To Be Sustainable, Green Energy Must Generate Adequate Taxable Revenue

What allows any type of energy to be sustainable? I would argue that one of the requirements for sustainability is adequate production of taxable revenue. Company managements depend upon taxable revenue for many purposes, including funding new investments and paying dividends to shareholders. Governments depend upon taxable income to collect enough taxes to provide infrastructure and programs for their growing populations.

Taxable income is a major way that “net energy” is transferred to future investment and to the rest of the economy. If this form of net energy is too low, governments will collapse from lack of funding. Energy production will fall from lack of reinvestment. This profitability needs to come from the characteristics of the energy products, allowing more goods and services to be produced efficiently. This profitability cannot be created simply by the creation of more government debt; the rise in the price of energy is tied to the affordability of goods, particularly the goods required by low-income people, such as food. This affordability issue tends to put a cap on prices that can be charged for energy products.

It seems to me that Green Energy sources are held to far too low a standard. Their financial results are published after subsidies are reflected, making them look profitable when, in reality, they are not. This is one of the things that makes many people from the financial community believe that Green Energy is the solution for the future.

In this post, I will discuss these ideas further. A related issue is, “Which type of oil production fell most in the 2018-2021 period?” Many people had expected that perhaps high-cost energy production would fall. Strangely enough, the production that fell most was that of OPEC oil exporters. These oil exporters often have a very low cost of energy production. The production of US oil from shale also fell.

If the ratio of Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) is to be used as a measure of which type of energy best meets our needs, perhaps the list of items to be included in EROEI calculations needs to be broadened. Alternatively, more attention needs to be paid to unsubsidized taxable income as an indicator of net energy production.

[1] According to EIA data, world crude oil production hit a peak of 84.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in the fourth quarter of 2018. Production fell as low as 72.3 million bpd in the third quarter of 2020. Production rebounded to 75.4 million barrels of oil a day, still 9.1 million bpd below peak production in the 4th quarter of 2018.

Figure 1. Quarterly crude and condensate production, based on international data of the US Energy Information Administration.

This drop in oil production was unprecedented. It far exceeded the drop in oil production at the time of the Great Recession of 2008-2009. As of the first quarter of 2021, crude oil production was roughly at its level in 2011. It still has not rebounded very far.

[2] The biggest drop in crude oil production during this period was that of the cartel led by OPEC and Russia. United States’ oil production also fell during this period. Production of the Rest of the World, in total, was fairly flat.

Figure 2. Crude oil production through the first quarter of 2021 based on international data of the US Energy Information Administration.

The big concern of OPEC and Russia was that crude oil prices were too low to provide adequate tax revenue for the governments of these countries. This is especially an issue for countries with few other industries besides oil. These oil exporting countries tend to have large populations, with little employment besides government-sponsored projects. Nearly all food needs to be imported, so subsidies for food need to be provided if the many people earning low wages are to be able to afford this food.

If oil prices are high, say $150 per barrel or higher in today’s dollars, it is generally fairly easy for governments to collect enough oil-related taxes. The actual cost of extraction is often very low for oil exporters, perhaps as little as $20 per barrel. The need for tax revenue greatly exceeds the direct expenses of extracting the oil. Companies can be asked to pay as much as 90% of operating income (in this example, equal to $130 = $150 – $20 per barrel, probably only relating to exported oil) as taxes. The percentage varies greatly by country, with countries that have higher costs of production generally paying less in taxes.

Figure 3. Chart from 2013 showing “government take” as a percentage of operating income by Barry Rodgers Oil and Gas Consulting (website no longer available).

When oil companies are asked about their required price to break even, a wide range of answers is possible. Do they just quote the expense of pulling the oil from the ground? If so, a very low answer is possible. If shareholders are involved in the discussions, this is the answer that they would like to hear. Or do they give realistic estimates, including the taxes that their governments need? Furthermore, if the cost of extraction is rising, there needs to be enough profit that can be set aside to allow for the drilling of new wells in higher-cost areas, if production is to be maintained.

Because of the need for tax revenue, OPEC countries often publish Fiscal Breakeven Oil Prices, indicating how high the prices need to be to obtain adequate tax revenue for the exporting countries. For example, Figure 4 shows a set of Fiscal Breakeven Oil Prices for 2013 – 2014.

Figure 4. Estimate of OPEC breakeven oil prices, including tax requirements by parent countries, by APICORP.

If a country tries to maintain the same standard of living for its population as in the past, I would expect that the fiscal breakeven price would rise year after year. This would occur partly because the population of OPEC countries keeps rising and thus more subsidy is needed. The fiscal breakeven price would also tend to rise because the easiest-to-extract oil tends to be depleted first. As a result, new oil-related investments can be expected to have higher costs than the depleted investments they are replacing.

In fact, if a person looks at more recently published fiscal breakeven prices, they tend to be lower than the 2013-2014 breakevens. I believe that this happens because oil exporters don’t want to look desperate. They know that attaining such high prices is unlikely today. They hope that by using more debt and reducing the standard of living of their citizens, they can somehow get along with a lower fiscal breakeven price. This is not a long term solution, however. Unhappy citizens are likely to overturn their governments. Such a result could completely cut off oil supply from these countries.

[3] A cutback in oil production is not surprising for the OPEC + Russia group, nor for the United States, given the chronically low oil prices. The profitability was too low for all of these producers.

Figure 5. Inflation-adjusted historical average annual Brent oil price for 1965 through 2020 from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. 12-Jul-2021 amount is the actual Brent spot oil price for that date.

Oil prices fell in late 2014. Fiscal breakeven prices calculated before that date likely gave a somewhat reasonable estimate of the needed prices for oil exporters to make an adequate profit, at that time. By early 2019, when the first decreases in oil production began, these countries were beginning to become fed up with chronically low oil prices.

It is interesting to note that Qatar, the country with the lowest breakeven price on Figure 4, decided to withdraw from OPEC effective January 1, 2019, rather than reduce its oil production. For Qatar, oil prices in late 2018 and early 2019 were close to adequate. Qatar mostly produces natural gas, rather than oil.

The decrease in US shale oil production reflects somewhat the same low profitability issue as OPEC + Russia exports, with an additional factor added. Besides low prices, there seems to be a well-spacing issue. There are reports that the spacing of shale wells gradually got closer and closer, until the closer spacing became counter-productive. The more closely spaced wells “cannibalized” the output from nearby wells. The extra drilling may also have released needed pressurization, reducing oil availability.

Such a problem would have been a difficult issue to pick up from EROEI analyses because there are not enough of these EROEI studies to see sudden changes. Figure 6 shows the timing of the drop in US oil production, relative to the drop in oil prices:

Figure 6. Monthly average crude oil and condensate production and prices for the United States excluding the Gulf of Mexico, based on US Energy Information Administration data. Oil prices are West Texas Intermediate spot prices, not adjusted for inflation. Amounts shown are through April 2021.

Figure 6 omits oil from the Gulf of Mexico, because its quantity tends to bounce around, especially when a hurricane hits. Because of this exclusion, the oil shown in Figure 6 reflects a combination of declining oil production from conventional oil wells plus (after about 2011) rising production from shale wells.

Figure 6 shows that production of oil from shale was developed during the 2011 to 2013 period, when oil prices were high. When oil prices suddenly fell in late 2014, shale producers suddenly found production very unprofitable. They cut back on production starting in April 2015. Shale production started rising again in 2017 after prices moved away from their extreme lows. Growth in oil production began to slow in late 2018, when oil prices again began to fall.

The big shutdown in world oil demand associated with the COVID-19 epidemic began in the second quarter of 2020. Shale production fell in response to low oil prices in March through November of 2020. As of April 2021, production does not seem to have rebounded significantly. We have seen reports that workers were laid off, making it difficult to add new production. If, indeed, well-spacing had become too close, this may have played a role in the decision not to ramp up production again. It is quite possible that many drilled but uncompleted wells will permanently remain uncompleted because they are too close to other wells to be useful.

Based on this analysis, it seems likely that US oil production for 2021 will be lower than that for 202o. Ultimately, the lack of adequate profitability can be expected to bring US oil production down.

[4] There are some high-cost oil producers who continue to produce increasing amounts of oil.

Figure 7. Crude oil and condensate production for Canada and Brazil, based on international data of the US Energy Information Administration.

The keys to maintaining high-cost oil production seem to be

  • Large up front investments to make this production possible with little new investment
  • Governments that are not very “needy” in terms of revenue from oil taxes

Even with these considerations, having an unprofitable or barely profitable oil industry weakens a country. Neither Brazil nor Canada is doing very well economically in 2021. These countries will likely reduce new oil investment in the next year or two, if inflation-adjusted oil prices do not rise significantly.

[5] Somehow, “Green Energy” has been allowed to compete in the energy field with huge subsidies. If Green Energy is actually to be successful long-term, it needs to be profitable in the same way that fossil fuel energy needs to be profitable. If wind and solar are truly useful, they need to be very profitable, even without subsidies, so that they can support their governments with taxes.

There tends to be little recognition of the extent of subsidies for renewable energy. For example, allowing the electricity from wind turbines and solar panels to be put on the grid whenever it is generated is a huge subsidy. Such generation mostly substitutes for the coal or natural gas used by electricity-producing plants, rather than the electricity generated by these plants. The many reports we see that compare the cost of intermittent electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels with the cost of dispatchable electricity generated by fossil fuels are simply misleading.

Furthermore, electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels doesn’t need to be sufficiently profitable to pay for the much larger grid they require. The larger grid requirement occurs partly because the devices tend to be more distant from users, and partly because the transmission lines need to be sized for the maximum transmission required, which tends to be high for the variable production of renewables.

The lack of adequate profitability of wind and solar on an unsubsidized basis strongly suggests that they are not really producing net energy, regardless of what EROEI calculations seem to indicate.

It might be noted that in past years, oil exporters have been accused of giving large energy subsidies to their oil producing companies. What these oil exporters have been doing is charging their own citizens lower prices for oil products than the high (international) price charged to foreign buyers. Thus, high taxes were collected only on oil exports, not from local citizens. With the fall in oil prices in late 2014 (shown in Figures 5 and 6 below), this practice of differential pricing has largely disappeared.

“Oil subsidies” in the US consist of financial assistance to low income people in the US Northeast who continue to heat their homes with oil. These subsidies, too, have mostly disappeared, with lower oil prices and the availability of less expensive forms of home heating.

[6] It seems to me that an economy really has three different requirements:

  1. The total quantity of energy must be rising, at least as rapidly as population.
  2. The types of energy available must match the needs of current energy-consuming devices, or there needs to be some type of transition plan to facilitate this transition.
  3. There must be enough “net energy” left over, both (a) to fund governments with taxes and (b) to fund any transition to different energy-consuming devices, if such a transition is required.

Thus, in order for a transition to Green Energy to really work, it must be extremely profitable on a pretax, unsubsidized basis, so that it can pay high taxes. The greater the need for a transition to different energy consuming devices, such as heat pumps for buildings and electric vehicles of many types, the greater the need for more net energy generated by Green Energy sources to help facilitate this transition.

High profitability for energy products is normally associated with a very low cost of energy production. Furthermore, the type of Green Energy available needs to be in a very useful form. In a sense, there are really two different energy transitions required:

  • The output of intermittent electricity devices must be brought up to grid standards, using a combination such as many long distance transmission, very substantial battery backup, and the use of many devices to provide the electricity with the precise characteristics it needs.
  • As mentioned above, if greater use of electricity is to be made, a transition to electric devices is required.

Both of these transitions will require a significant quantity of energy (really net energy not used elsewhere in the system) to accomplish. If fossil fuel energy is being phased out, an increasing share of this net energy will need to come from the Green Energy sector by way of the tax system. Such a system will only work if the Green Energy sector is very profitable on a pre-tax basis.

[7] Figure 8 suggests that the world has a problem with low energy consumption per capita right now.

Figure 8. Energy consumption per capita for all energy sources combined based on data from BP’s Statistical Review of Energy 2021.

There is a strong correlation between growth in total energy consumption per capita and how well the economy is doing. The slight downward slide in energy consumption per capita in 2019 indicates that the economy was already doing poorly in 2019. The huge downward shift in 2020 dwarfs the downward slide in 2009, when the world was in the midst of the Great Recession. My earlier research, looking back 200 years, indicates that low growth in energy consumption per capita is likely to lead to conflict among nations and collapses of governments. Epidemics are also more likely to spread in such periods, because greater wage and wealth disparity tends to occur when energy supplies are constrained.

Any shift away from fossil fuel energy to Green Energy will almost certainly mean a huge drop in world energy consumption per capita because the world doesn’t produce very much Green Energy. Such a drop in energy consumption per capita will be a huge problem, in itself. If the Green Energy sector doesn’t generate much taxable income without subsidies, this adds an additional difficulty.

[8] Conclusion: Examination of the EROEIs for various fuels, using calculations the way that they are performed today, gives inadequate information regarding whether a transition to another set of fuels is feasible.

Researchers need to be looking more at (a) the total quantity of energy produced and (b) the profitability of producing this energy. An economy is only possible because of profitable businesses, including energy businesses. A person cannot assume that energy prices will rise from today’s level because of scarcity. Today’s huge debt bubble is producing very high copper and steel prices, but it is not producing correspondingly high oil prices.

Heavily subsidized energy products look like they might be helpful, but there is little reason to believe this to be the case. If Green Energy products are truly producing net energy, we should expect this fact to be reflected in the unsubsidized profits that these products generate. In fact, if Green Energy products are truly producing large amounts of net energy, they should be so profitable that businesses will be rapidly ramping up their production, even without subsidies or mandates.

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.

2,065 Responses to To Be Sustainable, Green Energy Must Generate Adequate Taxable Revenue

  1. Malcopian says:

    Black women who use lye-based hair relaxers at least seven times a year for 15 or more years have a 30% increased risk of breast cancer

    The wages of cultural appropriation?

  2. I did send you a link to Roget’s Thesaurus

  3. Tim Groves says:

    A pro-vaxx study by Yale conducted in July 2020 employed trolls — 4000 participants who set out to pressure others into getting vaccinated. They used manipulative messaging such as guilt, embarrassment, and trust science.

    How many organizations might be employing pro-vaxx trolls?

    + + + +

    This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available. Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available between the 10 intervention arms to the 2 control arms.

    Other: Baseline message
    3/15 of the sample will be assigned to a control group with a message about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

    Other: Personal freedom message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom and by working together to get enough people vaccinated society can preserve its personal freedom.

    Other: Economic freedom message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting peoples’s economic freedom and by working together to get enough people vaccinated society can preserve its economic freedom.

    Other: Self-interest message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy. Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.

    Other: Community interest message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. Society must work together and all get vaccinated.

    Other: Economic benefit message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this group, which is a message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.

    Other: Guilt message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.

    Other: Embarrassment message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.

    Other: Danger message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.

    Other: Trust in science message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. Vaccination is backed by science. If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.

    Other: Not bravery message
    1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message which describes how firefighters, doctors, and front line medical workers are brave. Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.

  4. Fred says:

    Interesting article from Mike Adams at

    Historically Trump was close to the Messiah in his eyes. Now he’s saying Trump was behind the big push to get experimental vaccines out. Big about face.

    Was Trump just another useful idiot there to do a job? Could never understand the right wing media portraying him as a saviour.

  5. Foolish Fitz says:

    From the article.

    Education minister Vicky Ford did not rule out the move, however, saying “I think it’s really important that young people step forward for their vaccination.”

    So the young, who are at absolutely no risk, should be injected with an experimental therapy that we have no long term data about, even though it’s proven that the experimental therapy does not stop you getting or transmitting anything.
    We do know the experimental therapy is causing multiple ‘very rare’ problems for the young in places that have failed in their duty of care for their children.
    With that in mind it’s heartwarming to see the unions making a stand.

    Oh, they are going after the kids and education unions are on board with the insanity.
    It’s quite amazing what people are willing to do, even to children, when they are constantly bombarded with fear.
    Dr Josef would be proud of all that do this to children.

  6. Fast Eddy says:

    The United States will not lift any existing travel restrictions “at this point” due to concerns over the highly transmissible Covid-19 Delta variant and the rising number of US coronavirus cases, the White House confirmed on Monday.

    The announcement almost certainly dooms any bid by US airlines and the US tourism industry to salvage summer travel by Europeans and others covered by the restrictions. Airlines have heavily lobbied the White House for months to lift the restrictions and some say the industry may now have to wait until September or later for a possible revision.

    The United States currently bars most non-US citizens who within the last 14 days have been in the United Kingdom, the 26 Schengen nations in Europe without internal border controls, or in Ireland, China, India, South Africa, Iran and Brazil.

    So I guess the Injections don’t work right… otherwise they’d let Injected people in … right?

    mikenormdunc…. or is it mike norm-dunc… or dunc mike-norm… perhaps norm dunc-mike… that question is for you

  7. Erdles says:

    UK Covid cases have halved in the last 10 days even as lockdown ends. Something very interesting is going on here, either the data is being falsified or the vaccine programme is actually working.

      • Student says:

        I completely agree with you Fast Eddy.
        Furthermore there maybe 2 additional points.
        1) this maybe linked to the fact that from the 31st of Dec. 2021 PCR tests will not be any more valid. So they probably know already something about and they are probably adjusting data considering mistakes.
        2) Coronavirus are less aggressive during summer and in fact in Italy we have a similar situation in comparison to last summer which was without vaccines.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          No mistake.. they wanted loads of infections so they could scare the CovIDIOTS… and now they want less to make the CovIDIOTs believe the vaccines are effective

    • All is Dust says:

      Or… it’s a seasonal virus… like all other coronaviruses?

      I do wonder what our ancestors think of us at this point in time…

    • HDUK says:

      Schools etc have broken up and so testing at schools has ceased and many people have deleted apps that call for them to be tested or are avoiding being tested. They do not want to be entered into quarantine for 10 days when they are about to depart on their holidays. Many like the tests normally, particularly if they are Civil Servants of which there are millions, because they are able to stay at home for 10 days on full pay. In the UK we have a ‘testing’ pandemic not a viral one and the tests as we know are not accurate with many false positives, we test more people than any other country from the last data I saw. My sister and brother in law both came down with similiar ‘flu’ like symtoms. B-I-L tested positive, sister tested negative (same thing happened to my brother and he had classic symptoms loss of taste etc so was advised to get tested again) she thought this was odd and had a 2nd PCR test and tested positive, both were double jabbed against my advise and many emails. You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, they watch TV I don’t, I absolutely loath the BBC. Numbers are dropping I strongly suspect because fewer people are being tested. Most people/clients I know who are now testing positive have been jabbed. This could be due to a weakened immune system making them susceptable or general ineffectiveness of the jabs. To insist that the unjabbed in the UK are excluded is farcical, as it is the jabbed who are spreading the virus in my experience.

  8. Fast Eddy says:

    A last word of caution to all those pretending the Covid-19 pandemic is toning down

    The current expansion in prevalence of infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants is highly problematic because it erodes natural Ab-based, variant-nonspecific immunity in the non-vaccinated part of the population. The high infectivity rate that results from this expansion not only further enhances the expansion of these variants but may also drive natural selection of viral variants that are featured by an even higher level of infectiousness.

    Erosion, therefore, of natural Ab-based, variant-nonspecific immunity promotes breeding and transmission of more infectious viral variants in the non-vaccinated part of the population. On the other hand, mass vaccination promotes natural selection of increasingly vaccine immunity (VI)-escaping variants in the vaccinated part of the population. Taken together, mass vaccination conducted on a background of high infectivity rates enables more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping variants to expand in prevalence.

    This evolution inevitably results in inclining morbidity rates in both, the non-vaccinated and vaccinated population and precipitates the emergence of circulating viral variants that will eventually fully resist vaccine-mediated immunity (VMI). This is why mass vaccination campaigns should not be conducted during a pandemic of a highly mutable virus, let alone during a pandemic of more infectious variants (unless transmission-blocking vaccines are used!).

    It is critical to understand that a rapid decline in viral infectivity rates that is not achieved by natural infection but merely results from expedited mass vaccination campaigns will only delay abrupt propagation of emerging, fully vaccine-resistant viral variants and hence, only delay the occurrence of a high wave of morbidity and mortality.

    In contrast, mass vaccination campaigns that are progressing more slowly, especially when conducted on a background of relatively low infectious pressure, will result in a steadily growing propagation of increasingly VI-escaping variants and hence, cause a wave of morbidity and mortality that continues to grow bigger and larger as more and more people become vaccinated. It’s only when fully vaccine-resistant viral variants will become dominant that this wave will start to peak.

    • Tiim Groves says:

      This: In other words, high viral infection rates drive natural selection and self-amplifying expansion of more and more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants in the non-vaccinated part of the population while high vaccine coverage rates drives natural selection of increasingly VI-escaping Sars-CoV-2 variants. This evolution is now driving enhanced rates of disease in both populations. Consequently, mass vaccination during a pandemic of more infectious variants self-amplifies natural selection and expansion of more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping Sars-CoV-variants. Both, the vaccinated and non-vaccinated part of the population fully contribute to this evolution.

      Because of all of the above, I can certainly not endorse the opinion of those who think that the decrease in disease severity and hospitalizations that is now observed in several countries where mass vaccination is well advanced would be due to some kind of ‘attenuation’ of viral variants or to some kind of growing HI. One rather concludes that this pandemic is far from over or from transitioning into endemicity. There can be no doubt that, at this stage, the pandemic is gearing up for breeding vaccine-resistant ‘supervariants’, a phenomenon that is at risk of fueling an even larger wave of morbidity, hospitalization and, unfortunately, also death, not at least in the vaccinated part of the population.

      We’re all doomed!

    • Alex says:

      Dammit, our deadly pandemic did kill only 0.05% of the population, despite all our diagnostic and statistical scams. The part of the population that trusts our mass propaganda channels is under control, but those alt guys are getting restless. Quick, summon some of our people, let’s say someone who worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis to scare the bejesus out of them. You know, feed them some wild claims backed by a lot of handwaving (you could even pretend that T-cell immunity doesn’t exist), and sprinkle them with some conspiracy stuff, they love that and will swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Oh, and of course don’t forget to promote mass vaccination with some alternative experimental goo (it doesn’t even need to exist).

      P.S.: Tick-tock, still waiting for the promised “uncontrollable monster”.

    • Tim Groves says:

      The prose is dense and cluttered, but more I read Bossche, the more sense he seems to make.

  9. Fast Eddy says:

    Record Coral Cover Of Great Barrier Reef Shames Climate Alarmists, Media

    hahahahaha… weren’t we supposed to be able to sail through the Artic in winter by now?

    Web cam

  10. Fast Eddy says:

    Government push to force young people to get jabs risks undermining trust in the vaccine, expert warns – as video of woman ‘struggling to walk’ after getting Pfizer is liked 100,000 times on Instagram

    • Rodster says:

      Love the part about: “It’s not yet clear why it affects some people.”. Ummm because it’s been rushed to market and poorly tested. And when there are severe reactions or injuries it’s dismissed as an odd occurrence. In that article it was mentioned that with Rose Segal’s injuries “It follows the vaccine, but is not ’caused’ in a sense.“ You gotta love the spin.

      But hey i’m living proof those vaccines are totally safe. I’m getting my weekly Jab and i’m now on a first name basis at the vaccine clinic.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        I am thinking…

        … of norm dunc mike … beginning to realize… that they’ve been stitched up with the ‘vaccines’…

        They can never admit it … but deep down guys…. you surely are reading that Israel story … and feeling profound despair….

        I think We Told You Not to Get Injected… maybe 1000 or so times? Ignore the Core — at your peril….

        You know… I think I’ll have a nice glass of

        Highly recommend this…. norm… perhaps an entire bottle for you? Make sure you put on your diapers first… chase it with some Geritol?

        Is it not a great day? Hit the ski hills for a dozen or so good runs…. decent snow… sunny…. then came back to see another Outstanding Find from The Almighty Tim…. and thinking … what a great decision it was to no be Injected with the Poison …..

        Feels like… Victory!

      • Rodster says:

        “It’s not yet clear why it affects some people.”

        I’m beginning to think they don’t care if it affects some people. At $19.50 a dose and the price will go higher that’s billions in profit because Big Pharma and the US Gov’t can’t be sued.

        “SHOW ME THE MONEY !!!!”
        – Jerry Mcguire

  11. Tim Groves says:

    Time to roll up your sleeve for your booster, Norman?

    From the Times of Israel:

    People vaccinated before late February are twice as likely to catch the coronavirus than other inoculated Israelis, according to new research.

    “We looked at tens of thousands of people tested in the month of June, alongside data on how long had passed since their second shot, and found that those vaccinated early were more likely to test positive,” Dr. Yotam Shenhar, who headed the research, told The Times of Israel.

    “This definitely reinforces the argument for giving a third vaccine dose to the elderly.”

    Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, observes:

    “So, this pretty much nails it down. The durability of the Pfizer vaccine is not very long.”

    This also underlines Gail’s point that, even if they work well, the world simply doesn’t have the resources to keep vaccinating the entire population every six months.

  12. Tim Groves says:

    Just sharing the schadenfreude! 🙂

    Mr. House posted this at TAE:


    If you don’t believe in vaccinations, I genuinely think you are an idiot. Like, legitimately dense. A moron. I hope that every soda you order is flat. I hope that one of your boot-heels has a click and you can’t figure out why. I hope that you hit every red light. I hope that when you wake up in the morning and head outside to snag the paper from the lawn, you walk through your front door and into a spider web. But primarily, I hope none of your family or friends suffer from your complete failings as a functional member of society.

    Jordan Hayes, February 23, 2021


    Yesterday afternoon, on July 6th, 2021, the world lost one of the brightest, most talented and deeply loved humans that has ever existed. Jordan Dale Hayes, age 33, died at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. Less than a week before his death, Jordan went to the ER with chest pains. What was found to be a small heart attack quickly led to two open heart surgeries. Complications arose and Jordan suffered multiple catastrophic strokes that ultimately proved to be too much for his body to overcome. He passed quickly and painlessly surrounded by those who loved him the most.

    + + + + +

    Back to me!

    Kelly Bee on Twitter writes:

    “Two months after fully vaccinated, 33 year old Jordan Hayes was hospitalized with chest pains. He passed away after two open heart surgeries and strokes. Today, @EconomicTimes reports—heart attack and stroke are the main causes of death from COVID shots. ”

    However, there’s an upside. This is a teachable event for all of us—jabbed and unjabbed alike:

    “It’s no longer a question if these shots cause blood clots. The question is what to do about them. Please learn how to recognize the signs and seek immediate medical attention.

  13. Fast Eddy says:

    Ha.. the cattle are getting more than restless… I am Entertained!!!

    Poitiers town hall stormed by protestors

    Police and firemen fighting each other

  14. Downunder says:

    I have just found this on line, it is how to convince us vaccine hesitant to get jabbed.

    • Azure Kingfisher says:

      Seriously, that reads exactly like a religious proselytizing guide.

      They’re looking to create missionaries who will spread the faith for the new Branch Covidian religion.

  15. jarvis says:

    In my province of BC we have a hydro electric dam under construction ( referred to as Site C) this supposed green project is estimated to generate $4 billion in clean hydro electricity. The part I find puzzling is the $16 billion costs. Hydro is like solar where all your costs are up front but right now I’m thinking this might be a good thing as the depleted parts of the planet with huge population declines first and this energy source now paid for with cheap debt can keep us going for another decade or two. Canada also produces double the oil it consumes and I realize that both power sources require just in time delivery of parts but we are getting more self sufficient there as well.
    BC is over twice as big as California and instead of 80 million people that 2 California’s would have we’re at 4.9 million. The least population with intact resources gives me some hope .
    Quick doomstead report: on the lake where I’m located a property just came on the market. It’s not quite big enough for a house because of the required septic system but you can park your RV and it does have a 10 by 12 bunkhouse – yours for $1,970,000.00 . The price is ridiculous to be sure but my doomstead is now at the $2 million mark with taxes to match my price years ago was $80K. Who says being doomy doesn’t pay?

    • Maybe things will work out. I know that Prof. Charles Hall retired to the Lake Flathead area of Montana because it is associated with a dam that produces hydro electricity. If this can be kept operating, it would seem to be able to produce at least a low level of hydroelectric for citizens. Whether or not it can provide for the heavy needs of industry is a different question.

      Once it is built, the major issue is maintenance of the plant and of the transmission lines. If the supposed green project cannot sell enough electricity at a high enough rate, the owners can default on the debt. In some sense, that is not a problem. But the owners somehow need to be able to pay the workers at the hydroelectric plant. And the engineers that manage the electrical transmission system need to still be paid by someone.

      It is difficult to see exactly what part of the system “goes.” If you don’t have enough food and fresh water, that will definitely be a problem. I would still look for a backup supply of wood to burn for heat in BC.

  16. davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

    to add to my previous post below:

    the chance of getting covid is now RISING.

    IF the gov/MSM does not tell the truth about the diminishing effectiveness, THEN the odds will rise more at least in the near term, perhaps into Fall and Winter.

    (I intend to continue to avoid the jabs.)

  17. Azure Kingfisher says:

    “We’re Turning Bricks Into Batteries” – Nov 27, 2020

    “Bricks can be converted into supercapacitors using a basic chemical process. Can be charged and discharged for 10,000 cycles with a power decrease of just 10 per cent. Three bricks could power a green LED on a single charge for ten minutes. Still a long way from being ready-to-go energy storage solution for our homes but could be useful for emergency illumination. We are happy to make clear that the bricks are still a concept proof rather than a ready to go solution.

    “Nanofibers can be treated with acid to increase capacity by a factor of 10. Team also working on ways to transform nanofiber into composite materials that contain other semiconductors. Other groups have mixed bricks with nanoparticles to clean out air emissions and one has made bricks that can conduct electricity by adding carbon nanomaterial electrodes.”

    “Bricks Can Be Turned into Batteries,”
    By Shahla Farzan on September 10, 2020

    “The brick battery relies on the reddish pigment known as iron oxide, or rust, that gives red bricks their color. The scientists pumped the bricks with several gases that react with iron oxide to produce a network of plastic fibers. These microscopic fibers coat the empty spaces inside the bricks—and conduct electricity.

    “’What we’re trying to do is: we’re trying to make specialized plastics that are only used on the nanoscale—where we use very little of the plastic, and we can actually embed that plastic inside construction materials’”)

    “In the future, D’Arcy says, a brick wall could potentially serve a dual purpose: providing structural support and storing electricity generated from renewable energy sources, such as solar panels.

    “The technology is still at least a few years away from being ready for the commercial market. And right now, the energy storage capacity of the bricks is still pretty low—about 1 percent of a lithium ion battery. But the team is now testing ways to improve brick performance—because it looks like you can teach an old brick new tricks.”

    • Maybe––we will see. I wouldn’t hold my breath if the energy storage capacity is now 1% of a lithium ion battery. We need solutions now, not 10 year from now.

      • Azure Kingfisher says:

        The solution: we all accept living small. Each individual citizen gets three bricks!

        “Three bricks could power a green LED on a single charge for ten minutes.“

        I don’t see this technology, or any unclassified technology for that matter, serving as a direct replacement for our current energy inputs. No matter how you slice it, the “solutions” are going to require significant step-downs in energy consumption for the majority of people. Different lifestyles; different emphases on what constitutes “the good life.”
        Lately, in my own life, I think about leaning away from landscape digital photography and more toward landscape charcoal drawing. I’ve always been a printed book fan rather than a Amazon Kindle user. Playing the electric guitar sure is fun but an acoustic guitar projects beautifully without needing electricity.
        Can we live happy, contented and meaningful lives without the constant glow of our screens and the hum of electricity? Can we choose to reconfigure our lives in an effort to become more resilient as our complex technology systems fail us?
        Some on Our Finite World may argue that it’s “all or nothing,” that there can be no controlled technological step-down for the human race without destroying the human race. I’m not so sure about that. We’ve survived for quite some time here on Earth with widely varying levels of technology. Perhaps it would be more precise to say that “not everyone could adapt to and/or survive a controlled technological step-down.” That there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the human race’s current energy predicament doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer for a portion of the human race. Another way to put the question would be: who among our species will survive? Who will endure the changes that will inevitably come as a result of our current energy predicament? Who or what “kind” of humans will best thrive in the future “post cheap energy world?”

  18. davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

    good vax posts lately by many here.

    my recent thoughts/questions, please comment/reply.

    1. the jabs gradually become ineffective after about 6 months.

    2. the vaccines are just as effective then ineffective against the variants.

    3. therefore the surge in high % of vaccinated people getting covid is due to the weakening effectiveness, not due to the variants being able to avoid the vax effectiveness.

    4a. the “newer better” mRNA type of vax is actually no better or maybe even worse than the older conventional dead virus type of vaccine.


    4b. this particular virus can not and will not ever have a vax that will work against it effectively for a long term of multiple years or decades with just two jabs.

    5. the health consequences of getting jabbed every 4 to 6 months are unknown.

    • Also,

      If we don’t vaccinate and instead treat with the drugs we have, COVID-19 may reach herd immunity. It seems impossible to ever reach herd immunity with the new vaccines. They seem to be too short-acting and not broad enough. They also don’t seem to stop the spread of the illness.

      • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

        I agree. The poor results of these vaccines should be made known to everyone.

        • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

          I’m unimpressed by that article.

          “How long will the immunity last? We don’t know yet, but only time will tell. Again, most vaccines confer equally long-lasting immunity.”

          I think recent data at least from Israel and UK shows that vax immunity fades to near zero after about 6 months.

          the mRNA vaccine technology may be a big giant failure.

          though we don’t know yet for sure.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          mike … what’s it like … to be you?

        • Fast Eddy says:

          I recommend the Summary

          There can be no doubt that, at this stage, the pandemic is gearing up for breeding vaccine-resistant ‘supervariants’, a phenomenon that is at risk of fueling an even larger wave of morbidity, hospitalization and, unfortunately, also death, not at least in the vaccinated part of the population.

          The Horror… The Horror!!!

          CEP Tonight Baby!!!

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Sounds like a reasonable strategy – what does mike think?

          Americans are ‘mixing and matching’ Covid vaccines over concerns about the delta variant

          I’ve got a sore throat… all these extra antibiotics in the medicine box… hmmm… I’ll take one of these… and maybe one of the green ones… oh… these look nice … bright red!… I’ll drop two of them….

          Does it not occur to CovIDIOTS how ridiculous it is to take what are supposedly totally different vaccines????? How can that possible make any scientific sense?????

          Of course the vaccines are all the same… they call came out of the same factory … they all do exactly the same thing… they breed deadly variants…. that’s why you can mix and match…

          People are really just so f789ing s t.ooopi…d. Really really really s —- d.

          Let’s check the Whatsapp …. nothing .. the CovIDIOT Wall of Silence continues.

          Gentle reminder time?

      • Fast Eddy says:

        They are actually making the virus worse…. but that’s the whole point!

      • Xabier says:

        The dissemination of novel mRNA treatments throughout the global population is working perfectly.

        They were clearly never intended to prevent this illness, still less to completely eradicate the Viral Terror.

        How to explain that to the fools who lined up so eagerly?

        The warnings were clear, even in the PR material from Big Pharma last December, but they ignored them:

        ‘We don’t yet know quite how they will work in practice, but it’s a fantastic technology!’

        That’s pretty much what the UK Chief Science Officer said when he announced the start of vaccination.

        Can people not read, after God knows how many years of state education? ! Well, we know the answer to that…..

  19. Minority of One says:

    Latest YT report from Ice Age Farmer, 21st July. He mainly discusses what looks like will be a global shortage of wheat this year, since so many of the main exporters, Russia, Canada, USA, et al are having issues with drought. The last article he reviews suggests that the biggest factor re food shortages over the next few years will be the shortage of chips, as in processors.

    Global Wheat Supplies Short as Drought/Flood Ravage Crops & Supply Chain Falters

  20. Mirror on the wall says:

    Oh what a rat race – it is a disgrace on the human race.

    “You are too rude. Don’t forget your history, remember your destiny. Some a b/stard, some a h/oligan.”

  21. JMS says:

    CDC implicitly admits that PCR tests cannot distinguish Sars.cov-2 (TM) from influenza viruses. Really?!

    • The site seems to say that the current PCR tests will be discontinued for COVID detection, effective December 31, 2021. I din’t run across a reason why, although I didn’t read everything.

      My guess is that the PDR test is not calibrated well enough to pick up COVID variants. There may be an issue of it not being able to tell COVID from Influenza as well, if it is used a high number of cycles, but I didn’t see that mentioned.

      • JMS says:

        I think that when they say that “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”, they are implicitly admitting that PCR testing does not make that differentiation, or at least that it is not very effective at it. (Which btw doesn’t surprise me at all.)

        • Good point! I found it when I looked for it.

          A test that cannot distinguish between influenza and COVID-19 is not of much value.

        • Xabier says:

          And voila! Influenza just disappeared for a year, in deep disguise as Covid.

          All the bad publicity of a century must have been getting to her…..

          The inaccurate tests did their job, in justifying the horrendous lock-downs and the deployment of the injected poisons, with innumerable false positives.

          Good fishing in muddy waters, for some…..

        • nikoB says:

          The wording is bad in the report. Does it mean differentiation between variants within sarscov2 when being tested and the same for differentiation between variants within influenza. Or does it imply differentiation between sarscov2 and influenza? If it is the second then that really means the testing has been a massive misreporting.

          • nikoB says:

            does appear to be between covid and flu when reading the other links.

          • This gets confusing, because there are both “flu reports” and data coded to death certificates on the use of death. I found something on the CDC site that says, “While flu deaths in children are reported to CDC, flu deaths in adults are not nationally notifiable.”

            If I look at one report (not by the CDC itself) with respect to the 20/21 flu season running from October 1, April 1, 2021, it says “646 deaths were attributed to the flu.” This is obviously way too low.


            This same report also says, “In 2019/20, there were 195 pediatric deaths. There was one pediatric death during the 2020/21 season.”

            Obviously something went wrong!

            But when I look at data from the death certificates, I find the following numbers by year:
            2017 55,672
            2018 59,120
            2019 49,783
            2020 53,720 (more may be reported later)
            The 2020 numbers look reasonable. So I think that, somehow, influenza deaths are making their way to the death certificates.

            I don’t think that we can jump to the conclusion that flu deaths are automatically being dumped in with COVID-19 deaths.

            I notice that the “Monthly Provisional Counts of Deaths by Select Causes 2020-2021” (which I downloaded) has two different columns for COVID-19. One is called “Multiple causes of death.” The other is called “Underlying cause of death.” The “Underlying cause of death” column shows numbers that are about 90% as high as the “Multiple causes of death” column.

    • When I look at this site:

      It seems to show a long list of authorized tests, many of which are PCR tests. Now that I look at it further, it seems to be that simply one particular type of PCR test is being disallowed. It is “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.”

      Apparently, there are new, better versions of the test.

      • JMS says:

        If I read it correctly, the CDC website mentions only one RT-PCR test for covid-19 detection: the 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, that was authorized for “emergency use” (like the covid-vaccines…how curious!) in February 2020.
        Also mentioned is a PCR test for “Flu & Covid-19” : the CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex Assay, also authorized for “emergency use” in July, 2020.

        Apparently they’ve now found out that their PCR “test for covid only” isn’t effective at differentiating covid from flu…. Well…

        • I thought it was interesting that this web page is called, “CDC’s Diagnostic Test for COVID-19 Only and Supplies”

          The italics for “only” are in the page title.

          This page starts out:
          “The CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT–PCR Diagnostic Panel detects the SARS-CoV-2 virus in upper and lower respiratory specimens. It is designed to be used with an existing RT-PCR testing instrument commonly used to test for seasonal influenza virus.”

          So, it sounds like what happened is the CDC tried to adapt the instrument used to detect seasonal flu to also detect COVID-19. The catch was the instrument could not differentiate between the two.

Leave a Reply