Influential elites are either in denial about the horrifying costs and consequences of Net Zero – witness last Wednesday’s substantial vote against fracking British gas in the House of Commons – or busy scooping up the almost unlimited amounts of money currently on offer for promoting pseudoscience climate scares and investing in impracticable green technologies. Until the lights start to go out and heating fails, they are unlikely to pay much attention to a recent 1,000 page alternative energy investigation undertaken for a Finnish Government agency by Associate Professor Simon Michaux. Referring to the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero target, Michaux states there is “simply not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target”.
To cite just one example of how un-costed Net Zero is, Michaux notes that “in theory” there are enough global reserves of nickel and lithium if they are exclusively used to produce batteries for electric vehicles. But there is not enough cobalt, and more will need to be discovered. It gets much worse. All the new batteries have a useful working life of only 8-10 years, so replacements will need to be regularly produced. “This is unlikely to be practical, which suggests the whole EV battery solution may need to be re-thought and a new solution is developed that is not so mineral intensive,” he says.
All of these problems occur in finding a mass of lithium for ion batteries weighting 286.6 million tonnes. But a “power buffer” of another 2.5 billion tonnes of batteries is also required to provide a four-week back-up for intermittent wind and solar electricity power. Of course, this is simply not available from global mineral reserves, but, states Michaux, it is not clear how the buffer could be delivered with an alternative system.
Michaux sounds a clear warning message. Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. It was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. The replacement, he notes, needs to be done when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt and not enough minerals. Most challenging of all, it has to be done within a few decades. Based on his copious calculations, the author is of the opinion that it will not go fully “as planned”.
Last Sunday, Sir David Attenborough concluded six episodes of pseudoscientific green agitprop Frozen Planet II by demanding that the world embrace Net Zero, “no matter how challenging it may be”. Net Zero is a political command-and-control project, the full horror of which is yet to be inflicted on the general population. Michaux is quite clear what it entails: “What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.”
Of course, a radically different system of government is available in the People’s Republic of China, but here the position on Net Zero is a tad more nuanced. Having lifted about a billion people out of starving poverty in the last 40 years and become the workshop for an increasingly complacent western world – all powered by fossil fuel – the cause does not seem so pressing. Speaking to the Communist Party Congress earlier this week, President Xi Jinping sounded a note of caution and said “prudence” would govern China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero-out carbon emissions. All of this would be in line with the principle of “getting the new before discarding the old”.
Meanwhile, China’s coal production is reported to have reached record levels, while the Congress was told that oil and gas exploration will be expanded as part of measures to ensure “energy security”.
Michaux points out that nearly 85% of world energy comes from fossil fuel. By his calculations, the annual global capacity of non-fossil electrical power will need to quadruple to 37,670.6 TWh. In a recent report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Michael Kelly estimates that the U.K. electricity grid would have to expand by 2.7 times. This will involve adding capacity at eight times the rate it has been added over the last 30 years. If calculations are made for the need to rewire homes, streets, local substations and powerlines to carry the new capacity, the extra cost will be nearly £1 trillion.
In another recent GWPF paper, the energy writer John Constable warned that the European Green Deal seems all but certain to break Europe’s economic and socio-political power, “rendering it a trivial and incapable backwater, reliant on – and subservient to – superior powers”.
History provides us with many examples of weak, or weakened, tribes being overrun by stronger tribes. In the animal kingdom it is known as natural evolution. A 96-year old ‘national treasure’ preaches we have to pay any price to satisfy the new cult of the green god. Better costed and more rational views are available.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Here is a very good interview between Maryanne Demasi and Dr Phillip Buckhaults. She asked the FDA for their response on this DNA contamination. I expect it is the same as any other regulator. Absolutely disgusting and criminal. Something so significant, so potentially devastating to human health, including that of the jabbed person’s offspring, and they’re completely disinterested!
”I presented the findings of Buckhaults and McKernan to the US FDA.
I asked the FDA if it had begun an investigation into the issue of DNA contamination and whether it would review its guidance to industry about residual DNA in vaccines.
I also asked the FDA if it had instructed Pfizer and Moderna to conduct further testing to demonstrate the absence or presence of genome modification and whether it would issue new warnings to the public about the potential risks, now that DNA contamination in the vaccines had been established and replicated.
The FDA responded but did not answer specific questions, nor did it acknowledge the problem of contamination and potential safety issues. In a written statement it said:
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-an-interview-with-buckhaults?r=p03ac&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
More from Dr Bhakdi et al here;
”In the vaccine production process, the plasmid-DNA templates must be removed from the generated mRNA before the latter is packaged into LNPs.. Otherwise, plasmids will also end up in the fat globules. McKernan discovered that this crucial step of removing plasmid-DNA had not been assiduously undertaken. Huge amounts of plasmid-DNA were found in packaged form that guaranteed their successful delivery to cells, where they would be able to function for extended time periods.
To top everything, contamination of vaccine batches with functional plasmid-DNA must be expected to be the rule and not the exception, because no cost-effective procedure exists to reliably separate mass-produced RNA from the plasmids. The introduction of a foreign chromosome equates with alteration of the genome. Long-lasting auto-immune attack on the cells is inevitable.
Integration of plasmid-DNA into the human chromosome must moreover be expected to occasionally occur. Myriad cellular functions can then be permanently disrupted. Malignancies may arise and life expectancy may drop.”
https://doctors4covidethics.org/the-eternal-dangers-of-rna-vaccines/
Dear down voters, I don’t get it. Do you think this stuff is made up by ‘anti-vaxxers’? Do you think that there is not DNA in these tested vials? Or do you think there is DNA but it doesn’t matter and it’s harmless? Or do you know it’s a serious problem but you’re paid peanuts by the industry to troll this type of thing? Are you just indoctrinated incurious sheep with your brains in your arse? Or are you genuinely scared of what you’ve put into your bodies and are in desperate denial? I’d love to know. .
I’d go for the latter… Its going to be an extremely difficult thing for them to come to terms with, many most likely never will take the step to the other side…
“are not defined as gene therapy”
Are not defined as vaccines either
Are not defined as safe either
Are not defined as effective either
“When I use a word” said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it mean neither more nor less “
I wonder if someone on here could explain what exactly is DNA contamination and why or how it is harmful?
That’s a very good question. The article WHO has a recommended level for it so one presumes that having too much is bad (though it feels odd to be citing the WHO as a reliable source of information).
I’m just guessing here but the DNA is obviously going to be foreign to your body, presume that having alien DNA in you might interfere with things – maybe RNA doesn’t change your DNA but other DNA can merge with yours and start to make the cells you are manfacturing in your body be different to how they were meant to be?
Seeing as I’m obviously on ‘spoon-feeding duty’ this morning, this one is especially for you. Hope this is as clear as a bell.
”Buckhaults explained how two different manufacturing processes were used to make Pfizer’s vaccine.
The initial production of Pfizer’s covid vaccine used a method called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) to amplify the DNA template that was then used for production of the mRNA. This method, called PROCESS 1, can be used to make a highly pure mRNA product.
However, in order to upscale the process for large-scale distribution of the vaccine to the population for its “emergency authorisation” supply, Pfizer switched to a different method – PROCESS 2 – to amplify the mRNA.
PROCESS 2 used bacteria to make large quantities of “DNA plasmid” (circular DNA instructions), which would be used to make the mRNA. Hence, the final product contained both plasmid DNA and mRNA.
The switch from PROCESS 1 to PROCESS 2, ultimately resulted in the contamination of the vaccine.”
https://brownstone.org/articles/researchers-alarmed-to-find-dna-contamination-in-pfizer-vaccine/
Thanks Mogs
Why don’t you just read the substack I provided above?
You know that mass produced covid vaccine is cultured in E Coli, a bacterium which contains additional plasmids – bits of highly manipulable bacterial DNA – you don’t want. Especially when it’s packaged in attractive LNP (fat) globules specifically designed to cross cell membranes. But the production process is so bad it gets left in and TPTB don’t care.
Think Fatal Attraction. Dan only wanted Alex, a readily available woman (spike protein) in sexy, glamorous package (LNP) for a brief, no-strings fling (keep covid away) but ends up with the whole package of psychobitch from hell (additional plasmid) who destroys his life (et voila).
Hence the rise in sudden boiling of otherwise healthy bunnies that the mainstream press continue to ignore…
I get the analogy.
But my body is exposed to other DNA all the time and deals with it.
I’m still searching for an explanation for dummies of what is especially bad about residual DNA material in jabs and what exactly it does to the body that makes it dangerous.
Yes, your body is exposed to DNA, but it’s not being injected into the control centre of your individual cells. The LNPs in the jabs enable stuff to get through the cell membrane, which normally would be kept out.
Once DNA has been aided into the cell, there is a chance of it messing with your own code and stuff being activated or deactivated that results in bad news for health. Like a computer virus being injected into your application code and deleting data or corrupting it.
Also, the blood stream is not supposed to have chunks of E coli DNA in it, I think this is where the endotoxins sudden death reaction comes in.
Thanks
Makes sense
I think this explains what you want to know?
https://www.aussie17.com/p/check-and-mate
…for reference this is the “possible” problem with the SV40 promotor
“The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals. Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
SV40 got into humans from the early vaccines, back in the day when they cultured the potions in minced monkey organs. There was an epidemic of childhood leukaemias in the 1960s from the multiple jabs that were introduced. SV40 has been in the literature for decades, finally coming to more mainstream attention.
Another one is parvo in dogs, introduced by the first pet vaccines, another successful cross species transfer.
Pharma profit seeking potions, b*ggering your health for 200 years now.
Thanks all.
Must have been the late shift on down ticking duty.
Didn’t mean to give this a thumbs down but rather a thumbs up
If one digs extremely deeply … The 1918-20 Spanish Influenza pandemic death rate wasn’t soley caused by the “virus” .
I’ve put virus in apostrophes as I question “germ theory”
No jabs = fewer concerns.