For Natural Gas, the Other Shoe Drops
For years, certain natural gas producers, led by Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, have pursued a myopic strategy of demonizing coal in an effort to seize a larger share of the electricity generation market.
It started in 2008, when Chesapeake funded an unsigned “Dirty Coal” advertising campaign. It featured black and white photos of children, with coal smudged faces, looking sad. Having set the table with anti coal propaganda, McClendon then teamed up with the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope to implement a legislative strategy. The pair traveled around the country, pitching natural gas as the “bridge fuel” to a green energy future.
They scored one major success, in Colorado. There, ex-Governor Bill Ritter had made the “New Energy Economy,” the centerpiece of his administration. As such, he was receptive to fuel switching as a way to meet his Climate Action Plan, a non-binding mandate to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2008 levels. As I’ve written about at length here, the Ritter Administration engaged in a number of deceptions to carry Chesapeake’s water.
All along, CEI has warned the gas industry that it was playing directly into the hands of environmental special interests, for whom all hydrocarbons–not just coal–are considered “dirty.” It’s an ancient strategy: Divide and conquer. Today, it’s the greens and gas taking down coal; tomorrow, it will be the greens taking down gas.
And so it has come to pass, as is explained in an excellent article titled, “Greens Sour on Natural Gas,” by Bob King, from yesterday’s Politico.
Reminiscent of Erdogan's slip of the tongue - democracy is a train you ride to your destination then get off. Seems the central banks have Turkey by the balls too.
Green investment bank should make taxpayers see red
The White House and congressional Democrats are talking up a “green investment bank.”
The House did the right thing by striking the notion from the continuing resolution. It seems certain, however, that some Senate Republicans are considering going along with this. You have to be “for” something, they say, now that they’ve defeated “cap and trade.” This is something, but it’s a very bad idea. Here’s why.
Let’s start with today’s headlines. The Guardian reports that a UK green investment bank proposed by the deputy prime minister poses a serious risk to Britain’s credit rating because, if its liabilities go on the national balance sheet as Treasury officials argue they must, the UK would lose its triple AAA rating (h/t The Global Warming Policy Foundation). Then there’s this. And this. Oh, and this.
It’s that bad. But, did someone say “green?” Well, then it sounds like a plan.
The point of a green investment bank is ostensibly to facilitate the commercialization of new, dormant or otherwise commercially unsuccessful technologies by providing easier financing than is available in the real world, where people scrutinize where they invest their money. It turns bureaucrats into bankers, but with your money, and no real-world incentives to “invest,” as the word connotes and denotes.
Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand
If we look back through history, growth in government has been a modern phenomenon. Beginning in the 1850s and lasting until the 1920s or ’30s, the government’s share of GDP in most of the world’s industrialized economies was about six percent. From that period onwards—and particularly since the 1950s—we’ve seen a massive explosion in government share of GDP, in some places as much as 35-45 percent. (In the case of Sweden, of course, it reached 65 percent, and Sweden nearly self-destructed as a result. It is now starting to dismantle some of its social programs to remain economically viable.) Can this situation be halted or even rolled back? My view, based upon personal experience, is that the answer is “yes.” But it requires high levels of transparency and significant consequences for bad decisions—and these are not easy things to bring about.
What we’re seeing around the world at the moment is what I would call a silent revolution, reflected in a change in how people view government accountability. The old idea of accountability simply held that government should spend money in accordance with appropriations. The new accountability is based on asking, “What did we get in public benefits as a result of the expenditure of money?” This is a question that has always been asked in business, but has not been the norm for governments. And those governments today that are struggling valiantly with this question are showing quite extraordinary results. This was certainly the basis of the successful reforms in my own country of New Zealand.
New Zealand’s per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, its per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey. Not only that, but our unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, we’d had 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP), our debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and our credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Government spending was a full 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was exiting in huge quantities, and government controls and micromanagement were pervasive at every level of the economy. We had foreign exchange controls that meant I couldn’t buy a subscription to The Economist magazine without the permission of the Minister of Finance. I couldn’t buy shares in a foreign company without surrendering my citizenship. There were price controls on all goods and services, on all shops and on all service industries. There were wage controls and wage freezes. I couldn’t pay my employees more—or pay them bonuses—if I wanted to. There were import controls on the goods that I could bring into the country. There were massive levels of subsidies on industries in order to keep them viable. Young people were leaving in droves.
Spending and Taxes
When a reform government was elected in 1984, it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes and diminish government’s role in the economy.
(continues with the means by which NZ recovered its sanity.)
Successive socialist gov'ts (including Cameron's) in the UK have decided the best policy for the UK is to implement the Fabian globalist's gang green CO2 scam lock, stock and barrel and implement energy "solutions" that fail to deliver every propagandised benefit, that are used to impose energy and tax burdens that are spiralling out of control causing increasing energy poverty and together with other eco fascist EC policy causing an increase in deaths due to cold weather that make heat deaths look trivial. Debt slavery under EC dictatorship is the objective.
The only possible solution is to install a gov't that is UK centric rather than an extension of the EU parliament that was created to rubber stamp EC legislation that is rooted in eco fascist (essentially Marxist) ideology and fraud, whose medium term objectives include federalisation and the structure for its imposition is already much in place due to the efforts of Common Purpose.
Governmental support of EC objectives is treason or tantamount to such yet none of the parties nor the judicial system does anything to reign in the hijackers of gov't.
What has surprised me the most is the way the religions have joined the globalist bandwagon when the philosophy behind it is as clearly anti christian as could be possible, even down to taking the piss with satanic symbology:
You could say that it’s downright Machiavellian how Strong and Gorbachev consorted back in 1997 to replace the Ten Commandments with the UN Earth Charter.
Although it defies belief, their jointly authored Earth Charter is carried around in a wooden chest called the Ark of Hope.
The Ark of Hope is described as a “magnificent large sycamore chest, which was conceived as a visual message of peace, sustainability and concern for the Earth.”
Gilt-covered and lavish in the looks department, the chest carries Temenos Earth masks. The 96” poles of the 200-lb. chest are “unicorn horns which render evil ineffective”.
The Ark carries Gorby’s and Strong’s Earth Charter, an international peoples‘ treaty, need of which was foreseen and initiated at the Strong-led Rio Earth Summit in 1992. At last count, the Ark was being carried into New York classrooms.
Now you know, Glenn why Strong is too busy to write novels. Besides, it must be so much more fun rewriting history.
Lest you think CFP is pulling your leg, this is what Gorbachev has to say about the Earth Charter: “The Ten Commandments are out of date. They will be replaced by the 18 principles of the Earth Charter.”
It is CFP’s belief that the way for The Messiah was cleared for Barack Obama by Maurice Strong and that Louis Farrakhan was right on the money when he said “before he was elected, he (Obama) was selected”.
The above was excepted from -
Glenn Beck Hits The Motherlode With The Maurice Strong Introduction!
The New World devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros [on behalf of the Rothschild family]
[See the face of one of the evil ones in the video shorts included in the Beck interview discussed by Judi McLeod.]
Blair, Club of Madrid member, Fabianist, Bilderberg participant and mason, Brown's specific allegiances are unknown but he is a Rothschild disciple, and Cameron profess to be christians. İmplementers of the satanist's gang green scam include Houghton and Tickell, both christians yet obeying the directions of blatant satan adherents.
Much more on Strong (former senior advisor to the president of Rothschild-Rockefeller's World Bank, former Rothschild-Rockefeller's UN under-secretary general under Annan) can be found here, strong stomach required. That successive leaders of the UK and US sold their nation's soul to lowlifes like Strong defies belief. It matters not whether they were following masonic royal's (the "elite" in NWO plans) directions, treachery is treachery.
Currently reading the American Legislative Exchange Council's publication EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck: Strategies for State Legislators to see if there is anything useful to use against the UK's Regulatory Train Wreck.