Opinion – Not Enough Minerals For Green Energy

Colour Me Stunned: dreams of electric everything hit reality; put the D in population

Smart Cities are simply not viable on a large scale and something has to give.
With 5-10% of the resources to make Green energy, carrying capacity is limited.
A residual humanity could limp on in cramped, “space station” quarters.

Rationing resources is the aim of digital currency linked to consumption - a voucher.
Current monetary system is a lie – bankers don’t deliver growth with stability.
Objective was always to attain control and direct ownership of mineral resources.

Geopolitical options slide from (uni)polar to mercantilism or neo-feudalism.
The Western population is being acclimatised to cheer it on.
Burial of former Japan PM was symbolic of the death of liberal nationalism.

Developing nations have long been playgrounds of bankers and bi/trillionaires.
The attack on Japan’s industrial might was a replay of the East India Company.
The owner-investors now have Western nations firmly in their gunsights.

(About 3,000 words or 14 minutes of your time.)

Sep 8, 2022

Memories and minerals

As a child the only organisation I belonged to, apart from the cub scouts, was the World Wildlife Fund. It was just a few short years after the WWF had been launched. We didn’t know its founder was Prince Bernhard of Bilderberg, or that Prince Philip shot tigers, and nor did our parents since the press didn’t report those kinds of things.

My brothers, sister and I sent off our fee and cherished our membership cards with the panda icon. Today two-thirds of funding still comes from individuals, though 17 per cent from bodies like the World Bank and USAID, but only 8 per cent from those oh-so-woke corporations (2020).

Today, thankfully, the media is more vociferous: we are in the middle of an existential crisis, driven by climate change, we are told, as humans spoil the planet, mainly by using oil and gas. The Covid pandemic is the opportunity to set things right.

And we’ve got the Internet. Fifty years after joining the WWF, I checked its site to see what I should do to fight climate change:

1. Write a letter

2. Reduce my carbon emissions.

3. Commute by carpooling or using mass transit.

4. Plan and combine trips.

5. Contact my electricity provider to find out about the “green power.”

Everything except for writing a letter, I do. Restrictions on travel have been replaced with inconvenience so I simply don’t.

I’m a “moderate believist” on the climate, not given to alarmism. I grew up in nature, am happiest walking in the hills, even more by a stream, carry a big plastic bag to collect litter — yes plastic bags can be a good thing (did the Duke of Edinburgh collect litter?) I rage against all types of pollution which I see as the bigger problem. I support Green energy if it does less harm.

And that is where I thought the argument rested: on the merits of one type of Green energy against another.

Colour me shocked to discover that the “offer” of renewable energy is unviable as proposed by the United Nations. Not difficult to achieve, like sacrificing some comforts for Ukraine while we renounce Russian gas, but nigh impossible.

About the windmills: if we were to replace all our oil and gas energy today, we’d have only 10 per cent of the copper required — not that which is mined, mind, but which is known to exist.

What?

It is a rule that journalists should inform the reader not ask them. But…

Simon Michaux PhD, an Australian geologist, told Channel Nine News that known reserves contain only 5 per cent of the minerals needed to make the first set of batteries, assuming all the world’s vehicles were replaced with electric.

The shortfall for lithium, cobalt, graphite and vanadium is even worse, according to Michaux of Geological Survey Finland, who has done a detailed study of what’s required to phase out hydrocarbons.

He based his calculations on the year 2018 with 84.5 per cent of primary energy still dependent on coal, oil and gas, and less than 1 per cent of the world’s vehicle fleet electric. The life cycle of renewable energy equipment is eight to 25 years. Then it needs to be made again. [1]

Even with abundant oil, polluting but calorific, the last industrial revolution took 100 years, Michaux says. “We now seek to build an even more complex system with very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, with an unprecedented number of human population, embedded in a deteriorating environment.”

Bloomberg/NEF is more sanguine, suggesting that demand for copper will rise by half by 2040. Yet primary copper production (as opposed to recycling) can only increase 16 per cent in that time.

Where are the minerals to make the cities smart as you depart by electric vehicle?

They exist on a much smaller scale than the Green proponents claim. Either they plan to power the world with the hot air from their own prognostications, or they are misleading us. Michaux presented his findings to European bureaucrats and they pled ignorance.

Perhaps that list from the WWF on how to fight climate change should have included a sixth option: just die already.

Who in authority knows that they are corraling humanity into a dead end? I have written about the Club of Rome and the depopulation plan before. See Moneycircus, Aug 24, 2022: Crisis Update - Hate And Depopulate

Density dependent population growth is represented in formulae by D — the maximum number of people that a habitat can sustain as the carrying capacity.

Make capitalism nice again

We wrote recently about the Council On Inclusive Capitalism. This is a proposal of Pope Francis and Lynn Forester de Rothschild to make capitalism supposedly fairer to all. In practice it is a mechanism to promote environmental, social and governance criteria, ESGs, using a doubtful process of auditing. This raises the question whether ESGs themselves are the objective or the means to another.

CIC is yet another foundation. Quite what’s the use of so many globalist think tanks and NGO is a mystery. Perhaps that’s the purpose. The CIC, WEF, Club of Rome, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations largely are run by the same groups and, more crucially, pursue the same goals.

There are a lot of foot soldiers and feudal retainers to train: politicians, bureaucrats and corporate administrators. Think tanks serve to disseminate the message. The World Economic Forum, for example, is not a consultative or policy-making body but a top-down, invitation-only network of executives and bureaucrats to transmit and implement an ethos.

One world government is not a body but a network; soldiers not generals; governance not government. Running smoothly it does not need commanders — though some are more equal than others. The owners-investors, or stakeholders, put their holdings in trust. They don’t claim to be owners any more than they pay tax.

They do claim, however, to be experts and presume to rule.

Are the bodies, from the UN to the Vatican, seriously planning Agenda 21 without checking whether the mineral resources exist on planet Earth to meet their sustainable development goals or SDGs?

Why didn’t Lynn de Rothschild call a cousin and ask about mining? If anyone has a handle on the minerals business and can tell you what’s in demand, practically off the top of their head, it would be the ennobled banking family.

From 1830-1940 they largely controlled the world markets in non-ferrous metals — lead, nickel, mercury, copper, sulphur — not to mention their more famous mining activities including diamonds, oil, coal and gold. In the 1950s they were buying up large tracts of Canada for mining. In addition NM Rothschild acts as an adviser and broker specializing in mining deals. [2]

Better still, place a call to family journal, The Economist Intelligence Unit. Lynn Rothschild is part owner!

In this corner of the Great Reset there is lots of experience and there must be an appreciation that the Green energy plans as stated are unworkable — which begs the question: are they joking or is the Green agenda a cover for something else?

Abe’s Japanese perspective

The state funeral of Shinzo Abe cost $10 million, a lavish sum that further distracts analysis of his assassination.

His passing may be symbolic. Abe was a neo-liberal in an age when the powers that be (TPTB) have moved on to state corporativism. He opposed protectionism at a time when TPTB are poised to split the world into mercantilist fiefdoms and trade zones under the “rules-based international order.” [3]

Abe promoted the phrase Indo-Pacific and the self-determination of Japan in spite of its troubled past. He saw that China’s rapid growth would destablise the region, meaning Japan had no choice but to reconsider its pacifist constitution.

By focusing on Indo-Pacific he moved the focus away from Asia-Pacific with China at its hub, and pulled out to southeast Asia where China has economic ambitions.

This conflicts with the world as shaped by BlackRock, the asset manager, led by one of the most powerful financiers, Larry Fink. An open and competitive Indo-Pacific is fraught with risk and the investor-owners don’t like risk. They want the continent and its resources to serve their interests, even if that means promoting China as the supra-national corporate governor of that particular part of the globe.

Fink sees China as the heart of a new world order and is so invested in the country and its leadership that a master manipulator like George Soros took a page in The Wall Street Journal to denounce BlackRock. That is, if the split is real, for Soros, a Rothschild foil, cannot publicly back a totalitarian state when his business model is the color revolutions of the Open Society Foundation.

Soros (Rothschild) is the disruptor, from Britain’s exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 to the downfall of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014 in the tradition of the bankers’ Bolshevik putsch. BlackRock (Rockefeller) is the healer, from the takeover of the American Medical and domination of petro-pharmaceuticals, to social experiments like the Third Reich and communist China.

Think of the two forces as chaos providing the opportunity for a new order, or the Hegelian dialectic.

There is nonetheless a split in the power elite over China. Someone has created a website to “expose” Fink. [4]

Mercantilism to feudalism

In the new order, Germany and Japan can only be conduits for supra-national corporate governance. They are not allowed to be nations, let alone nationalists.

The rhetoric of the multipolar vs unipolar world misses the point that the world is poised to revert from capitalism to mercantilism or even to a neo-feudalism, in which nations will be grouped together as fiefdoms and the currency will not be the coin of war, to which David Graeber ascribed the rise of the monetary system, but physical occupation and the extraction of land resources.

That is why the bankers are content to see their control over specie and credit replaced so long as they, personally, retain their stakes in resources: hence stakeholders. Fairness to the common man, or equity, is not part of the plan and is misdirection except in the sense that you’ll get what you deserve (equity).

Control of mineral resources will be the central objective if the transition from hydrocarbons is to be achieved. There aren't enough and the competition will be brutal.