions scientists have found are mostly absurd, given the true nature of the problem we are facing.

[1] There is a great deal of confusion with respect to which energy problem we are dealing with. Are we dealing with a near-at-hand problem featuring inadequate prices for producers or a more distant problem featuring high prices for consumers? It makes a huge difference in finding a solution, if any.

Business leaders would like us to believe that the problem to be concerned with is a fairly distant one: climate change. In fact, this is the problem most scientists are working on. There is a common misbelief that fossil fuel prices will jump to high levels if they are in short supply. These high prices will allow the extraction of a huge amount of coal, oil and natural gas from the ground. The rising prices will also allow high-priced alternatives to become competitive. Thus, it makes sense to start down the long road of trying to substitute “renewables” for fossil fuels.

If business leaders had stopped to look at the history of coal depletion, they would have discovered that expecting high prices when energy limits are encountered is incorrect. The issue that really happens is a wage problem: too many workers discover that their wages are too low. Indirectly, these low-wage workers need to cut back on purchases of goods of many types, including coal to heat workers’ homes. This loss of purchasing power tends to hold coal prices down to a level that is too low for producers. We can see this situation if we look at the historical problems with coal depletion in the UK and in Germany.

Coal played an outsized role in the time leading up to, and including, World War II.

Figure 1. Figure by author describing peak coal timing.

History shows that as early coal mines became depleted, the number of hours of labor required to extract a given amount of coal tended to rise significantly. This happened because deeper mines were needed, or mines were needed in areas where there were only thin coal seams. The problem owners of mines experienced was that coal prices did not rise enough to cover their higher labor costs, related to depletion. The issue was really that prices fell too low for coal producers.

Owners of mines found that they needed to cut the wages of miners. This led to strikes and lower coal production. Indirectly, other coal-using industries, such as iron production and bread baking, were adversely affected, leading these industries to cut jobs and wages, as well. In a sense, the big issue was growing wage disparity, because many higher-wage workers and property owners were not affected.

Today, the issue we see is very similar, especially when we look at wages worldwide, because markets are now worldwide. Many workers around the world have very low wages, or no wages at all. As a result, the number of workers worldwide who can afford to purchase goods that require large amounts of oil and coal products for their manufacture and operation, such as vehicles, tends to fall. For example, peak sales of private passenger automobile, worldwide, occurred in 2017. With fewer auto sales (as well as fewer sales of other high-priced goods), it is difficult to keep oil and coal prices high enough for producers. This is very similar to the problems of the 1914 to 1945 era.

Everything that I can see indicates that we are now reaching a time that is parallel to the period between 1914 and 1945. Conflict is one of the major things that a person would expect because each country wants to protect its jobs. Each country also wants to add new jobs that pay well.

In a period parallel to the 1914 to 1945 period, we can also expect pandemics. This happens because the many poor people often cannot afford adequate diets, making them more susceptible to diseases that are easily transmitted. In the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1919, more than 50 million people worldwide died. The equivalent number with today’s world population would be about 260 million. This hugely dwarfs the 3.2 million COVID-19 deaths around the world that we have experienced to date.

[2] If we look at growth in energy supply, relative to the growth in population, precisely the same type of “squeeze” is occurring now as was occurring in the 1914 to 1945 period. This squeeze particularly affects coal and oil supplies.

Figure 2. The sum of red and blue areas on the chart represent average annual world energy consumption growth by 10-year periods. Blue areas represent average annual population growth percentages during these 10-year periods. The red area is determined by subtraction. It represents the amount of energy consumption growth that is “left over” for growth in people’s standards of living. Chart by Gail Tverberg using energy data from Vaclav Smil’s estimates shown in Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects, together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent years.

The chart above is somewhat complex. It looks at how quickly energy consumption has been growing historically, over ten-year periods (sum of red and blue areas). This amount is divided into two parts. The blue area shows how much of this growth in energy consumption was required to provide food, housing and transportation to the growing world population, based on the standards at that time. The red area shows how much growth in energy consumption was “left over” for growth in the standard of living, such as better roads, more vehicles, and nicer homes. Note that GDP growth is not shown in the chart. It likely corresponds fairly closely to total energy consumption growth.

Figure 3, below, shows energy consumption by type of fuel between 1820 and 2010. From this, it is clear that the world’s energy consumption was tiny back in 1820, when most of the world’s energy came from burned biomass. Even at that time, there was a huge problem with deforestation.

Figure 3. World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects and together with BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy data for 1965 and subsequent years. (Wind and solar are included with biofuels.)

Clearly, the addition of coal, starting shortly after 1820, allowed huge changes in the world economy. But by 1910, this growth in coal consumption was flattening out, leading quite possibly to the problems of the 1914-1945 era. The growth in oil consumption after World War II allowed the world economy to recover. Natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear have been added in recent years, as well, but the amounts have been less significant than those of coal and oil.

We can see how coal and oil have dominated growth in energy supplies in other ways, as well. This is a chart of energy supplies, with a projection of expected energy supplies through 2021 based on estimates of the IEA’s Global Energy Review 2021.

Figure 4. World energy consumption by fuel. Data through 2019 based on information from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. Amounts for 2020 and 2021 based on percentage change estimates from IEA’s Global Energy Review 2021.

Oil supplies became a problem in the 1970s. There was briefly a dip in the demand for oil supplies as the world switched from burning oil to the use of other fuels in applications where this could easily be done, such as producing electricity and heating homes. Also, private passenger automobiles became smaller and more fuel efficient. There has been a continued push for fuel efficiency since then. In 2020, oil consumption was greatly affected by the reduction in personal travel associated with the COVID-19 epidemic.

Figure 4, above, shows that world coal consumption has been close to flat since about 2012. This is also evident in Figure 5, below.

Figure 5. World coal production by part of the world, based on data of BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, 2020.

Figure 5 shows that coal production for the United States and Europe has been declining for a very long time, since about 1988. Before China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, its coal production grew at a moderate pace. After joining the WTO in 2001, China’s coal production grew very rapidly for about 10 years. In about 2011, China’s coal production leveled off, leading to the leveling of world coal production.

Figure 6 shows that recently, growth in the sum of oil and coal consumption has been lagging total energy consumption.

Figure 6. Three-year average annual increase in oil and coal consumption versus three-year average increase in total energy consumption, based on a combination of BP data through 2019 from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010 and IEA’s 2020 and 2021 percentage change forecasts, from its Global Energy Review 2021.

We can see from Figure 6 that the only recent time when oil and coal supplies grew faster than energy consumption in total was during a brief period between 2002 and 2007. More recently, oil and coal consumption has been increasingly lagging total energy consumption. For both coal and oil, the problem has been that low prices for producers cause producers to voluntarily drop out of coal or oil production. The reason for this is two-fold: (1) With less oil (or coal) production, perhaps prices might rise, making production more profitable, and (2) Unprofitable oil (or coal) production isn’t really satisfactory for producers.

When determining the required level of profitability for these fuels, there is a need to include the tax revenue that governments require in order to maintain adequate services. This is especially the case with oil exporters, but it is also true in general. Energy products, to be useful, produce an energy surplus that can be used to benefit the rest of the economy. The way that this energy surplus can be transferred to the rest of the economy is by paying relatively high taxes. These taxes allow changes that aid economic growth, such as improvements in roads and schools.

If energy prices are chronically too low (so that an energy product requires a subsidy, rather than paying taxes), this is a sign that the energy product is most likely an energy “sink.” Such a product acts in the direction of pulling the economy down through ever-lower productivity.

[3] Governments have chosen to focus on preventing climate change because, in theory, the changes that are needed to prevent climate change seem to be the same ones needed to cover the contingency of “running out.” The catch is that the indicated changes don’t really work in the scarcity situation we are already facing.

It turns out that the very fuels that we seem to be running out of (coal and oil) are the very ones most associated with high carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, focusing on climate change seems to please everyone. Those who were concerned that we could keep extracting fossil fuels for hundreds of years and, because of this, completely ruin the climate, would be happy. Those who were concerned about running out of fossil fuels would be happy, as well. This is precisely the kind of solution that politicians prefer.

The catch is that we used coal and oil first because, in a very real sense, they are the “best” fuels for our needs. All of the other fuels, even natural gas, are in many senses inferior. Natural gas has the problem that it is very expensive to transport and store. Also, methane, which makes up the majority of natural gas, is itself a gas that contributes to global warming. It tends to leak from pipelines and from ships attempting to transport it. Thus, it is doubtful that it is much better from a global warming perspective than coal or oil.

So-called renewable fuels tend to be very damaging to the environment in ways other than CO2 emissions. This point is made very well in the new book Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert. It makes the point that renewable fuels are not an attempt to save the environment. Instead, they are trying to save our current industrial civilization using approaches that tend to destroy the environment. Cutting down forests, even if new trees are planted in their place, is especially detrimental. Alice Friedemann, in her new book, Life after Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Fuels, points out the high cost of these alternatives and their dependence on fossil fuel energy.

We are right now in a huge scarcity situation which is starting to cause conflicts of many kinds. Even if there were a way of producing these types of alternative energy cheaply enough, they are coming far too late and in far too small quantities to make a difference. They also don’t match up with our current coal and oil uses, adding a layer of time and expense for conversion that needs to be included in any model.

[4] What we really have is a huge conflict problem due to inadequate energy supplies for today’s world population. The powers that be are trying to hide this problem by publishing only their preferred version of the truth.

The situation that we are really facing is one that often goes under the name of “collapse.” It is a problem that many civilizations have faced in the past when a given population has outgrown its resource base.

Needless to say, the issue of collapse is not a story any politician wants to tell its citizens. Instead, we are told over and over, “Everything is fine. Any energy problem will be handled by the solutions scientists are finding.” The catch is that scientists were not told the correct problem to solve. They were told about a distant problem. To make the problem easier to solve, high prices and subsidies seemed to be acceptable. The problem they were asked to solve is very different from our real energy problem today.

Many people think that taxing the rich and giving the proceeds to the poor can solve our problem, but this doesn’t really solve the problem for a couple of reasons. One of the issues is that our scarcity issue is really a worldwide problem. Higher taxation of the rich in a few rich countries does nothing for the many problems of poor people in countries such as Lebanon, Yemen, Venezuela and India. Furthermore, taking money from the rich doesn’t really fix scarcity problems. Rich people don’t really eat a vastly disproportionate amount of food or drink more water, for example.

A detail that most of us don’t think about is that the military of many different countries has been very much aware of the potential conflict situation that is now occurring. They are aware that a “hot war” would require huge use of fossil fuel energy, so they have been trying to find alternative approaches. One approach military groups have been working on is the use of bioweapons of various kinds. In fact, some groups might even contemplate starting a pandemic. Another approach that might be used is computer viruses to disrupt the systems of other countries.

Needless to say, the powers that be do not want the general population to hear about issues of these kinds. We find ourselves with narrower and narrower news reports that provide only the version of the truth that politicians and news media want us to read. Citizens who have developed the view, “All I need to do to find out the truth is read my home town newspaper,” are likely to encounter more and more surprises, as conflict situations escalate.

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Financial Implications and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,882 Responses to How the World’s Energy Problem Has Been Hidden

  1. Fast Eddy says:

    Seychelles brings back curbs despite vaccination success

    The Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated over 60% of its population against Covid-19, is bringing back restrictions amid a rise in cases.

    The archipelago of nearly 100,000 people recorded close to 500 new cases in the three days to 1 May and has about 1,000 active cases.

    A third of the active cases involved people who had had two vaccine doses, the country’s news agency said.

    The rest had either had a single dose or were unvaccinated.

    Schools have been closed and sports activities cancelled for two weeks. Bars, restaurants and shops are to close early and some gatherings have been banned.

    “Despite all the exceptional efforts we are making, the Covid-19 situation in our country is critical right now with many daily cases reported last week,” Health Minister Peggy Vidot told a press conference on Tuesday.



    • The Seychelles used vaccines that supposedly had reasonably good rates of preventing COVID-19. One was a Chinese type, the other was AstraZeneca. It is terribly difficult to get the number of cases down to zero and keep it there.

      The other article is written by someone who survived a year of lawlessness in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. He gives quite a few interesting tips.

    • Darrell says:

      With a world population headed to 9 billion by 2050 one would think scarcity concerns were at the top of the heap of world concerns. It seems every element on the periodic chart is going to be in short supply if we keep taking them all from the ground and putting them into high rises, or two ton vehicles. Downsizing is possible, we all don’t need to drive 2 ton cars.

      It’s definitely a complex puzzle to understand cause and effect of all of these things, but energy is the one thing we have that is nearly limitless. Einstein explained this clearly, and electrons are just as abundant today as they were yesterday. I believe it is a mistake to equate less energy consumption as negative. It represents the fact we have shifted from the era of the industrial revolution to the new era of technology revolution. Everything we do is now more efficient and requires less energy. Our laptops are 10 times as powerful as the computers from 20 years ago, yet they use half the energy. Our lightbulbs just as good, use 1/6th the energy. Our cars get 30mpg instead of 15, and battery powered cars are 4x as efficient as gas powered vehicles when looking at energy consumption per mile driven. This technology revolution is flowing into all sectors of industry and society. It’s the reason consumption of energy is going down per person. At the same time, productivity is increasing across the globe as are living standards and world GDP. This implies improvement, but does not eliminate the fact some / many don’t have access to food, water, housing.

      Will things get bad because of scarcities of other resources, water, food. Quite possibly, but it won’t because of a shortage of energy. Energy will continue to do more for less for the foreseeable future. Cheaper than ever in history, produced with just sun or wind, available to almost anyone anywhere to be harnessed for productive use.

      9 billion is a lot of people. But economics deals with scarcity just as well as it deals with abundance. It does not resolve inequities. The impacts from scarcity for water, food, etc., are real and could get worse. Unfortunately they are tied to things out of most people’s control, where you were born and politics and the fact that human frailty includes selfishness and lack of empathy for those we are not familiar to us.

  2. StarvingLion says:

    Massive Oil Shortages are imminent in the USA later this year.

    Will require permanent WTI > 85. but anything above WTI 65 = Thermodynamic failure.

    Will crash the housing bubble. Will crash the STock Market.

    Hence the lethal jabs and martial law lockdowns.

    Look at Vancouver gasoline prices. Very near 11 year high now.

    • Maybe, or maybe not. It could be that parts of the economic system break. Lots of debt defaults. These lead to job layoffs. Or they lead to banks cutting off lending, which also leads to layoffs and lower oil prices. Economists have tended to model the situation incorrectly because they don’t understand the connection of higher oil prices reducing jobs.

    • D. Stevens says:

      Peak-Oilers have been making these predictions for many years. I wouldn’t hold my breath. Someday it might come true but like they say predictions are tough; especially about the future.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Yep – and now that can kicking has ended … and it has arrived… and you are about to be put to death — to save you from suffering that would come with an uncontrolled collapse of civilization due to peak oil.

        When you are on your death bed — remember what I just told you.

        Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns. Financial Times.

        A fracking binge in the American shale industry has permanently damaged the country’s oil and gas reserves, threatening hopes for a production recovery and US energy independence, according to one of the sector’s top investors.

        Wil VanLoh, chief executive of Quantum Energy Partners, a private equity firm that through its portfolio companies is the biggest US driller after ExxonMobil, said too much fracking had “sterilised a lot of the reservoir in North America”.

        “That’s the dirty secret about shale,” Mr VanLoh told the Financial Times, noting wells had often been drilled too closely to one another. “What we’ve done for the last five years is we’ve drilled the heart out of the watermelon.”

        Soaring shale production in recent years took US crude output to 13m barrels a day this year and brought a rise in oil exports, allowing President Donald Trump to proclaim an era of “American energy dominance”.

        Total US oil reserves have more than doubled since the start of the century as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling unleashed reserves previously considered out of reach.

        But the pandemic-induced crash, which sent US crude prices to less than zero in April, has devastated a shale patch that was already out of favor with Wall Street for its failure to generate profits, even while it made the country the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.

        The number of operating rigs has collapsed by more than 60% since the start of the year. US output is now about 11m barrels a day, according to the US Energy Information Administration, or 15% less than the peak.

        “Even if we wanted to, I don’t think we could get much above 13m” barrels a day, Mr VanLoh said. “I don’t think it’s physically possible, because we’ve messed up so much reservoir. I would argue that what the US was touting three or four years ago, in theoretical deliverability, is nowhere close to what we think it is now.”

        He said operators had carried out “massive fracks” that created “artificial, permanent porosity”, inadvertently reducing the pressure in reservoirs and therefore the available oil.

        The comments will cause alarm in the shale patch, given the crucial role of investors such as QEP in financing the onshore American oil business.

  3. JMS says:

    The fact that a master of logic and common sense can be seen as a comedian says something about the average intelligence of Homo Interneticus.

    • George Carlin tells us that our immune system needs germs to practice on. He says he swam in raw sewage as a child, and this strengthened his immune system. He would pick up food off the floor and eat it. He also doesn’t necessarily wash his hands every time he uses the bathroom. A person doesn’t need to bathe every day either.

      He is funny in telling this, however.

  4. Ed says:

    I want to travel to Norway. Is there any category not mRNA I can use to get a EU vax passport?

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      go to Russia first, get the Sputnik jab, then on to Norway?

      • Ed says:

        David, I would be happy to do this but my understanding is EU does not accept Sputnik as valid. I think I can get Sputnik in the libertarian nation of Mexico (go figure).

    • Christopher says:

      Go to Sweden, then cross the border to Norway illegaly. More adventure that way, could be almost like the heroes from the Telemark.

  5. Pingback: How the World’s Energy Problem Has Been Hidden –

  6. nikoB says:

    Excellent post today by Tom Murphy

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      “We can cosplay our way to Mars as a stunt, but to what end? I immensely enjoyed an article by Shannon Stirone in The Atlantic titled Mars is a Hellhole, accurately describing why Mars ambitions are juvenile.”

    • Yes, Tom Murphy does have an excellent post out. Tom Murphy, for those of you who don’t know him, is a physics professor at the University of California, San Diego. For a short time, he wrote very fine posts regularly. In this post, Tom talks about his philosophy of limits of a finite world and sort of outlines the new book he has written, “Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Limit: Assessing and Adapting to Planetary Limits.”

      This book is available as a free PDF download at this site.

      This book is intended as a text book, published under a creative commons license.

      • Sam says:

        Interesting how he gets attacked by commenting on the truth from his comment section. I get that same angry response from people as well

    • Fast Eddy says:


  7. MG says:

    The result of this hidden energy problem is s horror-like zombification. And the world where the zombies are controlled by the virus.

    • MM says:

      They have been programmed to go this way as the Dynasties have been programmed to go for securing of status and we have been programmed for “LaLa Land”.
      There is nothing to worry about it!
      “Them” will die, others will survive.
      Eaten alive? wonderfull!

    • Robert Firth says:

      Obligatory reference: “High School of the Dead”. Complete with psychotic Japanese kendo schoolgirls wearing insanely short skirts. And they’re the good guys.

  8. MM says:

    Last post for today:


  9. MM says:

    Look, sorry guys.
    We are not discussing the issue.
    You are mad, we are mad.

    It simply does not make any sense at all to post deaths, Events. No.

    Things that must happen, will happen. Cruel? well. sorry.

    I thank Gail for putting “us” back on the rails. everything and everybody else: Bye Bye.

  10. MM says:

    Taste someting else of 1980 :
    lyrics? Your Job. Info my Job.
    Wlle done.

    Go “Long” time ago
    Do not tell me that you are surpised.
    If you are? Well, you might be in for more. Enjoy!

  11. MM says:

    Song: Fehlfarbem, Angst. (1980)
    lyrics. You go.
    I know. 🙂

    Oh those Germans!

    • JMS says:

      Much better krautrock, IMO, and with lyrics very appropriate for certain late stage scenarios of IC collapse: The Sad Skinhead!

      “Apart from all the bad times you gave me
      I always felt good with you
      Going places, smashing faces
      what else could we do?
      Apart from all the good times I gave you
      you always felt bad with me
      Going places, smashing faces
      what else could have happened to us?”

  12. Jarle says:

    Ok, let us play “peak oil production where you come from”, I’ll go first:

    Norway: 2001.

    20 years ago now and we’re way down from the top …

    • Jarle says:

      PS Real oil, not phony shale et al!

    • I looked to see if I could find any countries with increasing oil production through 2020 based on EIA data (crude and condensate).

      Bolivia 60,161 barrels per day
      Brazil 2,939,950 bpd
      Ghana (not quite level with 2019, but going up before) 199,467 bpd
      Guyana 83,174 bpd
      Qatar 1,530,000 bpd
      South Sudan 162,475 bpd
      Turkey 61,757 bpd

      This is not a lot.

      The US was as close as any, with production up through 2019. Kazakhstan was also close, with production rising through 2019. Iraq showed a 13.5% fall in 2020, which was more than I expected.

      • Sam says:

        What do you think of the Namibian oil find by the Canadian company…?

        • The oil find in Namibia is about 12 billion barrels. It is onshore, so probably easier to develop than the many offshore fields. This is a link to an article.

          The total quantity of oil corresponds to close to 5 months’ worth of the world’s oil production/consumption.

          If production is spread out over a 10 year period, it might provide 3.3 million barrels a day. Taxes are always the biggest expense, but since Namibia has not grown up on this oil, perhaps taxes are not the biggest issue.

          It would be a nice addition to the world’s supply, but I suspect it would not start up for at least a couple of years, perhaps longer.

          World oil production (crude and condensate) was down 6 million barrels a day from 2019. It was down a bit farther from its peak in 2018. This find won’t solve all of our problems, but it might be helpful if it can be developed inexpensively enough.

    • Bei Dawei says:

      Taiwan: Never had any.

  13. Pandemic impacts coal offtake from Coal India’s mines

    Offtake from Coal India Ltd (CIL) fell more than a fifth in April as the second wave of the pandemic left several contract workers battling the deadly infection.

    The fuel offtake from India’s largest coal miner fell to 54.13 million tonnes (mt) last month as against a target of 68.89 mt.

    This dip in offtake has led the coal ministry to closely monitor the situation to ensure availability of the fossil fuel at thermal plants across the country given coal is the mainstay of India’s power generation mix.

    “It is true that some of the contractual workers involved in offtake were covid affected,” a Coal India official said in an emailed response. “Supplies in April ’21 could have been higher but for the resurgence of second wave of Covid pandemic. But, despite that April ’21 supplies were 3.3% more compared with a covid-free April ’19. In fact, this year’s April offtake is 6.1% higher compared with April of FY18-19, the year when CIL recorded its highest-ever coal offtake,” the official added.

    Coal India has a total of 259,000 employees and 83,000 contract workers. The official said 5,470 employees, and their families, have been affected by the pandemic in addition to 122 contract workers.

    “On the back of a 99.33 MTs coal stock, at the beginning of the fiscal, CIL is geared up to meet any demand spurt from power sector,” he further said.

    • It doesn’t sound like coal production is doing terribly badly. As you quote, “April ’21 supplies were 3.3% more compared with a covid-free April ’19.” India may still be a ways from “peak coal.” According to BP, India’s call production was down a little in 2019 relative to 2018. But maybe production is doing fairly well in 2021, apart from the epidemic. There tends to be a bumpy plateau in coal production, before production falls. Perhaps India is hitting such a plateau.

  14. As clock ticks down on Enbridge’s Line 5, anxiety grows in Sarnia and Michigan

    Enbridge vows to defy order that comes into force next week in move lawyers say will make case more difficult to argue in courts

    CALGARY — For Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, the impending shutdown of a pipeline that supplies fuel to his city’s biggest employers has been “hovering” for seven months.

    That anxiety has been steadily building ahead of a deadline this month imposed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for Enbridge Inc. to shut down its Line 5 pipeline, which crosses through Michigan, where it delivers more than half of the state’s propane needs, en route to deliver oil to Ontario, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    In November, Whitmer cancelled the easement that allows Enbridge’s pipeline to pass under the straits and provided a deadline of May 12 to shut the line down. Enbridge, for its part, has vowed to defy the order that comes into force next week in a move that lawyers say will make its case more difficult to argue in state and federal courts.

    The two sides are currently in mediation and there is the potential that this fight turns into a national dispute between Canada and the U.S., leaving communities like Sarnia largely powerless in an entrenched environmental fight that could imperil thousands of existing jobs.

    • Ed says:

      Whitmer is one of the hard core Moaists out for as much destruction as possible.

    • Ed says:

      Enbridge defies, Whitmer sends in her troops turns off the valves and dynamites the line? At least Greta will be happy.

      • Robert Firth says:

        The troops are far more likely to turn off Whitmer rather than let their friends and families freeze.

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      “… shut down its Line 5 pipeline, which crosses through Michigan, where it delivers more than half of the state’s propane needs.” Okay MI go ahead and live on half of your propane needs.

    • The paragraphs that struck me were:

      Legal experts contacted by the Financial Post say the best case scenario for Canada is to reach a diplomatic resolution to the problem, but the federal government does have additional legal options including recourse to the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty between the two countries if diplomatic talks fail.

      The treaty states that “no public authority in the territory of either party shall institute any measures… which are intended to, or which would have the effect of, impeding, diverting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit.”

      It is not clear that Gov. Whitmer has any legal standing in this at all. The situation is governed by a US-Canada treaty.

  15. Federal Judge Overturns CDC’s Eviction Moratorium

    The CDC under the Biden administration had sought to extend the eviction moratorium through June 30.

    D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled on the side of the plaintiffs, who alleged that the CDC overstepped its authority by extending the eviction moratorium — which was first included in the March CARES Act passed by Congress — to all residential properties nationwide.

    “The pandemic has triggered difficult policy decisions that have had enormous real-world consequences. The nationwide eviction moratorium is one such decision,” Friedrich writes in an opinion.

    “It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic.”

    “The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.”

  16. The bar that constitutes a recovery keeps getting lower and lower. It’s so low now that a 2% annualized increase in GDP since 2019 (using CBO projections) is now causing end of cycle inflation hysteria. The irony of bailing out the economy without allowing any deleveraging is that it truncates the length of the new cycle, because bottlenecks typically associated with the end of the cycle manifest instantaneously in the *new* cycle.

    On the other hand we could just be honest and acknowledge that this is STILL the longest cycle in U.S. history now running on record stimulus.

    “The ISM survey’s measure of prices paid by manufacturers rose last month to the highest reading since July 2008, when the economy was in the midst of the Great Recession. That bolsters expectations for higher inflation this year”

    Of course July 2008 was the end of the cycle. Back then economists expected inflation to worsen but when the Great Crash of 2008 took place, the exact opposite occurred.

    First off, as I pointed out on Twitter, the reason there is so much “inflation” hysteria is because the middle class has been obliterated and therefore small price increases have outsized impact on household budgets. It’s a poverty trap in which wages can never rise because inflation hawks immediately call for higher interest rates to quash the recovery. They have a well brainwashed populace taught to believe that prices at Walmart can only go down, never up. The virtuous circle of rising wages and rising output/productivity that created the middle class in the first place cannot exist under this current paradigm. Likewise, amid record debt, small increases in interest rates have outsized impact on credit markets. In other words, this is a Mr. Creosote economy. Always only a wafer thin mint away from exploding.

  17. Herbie R Ficklestein says:

    Soaring amounts of key minerals used in clean energy tech are needed to fight climate change, but costs and supply risks could create big headwinds, a new International Energy Agency analysis finds.

    Why it matters: “Today’s mineral supply and investment plans fall short of what is needed to transform the energy sector, raising the risk of delayed or more expensive energy transitions,” IEA warns.

    Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.

    The big picture: Growth in solar and wind, electric vehicles, stationary battery storage and other grid technologies will require much more lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, graphite, rare earth elements and more.

    That’s especially true for clean tech deployment on a scale consistent with the goals of the Paris climate deal.

    Though it varies by mineral, aggregate demand quadruples over two decades in IEA’s “Sustainable Development Scenario.” That’s an energy system model that keeps temperature rise well below 2°C.

    But new supply projects have a considerable time lag and are often accompanied by price volatility.

    The intrigue: “An even faster transition, to hit net-zero [emissions] globally by 2050, would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today,” IEA finds.

    Threat level: Rapid scale-up of clean energy could face “huge questions” about commodity reliability, availability and prices that could slow cost declines and create bottlenecks.

    For instance, a doubling of lithium and nickel costs could offset all projected cost declines from a doubling of battery production.

    “[I]n a scenario consistent with climate goals, expected supply from existing mines and projects under construction is estimated to meet only half of projected lithium and cobalt requirements and 80% of copper needs by 2030,” IEA said.

    Data: IEA; Chart: Sara Wise/Axios

    Another part of the new IEA report shows the geographic concentration of mineral production and processing — as you can see it’s very different than fossil fuel distribution.

    • Robert Firth says:

      “The big picture: Growth in solar and wind, electric vehicles, stationary battery storage and other grid technologies will require much more lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, graphite, rare earth elements and more.”

      None of which can be extracted with “clean” energy. All of which require hugely polluting technology driven by fossil fuel. In other words, the Green Revolution is a major pollution source, and almost certainly an energy sink.

  18. Health Canada authorizes Pfizer vaccine for adolescents

    Health Canada offered parents anxious about their unvaccinated children some hope today by clearing the Pfizer product for use in people as young as 12 years old.

    After reviewing clinical trial data submitted by the New York-based company last month, regulators have determined the mRNA shot is safe to use in people 12 to 15 years of age, down from the previous cutoff of 16.

    Pfizer is the first product to be authorized for use in this younger age category. The three other products authorized for use in Canada — AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna — can only be used in people over the age of 18, for now.

    Pfizer Reaps Massive Profits From Vaccine

    • Fast Eddy says:

      It seems like i just read the other day that they had begun testing on children…. amazing how quickly they completed that!

      And people will not question this .. because …. they are …. _______________.

  19. I noticed this Med Page Today article:

    Judge Orders Hospital to Give COVID Patient Ivermectin
    — Drug to be given to comatose Illinois patient after docs refused

    “‘Why wouldn’t this be tried if she’s not improving?'” the Tribune quoted Judge Orel as saying during a court hearing. “‘Why does the hospital object to providing this medication? If someone has been in the ICU for a month and not improving, why would the hospital not consider another medication?'”

    Desareta Fype learned of the drug after reading about its use in another COVID-19 patient in the Buffalo News, the Tribune reported. That story detailed how, after a judge ordered Western New York’s Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital to give 80-year-old Judith Smentkiewicz ivermectin, her family and attorneys believed the drug saved her life.

    • shirl n dave says:

      Hi Gail many many thanks for providing such amazing info. We have lurked here for months and are regularly blown away with your knowledge and insights. Of equal interest are the comments left by your followers which have enabled us to collate a vast array of info.

      We have something to share with you today relating to CV19 jab. We are hesitant and have deferred the jab so far, but have now decided it is highly unlikely that we will have it.

      It’s a paper by Doctors For Covid Ethics and there are loads of links to references to back up their claims…very sobering reading.

      COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

      Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

      In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

      • Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.1

      • Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.

      • Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

      The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

      1. The vaccines are unnecessary

      1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold coronaviruses [1,3–10]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.

      2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.

      3. The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates [12–15]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others [16]. In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control [17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.

      4. In most countries, most people will now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.

      5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally [20–22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.

      6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [23–27]. These drugs include many tried and true antiinflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support [24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside [28]. The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available” [29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.

      2. The vaccines lack efficacy

      1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low. Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.

      2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding vaccine efficacy.

      3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it [30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA [31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.

      4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against Covid-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population” [32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.

      3. The vaccines are dangerous

      1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.

      2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg” [34]: The vaccines are not safe.

      3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years [35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

      Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [36–38]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19—the vaccines are not safe.

      4. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361 [42] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation [29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes the journal Vaccine reports that, “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants” [32]. With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that, “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles [35], antibody-dependent enhancement [43–46] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated [47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues [48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who use them or authorise their use.

      5. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.

      In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target—the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system. With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.

      4. Ethics and legal points to consider

      1. Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.

      2. Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.

      3. Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.

      4. All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.

      1. Le Bert, N. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457-462
      2. Tarke, A. et al. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x
      3. Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients.
      4. Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies.
      5. Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463
      6. Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15
      7. Mateus, J. et al. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. Science 370:89-94
      8. McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2.
      9. Palmer, S. et al. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982
      10. Sekine, T. et al. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158-168.e14
      11. Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.
      12. Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172-176
      13. Jefferson, T. et al. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x
      14. Borger, P. et al. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
      15. Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
      16. Cao, S. et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917
      17. Moghadas, S.M. et al. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513-17515
      18. Johansson, M.A. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057
      19. Yeadon, M. (2020) What SAGE got wrong.
      20. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x
      21. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x
      22. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation.
      23. Orient, J. et al. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.
      24. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517-530
      25. Procter, B.C. et al. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219-221
      26. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22
      27. Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.
      28. Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.
      29. Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators.
      30. Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty.
      31. Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
      32. Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746
      33. Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.
      34. Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021.
      35. Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.
      36. Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States—Most With High Vaccination Rates.
      37. Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.
      38. Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854
      39. Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler.
      40. Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes.
      41. Furer, V. et al. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x
      42. Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations.
      43. Tseng, C. et al. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421
      44. Bolles, M. et al. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201-15
      45. Weingartl, H. et al. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672-6
      46. Czub, M. et al. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273-9
      47. Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627
      48. Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger.

  20. Dr. Scott Gottlieb: We gonna have to market Covid vaccine more aggressively to the remaining people

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Haha… if someone offers me the jab when I walk into a grocery store… they better be prepared for a Vitriolic Response

  21. From Mind Control To Viruses: How The Government Keeps Experimenting On Its Citizens

    The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

    This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

    This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

    Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

    Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.

    These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike.

    For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments.

    Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.

    As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation’s health and security and a menace to freedom.

    This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

    • Ed says:


    • Fast Eddy says:

      And yet… AND YET…. people still vote hahahahahaha…. Dunces

    • Fast Eddy says:

      You deserve to be experimented on … if you are so MOREONIC as to vote when it makes ZERO difference who you vote for.

      I’d rather see MOREONS and CovIDIOTS experimented on than animals….

      I suspect this is how the Elders justify this stuff…. a MOREON to them is like a cockroach to the MOREONS.

    • Thierry says:

      Good synthesis, though you need some background to appreciate it fully.

  22. Ed says:

    Maybe it is time to get serious about CV19. The one way to be sure a citizen does not get nor give CV19 is to kill the citizen. A dead citizen is a safe citizen. It is time to kill all citizens stop the surge, make Bill and Fauci happy, it is the patriotic thing to do.

    • Yorchichan says:

      Reminds me of the joke (?) about the North Korean live covid case count:
      09:58 1
      09:59 0
      10:34 1
      10:35 0
      12:00 1
      12:01 0

    • Cynic says:

      Not only is a dead citizen a safe citizen, comrade Ed: but a dead citizen cannot file a severe adverse reaction report or make a video.

      This massively increases vaccine confidence!

      Thank you for bringing your critical thinking to this issue, and for following the science!

  23. Top Australian general warns of ‘high likelihood’ of war with China

    One of Australia’s top generals reportedly told troops there was a “high likelihood” of war with China in a leaked briefing last year.

    One of Australia’s top generals reportedly told troops there was a “high likelihood” of war with China in a leaked briefing last year.

    Major-General Adam Findlay gave the candid and confidential briefing to Australia’s special forces soldiers last year, according to a report in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday.

    General Findlay, who has since stepped down but still advises the Australian Defence Force, reportedly said that China was already engaged in “grey zone” warfare and that Australia must prepare for the “high likelihood” it could spill over into actual conflict.

    “Who do you reckon the main (regional) threat is?” General Findlay asked his troops and officers before answering: “China.”

    He continued: “OK, so if China is a threat, how many special forces brigades in China? You should know there are 26,000 Chinese SOF (Special Operations Forces) personnel.”

    It comes as Australia’s former chief of operations in Iraq says war with China is a genuine threat – and he warns Australia is not ready for what’s coming.

    • Ed says:

      Australia vs China LOL. China nukes the top 20 cities in Australia then how many SOF personnel would Australia have?

      • StarvingLion says:

        Isn’t it rather obvious that biological warfare is occurring because the FF war game (jets, tanks, ships, etc) has become insolvent and that nuke bombs don’t work at all?

    • Fast Eddy says:

      I am hoping this happens.

      It will make it ok for me to smack a few mainlanders in the head here in NZ.

      A little payback for this…

  24. Herbie R Ficklestein says:

    Activist Thunberg says global leaders still in denial over climate

    STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Politicians, including Sweden’s leaders, are still in denial over the threat from climate change, environmental activist Greta Thunberg said on Tuesday after meeting Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven.

    “We climate activists have had, I don’t know how many meetings with the people in power and it is, basically, the same discussion every time – there is a complete denial,” Thunberg told reporters after the meeting.

    “The sense of crisis is absolutely zero.”

    Greta sorry to tell ya, that’s not going to change…as Gail pointed out here numerous times, nothing really we can do about it with a world population the size nearing 8 billion souls…
    Oh, they will pretend to act with the upcoming world meeting and so called “clean energy” programs
    that amount to window dressing..Got to put up appearances. so the rabble think we are in charge of things..but like Gail over and over claims, it’s out of out hands…can’t wiggle out fundamentals of the make up of the natural world in the long run. Just stay calm and enjoy BAU today and play the hand you are dealt with the best you can….remember don’t take it personally, it’s not your fault..

    0h, chuckled at the peanut gallery jabbing Harry McGibbs was given yesterday. Seems we have an envious child that was acting out….thank you Harry for being a good sport and acting above the schoolyard antics.
    I realize your efforts are time consuming and with cost…you are a valuable contributor here.

    • Rusty says:

      I agree, Herbie, Sorry, Greta!! And, yes, Harry McGibb’s contributions are terrific!

    • Tim Groves says:

      Hey Greta, have you tried an SSRI?

      It would surely calm you down and you might put on a bit of weight too.

      They are made by the same pharmacological geniuses who make the COVID-19 vaccines you personally are promoting to people in the Third World.

  25. Mirror on the wall says:

    (war + green issues)

    Gail, you suggested that military conflict is more likely when there is not enough energy and stuff to go around, and you talked about how states use ‘green’ issues to orientate the masses to limited growth. There could yet be a connection between the two.

    Spiked has an interesting new article on how the British State is carving out a ‘green’ role for its military forces. The West has used the ‘moral’ pretext of ‘humanitarianism’ and the expansion of ‘democracy’ to ‘justify’ its military interventions in the post-Cold War era. It could next use ‘green’ issues as the pretext of belligerence.

    Spiked does not grasp finite world issues; it thinks that the world is still in a generic ‘post-Cold War era’, and that the ‘purpose’ of Western military interventions is to boost a domestic sense of purpose and moral authority, rather than any geostrategic ends – but I am not so sure.

    Other parts of the world are emerging as geostrategic ‘threats’ to USA global hegemony, and their rise is predicated on the use of energy and other natural resources – one could imagine a scenario in which the West uses ‘environmental concerns’ as a pretext of geostrategic war. “We are waging war on China/ whoever, not to protect USA hegemony, but to protect the planet!”

    Is that scenario any more far fetched than wars pretexted on ‘humanitarianism’ or ‘democracy’? It seems just as likely that the West would ‘weaponize’ ‘green’ issues, as just another ‘moral’ pretext for geostrategic belligerence.

    Western ‘diplomatic’ belligerence toward China is already pretexted on ‘moral’ concerns of ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘democracy’, and the use of ‘green’ issues to the same end would be an extension of the same ‘moralised’ strategy. The ‘environment’ is emerging as a global geostrategic focus, everyone is signing up to agreements – and future war on its pretext does seem conceivable.

    > Do we really want to go to war for the climate?

    The British defence establishment is spoiling to become the global climate police.

    Senior politicians and officials seem to be carving out a new green role for Britain’s armed forces and so-called ‘intelligence’ agencies. According to these reports, troops and spies could soon be doing Gaia’s work – protecting the Amazon from loggers, and covertly monitoring emissions from China’s factories and power stations.

    …. Then, this month, the new head of MI6, Richard Moore, described climate change as the ‘foremost international foreign-policy item for this country and for the planet’. The ‘climate emergency’, said Moore, gave MI6 a role in keeping tabs on Chinese manufacturing. ‘It is perhaps our job to make sure that what they are really doing reflects what they have signed up to.’

    Failed Conservative Party leader William Hague also riffed on the scenarios created by the Integrated Review. ‘In the past, the UK has been willing to use all of our firepower, both military and diplomatic, to secure and extract fossil fuels’ [that was candid], he wrote for the Policy Exchange think-tank. ‘But in the future, the UK will need to use all of its diplomatic capacity to ensure that these resources are not used and that natural environments are protected.’

    …. Yet what our establishment is essentially saying is that the reward for signing the deal is that Britain’s spies will be watching, and our armed forces will be standing ready to make sure you comply. Stay in your lane, emerging economies!

    …. Britain’s sudden embrace of green interventionism has echoes of the past failed foreign-policy doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’, which reached its peak in the Blair era. Humanitarian interventionism presupposed Britain’s moral superiority, but it quickly descended into interminable wars without objectives, unleashing forces that were even uglier than what it had promised to protect us from.

    …. Perhaps some smaller, oil-producing or deforesting nation will once again prove a convenient impediment to the green ethics now championed by Britain’s degenerate establishment. Some wag might claim that unless the trees are protected, London could be choked within 45 minutes. There is no shortage of dodgy climate dossiers.

    • Artleads says:

      Can there be different kinds of war? What about a war for common sense…or a war for aesthetics? A great deal of what destroys forests are roads, highways, train tracks. These must be straight, of maximum smoothness, enabling maximum speeds. But what’s the rush? What if it takes you three times as long to get there by twisting around the trees in the forests? What if you overnight at stops where you trade, reap some crops, meet future spouses? What if whereve you stopped was interesting and instructive–not simply a no-place to get past quickly and efficiently? Given our current global memes, it would take a philosophical, cultural, political war to get us moving in my proposed direction…

      • Mirror on the wall says:

        I am actually quite disposed to ‘radical aesthetics’ (to coin a phrase) – not as a serious political project, but as a perspective of interpretation of social and economic development.

        Obviously I would not ‘campaign’ on a platform of ‘let 8 B humans die, and let the woods spread and the flowers flourish!’ That would be daft and callous.

        But yes, if one eschewed our socialisation into the ideologies of industrial civilisation, then it would perhaps be better, from an aesthetic point of view, if industrial civilisation had never happened in the first place.

        Society, post-collapse, is liable to revert to a much smaller demographic, probably on a caste basis, the historical norm in all ages bar our own – and that is likely to be a very good thing for nature, and from the aesthetic point of view.

        William Wordsworth mounted a private campaign against the scarring of the Lakelands in England by newfangled railway lines. He left this poem on the subject.

        > Is there no nook of English ground secure from rash assault?

        And is no nook of English ground secure
        From rash assault? Schemes of retirement sown
        In youth, and ‘mid the busy world kept pure
        As when their earliest flowers of hope were blown,
        Must perish; – how can they this blight endure?
        And must he too his old delights disown
        Who scorns a false utilitarian lure
        ‘Mid his paternal fields at random thrown?
        Baffle the threat, bright scene, from Orrest head
        Given to the pausing traveller’s rapturous glance;
        Plead for thy peace thou beautiful romance
        Of nature; and, if human hearts be dead,
        Speak, passing winds; ye torrents, with your strong
        And constant voice, protest against the wrong!”

        Ironically, he posed that “human hearts be dead” as the metaphorical problem to his dilemma, when it is actually probably the literal solution to it. Humans and their appetites are oft inconducive to natural aesthetics and their enjoyment. Mass humans entails mass natural destruction.

        But it is industrial civilisation itself, in its outworking and collapse, that will return society to pre-industrial conditions – not the ‘radical aesthetics’ of anyone. Our lot is to bear our present and to make the best of it. Nature wins in the end, which may not be that far off.

        • Artleads says:

          But industrial civilization DID happen, while humans have the choice to abandon its sillier manifestations. Who actually believes you have to travel as fast as possible to get from A to B–just because? Instead, could we pass that up if philosophy or pedagogy allowed us to think about it for a moment? People need to, are disposed to, fill their minds with narratives. The human mind abhors a vacuum of narratives. We are following absurd narratives–laughable if they weren’t so destructives–that it is quite possible to change, given the will or understanding.

          • Kowalainen says:

            It all begins and ends with one person. Yes indeed, that person is:


            Less talk, MOAR turning the cranks and stuffing the flappy cookie hole with oats.

            /Cranky’ Oat Jesus


          • Mirror on the wall says:

            It is nice that you are personally able to reconcile aesthetic aspirations with industrial capitalist civilisation, and I wish you all the best with that.

            I personally do not see it becoming profitable anytime soon for companies to zig zag rail lines through the woods to avoid all the trees, or for workers to spend days to get from home to work – but it is what it is.

            Systemic profit margins are pretty fine as they are, and I not sure that they can narrow further without the whole thing collapsing. The rate of profit has been in decline in Britain since the 1840s, and the economy generally does what it does to survive.

            The ‘problem’, if that is what it is, is not one of philosophy or of pedagogy, but of the operation of the profit mechanism, and of mass energy exploitation generally. It would take a very fundamental revolution to change the course that we are on, and that is not going to happen.

            I am happy to wait and to see what happens, and I am happy for you to have your own perspective in the meantime. Thank you for an interesting dialogue – it is refreshing to hear someone speak out for beauty as an end in itself.

            > My heart leaps up when I behold
            A rainbow in the sky:
            So was it when my life began;
            So is it now I am a man;
            So be it when I shall grow old,
            Or let me die!
            The Child is father of the Man;
            And I could wish my days to be
            Bound each to each by natural piety.
            – WW

            • Artleads says:

              Lovely words there, WW!

              Thanks for such a civil tone, Mirror. I had a few more words on the subject:

              I’ve been repeatedly told that I’m too serious, that I should lighten up. From a different perspective, I’m not serious at all. Everything is a game and a joke to me. I don’t take industrial capitalism seriously in any way. I’ve been railing against it for 50 odd years, but that just comes naturally. I never quite see the results of my efforts, and I don’t care. Already in my 80’s, I’d say I’ve had a good run. Luck or the working of a higher power, I don’t know. So, OK, rail tracks would be a very poor idea for winding around trees and reaching somewhere within our energy limits. But bikes and three wheelers could manage it. And if people think, for some analytical reason or other, it couldn’t be managed, that is like water off a ducks back. They are talking a different language that I don’t and don’t need to understand. They are wrong and I am right. And if I’m not right, everything works out pretty well just the same. There’s fossil fuel in the ground; trying to unearth if doesn’t work with the economic system based on growth and profits. And it doubtless won’t work in any major way beside that. But I bet it could work in a smaller, more local way. Money is of no importance to me. If I get lots of it, I give it to my spouse. I spend so little on myself that I generally tend to have money to spare. So much for living in a rich country…

          • Herbie Ficklestein says:

            Reminds me of this good chap
            Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

            From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom. In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.

            When we meet at his converted coach house in London, his classic Dawes racer still parked hopefully in the hallway (a stroke and a triple heart bypass mean he is – currently – forbidden from cycling), Hillman is anxious we are not side-tracked by his best-known research, which challenged the supremacy of the car.

        • NomadicBeer says:

          Mirror said: “Society, post-collapse, is liable to revert to a much smaller demographic, probably on a caste basis, the historical norm in all ages bar our own”

          Great comment marred by this huge misunderstanding of the present. Like you said all societies have castes (aka social classes) and our own is not different.

          Search for studies that show that dark age peasants had more social mobility than the US poor for example.

          What is different today is not human nature, just a surfeit of free energy that will soon be gone.

    • Political leaders have to keep coming up with new excuses for wars. “Stealing another country’s resources” is no longer considered a good excuse for a war. Neither is fighting about some minor difference in religious belief. “Protecting the environment” sounds like as good an excuse as any.

  26. says:

    Thank you, Gail for this excellent article. My experience has been that members of the general public experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with looming energy declines and will outright ignore or deny that it’s happening when confronted with such information. Moreover, there are blind spots on both sides of the debate/s. The main popular and mainstream issues seem to be (1) overpopulation and (2) climate change.

    – The overpopulation crowd refuses to move away from their global outlook and consider population numbers on a country-by-country basis and in terms of numbers of people by surface area. When that’s done the picture changes completely – not all countries are overpopulated and many would/should have sufficient reosurces to support their populations even in the face of energy declines.

    – The Climate Change crowd (mostly on the political left) refuses to consider the possibility of long-term warming and cooling cycles playing a role in climate change and factoring that it – for them the science is settled (and they would simply not entertain information such as presented in the video below). On the other hand, the Climate Cycle proponents (mostly on the political right) refuse to consider the posibility of declining EROEI and the impact that might have on capitalism.

    You make a very good point about truth!

    • Minority Of One says:

      “not all countries are overpopulated and many would/should have sufficient resources to support their populations even in the face of energy declines.”

      Curious to know which countries you are thinking of, bearing in mind that sometime this century likely that there will be zero fossil fuels available, me thinks.

      • says:

        Fossil fuels will never dwindle to absolute zero and neither will they all disappear overnight. Nations with low population density and low population numbers that have a domestic supply of some of fossil fuel energies, i.e. coal, natural gas and /or oil would be able to adapt.

        Ok, let’s take Uruguay as a case study. Population 3.5 million. More cattle than people, ‘basically’ the entire coutry is one large farm with a capital city and some coastal resorts … (granted this is an over-simplification, but you get the idea – it’s a modernized, but not highly modernized agricultural country that’s not overly industrialsied and does not have very high energy demands + large food production capacity)
        Although the country is not energy rich, Including hydropower, it produces more than 97 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources:

        As for water:
        “In 2002, the per capita renewable water resources was 41,065 cubic meters, way above the world average 8,467 m3 in 2006. Uruguay also shares one of the largest groundwater reserves in the world, the Guarani Aquifer, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay. The Guarani aquifer covers 1,200,000 square kilometers and has a storage capacity of 40,000 km3.”

        That’s one example (I lived there for a few years). Everybody has to do their own homework, but the more you start looking at countries independently, the more you get a completely different picture from “the entire word is overpopulated across the board”, which is highly simplistic. Countries have different capabilities in dealing with crises and some are better endowed or better prepared than others.

        The problem we are dealing with, i.m.o is global thinking versus local(ised) thinking. By always looking at the big picture we are caught like deer in the headlights.

        • It is necessary to have a functioning economy to maintain fossil fuel production. International trade is needed to keep making the machinery and tools of various sorts used in production. The big challenge is keeping the prices of fossil fuels up high enough to allow this to happen. Uruguay doesn’t have oil of its own. It needs to import whatever oil it uses. I expect that it needs to import quite a bit of industrial equipment. One site that says that the top exports of Uruguay are wood pulp, meat, soy beans, concentrated milk and rice, exporting mostly to China, Brazil, Netherlands, the US, and Argentina. Its top imports were crude oil, medicines, cars, broadcasting equipment, and delivery trucks, mostly from the same countries plus Angola.

          I agree that raising cattle is something that can be done with a large area for grazing and electricity to pump water. Uruguay may do better than most. The question is whether enough services can be provided to keep the system going. Also, will there be enough international trade to sell the products being made?

          • says:

            Yes, all good questions. A major drop in quality of life would certainly be on the cards for them, regardless. Most of their energy imports come from Brazi (Petrobas) and Argentina (nuclear as far as I know).

        • Minority Of One says:

          “Fossil fuels will never dwindle to absolute zero”

          Never? The low hanging fruit has long gone. The undeveloped oil fields of the world are either offshore / deep sea, Arctic, or small/tiny. The the currently-producing ones are headed for the Seneca Cliff. Once collapse gets to a more advanced stage, I suspect that all the as-yet undeveloped fields will remain undeveloped.

          Long before the EROEI of oil approaches 1:1, we will stop producing it. And what is left of gas and coal, I doubt we can extract without the products of oil. There is no easy coal or gas left either.

          What has happened in Venezuela (production has fallen from about 2.5M b/d 15 years ago to about 400,000 b/d now) seems like a more realistic outlook on what will occur globally.

          • Ed says:

            Oil is a great plastics feed stock even at 1:10 EROEI it will be produced for plastics.

          • says:

            PS: I read your comment a bit fast, so my previous response was a bit reactionary … Yes, fully agreed – it would be best to prepare for a much lower quality of life, but my contexntion is that it would not have to mean absolute poverty. Humans are simply to creative to not find some means of improving their cirucmstances – oases of intellegent ‘plan-makers’ will form naturally.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Imagine this … but without food – petrol – electricity – medicine…


            • says:

              You better join the Amish or Mennonites – that would be your best chance for survival. Do you reckon you would fit in?

            • says:
            • This is one fairly recent report. It shows information from 2011, also.
              It says,

              Cuba’s principal crop and most valuable export is sugarcane: raw sugar is its first export, distilled alcohol — made from sugar — its third, and refined sugar its fourth. Tobacco products, honey, coffee, and, to a lesser extent, juice concentrate round out its list of top ten most valuable export products. After sugar, Cuba’s agricultural acreage is largely dedicated to food production plus tobacco: root crops, bananas, vegetables, cereals, and legumes, tobacco, and other fruits (in that order).

              In recent years, China, Belarus and Portugal have been Cuba’s most valuable sugar markets, and Germany is a rising market for honey and green coffee.

              Significant controversy exists surrounding Cuba’s dependency on imports to feed the population. Commentators and reporters often remark that approximately 80 percent of Cuba’s food is imported. However, this statistic can be traced back to analysis of the ration package, which is composed of foods for which the country is particularly dependent (wheat for bread, oil for cooking, and, to a lesser but significant extent, rice). Analysis of FAO statistics indicates that, in reality, the country vacillates between 30–40 percent import dependency (excluding sugar), due to the country’s self-reliance in terms of vegetable, root crop, fruit, and egg production. Significant sources of imported food include Vietnam (rice), Brazil (rice, soybean oil, and chicken), Argentina (rice), Canada and France (wheat), Russia (soybean oil) and the United States (soybean oil and chicken).

              It depends a whole lot on how a person counts the imports–calories or something else.

              I also found a Havana Times article from 2019 called Why Isn’t There More Food in Cuba?

              It points out a lot of problems. One of them is
              “between 2002 and 2016, cultivated land fell from 3.5 million hectares to 2.9 million ”

              High taxes on pig and milk production are pointed out as one particular issue. (I am wondering if these high taxes represent some problem they are trying to mitigate. Cuba has a shortage of water, for example. It cannot encourage agriculture that uses too much water.)

              Another is “too much nationalization and too little privatization of production.”

            • says:

              I spent 2 weeks in Cuba in 2006 as a tourist and I remember that the food quality wasn’t very good (undersized fruits, not very flavourful, not a wide variety). I was told that the reason was that the soil quality was poor.

              It’s quite remarkable that they actually managed to pull through the oil embargo considering all these issues, including water. As I understand it they relied a lot on urban permaculture, so I suppose the main takeway is that under extreme circumstances urban permaculture can be a vehicle for survival (just about).

              I believe that Detroit city started a lot of permacultures in some of the abandoned neighbourhoods – saw a short documentary about that a while ago – also based on the community concept – locals working the urban farms to foster a community spirit and provide food to low-income families, and also to make used of unused and vacant land (old abandoned homes are knocked down to make space for permagardens).

              All countries are to an extent in Cuba’s position, because almost all rely and depend on imports, to varying degrees. If the decline in EROI leads fewer foods being shipped around the world, the variety and choice of foodstuffs will fall in most places – and variety and choice are some of the most important hallmarks of quaity of life. Hard times ahead all around. Island nations are especially dependent on imports.

            • I visited Cuba in 2015. I wrote an article about my visit afterword.

              I don’t think I really had thought through the water problems of Cuba when I wrote that article. I think that Cuba has both oil and water problems, making the problem hard to solve. The thing that they do have going for them is low population relative to the size of the island. Their ability to migrate to the US has helped. Also, the fact the Cuba has not built many homes in recent years makes it clear that adding more children will create a space squeeze.

            • says:

              Thanks Gail for this information. I will read your article and factor in the wate issues. As you say, population numbers, water, energy, land area + quality of soil for food production and many other factors (economic activities, level of industrialisation, etc) all play a role.

              The political system, however can make or break a country, and when there’s a transition, as has happened in South Africa, although the results are plain to see, political correctness on the part of liberals especially results in denial and failure to acknowledge.

              While we are on the subject of Cuba. There’s a major controversy currently raging in South Africa because the government is in the process of importing Cuban engineers to handle/deal with S.A’s water crisis, which in the first place developed because competant South African engineers were released from their duties bacuase of affirmative action policies (as I pointed out in the reports I listed previously)

              Moreover, instead of re-emplying them, the government’s policies are so stringent (in relation to affirmative action criteria) that it would rather employ foreign engineers than domestic South African-born ones. Some analysts have pointed out that Cuba is hardly a model for effective water management … so why their engineers should be superior to ours is a mystery.

              (Of course, truth be told, the SA government feels it owes Cuba for it’s support in it’s fight againts apartheid.)

              In a nutshell – South Africa doesn’t need an energy or cimate crisis to fail and to basically implode slowly – it’s doing it all on its own through blind political ideology and lack of planning bad management – and this trend now seems to be happening in Western Nations too.

              Collapse therefore is inevetable because of various factors converging – and that have as much to do with lack of rational human behaviour than anything else.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Check this out … get your tambourine ready…


            • says:

              You forgot the link.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Someone sent me a clip from an end of the world series a couple of years ago recommending I watch…

              I did and everyone had nice haircuts… and were dressed in the latest LL Bean… well-fed… clean…

              The purpose of these Tee Vee shows… is to make you think that even if the world was to end … it would be a fun adventure….

              Nothing like this at all

          • says:

            Yes, probably. There will be a massive reduction in quality of life as a result. Nevertheless, local oil deposits will still be available in places to be tapped into for the bare essentials (energy for basic survival – cooking, heat, etc) without their being a profit motive or mass production motive.

            • Good luck with your view. You need to make the whole system work. Suppose a few stripper wells in the US still work. It is still necessary to somehow pay the operators enough money, so that they will provide the electricity (assuming it is available) to operate these wells. There needs to be water separation as well, because 99% of the output will be water. If something breaks, replacement parts need to be available. This oil needs to be shipped, through pipelines, to refineries. These pipelines, in general cannot be too empty, if they are to operate. The refineries need to operate at a fairly high percentage of capacity to make economic sense. These refineries are a very large user of very high quality electricity. Right now, they are buying it from the grid. If they had to burn oil to get the electricity, they likely would need to burn more oil than they get out of the system to power the refinery.

              Once the oil is refined, it will be separated into component parts (gasoline, jet fuel, lubricating oil, diesel fuel, etc.). Most of these can be shipped through pipelines. These pipelines need to be maintained. They cannot be operated too empty.

              You can see the problems go on and on, with your assumption.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              But that’s not the way it works in DelusiSTAN…. over there they there is no math… physics… or logic… it’s a dream world…anything is possible…

              Must say I was at a dinner earlier… and the majority of the people will not be vaxxed.. only one – in the medical profession!!! said she can’t wait… but she has medical issues.

              Also sprung the Neil bible story on a couple of people and asked what they thought … one said he already knew the moon shot was BS… another (vaxxer) said she still thinks Neil has been to the moon .. but could not explain why he would swear on the bible….

              I admire the consistency.

            • Anthony says:

              Other than oil production needs the entire industrial civilization platform to remain operational.

            • says:

              I don’t agree, but time will tell. I’m from a country where we not only survived sanctions (including oil import restrictions), but thrived under it. If you’ve never been under real pressure to surive under REAL severe resource restrictions, you simply won’t understand where I’m coming from (and that’s evident from many comments on this site too, BTW).

              The term ‘survival’ means different things to different people and nations.

              Not all countries will be running out of local access to various types of liquid energy, whether plant-based, sun-based, fossil fuel based, coal-based, water-based (hydro-elecric plants are not going to evaporate along with oil…etc). Some countries will continue with nuclear (e.g. France & others). How exactly everything will play out is unknown though and mostly speculation. Only time will tell.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              It must be nice to live in DelusiSTAN… and actually believe what you believe.

              It’s like believing you can fly… but as long as you don’t leap off of a tall building… you can continue to believe that you can fly.

              Here’s your future… (well actually worse…)

            • says:

              The world is already collapsed in many places. Remember Iraq, Libya, Syria ? Yet, go to those places today and you can find people actually living quite normal family lives in small villages and communities (in selective places – that’s the key) Same for the poorest African nations. That Quora article you always quote is only relevant for a city (or entire country) under siege, with no exit from it. While that may happen in some places, that’s not what happened in Cuba under the oil embargo, for example – and the above in your collapse scenario didn’t happen. Here some advice: Learn Permaculture – FAST!! 😉

            • Fast Eddy says:

              They are nowhere near collapsed… they still have food .. electricity… medicine… petrol… government… police… and the receive imports from other parts of the world that are not in their sorry state.

              Collapse is when the entire world is without electricity, food, petrol, medicine … and the shops are empty.

              This is a permanent state — and it is imminent.

              Bosnia Iraq Libya etc… will all be paradises … in comparison to what the end of BAU will look like.

              And the UN won’t be coming to save you… there will be no UN.

              You are thinking too small… you need to drop the normalcy bias.

            • says:

              Nothing is ever (EVER) a permanent state. Everything is in flux (always). That’s the nature of the world and the nature of life. Therefore nothing can be certain. There is however a certain appeal to DOOMISM, I’ll admit that – dabble in it myself sometimes.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Extinction is PERMANENT.

              Try asking any of the any of the billions of organisms that are extinct.

              I can help you with diagnosing your condition …

            • says:

              Why not provide a reference with some substance to the imminent (almost instant) mass extinction event that you seem to allude to. I have also seen some other references to such a possible event online, but to date nothing credible / no sources of substance that could lead to such a conclusion.

              I am, however, very open to considering such an event is indeed possible. Would you care to to share references beyond links to Wikipedia? If not, why should you not be considered the DELUSISTANI?

            • Fast Eddy says:

              I have learned over 10 years that there is nothing I can do to rescue someone from DelusiSTAN.

              Case in point — here’s the video of the astronauts pretending they are orbiting the moon … and faking that they are looking back at Earth….

              It’s only one of many pieces of evidence that we have never been to the moon.

              Yet there are those on this site who will refuse to look at the evidence… and just continue with the ‘conspiracy theory’ accusations.

              You are in the same hopelessly intellectually deficient herd. I may as well try to explain how Peak Oil will result in our extinction … to my dog.

            • says:

              I could care less whether the moon landing was fake. So we were fed lies? Why not rather focus on the current lies instead of the old ones? Because … Diversion, diversion, diversion … Tell us rather about the climate lies. C’mon you can do it Fast Eddy! Get some backbone, man!! (The moon landing of1969? Really?? WHO CARES!!!)

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Good to see you’ve come around… I had a feeling that if I fed people snips of that 3 hour documentary that would be more effective than trying to shove the entire hog down their throats…

              Which part did it for you?

              Was it James Van Allen’s interview? Was it the taped together falling apart LEM close up shots? Or perhaps all those top photographers explaining how the photos could not have been taken on the moon. I suspect Neil refusing to swear and reject 5k for charity might have raised a few eyebrows…

              Yes I agree.. the Moon Landing Fakery is now old news… but it does establish that ‘they’ lie to us on a massive scale….

              Therefore …. might they not be lying about 911 and GW? And Covid….

              What are the signs of lies — the key one is when the MSM in its entirety pumps out non-stop propaganda …. here’s an example — I have seen a poll on Reuters… to this day even though the Trump -Russia story has been acknowledged as a lie… huge numbers of people still believe it was true



              9/11 Families and Experts Submit New Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in Building 7


            • says:

              PS: Just for clarity: There are types of liquid fuels that are not derived from crude oil. There are also forms of energy that are not liquid. None of these can ever fully replace fossil fuels, but will be sufficent to allow numbers of people to survive.

            • The question is whether we can successfully make a transition to the new approach. We don’t have the resources to rebuild everything. We need to have enough trained people for all of the jobs. It seems to me that the current system collapses, and we pretty much have to start over. That seems to have been what happened in the past.

            • says:

              I don’t believe we can transition in time. The remnant (and their descendents) that survives the collapse will start over on the other side. The problem we are facing is that a new approach has to be built from the ground up within the context of a new reality and circumstances, and we are not there yet.

              Someone that really gets this and who I have huge respect for is Shoal at REAL Green Adaption – he’s a homesteader who is ‘surfing the decline’ (so to say) pragmatically, but his writings about the mindset needed to transition are spot on – for example, see here:

            • I agree 100%.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              There’s that problem of the spent fuel ponds that need computers and pumps and all sorts of BAU gear… to stop from boiling and releasing radiation … for centuries…

              It reminds me of the Moon Hoax…. in the late 50’s James Van Allen discovered intense bands of radiation outside of low orbit … he stated that it would not be possible to traverse these belts without heavy lead protection …

              Yet NASA just pretended the belts did not exist when the rocketed men through to the moon and back.

              Maybe we can just pretend the spent fuel ponds don’t exist?

              Unfortunately… men have never entered the Van Allen Belts… cuz they’d die

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Oh my…. I am sure the bad guys would not attack the homesteaders and steal their food, rape their women, and eat their children when the food ran out….

              Nah… everyone will just get along!!! hahahahahahahaha

            • says:

              I have already proven to you that hasn’t happened in Cuba and elsewhere, so you are the delusistani over here my Fast Friend. You eat Doom for breakfast, lunch and supper. Your sole purpose here is to feed Doom to everyone else and derail quality conversation. That’s evident. It makes this site extremely cumbersome to navigate for quality comments and makes one wonder why one should bother.

            • I am afraid that what happened in Cuba may not be a good model for what is happening going forward. There may be aspects of it that are correct, but other aspects that are wrong. It had a situation that was unique to the time. The situation represented a fairly small cutback on one island that could partly be mitigated by imports of finished products (like irrigation equipment) from other countries. The country still had water resources. It still could import most of its calorie needs from other countries. The irrigation equipment, together with cooperation, could prop up the supply of fruits and vegetables. Cooperation seemed to be the order of the day.

              We have other models of collapse to look at as well. We can see Lebanon and Venezuela right now. They seem to be close to collapse. Some articles about Lebanon talk about it breaking up into different religious factions.

              We know that the Soviet Union broke up into parts, when it ran into difficulty. Death rates rose and emigration rates rose. We know that the EU is in the process of breaking up. The UK also seems to be in the process of breaking up.

              Yes, people will try to work together with what is available at the time. I am not certain how long this model really lasts.

            • says:

              Every country is different, which is why one can only try to take lessons learned from those that have already gone through collapse, but would at the same time have to deal with specific localised issues that did not come up in others, hence we cannot say the whole world is going to implode in the same violent way everywhere (as some people on this site tend to do ad finitum).
              At the same time we cannot deny that permaculture can provide a basisc sustenance to anyone able to implement it, wherever thay are – it’s just one possible solution out of many.

              South Africa is already collapsing much faster that neccesary due to lack of planing, maintenance or management and because of a hostile attitude to quaified and competent people. Moreover, a very hostile attitude to the country’s very own food producers – therefore my comments before about irrational human behaviour being as much part of the collapse as dwindling energy and water sources or overpopulation.

              Very likely this nation will break up too, because it was artificially created by the Imperial Government in 1910. Prior to that the nations were actually naturally seperated.

              Once the going get’s tough people seek out their own, especially in multi-ethic nations and tribalism rises to the fore (we are already there to an extent).

              At least here we have some expertise and understanding of water management, farming and energy generation; even if those expert skills are currently sidelined and not fully utelized – they still exists here and the opportunity will surely arrive when they will be needed again and can be put to use again.

              Well, we all have front row seats from different vantage points on the Titanic and I bid you all Best of Luck!! (this will be my last comment on this thread).

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Name a country that has lost its supply of electricity food, petrol, medicine as well as had its government, police and military … no longer functional…. permanently.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              So much more diplomatic stated…. but ultimately we are in complete alignment.

              Still trying to think of a country that has collapsed…. using the definition of collapse as – no electricity- no running water — no food – no petrol – no medicine – no govt/police/military…

              Let’s have a peak at what happens when the electricity goes out for a short period (people still had food so they didn’t eat each other)


            • Fast Eddy says:

              Cuba has never collapsed.

              They always had some petrol, medicines, electricity … they were always able to important the basics that they required to farm.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Yes and I am going to get on a flight to Toronto and join the Maple Leafs and win the Stanley Cup…

              I insist that I am therefore I am….

    • NomadicBeer says:

      I was always curious why people “buy” their beliefs prepackaged?
      CC is not a “left” issue but it does come prepackaged like that (together with overpopulation, wokeness and fake care for the poor).

      Forget about CC. Do you think that humans have any negative impacts on their environment? If so, the fake debate over CC is irrelevant. Look in the area where you live and multiply the damage by 100. People will kill most animals when hungry and burn any tree when cold.

      As far as overpopulation is concerned, I agree with one caveat. During the collapse of civilizations, volkswanderrung manage to destroy most areas that would be able to maintain higher level of technologies.

      For example the Pacific currents will bring any boat from Northern Asia to the North American coast – no high tech required. Something similar might happen in South America.

      So forget about any oases with electricity. The solution is the opposite – embrace poverty and you might stand a chance.

      • says:

        There is no question that humans have a negative impact on the planet (I said it’s MAINLY a left ideology, for a reason) – they absolutely do, but CC is used to push (ironocally) a shift to the 4th industrialisation, i.e. more dependence on fossil fuels, but just prioritised for the ICT sector, while implementing “influx controls” (apartheid?) to keep everyone from travelling.

        Moreover, CC seems to be used to support or promote population reduction (by any/all means?). CC is has become heavily ideological.

        Once the dust had settled after the initial scramble and most likely wars, there will indeed be oasis where people will out of necessitry harness left-over/available fossil fuels for survival – and even for comfort (‘after the fall’). Stick around and see …

        • Kowalainen says:

          I’ll tell you what kind of lifestyle won’t be flying of the shelves of a perceived ‘better’ (MOAR) tomorrow:

          1. Turning the cranks, while
          2. Fueled by oats, and
          3. Sucking up the pain

          Oh no, they rather fight tooth and nail for some meager trickle down scraps among each other than joining self imposed frugality.

          Now, how does this lifestyle ‘feel’ you might wonder? Despair not, below is the answer:

          1. FUCKING AWESOME

          I cannot fathom a better existence on planet earth. Basically stress free of any important matter except for the usual humanoid shenanigans and the regular dumb muppetry that is pretty much impossible to avoid.

      • says:

        “Look in the area where you live and multiply the damage by 100. People will kill most animals when hungry and burn any tree when cold.” – It’s undeniable that that’s the case sometimes, but that’s been happening in some parts of the world even during times of relative affluence.

        Not all communities [I hesitate to make more specific destinctions] act/react like that – case in point Cuba under the oil embargo – this documentary (see below) quite famous by now. I don’t think it was down to their political leanings, but rather down to a sense of community.

        A sense of community can also be found among the groups like the Amish, or rural traditional (or conservative) groupings that would have the approach of managing poverty in a dignified and organised way – as far as that would be possible. In the interim such types of communities would most likely become the islands of stability in the oceans of chaos.

        • I think that what saved Cuba under the oil embargo was the importation of materials that allowed the citizens to drill lots of wells under Havana and other parts of Cuba. Cuba tends to be quite dry. Cuba was able to irrigate vegetable crops with groundwater that has built up over thousands of years. These vegetable crops certainly helped diets, but this approach isn’t sustainable. It also doesn’t provide very many calories in total. Cuba still imports most of its food.

          In some ways, Cuba’s unsustainable approach is the same unsustainable approach used in India and Saudi Arabia with grains. The US has been using this approach in California and Florida, mostly with non-grain crops.

  27. Mirror on the wall says:

    The Tories have signed a Brexit “bonanza” trade deal with India – worth 1 B per year.

    UK-EU trade in 2019 was worth 668 B however.

    It just goes to show that the world is the oyster now for British State as it makes trade deals with emergent markets to compensate for free access to the EU, the world’s largest trading bloc and right on UK doorstep.

    Bravo Boris, you really made it happen!

    A migration deal has also been agreed that will allow up to 3000 Indians – the brightest and the best – to come to Britain per year.

    However that is only 1% of the annual net influx into UK. BS clearly prefers to get its new workers elsewhere.

    Billed as a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”, some might think it a “Rather Underwhelming Post-Brexit Deal”.

  28. Thierry says:

    This is a brilliant one Gail, each time you become more accurate about the changes to come.
    I would just make a correction that I am almost sure you wold agree with: instead of “We now live in a strange world filled with half-truths” I would say “We now live in a strange world filled with total lies and b…s…”.
    Put another way, we are now living in the third order simulacra described by Baudrillard.
    Or perhaps at some point we went into the world of Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.

  29. Births in U.S. Drop to Levels Not Seen Since 1979

    The number of babies born in America last year was the lowest in more than four decades, according to federal figures released Wednesday that show a continuing U.S. fertility slump.

    U.S. women had about 3.61 million babies in 2020, down 4% from the prior year, provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows. The total fertility rate—a snapshot of the average number of babies a woman would have over her lifetime—fell to 1.64. That was the lowest rate on record since the government began tracking it in the 1930s, and likely before that when families were larger, said report co-author Brady Hamilton. Total births were the lowest since 1979.

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      Collapsed fertility is not really a problem for USA State. Births are just one facet of domestic labour expansion. USA has always relied on an inward flow of workers from outside, and that will continue to be the pattern.

      The USA State calculates decades in advance how many workers it will need to maintain GDP growth and to service the structural debt, and it adjusts its inward flow accordingly. Other states do the same.

      GDP growth is determined by labour expansion and productivity growth. USA has collapsed productivity growth of near zero, and it now relies entirely on labour expansion to grow GDP and to keep the capitalist system going.

      So, a lower fertility rate simply entails an increased inward flow rate.

      The situation is similar in UK and elsewhere. The fertility rate in UK is already 1.66 (2019) and 1.57 for UK born women – no doubt that has now fallen too.

      Spain has an incredible 1.26 (2018), and Italy 1.29 (2018). The number of births there about halves each generation. They are even more dependent on inward flow labour expansion to maintain GDP growth (productivity growth is also collapsed there.)

      • Phil D says:

        GDP should be irrelevant, it’s GDP/capita (standard of living) that matters.

        Importing aliens en masse because of declining native population is utterly insane. This is how nations are wiped out. The answer is to change the culture and provide incentives to promote native childbearing.

        By the logic you’re espousing, and given current global demographic trends, just about every Western nation will be white-minority by 2050. You don’t see anything wrong with this?

        No one can calculate GDP and demographic expectations decades in advance with any accuracy, not that fabricated economic metrics like GDP should have any input into existential questions anyway. More lunacy. Western nations are facing demographic problems of existential importance, but the elites are most worried about what GDP will look like 20 years from now, according to some spreadsheet model.

        • Mirror on the wall says:

          You have your own perspective about what “matters”, ethnic continuity and rising living standards. You are entitled to your own perspective (everyone has them), but it is not the perspective of the states in question.

          Capitalist states like UK/ USA could not care less about ethnic continuity – that should be obvious by now. The only real concerns are to grow GDP and to pay off debt. For that they need labour expansion – and it makes no difference to them whether they are born to certain ethnic types or brought in from outside. About 40% of school kids in England are now of another background, and it will be the majority soon enough, which is not considered to “matter”.

          Rising living standards are a secondary consideration, and it is no longer on the cards anyway. Living standards are tied to productivity growth, which has converged toward zero in all ‘mature’ capitalist economies since the 1970s. It is flatlined in USA, UK and all others. Social mobility has also collapsed.

          You are correct that some European ethnic nations are coming to an end – but it is a matter of opinion whether that “matters”. To some it clearly does, and to others it clearly does not – including the USA and UK capitalist states. Capitalist states are not ethno nationalist states. The Tory Party is a front for the CBI, by which it is funded. UK is all about money, as are the other states.

          You are correct that Hungary is trying a different approach, and it will be interesting to see what happens. The fertility rate there has risen to 1.51 (2020), which is still less than 75% of the replacement level, and the number of births would halve every two generations.

          The pattern in Eastern Europe is that investment will collapse as the work force shrinks. It would be interesting to see how the project in Hungary worked out, if global collapse were delayed, and whether Hungary would stick with their policies.

          Hungary is in the Schengen Zone anyway, which allows anyone in the EU to settle there, so it may hope to eventually replenish its declining labour force that way.

          It is important to understand that the present ‘material’ situation is that very few seem to want to settle in Hungary anyway, as there are better options. So, the campaign to raise the fertility rate is not so much an alternative to an inward flow as a substitute for it – however it is presented domestically. It had a net inflow of 34,000 in 2018, up from 4000 in 2013 – tiny numbers compared to UK, and the population is shrinking. The labour force will soon shrink too as it ages. I would not necessarily take the intention of the policies of Hungary state at face value.

          USA and UK states etc. have plotted their course according to what they think “matters”, which is GDP growth, debt service and the continuation of the profit, debt and growth based capitalist economy.

          • Kowalainen says:

            Spot on Mirror.

            I’m so goddamned tired of the ethnic nationalists. The whole premise of their existence in opulence is based on cheap debt and mass immigration.

            Want MOAR? Below is the choices.


            Back to “normal” you say? Below is your choices:

            1. ACCEPT THE VAX

            Now; choose twice.


            • Very Far Frank says:

              Thank you Mirror, for giving an excellent demonstration of the thinking of suicidal technocrats.

              Most informative.

          • Ed says:

            Wasn’t there a German politician that talked about a safe place to raise German children? As you say the bankers prefer obedient slaves.

  30. Sunetra Gupta’s Colleagues Come to Her Defence After Rude, Dismissive BBC Interview

    Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford, gave an interview to BBC News last week which may be a new low in the Beeb’s one-sided coverage of the lockdown debate. The interviewer, Annita McVeigh, treated the distinguished Oxford scholar as if she was a David Icke figure whose views were completely beyond the pale. At one point, as Prof Gupta was making the case for lifting all restrictions immediately, McVeigh cut across her, saying, “Sorry to interrupt you, Professor, but multiple scientists say lockdowns have worked, the Government says so too.” Gupta patiently replied: “That doesn’t mean it’s true.”

    • Robert Firth says:

      The time between closure of Gail’s previous post and the opening of this one gave me time for some serious personal reflection.

      I have been very stupid.

      Well, we are all stupid at times (except Fast Eddy), but usually a little thinking helps. All this talk about Elders, Powers, Bavarian Illuminati, and so on were a distraction from a very simple truth, and here it is: *the purpose of the lockdowns was to prevent the acquisition of natural herd immunity*.

      That’s it. In order for Big Pharma to sell more vaccine, and of course for people invested in BP, such as Dr Fauci, to make more millions, all other sources of immunity had to be shut off. As had all other sources of mitigation or possible prevention. And this was done very will indeed.

      This strategy was never adopted by some countries, and they did far better. It is also being rejected by many who once believed in it, and I think the strategy is going to fall apart, one country or province after another.

      The fact that many of these vaccines are more deadly than the disease is icing on the cake, because every death or hospitalisation brings in yet more money. This is worse, far worse, than what Mengele and his followers did, and I am morally certain nobody will hang for it. So low have we sunk.

      • You may very well be correct: ” *the purpose of the lockdowns was to prevent the acquisition of natural herd immunity*

        Also, “I think the strategy is going to fall apart, one country or province after another.” Except that some countries really are trying to make use of it to hold down transportation use, particularly vacation air travel.

        “The fact that many of these vaccines are more deadly than the disease is icing on the cake, because every death or hospitalisation brings in yet more money. ” I would point out, however, that quite a few health care providers got laid off or had their pay cut. I don’t think that total health care costs are as high as they were before the pandemic started. The pandemic is, in a way, allowing total healthcare cost to fall a bit. In the case of the UK, perhaps more services can be provided within its limited budget, since medicine over the phone or internet is cheaper than in-person medicine. Not as many support staff are needed, for example, to weigh people, take temperatures, and clean the rooms between visits. Quite a few people forget about trivial issues that go away by themselves.

        • NomadicBeer says:

          Robert and Gail, it’s always good to hear possible alternatives to CEP – especially when FE is unwilling to answer any questions about it.

          I will ask the question I always do – given this hypothesis, what are your expectations?
          I wish Robert is right and the countries will stop doing lockdown but I see instead that some (like China and Russia) don’t do it anymore while others (UK, most EU, Canada) seem to vacillate but the trend is not good.

          So it seems to me that an energy supply issue might be another part of the explanation – there is no reason lockdowns should be useful just for one thing.

          Gail, have you thought of plotting the average lockdown strictures relative to oil/coal imports or trends in energy consumption per capita?

          For example Uk and Israel are the poster children for the new authoritarianism. At least UK shows big decreases in energy per capita in the last decade.


          • jj says:

            That raises the question what would have happened if ..
            Wuhan fear porn not in MSM.
            My guess is :bad year for pneumonia.
            Nothing else.

            Join the cult of fear porn.

            Disbelievers will be discouraged.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            What are your questions regarding the CEP?

  31. Britain may NEVER need another lockdown: Third jabs for ALL over-50s will see Covid ‘fade away by Christmas’ as expert says UK is unlikely to need restrictions again – while No10 invests £30m in variant-fighting centres to ‘future-proof’ against disease

    Britain might never need another Covid lockdown and looks set for a ‘steady course out of the pandemic’ thanks to the vaccine rollout, which will add a third jab for over-50s in a booster programme to start in autumn.

    Professor Neil Ferguson, the SAGE adviser whose warning that hundreds of thousands could die if Britain didn’t go into lockdown in March 2020, said he thinks it is unlikely the country will have to shut down again.

    He admitted to the BBC there ‘may be a need to roll back on some of these measures’ if a vaccine-resistant variant were to appear later in the year but he didn’t think it would happen.

    To cut the risk of this happening the Government will, in autumn, offer a third jab to everyone over the age of 50 or in a clinically vulnerable group. One unnamed minister claimed it is hoped the move means Covid will have ‘faded away into the background like any other illness’ by Christmas.

    Professor Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, is currently supervising trials of two possible ways to deliver the autumn boosters, including giving third doses of existing jabs or using updated vaccines specifically tailored to target new variants. The current jabs are modelled on the Wuhan variant which is no longer dominant.

    Early research has raised hopes in the Government that either of the two approaches can nullify the threat from existing and new variants, it is understood. Matt Hancock last week announced Number 10 had bought 60million more doses of the Pfizer jab to use for the second rollout.

    A senior government minister told The Times: ‘We think that the level of protection in the population to any variant will be so high that, by Christmas, Covid should have just faded away into the background like any other illness in circulation. So much so we don’t think there will be any need to give a booster shot to younger people because transmission will have got so low.’

    Public Health England, soon to become the UK Health Security Agency, will also pump an extra £30million into analysing positive swab samples to track Covid variants and develop new vaccines to fight them if necessary. The project will be co-ordinated from its Porton Down lab in Wiltshire.

    Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi said the scheme would ‘future-proof the vaccination programme for next year and the years beyond that, as we move from pandemic to endemic and deal with it in the way we would deal with the annual flu vaccination programme’.

    Mr Zahawi warned, however, the virus was still capable of spreading ‘like wildfire’ in places where vaccine uptake was low and that officials were looking at postcode level data to spot which communities were at risk of flare-ups.

    Boris Johnson is under mounting pressure to speed up the easing of England’s lockdown because of the hugely successful vaccination drive and cases and deaths dwindling. Restrictions won’t be loosened until May 17, when foreign holidays are set to be given the go ahead. Pubs will also be allowed to open indoors. Measures will stay in place until June 21, at the earliest.

    More than 34.6million Britons have been given at least a first dose of Covid vaccine, with 15.6million adults fully immunised.

  32. ‘Pure, unadulterated, narcissistic power trip’: McGowan pushes for emergency power extension

    Western Australia Premier Mark McGowan’s push for an extension of emergency powers – along with proposed electoral changes – is a “pure, unadulterated, narcissistic power trip,” according to Curtin University’s Dr Rocco Loiacono.

    In a speech at the opening of parliament, outlining the government’s agenda, WA Governor Kim Beazley said the agenda would include an extension of the emergency powers.

    “One of the first priorities will be to extend again the state of emergency powers to ensure that the legislative tools required to respond to the pandemic and keep the virus at bay can continue,” Governor Beazley said.

    Dr Loiacono said some of these powers could be extended until June 20, 2025, under current legislation, with no “reasonable justification given”.

  33. Houston doctor enrolls 16-month-old son in Pfizer vaccine trials

    HOUSTON, TX — According to the Houston Chronicle, a 13-month child has been vaccinated for COVID-19 as part of their Pfizer trial for children under 2-years-old.

    “We weighed the benefits & risks & frankly the benefits far outweighed the risks,” said Dr. Thao Galvan, regarding her 16-month old son Nathan’s participation in the study.

    The child reportedly received about one-tenth of the dosage adults are currently receiving.

    Texas Children’s Hospital is also reportedly one of six locations across the country with these types of clinical trials. An effort, researchers hope, will allow them to understand the right dosage children may need.

    Nathan is reportedly scheduled for his second dose in two weeks.

  34. Biden: Getting vaccinated a matter of ‘life and death’

  35. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the “ultimate goal” of the COVID-19 vaccination program is to be able to “vaccinate children of any age” by early 2022 … for a virus that they barely transmit and that poses almost zero statistical risk to them.

  36. Britain’s Royal Marines are testing out jet suits

  37. Volvo740... says:

    Gail, great article! I’m curious, do you think some of the Covid responses such as very restricted travel for example in Canada are ways to try to mitigate the problems you are pointing out?

  38. Sven Røgeberg says:

    Thanks for a new article, Gail, an important correction to truths we read about. Just before I read your article, I got a tip about this book
    Trigger warning: this is how economists think!
    «Think the world is getting worse? You’re wrong: the world is, for the most part, not getting worse. But 58 percent of folks in 17 countries that were surveyed in 2016 thought the world is either getting worse or staying the same rather than getting better. Americans were even more glum: 65 percent thought the world is getting worse and only 6 percent thought it was getting better. The uncontroversial data on major global trends in this book will persuade you that this dark view of the prospects for humanity and the natural world is, in large part, badly mistaken….».
    The book springs from surveys and statistics presented on this site
    Here you will find an interesting account of what seems to have started the whole project
    «Our research into the relative abundance of resources began when we looked at updating the famous wager between the cornucopian University of Maryland economist Julian Simon (1932–1998) and three neo-Malthusian scholars: the Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich; the University of California, Berkeley ecologist John Harte; and the University of California, Berkeley scientist and future director of President Barack Obama’s White House Office of Science and Technology John P. Holdren.[1]

    The Ehrlich group bet $200 each on five metals: chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then they signed a futures contract which stipulated that Simon would sell these same quantities of metal to Ehrlich’s group for the same price in ten years’ time. Since price is a reflection of scarcity, if population increases made these metals scarcer, Simon would pay, but if they became more abundant, and therefore cheaper, Ehrlich would pay. The bet would last from September 29, 1980 to September 29, 1990».

  39. Walter Haugen says:

    I was one of many who opposed the coal port at Cherry Point in Washington state. After we were victorious, I warned my fellow agitators that they must keep constantly on guard in case King Coal comes back to Cherry Point. My reasoning was simple. The EROI of coal worldwide is about 50:1 – as low as 10:1 in China’s mines in the interior and as high as 80:1 in the US. China needs coal and the poor infrastructure creates problems getting it from the interior mines to the coastal power plants. Thus they buy from Australia. Canada is now allowing Australian companies to mine coal in Alberta. It is likely the US will send more coal to China in the future. The EROI of natural gas is about 10:1 and oil worldwide is down to about 18:1. Fracked oil is about 5:1. Consequently, King Coal will come back to create electricity. It is still at 20% of US power generation. The users will be the liberals who buy into the false solution of EVs.

    The conundrum of particulate and carbon dioxide pollution is already being dismissed by the liberals. They only see the lack of pollution on their street and coming from their own EV. They don’t recognize or admit the pollution foisted off on the poor people around the world who have to live next to the mines, shipping points, and power plants. The short-term solution will soon be to site power plants in Wyoming and Montana and then use a nationalized grid to send power around the US. I remember back in the 1970s coal-generated electricity was sold from Cohasset, Minnesota all the way to Florida. Of course, sending electricity a long distance is more entropic, but that will be judged a small cost to bear to keep the pollution in Wyoming and Montana rather than the streets of San Francisco.

    Gail’s article will likely be used as a rationale for some of these short-sighted people.

  40. Tim Groves says:

    I have talked with half a dozen mid-brow types who I’ve know for decades about the energy problem underpinning the ongoing economic collapse, and not one of them has been able to grasp it. There are various reasons why, including an unhealthy dependence on mainstream media sources for their facts. ButI think a big reason is found their reading, listening, speaking and thinking habits.

    It can be summed up in “short attention span.” They are unable to concentrate on a text or a speech for long enough to extract the write or speaker’s arguments. They absorb a sentence or a paragraph and their imagination uses this as fuel to fire up into a flight of fancy. If they try to follow an argument (not that they try very hard), they quickly go off at a tangent. If we are talking, this kind of behavior sabotages the conversation. The speaker quickly finds that they are talking to a wall.

    It is only a small minority of the literate population that could read Gail’s articles and be able to comprehend the main points that she is making. I guess reading comprehension and the ability to converse on anything more serious than gossip has been in general decline along with punctuation, arithmetic and cryptic crossword solving ability.

    One of my friends, and Australian, called me last night and his first question was what did I think of the vaccine. I said that since I have very strong feelings about it I am not going to comment about it but that I prefer to remain in the control group. “What’s a control group?” He asked. This man is a high-school teacher, by the way!!

    I let him talk and he has a lot of complaints about how this or that politician in this or that country is handling the pandemic, and he’s under no allusions about any return to normality, but absolutely no doubt that “comparatively speaking” getting a vaccination is much preferable to getting Covid-19.

    His wife is nagging him to get jabbed. They nag each other about everything constantly, so this is not a surprise. Last spring, as there was not Covid-19 jab available, she nagged him into getting a flu jab for the first time ever. I hope you can see the logic—In a pandemic, any jab must be better than no jab.

    I then let my vaccine discussion hesitancy slip just a little. “Do you know,” I asked, “comparatively speaking,” how much greater is your chance of dying within a month of getting an mRNA Covid-19 shot than a flu shot?” “No.” “Have a guess!” “No idea, you tell me.” “According to the VAERS report system…” “What’s that?” “It’s the US official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.” “Oh?” “Are you short you don’t want to guess?” “No, just tell me.” “OK, according to VAERS data, your chances of dying from a Covid-19 shot is about 75 TIMES higher than your changes of dying from a flu shot.” “What!!” “It means you could have a flu shot every year for 75 years and your chance of dying from an adverse reaction to it would be the same as your chance of dying from one Covid-19 shot.”

    He was going to get jabbed, but more in response to the wife’s nagging than from any sense of personal need. But he had never heard of VAERS, or that these jabs were dangerous, or of the existence of the spike protein, or of mRNA technology. Rather than try to evangelize him with a video by Vanden Bosch or Yeadon and probably antagonize him in the process, I left it at that.

    • Minority Of One says:

      I find that people here in Aberdeen are hostile to the idea that UK oil production will not last much longer, so I tend not to mention it, not in Aberdeen anyway. The further away from Aberdeen you get, the less hostile in my experience. One Prof Alex Kemp at the Uni of Aberdeen (Professor of Petroleum Economics) has been dishing out fantasy forecasts for UK offshore oil production (which really means offshore Scotland) for decades. You see him semi-regularly on the Scottish news on TV. This is what people want to see and hear. He is the darling of the Scottish National Party. But his forecasts are nonsense.

      As for the terminator drugs. My son (almost 20 y.o.) is quite open to what I have to say, but no-one else. I especially tend to keep quiet if someone has already been jabbed, which is almost every adult I know here in Aberdeen.

    • Fast Eddy says:

      It can be summed up in “short attention span.” They are unable to concentrate on a text or a speech for long enough to extract the write or speaker’s arguments.

      This is why a good PR tag line writer …. is worth his weight in Gold. MAGA is sticky… Hope and Change is sticky… Build Back Better… is sticky.

      CEP … sticky 🙂

    • Jarle says:

      “I have talked with half a dozen mid-brow types who I’ve know for decades about the energy problem underpinning the ongoing economic collapse, and not one of them has been able to grasp it.”

      I saw the light a handful+ of years ago and so far only my wife and a friend (in the oil business!) take the energy explanation as “good fish”. Me being a social creature and into facts like a finite planet etc makes for a lot of very frustrating encounters with family, “friends” and others. Dear Tim, what’s your advice?

      • Tim Groves says:

        Well, Jarle, thanks for your kind comment. The Zen masters tell their pupils never to give advice unless the applicant asks three times. If a person is really earnest and interested in knowing what you think, they will ask you again.

        A lot of us like to lecture others (I know I have that habit) but most of us don’t want to be lectured to by people who’s authority they don’t respect. So browbeating the mid-brow types is not going to win us any friends or influence people.

        I’m beginning to think that Gail’s ideas and OFW-ology should be regarded as a form of arcane or occult knowledge that most outsiders would be better off not knowing. There is no bar on entry to this community and it is not a secret society, but most people’s resistance to the ideas and to learning, studying and researching what is needed in order to grasp the essentials will keep them outsiders. You will probably find as you try to explain OFW 101 that the listener, after a sentence or two, stops being the listener and begins raising objections like a hostile interviewer or goes off at a tangent in an attempt to change the subject. Once that happens, you can give up on enlightening that person.

        In such cases, all you can do is drop hints and ask questions that have the potential to spark people’s intellectual curiosity. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          It’s the same with the fake moon landing and 911… there is clear evidence that both are not what we are told… yet even if one shows the evidence most people will refuse to even look at it.

          This demonstrates how humans are no smarter than the average dog… they are easily manipulated (trained)… and if you give them treats (money) they will fetch a ball… or sit… or fix a broken car.

          Instead of a standard IQ test… if you want to determine true intelligence… you need to ask questions like – do you think we have been to the moon? Do you think 911 was a false flag? Etc…

          Then you let them have a few days with a computer to carry our research on all the topics… then they can come back with their responses.

        • moniquemilne says:

          Tim what does OFW stand for?

    • Jarle says:

      “It can be summed up in “short attention span.” They are unable to concentrate on a text or a speech for long enough to extract the write or speaker’s arguments.”

      Too right I’m afraid …

    • NomadicBeer says:

      Tim said:
      “It can be summed up in “short attention span.””

      I disagree, the cause is deeper. If an economist starts blabbing about some made up numbers, I will have a short attention span too.
      So you have to ask – why do they have short attention spans in regard to this issue?

      We can frame the answer in terms of the religion of progress (see JM Greer).
      Or we can think of it as self-protection: admitting limits would require them to change their lives and give up comforts.

      I have not found a way to frame this that can help me reach people.
      I actually see the “dam effect”. As the situation gets more dire, people refuse to entertain any ideas that disagree with the mainstream narrative (similar to how people under the dam never accept that the dam might fail, while people far away do).

      After the covid scare, nobody I know worries in the least about long term trends in energy or economy. In my mind the pandemic was a master stroke – keep people amped up on fear of death and they will stop planning for the future.

      • jj says:

        Yes religion of progress! Which is of course shares the trait of all religions.
        Including the religion of woke.
        the religion of greta.
        The religion of trump.

        Because at their base …
        They are all religions of consumption.
        Me consume more, more fair.
        They consume more, less fair.

        When you belong to a religion you turn on your radar.
        Thats mandatory.
        This radar identifies whether an argument is in accordance with the dogma of your religion.
        If not attention span can be short or more likely the messenger attacked.

        So the while the promise of green energy is easily identified as a energy sink the thought process that does so is discarded and attacked as sacrilege.

        This process is ego enhancing and self justifying and the vast majority are addicted to the process itself.
        Without it they would have no way to evaluate anything.
        Lost in the wilderness.
        Instead of encouraging the process of being lost and finding oneself as routine, a matter of intellectual hygiene, the process of understanding that we have limits. that no understanding is absolute, the reliance on dogma is encouraged and demanded.
        This is contrary to compassion to humbleness and acceptance of different beliefs in a free and secular society.

        Only good doggys get a treat.

        Bad doggys …

      • Tim Groves says:

        NomadicBeer: Good point.

        Perhaps a lot of people are wearing self-imposed ideological blinkers. Chomsky used to talk about this, and I would have to read through Manufacturing Consent in order to re-grasp some of the relevant points he made—because I think there was a lot in that book that applies to people in general, not just journalists. And of course, Orwell, Arendt and others wrote extensively about how people internalize the political system that surrounds them without them being aware of the fact.

        I have seen what can be called the “short attention span” at work recently in people who are not classic “short attention span” types. Perhaps they are displaying “knowledge hesitancy”? They would rather not know and so they sabotage the very act of absorbing the knowledge—not as overtly as sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, “I can’t hear you!” But none too subtly either.

        Anyway, I intend to keep observing people as they squirm, dodge and avert their eyes from what they want to avoid learning.

        • Kowalainen says:

          Hopium is such a powerful drug. Ah, if they would know how much of bliss objective reality is.

          For sure the realization of what it implies is awful. At least knowledge can be reasoned about and acted upon. For example, if IC goes down the tubes in the worst possible way – what to do? I surely know what I am going to do.

          *waves good bye to existence*


    • Harry says:

      Hello Tim,

      do you have a link for that official statement?
      “OK, according to VAERS data, your chances of dying from a Covid-19 shot is about 75 TIMES higher than your changes of dying from a flu shot.”

      • FoolishFitz says:

        This has links to the relevant places Harry.

        • Tim Groves says:

          Thank you Fitz.

          So according to Dr. Bostom, from the VAERS data, your chances of dying from a Covid-19 shot are actually 79 TIMES higher than your chances of dying from a flu shot.

          Interesting factoid, that.

          VAERS is a voluntary reporting system in the US. As far asI know, it doesn’t issue official statements about anything. But from the data fed into it by doctors and patients who report vaccine side effects, using simple arithmetic, it is possible to work out that vaccine A has injured or killed people at an X times higher rate than vaccine B. Also, only a small percentage of incidents get reported to VAERS, so it greatly understates the actual numbers for everything.

  41. Minority Of One says:

    Yesterday’s China-In-Focus (YouTube news bulletin) did a feature on Chinese population. The CCP’S National Bureau of Statistics just released a “one-sentence report” saying that the populating is increasing, The rest of the feature summarises other data suggesting that China’s population is in fact now falling fast. The Number of births in 2020 dropped by 15% compared to 2019. Mentions that the number of people registered with the top three cell phone companies dropped by over 20 M in the first two months of 2020.

    Min 9:22 – 11:09

  42. Sunface says:

    Most interesting article. We all know that scarcity is always the issue. There is never enough of everything. Is it not why we hoard where we can?

    However after reading the article twice and biting my lip, I conclude the issue or problem has more to do with “the powers that be” than anything else.

    Yes, I agree “taking money from the rich doesn’t really fix scarcity problems” however the rich don’t see it that way. They seem to believe taking the little money the poorer populations have will solve the problem, extermination appears to be easier current option.
    They the Davos Billionaires Cabal (“the powers that be”) are looking after themselves and the rest can get stuf&3d in a nutshell. Just do a graph of wealth distribution. Then we can see where the excessive hoarding of wealth is.

    • Robert Firth says:

      Thank you, Sunface, short and to the point. However, are these multibillionaires harding “wealth” as we understand it? They are hoarding ones and zeros, but how much real wealth can they buy? How much food, water, clothing? And even if they could spend their wealth, why die with a billion pairs of shoes?

      Well, some are buying land. Unaware that in a time of resource scarcity, it will cost more in armed force to protect that land than it can ever yield in return. The problem faced, and not solved, by Rome, and remedied only by feudalism, which gave peasants certain rights over the land in exchange for their armed support in the ‘fyrd’.

      So kill the peasants and replace them with robots? Unfortunately, robots need far more energy, and far more embedded energy, than peasants. Seneca strikes again.

      • Harry McGibbs says:

        “Anyway, who are we angry at, the “One Percent”, or fraction thereof? Most of their financial wealth is based on abstract future promises that cannot be turned into goods and services except at the margins.

        “A lot of that wealth is financial, where total observable global financial wealth has a value of about 350% of Gross World Product – if the wealthy tried to convert their share of this into money the value would vaporize (who would buy the assets?). And what of the £50 million Belgravia mansion and the Old Masters collection? These are sometimes called Velben goods, they are goods that are desirable because their price is high, and they are usually relatively unique and made from resources produced long ago.

        “Again if the rich tried to sell at any scale, the price would crash. But let us imagine the super-rich, by desire or because they were forced to, could sell off their wealth getting say 3 time GWP in ready cash to help the poorer world, it could still not increase the flow of goods and services produced in the world except marginally (assuming the resultant inflation did not turn the economy into a tail-spin) – to do that requires the energy, resources, and the coordination of a complex socio-economic system that is already straining at these limits.

        “What’s more, if all the super-wealthy’s personal resource and energy consumption was shared per-capita over the world it would barely register; there’s too few of them and anyway after the mega-yacht and a couple of car collections and running a few homes, more energy and resource consumption just takes so much, well, work!

        “For example, there are 60,000 ships of weight greater than 10,000 tons in the world, a little time on Google should convince you that there are only a tiny number of personal super-yachts this size – it’s a mere statistical blip on the total number. Most of the super-richs’ wealth requires almost no resources in global terms, it’s just abstract status markers.

        “This is why when Oxfam say that the richest 100 people have enough wealth to end global poverty four times over they’re being deeply misleading. They confuse real wealth with virtual claims on wealth.”

      • All of the trillions of free money that has been directed at the already rich during this feardemic / casedemic is, I suspect, being converted quickly to building wider, more treacherous “moats” that isolate the richies, their lords, and peasants and their indoor, genetically engineered and vertically farmed veggies from the “unclean”. Right now, they are adding armor to their aristocratic humvees, so to speak. Anything to protect against the pitchforks.

  43. jj says:

    Thank you fo the article Gail! Do you think the mis/dis information is just hope expressed in mistruths or somthing else? Could the mis/dis information possibly have been this bad in previous energy crisis’s? So when the reality of resource depletion arrives war is the way of our species rather than become conscious that we inhabit a finite planet?

  44. World’s Most Vaccinated Nation Reintroduces Curbs as Cases Surge

    (Bloomberg) — Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated more of its population against Covid-19 than any other country, has closed schools and canceled sporting activities for two weeks as infections surge. The measures, which include bans on the intermingling of households and the early closure of bars, come even as the country has fully vaccinated more than 60% of its adult population with two doses of coronavirus vaccines. The curbs are similar to those last imposed at the end of 2020.

    “Despite of all the exceptional efforts we are making, the Covid-19 situation in our country is critical right now with many daily cases reported last week,” Peggy Vidot, the nation’s health minister, said at a press conference Monday.

    • New vaccine technology that genetically engineers the body to manufacture the primary culprit in the CV-19 scare ~~> the “spike protein” <~~ couldn't possibly be the "unanticipated" runaway disease vector that showed up in animal tests prior to CV-19 that killed all the test subjects when the next seasonally predictable round of "wild" virus (in contract to CV-19 "fake" virus) contacted them.

    • Yorchichan says:

      “The number of active cases in the nation rose to 1,068 on May 3 from 612 on April 28, according to health ministry announcements.”

      It would be useful to know how many of those 1,068 cases had been fully or partially vaccinated. Typically shoddy MSM journalism.

  45. Pingback: Homepage

  46. Glad fact-checkers seem far more confident in these products than their manufacturers.

    • Manufacturers seems to highlight the problem of an immune reaction to components of mRNA vaccines or therapies. These immune responses may “impede our ability to achieve a pharmacological effect upon repeat administration.” Thus, the strategy of keeping bringing out new vaccines as the virus mutates may not really work. The people with early vaccinations may not be able to get the benefit of later vaccinations.

    • Rusty says:

      Michael, can you please add links to the original docs for this and the other similar items you are posting. I would appreciate it. Thanks!

  47. Think the vaccine is safe?

    Moderna’s SEC filings from July of last year.

    • “business decision and calculated risks”

      We can make money from this, without the vast majority dying immediately.

    • Herbie R Ficklestein says:

      That was eye opening! Get a lot of heckling at my employment for being a hold out for not being vaccinated and printed it up to hand to those that do so, thank you.
      Of course, doubt it will have any effect since those injected have no choice now but to think they did the right thing..Joe Biden said so….🙄

  48. Israel IDs Three COVID Cases of South American Strains in Vaccinated Arrivals

    All three vaccinated Israelis had recently returned from abroad; Two cases of Brazilian COVID variant and one Chilean variant found

    Israel has identified its first two cases of the Brazilian variant of coronavirus, the Health Ministry said on Monday, as well as the first case of the Chilean strain.

    All three cases were discovered through genetic sequencing in vaccinated Israelis who had recently returned from abroad.

    In recent weeks, Brazil and Chile have recorded record-high surges in COVID cases, prompting some countries to impose quarantine and travel restrictions on arrivals from the two South American nations.

    The Brazilian strain, much like the mutations from the U.K., South Africa and India, has undergone a change in spike protein, and is believed to be more contagious than the original COVID variant.

    Israel’s the Health Ministry also said that they had discovered an additional 19 new cases of the Indian coronavirus strain, none of which were found in Israeli citizens. Thus far, a total of 60 cases of the Indian variant have been diagnosed in Israel.

    The first 41 cases of the Indian strain were identified last week, including four in people who had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

    Israel’s genomic sequencing system found that 24 of those infected with the variant, which experts say may be more contagious than other variants, had returned recently from abroad.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      None have escaped it.
      It will happen, probably, as mutations continue with low vaccination.
      But now, nothing has.

      • Lastcall says:

        Yep, same as the the anti-biotics led to…

        ‘Antibiotic resistance happens when germs like bacteria and fungi develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them. That means the germs are not killed and continue to grow. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant germs are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to treat.”

        ….so to the leaky vexines are hastening the variant storm.

        None so blind as those that cannot see.

Leave a Reply