Paris Agreement, climate, decarbonization and the problems with ETS : the climate crime against emerging countries and against the vast majority of Humanity to be frozen at the unequal development level of 1990 , 9 April- 2 May 2021

Posted: 6th Maggio 2021 by rivincitasociale in Another America is possible, Ecomarxismo, Politica

Commenti disabilitati

Table of contents

Prelude

The Paris Agreement

A hot air gas factory

The narrative ideology of the emerging normative framework :

1 ) What about global warming and/or climate change?

2 ) The zany narrative of the Paris Agreement.

Energy consumption in the World, France, Italy and Germany.

The grotesque cost of solar and wind energy.

Green tax credits: double robbery on the backs of the 50% of workers who do not pay income tax and on the backs of public monopolies subjected to rampant privatization.

TICFE, TICGN, ITCPE and VAT

Micro-economic circular economy versus the cycles of ecomarxism.

The political decision-making process and the role of multinational NGOs.

The original sin of global warming and its atonement through CO2 reduction: a new, unfounded, unequal narrative.

So let’s look at the global warming and CO2 reduction trajectories proposed by the IPCC to inform policy making.

Decarbonization, industry, ICT and the Internet: let’s calculate better!

Decarbonization: Artificial market and prices administered by the EU

What is this normative framework?

1 ) ETS, green certificates and border carbon tax.

2 ) Taxonomy, green accounting, preference and risk assessment criteria for investors.

The predictable macro-economic disaster of the ecological transition dictated by the IPCC nonsense.

Xxx

The Paris Agreement, like all the proposals of the Club of Rome which were taken up and aggravated by the IPCC, is an attack on the development of emerging countries. To understand this, one must realize that the thresholds are for countries and not per capita. One should also consult a map of world development in 1990 and remember that anthropogenic CO2 results mainly from the energy needed for production and daily life in any society that is even slightly modern. CO2, including that eventually released by permafrost or phytoplankton, is beneficial to vegetation; it follows and does not precede global warming or climate disruption. The decarbonization strategy imposes the preservation of the most dehumanizing inequality. Only China and other countries capable of autonomously developing the technologies necessary for the transition will be able to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, while being subjected to a New Cold War and its new Cocom aimed at creating captive markets for the putative exclusivist-crusader empire. The Global Green Fund is a handout from the rich to the poor, not so much to ease their conscience as for ideological legitimization purposes. It is an insult to the lives of billions of Humans.

This whole farce would end quickly if the national and international victims of this philo-Semite Nietzschean exclusivist ecology of disincentive and zero or negative growth for the people were subjected to a national and international tax which would tax, in a progressive way, the carbon footprint of individuals and States. This tax would give rise to an equalization process to ensure and national and international equality and universality in access to essential services

I believe, indeed, that the less and less republican and progressive income tax should be abolished and replaced by a progressive republican tax on the CO2 footprint with an equalization mechanism that would support universally accessible public social services. This would raise the general standard of living in spite of the evolution of the « individual net salary » – see on this subject the logic of my new definition of anti-dumping based on the three components of the “global net revenue ” of households. To go quickly, see my Appeal on the home page of my website http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org .

We must urgently learn to care about the preservation of the environment on which we can exert some influence and not about global warming or climate change on which we have as much power as on the tilt of the Earth’s axis… This is what I had proposed with my ecomarxist approach. Fortunately, the France insoumise understands that the IPCC’s fallacious trajectory of 1.5 and 2 degrees Centigrade does not hold water so it proposes a more sensible approach, namely the Green Rule which consists in not taking from Nature more than it can offer and which allows for the definition of a popular ecology capable to escape the worst ineptitudes of the exclusivist bourgeois ecology.

We concentrate here on the economic and normative aspect of this climatological project. It is contrary to all the competitive and democratic rules, if only the « Censitarian » rules of classical liberalism. It is a matter of the most openly exclusivist inegalitarian liberal regression. Check the synthesis offered by the mathematician J.C Pont Pont « Y a-t-il augmentation des catastrophes naturelles ? La réponse est NON ! » Lettre d’information sur le climat 16 , https://www.climato-realistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/JC-PONT-lettre-16-8-mars-.pdf , as well as to my essay Climate and Indoctrination for the general scientific argument. See: CLIMATE AND INDOCTRINATION, March 2019 | Blog di rivincita sociale .

The Paris Agreement.

“The Paris Agreement is the first-ever legally binding global agreement on climate change, adopted at the Paris Climate Conference (COP21) in December 2015.

It aims to contain the – presumed – rise in the Earth’s average temperature to 2% above – presumed – pre-industrial levels, while continuing “efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, which would greatly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

To do this, under the guise of fighting greenhouse gases, CO2 is being exclusively targeted, even though it is notoriously beneficial for crops, vegetation and therefore for the climate.

“In December 2020, the EU revised and strengthened its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to at least 55% emission reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. It also presented information to improve the clarity, transparency and understanding of the NDC. The EU and its Member States, acting jointly, have therefore committed to a binding net greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. “

Lowering the peak and reductions could be done through mitigation, with a view to achieving “net zero emissions”, for example with silly and dangerous plans to store CO2 in wells etc. – see the explosion in Lake Nyos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos … This allows all kinds of schemes. Both in terms of storage vectors and carbon accounting.

These emission peaks coupled with the expected reductions compared to 1990 give rise to a speculative monetarist neoliberal policy aimed at managing these emissions. This should be done through the green certificate Exchange, through the free allocation of certificates by the EU to certain companies, a policy which is now being called into question, and through the establishment of a mechanism for managing and accounting for emissions that leads straight to a carbon tax, and to an illusory carbon shield at the borders.

The spirit of the Montreal Protocol remains predominant with the Paris Agreement. In its time, the former led to the use of new cooling patents held by Dupont de Nemours to replace CFCs. This meant that the complete replacement of all refrigerator and air conditioner fleets was slyly and legally imposed. A godsend in the saturated markets of our “mature economies”, to use François Perroux’s expression, despite programmed obsolescence. A gesture is made to embark emerging countries in this new climate crusade:

“Developed countries intend to pursue their collective goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year until 2020, and then until 2025. A new, more ambitious target will be set after this period. “

This sounds just like the promises made to Ecuador for the Yasuni Park which, of course, were never kept. With regard to the Green Climate Fund, it is no surprise that less than 10 billion has been committed to date and even less has been paid out. (See: https://www.greenclimate.fund/ ) Obviously, the less technologically developed countries, those holders of fossil energy resources, will have to go on the offensive. They will be forced to invest heavily in the logic and accounting of carbon inputs, since the renewable energy generators they will have to import against foreign currency are in fact more expensive in terms of carbon and water use – think, for example, of bitcoin, of rare earth extraction – and much less recyclable, for example the blades of wind turbines or the batteries of electric or oxygen-powered cars

How did we arrive at the thresholds of 1.5 to 2 degrees Centigrade? In a scientific way? Not at all. This was done by one of the usual political tricks of the IPCC. According to prof. Jancovici, who says he got the anecdote from the former minister Brice Lalonde, these phony thresholds were set at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. The « summit of shame » with its Climategate on the melting of the Himalayan ice cap. It seems that in the context of this deplorable affair, a great confusion was added. Indeed, the participants had to determine the maximum temperature thresholds to be included in the final communiqué. Until the last minute, the choice fluctuated between 1 degree and 4 degrees. Since something had to be imagined that the ministers arriving in Copenhagen could sign, it was decided in extremis to retain the thresholds that would later inform the Paris Agreement. Mr. Jancovici adds, by way of conclusion, that since the upward trends – CO2 and temperatures – have remained identical to those prior to 2009, the reduction trajectories retained are not being respected. Much ado about nothing? (see at 2:40 mn: « Jancovici : Peut-on encore sauver le climat ? avec Pascal Boniface – 24/03/2021 », in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pr577eUfTc&t=982s

For this narrative context see :

A ) Climategate, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

B ) Fonte de l’Himalaya : le GIEC se serait trompé dans ses prévisions, Publié le : 20/01/2010 – 13:16Modifié le : 20/01/2010 – 13:40, https://www.france24.com/fr/20100120-fonte-himalaya-fait-debat-glacier-giec-experts-rechauffement-climatique )

A hot air gas factory

In this case, we are dealing with an incredible hot air plant (so to speak), much more damaging than CO2, which is beneficial. We know that none of the IPCC models correspond to scientific observations. The predicted catastrophes are as far-fetched as the rise of the Oceans water level by 5 to 7 meters, because there is simply not enough accumulated ice for that, as the mathematician Pont explains in the article quoted above in the Prelude. Moreover, these predictions resemble, of course in reverse, according to the good old exclusivist method, the predictions of the mischievous fortune tellers who only read in the right hand of the clients, the reading of the left hand in which bad news can be read requiring an additional payment. All in all, with the necessary public infrastructure financed at very low cost by public credit, a few degrees of average temperature increase could, for example, make it possible to gain the fertile lands of Siberia and the Prairies for agriculture while promoting the growth of phytoplankton, the essential building block of the entire marine food chain. This would make it possible to eradicate hunger in the world. The real problem is the speculative lack of public infrastructures financed by public credit, not presumed global warming.

The IPCC hot air gas plant is coupled with a narrative now known as the Green New Deal, a particularly Nietzschean and speculative philo-Semite strategy. It is also based on Modern Monetary Theory – MMT – that is to say, the worst monetary and monetarist theoretical and practical corruption after QE by people who do not know how to distinguish between money and credit, nor between conventional and speculative credit. Therefore, such a Green New Deal will be ruinous for the Little Blue Planet, for the health of Humans and for their socio-economic well-being, not to mention their cognitive rationality.

The Paris Agreement, a worthy offspring of neo-Malthusian senility and Nietzschean philo-Semite speculative finance, attempts to establish a global normative framework modelled on the Montreal Protocol. The goal is to allow the West, once again under the boot of the putative crusader empire, to dominate the Planet in order to preserve its indecent ecological footprint.

This attempt died before it was born. This exclusivist empire of the overrepresented classes and casts no longer holds a monopoly on science and technology and has nothing to offer the peoples of the Planet, except a future of Palestinianized Dalits.

We will therefore attempt an objective and dispassionate analysis of this normative framework and of its scientific and social impossibility.

The narrative ideology of the emerging normative framework:

Let’s go step by step.

1 ) What about global warming and/or climate change?

Nowadays everyone has forgotten about the Great Cooling predicted in the 1970s. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling ) This is a pity because the memory of these shibboleths could have warned people against the new shibboleths on current global warming. Climate change, on the other hand, has never stopped since the birth of our Planet with its changing atmosphere. This argues for public investments in the infrastructures necessary to adapt to these changes and to preserve public health and public hygiene as well as qualitative growth.

Many years ago, when we were trying to develop a scientific, and therefore Marxist, approach to ecology, or ecomarxism, we focused our criticism on the obviously false premises of the IPCC’s reasoning. In the kindergarten classrooms we had beautiful geographical, historical and cultural illustrations. One of them illustrated the glaciers in Lyon during the last ice age.

From there we could wonder about the temporal dimension of the proposed climate theories and some of their hypotheses. They seemed to be chosen on purpose to lead to predetermined conclusions. Being broad-minded, given the complexity of the dynamic system involved, of which we still know almost nothing, we could conclude that climate change is an integral part of the dynamics of the system. Therefore, if there were warming, it would be as delusional to claim to reverse it as it would be to try to straighten the tilted axis of the Earth which causes the Precession of the Equinoxes and which also explains the other planetary influences, including from the cycles of the Sun or the alignment of the planets in our galaxy.

Wisdom, or better still, common sense, militates then for taking care of the more or less foreseeable short, medium and long term consequences of a possible warming. We are then reasonably inclined to imagine public infrastructures capable of preserving a healthy environment in which Man can continue to live in harmony. The principle of health precaution is therefore of the greatest importance for the planning of urban and rural environments. We will come back to this in the conclusion.

But in the new world order of the IPCC nothing is reasonable. In fact, the falsifications and shortcuts of the models used are so wrong that in the last few years the IPCC tried to do everything possible to dramatise: During the COP 24, 2018, it was announced that if no action was taken, in 12 years it would be a catastrophe – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report . Time is running out: there are only 9 years left …

Not only would global warming become irreversible, but it would spiral out of control, bringing humanity to a series of cataclysms including the melting of the Himalayan snows caps and the disappearance of the polar bears ….

The dominant elites did not hesitate in this exclusive struggle to death to manipulate the teenagers, for example in the person of the young Greta Thunberg – https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg . We hope that this young, well-intentioned generation will not grow-up remaining the dupes of the cynical abuse of their innocence and humanitarian good faith. In short, we wish them wholeheartedly not to betray science for a newly exclusivist narrative that dooms them, for the most part, to a lifetime of precariousness in the society of the new, more or less uberized, domesticity and the new slavery.

Al Gore’s first climate catastrophe film in 2006 predicted the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap in 2011-2012. (1) This earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, followed by a lawsuit before a court which ruled that the film contained 9 errors that had to be explained to schoolchildren if the film was ever shown to them. (2) In short, the Arctic cap has not melted and polar bears are doing well and are more numerous than before according to the specialist Susan Crockford. (3)

Al Gore was not the first to propagate this kind of nonsense integrated into a clear political and economic project. In February 2004, a secret Pentagon report was leaked, aimed at influencing the skeptical President Bush, who had strong ties to the oil sector. It stated that by 2020, the UK would be “siberianized” and that a series of catastrophes would befall the world. For 2010 it was predicted that the USA and Europe would experience three times as many temperature peaks above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, destroying crops and making life more difficult. Logically (!), the average temperature in Europe was also predicted to drop by 6 degrees Fahrenheit between 2010 and 2020. In short, this real climate disruption with its series of droughts and floods would trigger a strong “ecological emigration” and many other such cataclysms, to the point that it was likely to call into question the national security of the United States and of the World. (4) This shows that even the President of a superpower must be wary of his military security apparatus. Some of this nonsense is now recycled, for instance, massive climate migration, a fear mongering which is so useful to make people forget about neo-colonial and cross-border wars, and to hide the underfunding of the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund (Migration MPTF) created in 2018 and, in general, of the UNHCR.

I have already pointed out many times that the origins of this newly neo-Nietzschean narrative were found in a secret report of the American Establishment published with a preface written under alias by John Galbraith that testified to its authenticity on the honor. It is entitled Report from the Iron Mountain. (Neither this report nor the many analytic documents that served to write it can be reduced to a mere « prank » as some might now pretend in order to hide the real issues. I personally believe that there is here a real issue of respect for the public archives and domains, at least as far as the numerous preliminary documents are concerned … This should be investigated.)

The thesis is incisive and simple, as the imperial rulers, like Bismarck, were well aware of the general predictive force of Marx’s theories, the reason for which they also did their utmost to conceal and falsify them: productivity is the hallmark of capitalist competition, but it leads to the “freeing” of labor power. There comes a time when 20% of the labor force is enough to ensure production, so what do we do with the remaining 80%? The answer is to introduce a society of new domesticity and new slavery, modelled somewhat on Ancient Rome with its circuses and murderous games, which serve to reduce the population to obedience while crudely satisfying the repressed primal desires of the new servants and slaves. It was also necessary to make people feel guilty in order to psychologically submit them before, if necessary, making them taste the Nietzschean Hammer. For that, one imagined, among other things, the insidious climatic guilt since climate is a daily concern of the people and that the natural mutability of the climate on the short, medium and long terms allows the elites to tell anything they like as long as it serves their interests, just like the Roman augurs reading in the entrails of chickens.

This is, to my knowledge, the first political use of the climate to manipulate the crowds. The atonement of sins was back in the hands of philo-Semite Nietzscheans. Before that, the misfortunes predicted by the Apocalypse of Saint John referred to an ancestral knowledge of astronomy and astrology seeking to interpret the precession of the Equinoxes. The other uses of climate as a social explanation were similar to the proto-sociological ones which lead to Montesquieu’s considerations in his Esprit des Lois.

The worst of all these imperialist and exclusivist manipulations is of course that of the IPCC, or rather those of the IPCC, since this organism went through several and far-fetched allegations, ranging from warming, to change, to upheaval and climate crisis, a series of phenomena always imputed, without the slightest scientifically acceptable proof, to the action of Man. It is a new “original sin” for post-modern humans.

In his magnificent synthesis article already cited in Note 1 below, prof. Franco Zavatti demonstrates the fact that none of the IPCC models, except perhaps the Russian one, corresponds to the field observations. (p 8/34 ) I have pointed out that the IPCC ignores the precession of the equinoxes, the Coriolis force, the cycles of the Sun, the tectonic plates and to a large extent the oceanic currents and the atmospheric chemistry at different altitudes as well as the volcanic eruptions. I pointed out that it did not take into account permafrost – logically, its unfreezing, which releases CO2, necessarily follows warming – nor did it mentioned peat. Similarly, blaming the acidification of the oceans on warming, without taking into account the seas of plastics, is simply absurd since the first page of oceanic chemistry informs you that as the ocean warms it exhales CO2, it does not store it. Moreover, the increase in CO2 is favorable to phytoplankton, i.e., to the most essential starting-block of the entire marine food chain. If that wasn’t enough, I pointed out that the CO2 measurements used come from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii which is located on the largest of the 16 most active volcanoes on the Planet. Today, there are dandelions growing in the crater of Vesuvius so that, if I were to average the 410 ppm from Mauna Loa, the poor IPCC will look as naked and more pitiful than Andersen’s emperor. Let’s hope, however, that the show will end soon.

Although the choice of the fateful thresholds of 2⁰ C or 1.5⁰ C was arbitrary and folkloric – see Jancovici – the strategy was to give some plausibility to the proposed methods of reaching them. Otherwise, what would be the point of so much effort and sacrifice for ordinary citizens? The Kyoto Agreements (1997), negotiated in the wake of the 1992 Rio Summit, went awry because they were non-binding. What about the Paris Agreement, knowing that there are only 9 years left until 2030?

2 ) The zany narrative of the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement is based on a far-fetched causal relationship between global warming and the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.

Let’s first look at the “official” global temperature trend. Some predicted in 2012 an average global increase of 1.2 to 1.7 degrees C for 2020 and, without reversing the trend, a hellish increase of 4 degrees C for the end of the century

“By 2020, the global average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, plus a global energy imbalance of 0.8 W/m2, which corresponds to an unavoidable additional increase of 0.5 degrees C to restore the energy balance, even if all greenhouse gas emissions are immediately halted.

Current trends lead to a 4°C increase in average surface temperature by the end of the century, a nightmare scenario not seen since the end of the Miocene 10 million years ago. “The world is heading for a 4°C rise in average temperature by the end of the century, triggering a cascade of cataclysmic changes” – Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, Germany 2012. “

In 2018 the IPCC operating according to its own models informs us that the 1 degree mark has been reached but that anything is still possible. See https://ipccitalia.cmcc.it/ipcc-special-report-global-warming-of-1-5-c/# . It is enough to reduce anthropogenic CO2 by 55% compared to 1990 and reach net zero emissions by 2050 – 2060 for some countries. We will see the trick of the net zero target that allows all sorts of mystifications, in official language “mitigations. “

When handling temperature graphs, one must guard against the mechanism of privileging the time span likely to confirm the proposed thesis, here global warming. Here is what prof. Gervais says on warming:

“Since 1945, the start of the acceleration of emissions, the Earth, excluding natural El Niño episodes due to a change in the wind regime in the Pacific Ocean, has warmed by about 0.4°C according to HadCRUT4 data from the UK Hadley Center. ” (6)

In short, there is no reason to be catastrophic.

How far have we come with anthropogenic CO2? The summary given by prof. Gervais makes it possible to keep things short and to the point:

“To put it in context, cooling the Earth by emitting aerosols aims to counteract the warming due to CO2 emissions, which are themselves due to the burning of fossil resources to produce nearly 90% of the world’s energy at the moment. What is the magnitude of this warming?

Since 1945, when emissions began to accelerate, the Earth, excluding natural El Niño episodes due to a change in wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean, has warmed by about 0.4°C according to HadCRUT4 data from the British Hadley Center.

The atmosphere contains only 0.04% CO2 by volume, the main greenhouse gas being water vapour with a concentration often exceeding 1%. But 0.04% CO2 still represents a mass of 3200 billion tons. In 2019, before the confinements, an additional 36 billion tons of CO2 were sent into the atmosphere. 44% remain there for at least several years, a third being an additional nutrient for vegetation and crops, the rest being captured by the oceans because this gas is very soluble in water as illustrated by soft drinks.

Thus, 36 x 44% = 16 billion tons remain in the air. Compared to 3200 billion tons, the increase is thus 0.5% per year. In its reports, the IPCC writes that the Earth would warm up around 1.7°C (best estimate of the transient climate response) by the time the CO2 level in the air doubles, if at all in the distant future.

At the current rate of emissions, global warming by 2050, the year set as a target by the European Union to stop emitting, would thus be of the order of 29 years x 0.005 x 1.7°C = 0.25°C. Not 1°C, nor 2°C, nor 3°C as sometimes claimed, but 0.25°C evaluated according to these data from the latest IPCC report. “(6, idem)

The “nihilist militants” (7) who confuse the end of a world – the capitalist world – with “the” end of the World will quickly be disappointed. The Beasts of the Apocalypse will not materialize at least not according to the predictions of the IPCC. On the other hand, their high priests and low clergy who strive to be “awakened nihilists” are not fooled, they try to do everything to hyper-dramatize the situation in order to impose their legislative and normative changes. That’s why of the 12 years of 2018, we only have 9 left, enough to panic the whole Planet and to manipulate all the young adolescents. And to impose the new legislative and normative framework.

I will not return on these beasts of the Giec’s apocalypse. I refer to the beautiful synthesis offered Franco Zavatti already quoted in Note 1 below. The polar bears are not in danger and the sea level will not rise by 7 meters and flood all the overpopulated lower lands of the Planet.

To reassure the most credulous, here is what the mathematician Jean-Claude Pont says:

“The IPCC, in its 2013 Report for Policymakers⁴⁶notes, “Mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will most likely exceed that observed from 1971 to 2010, through increased ocean heat and increased mass loss from glaciers and ice caps. {13.3-13.5}. “

As for the increase in mass loss, here is. The total volume of ocean water is something like 1338 x 106 km3 , while that of the snow/ice combination is about 24 million km3 . The ratio between the two is 0.07, or about 2%. It would be difficult to flood Manhattan with that, to use an image from Al Gore’s film! (see Appendix 1)” (pp 15-16/29)

He concludes:

“All in all, we are in the order of magnitude of 12-13 cm per century. Since the regression line with a slope of 1.766 [which accompanies the figure] fits the curve quite perfectly, the defenders of the official theses cannot even argue that there would be an acceleration in the process.

But where are the 4 to 7 meters proclaimed by S. Schneider, one of the IPCC’s architects and master of thought?

Where are the 7 meters of Al Gore’s film, with the waves rising as far as Manhattan?62

And what about the Brundtland Report’s prediction, mentioned above, of flooded coastal cities at the beginning of the 21st century?

After all these failures in predictions, alongside dozens of others, who can still believe in the predictions of official climatology? ” (p 21/29)

Energy consumption in the world, France, Italy and Germany.

Let’s now look at the range of energy consumption as provided by the International Energy Agency.

World

Source : https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource

France

Source : https://www.iea.org/countries/france

Italie

Source : https://www.iea.org/countries/italy

Germany

Source : https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

It is clear that, in all these cases, solar and wind power is only a tiny portion of the energy mix. Moreover, even if a crazy State would like to cover everything with solar panels and wind turbines, this 100% intermittent will not run at night or in the absence of sufficient wind. This 100% will be reduced to a 20% or 30% by necessity. The problem of coupling with fossil fuels, coal, and especially gas or nuclear power, to ensure a continuous energy supply, necessarily arises. It is understandable why Germany and part of the EU have to rely on Russian gas, and Poland would be well advised to do so as well.

The grotesque cost of solar and wind energy.

In terms of prices, if you look at your own electricity bill, everyone knows that prices have increased drastically. They have more than doubled in Italy since 2013. In France, these intermittent sources are financed by cannibalizing nuclear power, which is produced at a lower cost – between 4 and 6 cents before the green raid on the public production and distribution network.

This robbery is organized by the State to make private green energies profitable. Otherwise they simply are not. Thus the excellent Gilles Balbastre explained in one of his films the role of the CSPE – contribution for a public service of electricity. It weighs on EDF, which is also obliged to buy all the renewable energy from private intermittent sources!!! In 2018, this CSPE amounted to 8 billion euros, which helps to mop up the extra costs of intermittent renewable energy. Since Yves Cochet 2001, EDF is obliged to make these purchases at 82 euros per MWh, nearly double the “market” price. Add the concession to the private sector of the 150 largest hydroelectric dams, which normally allow for a very rapid increase in power when needed, unlike other means of production – fossil or nuclear. Add the privatization of distribution under the pretext of giving consumers the choice but in effect destroying the public monopoly. For example, to put this green business in perspective, Enercoop of which Greenpeace is apparently a shareholder. Balbastre’s lesson continues with the SNCF and can be extended to all public services, including the media. Add the European market and the mirage of the Smart Grid. (to be watched without fail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPy4qWJwUkA and part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjlSXjW5_gU )

To better satisfy the appetites of the green monetarist neoliberal acquisitive mentality, we privatize what is profitable and we absorb what is left to subsidize intermittent energies, while consolidating the debt in what remains under State control. This is the case of EDF with the Hercules Plan:

“Today, free and undistorted European competition is monstrously cutting up the natural public monopolies so well suited to respond at low cost to the demands of individual and industrial users and to solve the problem of regional disparities by optimizing presence and services on the national territory. This is the case for GDF, EDF, the Post Office, the SNCF, etc. In the case of EDF, the cutting up of the company through privatization, which is anti-ecological in nature, is called the Hercules Plan, well explained by Philippe Page Le Merour in “PROJET HERCULE: LES PRÉDATEURS S’ATTAQUENT À EDF”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqDlLrByWkw.

The author explains the artificial competition of nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable energy. This privatization optimizes private profits but not the benefits for citizens or for territorial planning. (for instance to reduce regional disparities.) With regard to the debt, which is now contained, especially when the State can borrow at negative or zero interest rates, it is emphasized that: 1) the State has assumed 20 billion euros since 2004; 2) international ventures have been costly and often ineffective – one should seriously question the residual hexagonal know-how: the Chinese EPR has been working for some time … ; and 3 ) that 1/3 of the debt is due to the organized levies made to subsidize alternative sources that otherwise would not be profitable … He also mentions a Citizen’s Alert site. ) ” in http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/commentaire-rapide-origines-de-lecologie-conference-d-andree-corvol-dessert/

Green tax credits: double robbery on the backs of the 50% of workers who pay no income tax and on the backs of public monopolies subject to creeping privatization.

Green ideology also serves to transfer public money to the richer households thus electorally clientelized in a softer fashion. This is done while subsidizing by this and other means – e.g. the CICE and other exemptions for employers – the creation of a class of small green poujadist entrepreneurs. Green jobs are much touted without mentioning their poor quality and small number compared to the full-time jobs they claim to replace. This is in addition to the Reaganite contractual effects of the concessions to the private sector denounced by Balbastre, as change of ownership often leads to restructuring and changes in the labor contract. This ecology serves to dismantle the natural public monopolies of production and distribution while impoverishing users transformed into more or less solvent customers, but only worthy of respect if they are cash-worthy. The Yellow Vests and the growing battalions of poor people know exactly what this means.

We know that some 50% of workers in France do not earn enough to qualify for income tax credits. In Italy, the situation is – legally – made even worse by the greater proportion of undeclared work and by chronic abuse in the construction industry.

The sums transferred to the richest households, which are also those who pollute the most through their ecological footprint, are considerable. According to Oxfam, the richest 1% emit more CO2 than the poorest half of the human population. See https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity . Imagine this 1% opting to apply to itself the precarious status resulting from the Jobs Act or the Labor Law – Loi Travail – for the good of the Planet! But there is the High Clergy and the Low Clergy, including among the good-natured Greens.

These transfers of green public funds are in addition to all the other tax expenditures which are truly gigantic. They are deductible from income tax. In France, we have gone from the “Crédit d’impôt pour la Transition Energétique (CITE) to the “Anah’s MaPrimeRénov’ bonus”, except for the electric car charging station.” (9)

While hoping to have consolidated figures, we can nevertheless read the following:

For 2006-2009: “Green” equipment: one third of the tax credit benefited the wealthiest 20% of households”, By Claire Guélaud(Blog Contes publics), Published on October 14, 2010 at 02h00 , https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2010/10/14/equipements-verts-un-tiers-du-credit-d-impot-a-beneficie-aux-20-de-menages-les-plus-aises_5980047_823448.html

Quote: “The sums paid to the French by the State under the tax credit for “green” equipment, have almost tripled between 2006 and 2009, reaching 2.8 billion euros. One third of this tax expenditure in favor of sustainable development and energy savings benefited the 20% most affluent households. This is shown, among other things, by a study that Insee has just published on Thursday, October 14. “

For 2018-2019: “Insulation work: the cost of the tax credit continues to slip”, The energy transition tax credit (CITE) will cost nearly 2 billion in 2018 and another 1 billion in 2019, despite the restriction of its scope, https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget-fiscalite/travaux-disolation-le-cout-du-credit-dimpot-continue-de-deraper-140548

And as the little green petty-bourgeois are accustomed to conceive the State as their cash cow, we are informed that in “In 2020, it is no less than 1.42 billion euros of aid that have been paid by the agency to households. Aid that generated more than 3.2 billion euros of work and contributed to the creation or safeguarding of nearly 50,000 jobs in the construction sector, according to the agency. ” in ” Energy renovation: MaPrimeRénov’ continues its rise ” , Thomas Chemel Published on 27/01/2021 at 19h16 Updated on 28/01/2021 at 7h58

We are not surprised by the multiplier effect. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine what it could have been by rehabilitating low-cost housing in a modern form to meet the requirement of social housing and to restore existing social housing to standards, including by imposing the 20% social housing requirement everywhere, as provided for by a law that is too easily trampled underfoot.

We are waiting for the economic results of the new program of ecological transfers of public money to the wealthiest. But we already know that the ramp-up for 2021 will still be supported by the 37% of Next Generation EU funds earmarked for this kind of “green transition.” Contrary to the “Ricardian equivalence” nonsense, we know that the economic multiplier is likely to be low, as is always the case when funds or tax diversions go to the private sector. (see “THE BODY ECONOMIC: why austerity kills”, http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/Book%20ReviewsFrame1Source1.htm )

In any case, the Yellow Vests and others will either have to buy an electric car or accept to be excluded from large or medium-sized urban areas, with increasingly privatized and costly public transport.

Here’s to the Recovery Plan. “The recovery plan announced by the Castex government in September has given, in fact, an unprecedented place to the greening of the economy: 30 of the 100 billion euros mobilized by the State for these next two years will thus be directed towards the ecological transition. Transport (11 billion), energy (9 billion) or energy renovation of buildings (7 billion)… Have politicians finally taken the measure of the emergency?

(…)

A model that is now authoritative (Bercy and the Bank of France also use it) and that invites optimism: according to its calculations, the ecological transition will generate about 340,000 jobs in 2035 and up to 900,000 in 2050. The symbolic million is not so far away. A trend that the International Labor Organization (ILO) confirmed in 2018, estimating that at the height of the transition, four jobs will be created for each job lost.

Green tax credits: double robbery on the backs of the 50% of workers who pay no income tax and on the backs of public monopolies subject to creeping privatization.

While hoping to have consolidated figures, we can nevertheless read the following:

(…)

Green and greening jobs

If it is still bumping along, the machine is well and truly launched. France already has more than 144,000 “green” jobs (with a purely environmental purpose): 20% in the production and distribution of electricity and water; 45% in nature and environmental protection; and 35% in sanitation and waste treatment. This balance sheet is completed by nearly 3.8 million “greening” jobs (affected in one way or another by environmental concerns), divided between construction (38.6%), transport (19.5%), industry (19.2%), research and development (9.2%) and agriculture, nature and green spaces (6%). ” (10)

To this transfer of public funds, in my opinion contrary to the principle of fiscal equality and fairness, we must add the abolition of the property tax on principal residences, a measure that in Italy was formerly and wisely granted for a maximum area in order to help small owners in a country where home ownership reaches a rate of 70%. Today, the abolition of this property tax extended to the rich costs the state 4 to 5 billion each year. In France, more equitable exemptions are allowed based on age or income. However, the Macron government has gone through: “The solidarity tax on wealth (ISF) was transformed in December 2017 into the “tax on real estate wealth” (IFI), a tax focused only on net taxable real estate assets of more than 1.3 million euros” in https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget-fiscalite/ifi-le-nouvel-isf-version-macron-130072 . This is an annual shortfall of nearly 3 billion for the State.

I had once proposed a workaround to remedy the obvious injustice of these transfers to the richest. This could be done while respecting the more or less acceptable ecological excuses. Thus, for renewables, households that pay no income tax or too little – more than 50% of workers in France and more in Italy where the situation is further aggravated by chronic abuses that make it impossible for many entitled people to enjoy these programs – should benefit from a quid pro quo. The state should provide for public solar or wind farms at its own expense to compensate those households that cannot enjoy these exemptions, while strengthening social housing policies to seismic and ecological standards to allow better access. If the reasons for the exemptions were serious, it would be appropriate to think in a socially and fiscally equitable and progressive way, as our Constitutions still in force require. Proposals along these lines would in any case have the salutary effect of unmasking the regressive fiscal deception of the present system. However, it is still necessary to re-establish the public monopolies of the production and distribution networks, EDF, GDF, public water, as well as the SNCF, the PTT – with a return to a public and modern Minitel equipped with universal interfaces to connect to the Internet network and to counter the large private platforms that are more and more invasive in all fields, including R&D.

As far as employment is concerned, we are told that 900,000 green jobs will be created by 2050, i.e. 30,000 per year, not to mention the jobs destroyed. A good joke!!! This will bring France to its knees both in terms of the number of jobs that are still mostly full-time, and therefore in terms of social contributions and direct and indirect tax revenues, and in terms of production costs. One need only think of the highly technological and potentially important export sector of the nuclear industry, which today employs more than 350,000 skilled workers. With the 100% intermittent without nuclear and gas coupling, it will be super! And what about the oil and gas industry, for which we must also add the potentially lost billions from the Domestic Tax on the Consumption of Energy Products (TICPE)?

TICFE, TICGN, ITCPE and VAT

“In France, there are mainly three types of excise taxes on energy:

– TICFE (Taxe intérieure de consommation finale sur l’électricité), also known as CSPE (Contribution au service public de l’électricité);

– TICGN (Taxe Intérieure de Consommation sur le Gaz Naturel);

– TICPE (Taxe Intérieure de Consommation sur les Produits Énergétiques).

The sale of electricity, natural gas and petroleum products is also subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) in accordance with Directive 2006/112/EC. “(Note the VAT is 20% for electricity) in https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/fiscalite-des-energies

TICPE for 2018: “This TICPE is still a large revenue for Bercy: 17 billion euros, but this is only the share of state revenue. We must add the one that goes to the regions and departments. In total, this tax brings in about 35 billion euros, or as much as the corporate tax revenue.

The regions also have the option of increasing it by between 0.73 and 1.35 cents, depending on the fuel. In two years, the TICPE will have increased by 63%. On 1€ of fuel more than 50 cents goes into TICPE. According to Insee: between 2018 and 2022 the average annual fuel budget of the French will increase from 1,700 to 2,000 euros. In fact the TICPE is a bit like the VAT: these taxes that do not cause any debate but are cash machines. ” (11)

For the TICGN: “The abbreviation TICGN stands for domestic consumption tax on natural gas. This tax was instituted in 1986. It is collected by the General Directorate of Customs and Indirect Rights. This state agency collects it from all natural gas suppliers. In 2016, it brought in a total of €1.1 billion** to the State budget. The TICGN is payable as soon as natural gas is used as a fuel, by professionals and individuals. You are therefore exempt from paying the TICGN when natural gas is used as a fuel. ” in https://particuliers.engie.fr/gaz-naturel/conseils-gaz-naturel/conseils-tarifs-gaz-naturel/tout-savoir-sur-la-taxe-interieure-de-consommation-sur-le-gaz-na.html

For the CSPE: “In 2018, the CSPE reached €22.50 for each megawatt-hour (MWh) billed, and brought in a whopping €7.8 billion for the state. Good news: since 2016, support for renewable energy is now financed by taxes on fossil fuel consumption (oil, coal and gas). ” in https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/votre-argent/les-taxes-font-flamber-la-facture-d-electricite-12-07-2018-7818276.php

Let’s add the Carbon Tax: “From 7 euros per ton of CO2 in 2014, the carbon tax doubled in 2015 to gradually reach 44.60 euros in 2018. According to the finance law passed in 2018, it was even to increase further to peak at 100 euros by the end of Emmanuel Macron’s term. “The government thought that by increasing it gradually, the transition would be smooth,” says Benoît Leguet.

However, in 2018, the economic situation changed and oil prices on international markets, which had been low until then, also rose. Cumulatively, these two factors caused prices at the pump in France to explode and triggered the yellow vest crisis. “The executive has therefore stopped the scheduled increase in this tax to appease the population, but beware the carbon tax has not disappeared,” says the director of I4CE.

(…)

The revenues of the “carbon component” are estimated at about 8 billion euros per year. To which can be added other taxes whose rates are totally or partially indexed to carbon emissions. “In all, taxes levied in the name of the climate generate around 10 billion in revenue,” says I4CE. ” in https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/politique/la-taxe-carbone-en-quatre-questions-1222202

Circular microeconomics versus the cycles of ecomarxism.

In the field of capitalist ecological economics, microeconomics is irrationally dominant. We know that the nonsense of a micro-economy without a macro-economy is a logical feat that we must leave to the Marginalists, including Jean Tirole, the pitre with three great ideas for three great disasters, i.e., financial deregulation leading to the subprime crisis; the « contrat unique » leading to the Italian Jobs Act and the French Loi Travail ; and imperfect competition corrected, internally, by the Gafam and the other transnationals thanks to their benevolence towards their clients. This can be verified by the hidden location of headquarters, by tax rulings, by captive markets like the one set up by Facebook – while waiting for the Green pass vaccine that will create a captive market yo serve Big Pharma and their never ending « boosters » – and by what some people call “surveillance capitalism”. It seems that the 4th big idea is the application of advanced mathematics to subjective behavioral economics, infra-behaviorists like Boulding in the 50’s and 60’s, to perfect the original Marginalist falsification that exasperated the master of German historical economics Gustav Schmoller. In short, it will be super.

The circular economy claims to add to the national, regional and communal privatization the consideration of the costs of recycling caused by this same privatization. For example, the costs of collecting and recycling household and industrial waste have more than doubled in the last 6 to 8 years.

The same disaster applies to water, a public good, or to the Post Office, etc.

This Marginalist and exclusivist ecological drift is accelerating despite the Enron disaster analyzed in the chapter chapitre «Biens publics: sauvons ce qui peut encore être sauvé » de mon Tous ensemble. (freely available in the Books-Books section of my old Jurassic site: www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

The principles of ecomarxism pretend to be scientific. They take into account the necessary harmonious reproduction of Man in Nature and in History, which supposes the overcoming of the Capitalist Mode of Production which devastates the environment, the natural resources having no other intrinsic cost than the one attributed by the fallacious principle of « scarcity ». However, Léon Walras himself recognized that “scarcity is socially constructed. “. To understand this, you need only think of the costs of diamonds that can now be produced industrially. A scientific ecological science should therefore solve the false problems of absolute and relative rent – Smith, Ricardo, Torrens etc. – and that of Ricadian comparative advantages. This cannot be done without the scientific theory of productivity duly reintegrated within the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction (SR-ER )which I published for the first time in my Tous ensemble. Ecomarxism was then formalized in the Introduction and in the Appendix of my Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth (2005) (same section, same site)

From there, one can integrate the real costs of raw materials into the parameters of Planning on the basis of scientific data concerning their natural or artificial supply guaranteed in the medium term. This can be managed at the national level, but should preferably be agreed internationally within a rational trade and exchange rate regime. These costs would then be reflected in the fixed and circulating capital noted “c” and in the variable capital noted “v” in the production function which is written : c + v + pv = p. This, via the two main sectors SI and SII, informs the SR-ER Equations. We thus obtain the systemic structure of relative prices practiced in a given Social Formation, where exchange values and prices are produced and realized.

The supply can be natural or artificial. For example, the oil peak was a huge joke that the reserves in the Arctic revealed, to the great interest of Michel Rocard, not to mention the still unknown reserves in Antarctica and in the seabed. But we can also foresee the artificial reproduction of stocks, for example here by injecting algae and bacteria into old wells to obtain oil and gas in an eminently renewable way. We can even imagine buildings totally robotized with a tank every 30 centimeters and a controlled luminosity to produce the selected algae; mechanical arms would proceed to the harvest according to the information obtained by their detectors by skimming the tanks from time to time; the crops would be automatically transported to tanks that, through bacteria previously selected, would produce gas and oil; a young Cuban engineer has imagined to increase the pressure in these tanks to distribute, through an simple adjustment of the valves, the gas to appreciable distances without having to use other means of pumping. In such a way only one of these buildings could supply a whole neighborhood. The same type of robotic installation could be used to create urban farms, for example for algae such as spirulina or for semi-hydrophonic vegetable crops. I am indulging in this kind of considerations to highlight the perfect ineptitude of the “finite world” mental framework – finite for intelligence and innovation? – resulting from the Club of Rome and other IPCC … Massifable substitutes will be added when some resources become scarcer than the needs. This is already the case with many rare earths. In this case, it will be necessary to reserve naturally available resources for specialized needs for which there are no or not yet available substitutes.

Finally, the life cycle of products must be revisited upstream and downstream to allow for their optimal recycling. However, it is not appropriate to impose the end of product obsolescence, a practice that, of course, boosts capitalist consumer markets by forcing a more rapid renewal of the existing stock. In fact, the massification of certain products will remain necessary to quickly satisfy certain needs. For example, if the Smartphone is suddenly available, capitalism will resort to its habit of setting its markup price by first targeting a wealthy clientele, and only then will it massify its product for the other accessible markets according to the “structure of v”, i.e., the “net global revenue ” of households.

Socialism must guarantee the equality of citizens in the most rigorous way possible according to the circumstances. It will thus choose to massify these new objects to allow the access of all without operation a selection by the price. At the beginning, production and consumption will diverge; it will thus be necessary to resort to socialist methods of redistribution, which is done by establishing priorities, that is to say, in a first step, by first guaranteeing the essential social needs while taking care of the general non-individual access – e.g., the neighborhood washing machines or the Internet Cafés. In a second phase, individual needs will be met, at least if this results from a planning priority. These massified products will last, depending on the initial choice, 7 years or more; the problem of renewal will then arise. Socialism will naturally choose a renewal based on quality through short runs allowing for consumer inputs, and even better through quality artisanal production – which today can only be found at high prices in antique shops. The real accumulated wealth of nations will be created in this way. As it is necessary to take into account the tastes and the affective and cognitive evolution that accompany the blossoming and the blooming of personalities – the fetishism of objects and goods being replaced by aesthetic expression – these high quality productions will reflect the new social relationship between producer and consumer. And between citizens who will inherit family possessions, not to be confused with the ownership of the means of production and exchange leading to the exploitation of Man by Man, but will have the possibility to exchange them among themselves to satisfy their tastes.

A similar situation can be seen in Italy. In particular, green tax credits to individuals who pay income tax reached 8.4 billion euros in 2018 . The rest is of the same kind:

In addition to the tax expenditures of several tens of billions and various exemptions, there are the gifts, because governments know how to serve their clients well. I remind you that in order to benefit from the constitutionally guaranteed Social Assistance, the annual family income must not exceed 3000.00 euros and the real estate assets, including the car, must not exceed 5000.00 euros. However, the government Conte Bis had proposed a Super Ecobonus to 110% that Draghi immediately took over (there was a question at one time to reimburse up to 300 euros of charges for purchases made with the credit card therefore to the wealthier consumers for an estimated cost of 4.7 billion :

“Secondo indiscrezioni stampa, però, il governo Draghi sarebbe intenzionato a concludere in anticipo il cashback, prevedendo di spendere effettivamente “solo” 2,3 miliardi di euro. Il motivo di questa scelta sarebbe dettato dal fatto che il precedente esecutivo aveva proposto nel Recovery plan di finanziare i circa 4,7 miliardi per il cashback con risorse europee, decisione messa ora in discussione dal nuovo governo. ” https://pagellapolitica.it/dichiarazioni/8841/costa-di-piu-il-cashback-che-andare-su-marte

Such an anti-constitutional unequal management is of course disastrous for the country, a fate verified by the decline of almost for all essential indicators, both demographic, industrial, cultural and tourist or educational, including the very low R&D – 1.41% in 2018 – compared to other advanced countries. (see https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2020-european_semester_country-report-italy_en.pdf )

The philo-Semite Nietzschean Marginalist ecological madness contributes greatly to this decline while creating a debilitating green guilt catechism for mass consumption. Here are some illustrations:

“The energy cost gap that disadvantages our country persists: the differential between the prices of energy products in Italy and in the European Union remains positive, but the convergence process started a few years ago has resumed. It is confirmed that a significant premium is paid by Italian companies for electricity (down) and another for gas purchased by households (up). This is also the result of the higher tax pressure that affects energy products in our country: in 2017, the latest data available, each toe of final energy used was burdened with a tax of 373 euros, a value 51% higher than the European average.

(…)

The share of national energy demand met by imports (%), while still high (74%), has continued to decline and has been below historical levels for years.

(…)

In 2018 , 86.4% of electricity needs were met by domestic generation, which, net of energy absorbed for auxiliary services and pumping, amounted to 278.1 TWh (-1.6% compared to 2017), and the remaining 13.6% by net imports from abroad, or 43.9 TWh, an increase of 16.3% compared to the previous year. The increase in energy exchanged with neighboring countries was determined, on the one hand, by a 10% increase in imports (amounting to 47.2 TWh in 2018) and, on the other hand, by a 36.3% reduction in exports (3.3 TWh in 2018). (translation ) in https://www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/relazione_annuale_situazione_energetica_nazionale_dati_2018.pdf

Italy, which boasts a – ruinous – high level of intermittent energy, has to buy electricity from its neighbors at a cost hovering around the dozen (12 ) billion per year. These imports come mainly from Switzerland, but especially from France, which has a very efficient nuclear park, the energy source that produces the least CO2. In other words, by dismantling its nuclear power plants, France would lose on all fronts: foreign trade, security of supply and coupling for the intermittent part of the energy mix. But, in addition, this would undermine the supposed European Smart Grid with its erratically fluctuating offers and floating prices. What black outs in perspective in case of good weather without wind or by cloudy weather … For offshore wind turbines, let us note briefly that those installed by the UK are already rusting on site and will probably not be recycled more than those installed in California in the 70s. In Saint-Brieuc it seems that neither the fishermen nor the scallops o Coquiilles Saint-Jacques are really enthusiastic. ( v. https://www.ouest-france.fr/bretagne/saint-brieuc-22000/parc-eolien-en-baie-de-saint-brieuc/ )

“Italy, we read in the energy balance of 2018 – the last date for which we have the official aggregated publication – had an electricity demand of 321.4TWh that was met for 86.3% thanks to domestic production (277.5TWh) and for the remaining part thanks to imports from abroad (43.9TWh).” (translation ) in https://www.greenplanner.it/consumo-energia-elettrica-italia/

As a result, the price of electricity in Italy is almost double that of its neighbors, which hampers the cost of production for companies and consumption for households. But, given the green subsidies and general corruption, the country intends to persevere in this costly transition. As every economist knows – less and less in the EU – the low cost of energy and electricity is one of the most important factors in industrial and economic location. Italy and Sardinia lost a large part of the aluminum industry, one which offers a highly recycling rate, because they could not guarantee 10 years of stable electricity supply to Alcoa!

In the meantime, Sogin did cost almost 8 billion euros until 2020 and it is estimated that another 3.8 billion euros will be needed until 2036. (see https://www.repubblica.it/economia/2020/07/29/news/buco_nero_sogin-263147884/ ) All this for nothing, i.e., to monitor the accumulated nuclear waste rather than to develop a molten salt industry capable of using it as fuel in a safe way. I believe that civilian molten salt plants, which do not produce plutonium, do not fall under the 1987 referendum against fission nuclear power. However, we have already said that 100% intermittent is a joke of bad arithmetic since it necessarily requires coupling with gas or nuclear power in addition to available hydro.

The political decision-making process and the role of multinational NGOs.

Maurice Duverger had accustomed us to the distinction between political parties and interest groups. He modelled the distinction on the earlier one, namely political society versus civil society. Basically, there are many for whom parliamentary democracy would not be enough even if it were profoundly reformed to include a strengthening of parliaments against the so-called tyranny of the executive, as well as a profound reform of the electoral system with reasonably sized electoral colleges, proportional voting, exclusive public financing of parties and media par condition. In a modern society, parliamentary democracy should be flanked by an industrial and social democracy, i.e. trade unions, employers, consumers, academics, etc., represented in the Economic, Social and Environmental Council involved in Planning, plus democratic control bodies such as the Prudhommes, Ombudspersons and Citizens’ Complaints Committees to counter administrative abuses by mediation before the courts are seized, in the best of cases respecting the legal aid necessary to ensure citizen access to justice.

In this perspective, the rise of pressure groups could only be a good thing. However, at the national level, many pressure groups and NGOs fall under the direct or indirect control of the dominant regimes. This is done through the definition of their statutes and the way they are financed, if not through more underhanded infiltrations. In the best of cases, the financing is partly tax deductible so that the financing campaigns often have to rely on media relays, and on that we all know what to expect. In the end, the lobby groups and NGOs about which we hear the most are precisely those that are least harmful to the regimes in place. Highly deserving groups like AC! Chômage are obscured by the mass media. The Yellow Vests, which are ad hoc groups, are systematically repressed. (Yet by partly answering to their demands to the tune of 10 billion, the Macron government had enjoyed an additional GDP growth of some 0.3% , while neighboring countries were tanking, which speaks volumes against the nonsense of the neoliberal monetarist “Ricardian equivalence” and in favor of the role of the Economic Multiplier triggered by public spending, provided that one knows how to take into account the extroversion of the SF …)

At the international level, this basic trend, which prevails in all capitalist countries, has taken a very bad turn since the arrival in power of a new philo-Semite Nietzschean monetarist neoliberal right-wing with Reagan in the USA, a deleterious movement quickly copied globally and, in particular, in the West. Among the profoundly anti-democratic actions of the Reagan Administration, to smooth the way for the deployment of the new media giants and the Internet, there was the end of the New World Order of Information and Communication with the simultaneous bringing to heel of Unesco – the forced departure of the Secretary General, the Senegalese M. M’Bow. There was the crisis of the UN financing created by unpaid contributions, which allowed the imposition of the public-private partnership. This is how the Gates Foundation found itself financing the WHO and dictating the line on vaccination with pseudo-vaccines that are in reality nothing but badly tested gene therapies, which deeply pollute the ecosystem or the human epidemiological framework, without this making the good-natured Greens jump, although they are very inclined to protect biodiversity… by condemning forest fires in the Amazon!

Reagan also buried the exemplary Conference on the Law of the Sea, which after many years of negotiations had reached an agreement protecting the oceans and their resources for all of Humanity, at least outside the limits of the 200 miles economic zone. The economic zone itself was recognized against the preservation and protection efforts that it implies. The same ideology put an end to the agreements on the non-militarization of space, which was also previously recognized as a human heritage that should be kept free of commercialization and private appropriation, just like the Antarctic zone – an agreement that was re-formalized thanks to President Mitterrand. The ecological leaders forget all this, being for the most part acquired to the dominant exclusivist liberal catechism. Some of the younger ones are victims of their own good faith. They have to pull themselves together and think with their own heads.

It is in this context that we must understand the action of certain multinationals or other foundations living on ecology. Greenpeace and the WWF are multinationals with missions. Greenpeace is financed by individual contributions but also by foundations. For example, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (see https://www.rbf.org/grantees/greenpeace-fund-inc ) One of its former directors, Patrick Moore, is not tender about its practices and actions (see Patrick Moore speaks to DD News about Green Peace, 16 March 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXwZ96HYAxU . We will retain the initial orientations of Greenpeace; for the rest P. Moore likes GMOs and takes the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation for a humanitarian organization. So goes life … See on this : ” Bill Gates is continuing the work of Monsanto “, Vandana Shiva tells FRANCE 24,-23 ott 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNM833K22LM )

The WWF is also multinational and seems very focused on the creation of its Oasis and other Protected areas management. V. ” La conservazione della natura nelle oasi del WWF Italia”, http://d24qi7hsckwe9l.cloudfront.net/downloads/manuale_gestione_oasi_2012.pdf . This is, in my opinion, a deplorable form of privatization of a State right and of an essential State duty that should remain under the democratic control of the citizens and not of the members, or even the shareholders, of an NGO, to ensure their respect. I note that controlling access to jobs and roles confers power, which faith-based charities have known well for centuries, power that unduly increases as the state withdraws.

And what about the Hulot Foundation? See the Controversies section here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fondation_Nicolas-Hulot_pour_la_nature_et_l%27homme

The original sin of global warming and its atonement through CO2 reduction: a new, unfounded, unequal narrative.

The structural crisis of capitalism proceeds as Marx had indicated: capitalism creates its own gravediggers as increasing productivity “frees ” labor power that finds less and less employment alternatives elsewhere. Once again, as in the 20s and 30s, the philo-Semite Nietzschean elites try to save human inequality and the exploitation of Man by Man by retreating from the classical liberal capitalist credo of competition, which gives way to a world of large transnational oligopolies and to systemic and artificial normative creation of specific “markets” and thus to administrative price management. This is the case, for example, with the CO2 market or with captive Internet markets, e.g., Facebook and its participation in “surveillance capitalism”.

The Report from the Iron Mountain foresaw this liberticidal tendency as early as the 1960s, as well as the ways in which this “march to midnight” is managed through the instrumentalization of fear and guilt and the designation of an enemy. The biblical reactionary influence and the associated influence of Nietzsche and Carl Schmitt can be felt. Three original sins were thus created: That of the exclusivist, venal and criminal Shoah, in lieu and place of the Common History of the Deportation and the Resistance; but it is very appropriate for a “return” to a “brave new world” in which Schindler and his Jewish accountant Stern are designated as Just Men. That of global warming exclusively due to the anthropogenic creation of CO2, since CO2 is intimately linked to the energy production that is part of all human daily activities and economic transformation, in particular those that allow for its reproduction: The gentile Man is thus made guilty by the mere fact of existing!!! Added to this, since the end of 2019, is the original sanitary sin imposed thanks to the criminal management of the Sars-CoV-2 by which all the inexpensive generic treatments that work are forbidden in order to impose disastrous lockdowns and expensive pseudo-vaccines as part of an ideological and venal choice of unequal trashumanism.

Thus, the impact of zoonoses – as well as of the development of biological weapons – will not be mentioned, which is tantamount to concealing the impact of production and production-based breeding in order to attribute the new pandemics, which are instrumentalized at will, to the destruction of the Amazon or to the forest fires in Australia. The latter in 2019 were much less than those experienced in 1976, but memory is short and the poor management of forests and land due to rampant privatization and increasing urbanization mean that these fires are now more immediately felt. In addition, the forestry departments have not learned from the practice of backfires commonly deployed by the Aborigines who knew their environment well. Again, as Franco Zavatti pointed out, none of the IPCC models match the observations.

So let’s look at the global warming and CO2 reduction trajectories proposed by the IPCC to inform policy.

Source : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9chauffement_climatique

We already know that the IPCC did not take into account permafrost and phytoplankton because it is obsessed by the original sin of anthropogenic CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution … However, who says permafrost and phytoplankton says by definition that the bulk of the emission – or absorption in cooler environments – of CO2 follows the warming and does not precedes it. Add to this the role of absorption by vegetation and crops which is less linked to climate fluctuations. This is what the whole million-year history of Planet Earth tells us, a History in which the so-called universal law of entropy was reversed by the birth of carbon-based biological life.

The IPCC has in fact woven its narrative in total obscurantist ignorance of complex phenomena, such as the precession of the equinoxes and astronomical cycles, the cycles of the Sun, the Coriolis force, the tectonic plates, the oceanic currents, the chemistry of the lower, middle and upper atmosphere or the effects of volcanic explosions. This is similar to the inanity of meteorologists who had early on Cray supercomputers that they ran using the Lorenz Butterfly Effect, royally ignoring the first page of vector calculus according to which two equal but opposite forces cancel each other out, so that the global and local contexts differ. This is the case for the average global climate – a rather risky construction – and the local climates and the observed temperatures. Fortunately for the meteorologists they ended up having satellite images to enlighten their lanterns … over 2 or 3 days …

Add to this that the CO2 concentration given at around 410 ppm comes from the observatory of Mauna Loa, the highest active volcano in the World … If you were to average this with an observation on Vesuvius, in whose crater dandelions are currently growing, you would have a completely different average.

Mr. Jancovici, whom we have already quoted above, has reported the distressing circumstances under which the 1.5 and 2 degrees Centigrade trajectories were decided at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. Mr. Jancovici – for whom CO2 plays a yo-yo game between the earth and the atmosphere by accumulating according to the primary model of greenhouse gases – notes, however, that according to IPCC figures, the CO2 trajectory has continued at the same rate since 2009 and 2015-16, i.e. since the Copenhagen and Paris Summits

…

It is therefore necessary to verify what science says within the limits of what is objectively known to date. Fortunately this is what prof. François Gervais. Verdict:

“Since 1945, the beginning of the acceleration of emissions, the Earth, excluding natural El Niño episodes due to a change in the wind regime in the Pacific Ocean, has warmed by about 0.4°C according to HadCRUT4 data from the British Hadley Center.

The atmosphere contains only 0.04% CO2 by volume, the main greenhouse gas being water vapour with a concentration often exceeding 1%. But 0.04% of CO2 still represents a mass of 3200 billion tons. In 2019, before the confinements, an additional 36 billion tons of CO2 were sent into the atmosphere. 44% remain there for at least several years, a third being an additional nutrient for vegetation and crops, the rest being captured by the oceans because this gas is very soluble in water as illustrated by soft drinks.

In the same article prof. Gervais warns against climate engineering which would consist in playing the sorcerer’s apprentice by emitting chemical substances to occult the Sun and thus counteract the supposed global warming. Others, just as misguided, talk about painting everything white to radiate the Sun’s heat and reduce its absorption by the Earth!

If this sounds crazy to you, think again because the promise of juicy profits on the backs of gullible and scared masses is irresistible to some, as demonstrated by the campaign of Bill Gates and Big Pharma in their transhumanist vaccine drifts which consists in selling badly tested and too quickly used gene therapies for “vaccines” which legally speaking they are not. Thus we learn that the Saami indigenous people have courageously succeeded in blocking such a project by Bill Gates. (12) In fact, nothing surprising since the Pentagon has been doing research in this direction for many years, even dreaming of overthrowing the Cuban regime by such means…

Some people are rightly raising a prima faccia pertinent question :

” Can the Targets Be Met?

Perhaps. Technology can do wondrous things in the next 30-40 years.

But it will not happen without China, India, and developing nations in the Mideast, Africa, and South America in general.

Where is the CO2 Coming From?

CO2 Stats

Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.

Even if you eliminate 100% of carbon from the US and EU, you don’t solve the problem. » Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets Are “Pie In The Sky”, by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Apr 06, 2021 – 05:00 AM

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-net-zero-climate-change-targets-are-pie-sky

Of course, the above reasoning is a reasoning made in good faith. It forgets the fact demonstrated by Franco Zavatti and by one of his references that the famous 97% scientific consensus on the IPCC Reports is a pitiful invention that reduces after examination to 32.84% ( see: Consenso sul non consenso | Climatemonitor )

The IPCC reports before and after the Copenhagen episode reported by Mr. Jancovici are the result of political negotiations in which the West has been dictating its law until now, if only because of its scientific overrepresentation. This has totally changed today with the emergence of China – which now files more patents than the USA or the EU – or with the emergence of other countries like Vietnam etc. For Russia, it has the only model that best respects the observed facts.

These fundamentally political relationships cover societal choices and attempts to manage the world trade regime according to the interests of the dominant countries. However, the World is now militarily, economically, scientifically and commercially multipolar. The trajectories provided by the IPCC are subject not only to the logic of greenhouse gas reductions – a joke to say CO2 – but also to the logic of mitigations and compensations. So it’s now a matter of who can best throw sands in other countries eyes.

Thus Biden recently declared at the Earth Summit of April 22, 2021, to which he had invited 40 countries (!) that his country was using 2005 instead of 1990 as the threshold for its reductions. China, on the other hand, is keeping the 2030 threshold but is moving from 2050 to 2060 for the net zero emissions target, which would still be a great achievement if one were to compare CO2 emissions per capita. The EU is trying to comply with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Mitigation, compensation? It’s who will cheat the best while deploying technologies to control supply chains and carbon intensity. We will come back to this.

There are thus historical eras that are marked by the most misguided and dangerous venal irrationality.

Decarbonization, industry, ICT and the Internet: let’s calculate better!

At the beginning, we were dealing with a neo-liberal monetarist project that was downright neo-Malthusian. You only have to check Maurice Strong’s biography to see for yourself, even though he was just a toy soldier. He put forward the certificates that I had rightly renamed from the start as “certificates to pollute”. Which they are. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong )

Decarbonization was thus part of a global free trade project that would dismantle all trade tariffs, thus giving a technical advantage to rich countries that could produce at a lower cost. We have already said that this logic informed the Montreal Protocol. But as if that were not enough, the triumphant free trade project inscribed on its banners the dismantling of protections on services, leading to the elimination of natural public monopolies, the very ones that produce and distribute public goods – or the less well-named “common goods” according to an Anglo-Saxon common law perspective.

In such a scenario, the rich countries would win in all fields thanks to their technological advantage – patents do confer a 20-year monopoly. It turns out that this advantage also allows them to dictate the normative frameworks, particularly with regard to the safety and health aspects of production, goods and services. Decarbonization is, in fact, nothing more than the imposition of a new normative order that changes the global trade regime from top to bottom.

But here’s the thing! Some well-governed countries with public credit and planning, such as China, Russia, Vietnam, etc., were able to maintain their positions. They did so partly by emulating the old Japanese model of learning by first attracting some foreign direct investment to them, then imitating and finally surpassing the know-how by focusing on R&D and on the reliability and quality of their own products. Thus, even during the first stage, that of foreign investment – until recently 50% of Chinese exports to the US came from US firms operating in China – a predictable trend emerged by which these countries were producing with the same machines but with an equally well-trained or better trained and much cheaper workforce. Thus the whole edifice of “asymmetrical interdependence” informing American soft power – J. Ney, Keohane etc. – fell by the wayside. And this continued as public credit and planning imposed their superiority, including through national patents. In particular, short-term speculative capital is incompatible with the construction of infrastructure or with fundamental research and development requiring long periods of time.

Today decarbonization has lost all its meaning in terms of commercial advantage for the West. But the West does not seem to have noticed this. I have already opined on the fact, known to the Jesuits, that incestuous over-representation and selection of elites is far worse than congenital cretinism. It also leads to the false representation of class and caste… And this lead to societal and national self-destruction.

It is all the more pernicious sine the new economy is much more energy-consuming than traditional industry.

For example, it is gradually being discovered that Bitcoin requires more electricity annually than Argentina or Sweden (see : Secret Bitcoin farm, record breaking CO2 levels and ‘period plastic‘, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUwdQycOqrg

A 1.19: Annual electricity consumption of bitcoin – 133. 65 terawatts/hour – more than Argentina – 131.80 – or Sweden – 121 – or the Netherlands – 109.80.)

It would seem then that it would be far better to keep the steel industry by developing new filters for fine particles and other real pollutants …

Some people want to believe that the carbon problem will be solved for Bitcoin by using renewables, which is to ignore the very high carbon footprint of these same renewables while completely neglecting their intermittent production which requires coupling either with fossil fuels or with nuclear power – hydroelectricity having a lower production. See “Is This The Solution To Bitcoin’s Massive Electricity Consumption Problem”, by Tyler Durden,Thursday, Apr 22, 2021 – 05:00 AM, By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management, which has invested over $1 billion in cryptocurrencies, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/solution-bitcoins-massive-electricity-consumption-problem . This article has the advantage of listing the countries most involved in Bitcoin, i.e. China, USA, Russia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia etc.

But what about the carbon footprint of the Internet and the Cloud? Judge for yourself by reading this: “A typical office worker sends and receives around 140 emails per day, which, over the course of a year, creates as much CO2 as… flying from London to Bruges, or, or watching 955 movies,” in https://www.cwjobs.co.uk/insights/environmental-impact-of-emails/

Now, with this quick gauge, imagine High Frequency Trading and black pools. The irony is that these systems trade ETS so wisely calculated by the EU, thus producing mountains of CO2, in the process…

Take now the consumption of water and electricity needed in the production of electronic chips. Recently Taiwan had difficulties due to drought. See “Drought in Taiwan, a new threat to chip production”, For lack of a typhoon last summer, water supplies are low in Taiwan forcing the semiconductor industry to rely on tankers, By Simon Leplâtre(Shanghai, correspondence) , https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2021/03/11/la-secheresse-a-taiwan-une-nouvelle-menace-sur-la-production-des-puces-electroniques_6072746_3234.html

Quote “The world’s number one chip foundry, alone consumes 156,000 tons of water a day.”

Now let’s turn to rare earths and their difficult extraction, refining and production also requiring a lot of water and chemical agents. But they are vital for many uses ranging from ceramics, to telephony and catalytic converters and almost all the flagship products of green capitalist ecology, from batteries to wind turbines. (V. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_rare ).

A fairly comprehensive technical fact sheet concludes: “Finally, 75 m3 of acidic wastewater and 1 t of radioactive residues are generated per t of rare earth concentrates” in« Les terres rares : quels impacts ? », https://ecoinfo.cnrs.fr/2010/08/06/les-terres-rares-quels-impacts/

As far as the CO2 balance is concerned, we are currently reduced to extrapolating a little. For example:

“Maybe you can find some general information on magnets in the Impact Base? (http://www.base-impacts.ademe.fr/process )

A quick search gives :

– Magnet, AlNiCo, GLO = 26.1 kg CO2e/kg

– Magnet, NdFeB, GLO = 33 kg CO2e/kg

There is also data on end-of-life treatment (including substitution benefits).

More specifically, you can find information on LCA Databases (like Ecoinvent which proposes a value of 37.4kgCO2/kg for the “neodymium oxide” process). ” in https://www.bilans-ges.ademe.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031

One may then ask oneself certain questions: “Electric or combustion car: which one pollutes more? “If, on the road, the electric car pollutes less than the internal combustion car, it is not always the case when you step back. ” in https://www.leparisien.fr/automobile/voiture-electrique-ou-thermique-laquelle-pollue-le-plus-12-08-2019-8132190.php

Of course, most socio-economic decisions are not resolved by a single answer to a specific question. As Simon and Cyert remind us in their critique of social determinism, sometimes resolution depends on trade-offs, on choices. The proponents of planning are well aware of this problem of prioritization, which is often a matter of choice in the social redistribution of wealth. So there is nothing very innocent about climatological choices.

In this article we read: “In use, the balance of the electric car is much more virtuous than that of gasoline or diesel vehicles. But it takes between 30,000 and 40,000 km for the carbon balance between the two to be balanced. Given that the French drive an average of 13,000 km per year, it can take up to three years for an electric car to pollute less than a combustion engine. (…) But the balance sheet for electric cars will improve further with vehicles capable of going well beyond 150,000 km, the average mileage of a combustion engine. (…) Recycling. The average life of an electric battery is ten years. In that time, used batteries, which contain toxic, rare and precious metals as well as acids, could exceed 100,000 tons per year. And the quantities to be recycled could reach 700,000 tons by 2035. “Without fossil fuels or nuclear power, this will be famous.

As far as hydrogen is concerned. “In 2050, total energy consumption in Europe per year should reach 8,246 TWh against 12,347 TWh in 2018: this reduction is plausible thanks to innovation in energy efficiency. “(…) With such a high proportion of renewable energy (the author assumes 51% in the EU in 2050 compared to 23% in 2018), which is essentially intermittent, except for hydro and biomass, electricity will also have to circulate more between production and consumption areas. An increase in exchanges of 208% is necessary and 2,600 TWh will be devoted to the production of hydrogen and synthesis gas.” in “No carbon neutrality in 2050 without gas-electricity coupling” By Charles Cuvelliez and Patrick Claessens (*) | 23/03/2021, https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/pas-de-neutralite-carbone-en-2050-sans-couplage-gaz-electricite-880651.html

“The lightest of gases weighs heavily in their activity. It is used as a base material for fertilizer production and as a reagent in refining processes. Refiners use up to seven liters of it to make one liter of gasoline.

The problem is that hydrogen, 95% of which is currently produced from fossil fuels, is a nightmare for the greenhouse effect. In other words, it is an obstacle to decarbonization.

“Producing one kilogram of this so-called grey hydrogen is equivalent to emitting 10 kilograms of CO2,” says Bruno Petat, director of economic development for the two platforms. (…) Based on a study commissioned from the Norwegian firm Carbon Limit, in association with Technip, the consortium is expected to present its roadmap in September. “It will provide for the creation of liquefaction units, storage areas and at least one site for the transhipment of CO2 to the ships that will transport it at sea,” says Thierry Herman. The estimated cost of the investment is several billion euros. “This is the price to pay for our industrial platforms to continue to develop,” says Olivier Clavaud, director of the Chevron Oronite plant in Le Havre, France, and a strong supporter of capture. If all goes according to plan, the first ship loaded with carbon dioxide could be sailing in 2027. “In “CO2 capture: Le Havre steps on the gas! “, By Nathalie Jourdan | 04/30/2021, https://www.latribune.fr/regions/normandie/captage-du-co2-le-havre-met-les-gaz-883615.html

What remains to be understood is what offshore transmission means.

A few numbers on nuclear power speak for themselves.

“If one integrates the use of water by the power plants and especially the radioactive waste, nuclear power must be excluded, defend the ecologists; if one sticks to the sole objective of the fight for the climate, it becomes legitimate since it emits only 12 grams of CO2/kilowatt-hour over its life cycle, the best carbon balance of all energies. “In “Can nuclear power be considered a sustainable investment, on a par with renewable energies? “Jean-Michel Bezat, Lobby against lobby, Greens against nucleocrats, the war rages on the eve of the publication, Wednesday, April 21, of a first list of technologies labeled “green” by the Commission, analyzes Jean-Michel Bezat, journalist at “Le Monde”, in his column.

Published yesterday at 01:39, https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/04/19/nucleaire-la-guerre-fait-rage-a-l-approche-d-une-decision-de-bruxelles-sur-les-technologies-labellisees-vertes_6077235_3232.html

The TGV runs on electricity … But it also demonstrates one of the advantages of public transport for moving people and goods. Moreover, the former minister Mr. Gayssot had prepared an excellent plan in this matter.

Let’s see some figures:

“At the time of the examination of the “Climate and Resilience” law in France and the adoption of the Green Deal by the European Union, transport is a bad pupil: it produces 30% of greenhouse gases and its emissions have increased by 18% since 1990. (…) How can we allow everyone to travel and, at the same time, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030? Public transport must be given a place that is commensurate with its benefits for the environment and quality of life. The metro, tramway and train emit from 1 to 6 grams of CO²/km.passenger and the bus 130 grams compared to 203 grams for the private car. (1) They make it possible to limit congestion and its impacts (noise, safety, pollution, etc.), the cost of which is estimated at 270 billion euros by the European Court of Auditors. “

This initial eye cost may seem somewhat impressionistic but it gives a good idea of the problems. As the negative economic effects of the ecological transition become apparent, the “economic calculation” of beneficial CO2, but hopefully also that of the other real pollutants, will become more precise and more available on the normative level. If only because of the need for all countries, especially the so-called emerging ones, not to be too easily turned into the turkeys of this real crime against their development that this decarbonization strategy really embodies.

We will see later the impact on globalized supply chains and on the organizational charts of transnational firms. However, we can already see how the steel industry is being sacrificed in France and Italy. Even the car industry, forced to redo its CO2 calculations in order to switch to hydrogen, is closing its steel industry affiliates. This is worse than Larry Summers comparing the costs of compensating the victims of Three Miles Island and Bhopal to advise the relocation of polluting industries to poor countries. The same principle of regional responsibility that prevails for the recycling of household waste, etc. should probably be imposed here. See: “Automobile: can we still save the French foundries? ” By Nabil Bourassi | 29/04/2021, https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/automobile/automobile-peut-on-encore-sauver-les-fonderies-francaises-883503.html

Decarbonization: Artificial market and administered prices by the EU

Without making too easy a pun, the capitalist ecological transition demonizing CO2 is an incredible hot air gas factory. It will distort all objective economic calculations and drift happily towards an economy of administered prices. This highly harmful drift for the well-being of economies and societies stems from the logic of economic and fiscal disintegration so dear to the monetarist neo-liberals. As good modern Aarginalists, they think in terms of microeconomics without any macroeconomics. (For the genesis of Marginalist theory, I refer you to my Methodological Introduction freely available in the Livres-Books section of my old Jurassic site www.la-commune-paraclet.com or to this shortcut: http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/the-pseudo-economic-science-of-the-bourgeoisie-here-is-why-we-should-quickly-change-economic-paradigm/ )

In short, a “market” is a supply and a demand that meet in a mysterious way in terms of “price”; they haggle and end up, after some “trial and error”, by crossing each other, a little game from which emerges the “just price” of the “market”. Don’t be afraid of logical incoherence, it is the cash that counts for the acquisitive mentality. As a young student – a Marxist – I remember bursting out laughing when I read in – one of the too many editions of Paul Samuelson’s useless and noxious – textbook that while this groping was going on, there was nothing to stop you from making a little profit!!! The Bar Mitzvah must have been fun. In short, it was worse than his nonsense about the price of diamonds or about “lump-sums of labor”. There is nothing to prevent the “minimum State”, which is strongly at the service of capital and even more so of the dominant speculative capital, from organizing the new “markets” – what about the Nobelized one on the sale of organs, fortunately forbidden in Europe and about which Ms. Carla del Ponte had expressed some concerns ? Or the CO2 market, for that matter? – or older “markets” by establishing their frameworks, in particular fiscal ones, in order to obtain the desired social result. This kind of disincentive through offers, prices and taxation is even better than taxes on the so-called vices – of the workers and the masses … The Yellow Vests have now perfectly understood what it is all about having been victims of the fuel tax while the government perpetuated the CICE for business – 20 billion per year – and abolished the ISF on the rich- at least 3 to 4 billion per year.

The fact is that these administrative prices put a damper on rational economic calculation. This is true from the point of view of competition as well as from the point of view of planning. In fact, the normative framework demonizing CO2 is in direct contravention of the principle of “free and undistorted competition” enshrined in the heart of the EU’s Functioning Treaty. I am, in fact, very surprised that the industries have not yet taken the matter to the Luxembourg Court.

To understand my argument, one must remember that competition is at the heart of the functioning of the capitalist system, it is the engine that pushes it to constantly improve its micro-economic productivity, by provoking the structural fall in the unit price of products. Of course, this is dependent for its realization on the macroeconomic framework provided by “aggregate demand” or, in Marxist terms, by the Equations of Reproduction which over-determine the formation of prices on the basis of exchange value. The definitive scientific demonstration can be found in my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy freely available in the Book-Books section of my old site. Of course, in the Capitalist Mode of Production – CMP – this aggregate demand is biased by private property which determines, via its “invisible hand”, the allocation of resources to the benefit of private property and thus of capital accumulation. This explains why in the CMP many essential basic needs of the insolvent masses are not satisfied, contrary to what is oft repeated according to which « when there is a demand there will be an offer». This is only true when the demand is cash-worthy … But this concerns redistribution and therefore the macroeconomic framework decided politically according to the state of the class struggle.

At the micro-economic level, competition imposes a technical organic composition of capital that is as efficient as possible under the circumstances, an efficiency that the differential productivity between firms will impose, leading to the well-known laws of motion of capital, that is, the centralization and concentration of capital. Imperfect competition by oligopolies distorts the game somewhat, but with two underlying corrections: internal accounting which always aims at minimizing costs and international competition – competition at the domestic level is often eliminated by the ability of oligopolies to co-opt infant industries that may be in their way, see for instance the Apps libraries etc. – or by buying up patents, a mechanism that is often used to prevent competition, a mechanism that Barnett and Müller had already brilliantly deconstructed in their classic Global reach. Basically, as Pareto had come to realize, in a given framework, the value composition is not independent from the technical composition of capital. But competition, if not the Plan, at least allows for the development of technical composition, of productivity.

It may seem a paradox but public monopolies respond perfectly to these requirements of rigorous economic calculation, since they can better rationalize their technical compositions while minimizing the cost of their services rendered to users under the ultimate control of Parliaments. They also benefit from the enormous advantage conferred by public credit at almost zero cost, as the rapid economic reconstruction of France and Italy before the privatization of their Central Banks proves beyond any doubt; and this was done without any increase in public debt except for the part corresponding to the anticipation of real growth in the form of public credit/investment. The figures speak for themselves if we remember that the Banque de France was privatized in 1973 by the Pompidou-Giscard-Rothschild law.

Moreover, through its normative framework demonizing CO2 – and relying on destructive private speculative finance – the EU is in the process of destroying both the micro-economic productivity and the macro-economic competitiveness of its member states. In my Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth – 2005 – I had formulated the concept of “ladder of added value” to counteract the “chains” of microeconomic value which merely refer to the organizational charts of transnational corporations. And thus to private global governance replacing the role of the State and parliaments. In reality, the exchange value of the parts and then of their assembly into finished products is necessarily formed in the respective Social Formations, as evidenced – albeit rather poorly today – by the WRO’s definition of anti-dumping, by the equilibrium of external balances and by the exchange rate of currencies. This is easily understood since the resolution of the equations at the microeconomic level on the macro-economic setup, or, if one prefers, in classical Walrasian terms, the general equilibrium is given by the “market of markets. “

The European normative framework, already harmful at the microeconomic level, is even more so at the level of Social Formations. Everything will depend on the commitments made in full knowledge of the facts, according to the means of cheating through the mitigations and the compensations put in place… for instance, if one were well-intentioned, “The man who planted trees” by Jean Giono, author of Regain, has a bright future ahead of him, or at the very least we could dream about it… (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5RmEWp-Lsk )

What is this normative framework?

1) ETS, green certificates and carbon tax at the borders.

First of all, there is the “CO2 market”, a gas that is beneficial but chosen on purpose because it is linked to energy consumption and is part of all economic transformation processes, whether it be in cement factories, the steel industry, agribusiness, bitcoin or emails…

The artificial CO2 market was therefore imagined in the wake of the creation of green certificates to pollute. It was accompanied by a certain amount of free green certificates allowing for a softer transition, an amount that some people now want to abolish to hasten this transition by disincentive punishment in case of non-compliance with the CO2 reduction planned for 2030.

If we rely on the results obtained with this method for the collection and recycling of urban domestic waste, the fiasco lurks. In my city, for example, a few years ago, a ton of domestic waste did cost the competent municipal public entity about 80 euros; the bill is now more than double thanks to the privatization of the service. The same phenomenon is occurring in all privatized public services, be it transport, electricity or water.

In any case, the drift in green certificates is already well underway.

“On Tuesday, April 27, the price of carbon on the European market exceeded 47 euros per ton, more than double its April 2020 price (19 euros). And analysts are already projecting it in the 60 to 100 euro range, perhaps by the end of the year.

The complex carbon trading scheme (ETS), invented in 2005 by the Brussels bureaucracy to put a cost on CO2 emissions, and therefore on global warming, has long been derided. Too weak and too limited, burdened by exceptions, it has not played the incentive role that was hoped for. But all this is changing at high speed since the European Union (EU) decided to change gear with its ambitious Green Deal, aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. “The mechanics of the carbon tax at Europe’s borders look like an economic bomb”, Chronicle, Philippe Escande https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2021/04/27/la-mecanique-de-la-taxe-carbone-aux-frontieres-de-l-europe-ressemble-a-une-bombe-economique_6078223_3234.html

The stock market value of these certificates is set to rise in the EU’s mind. The quota should trade around 100 euros around 2030. But as we have said, this is a modern “market”, i.e. artificial, speculative and administered. Thus, as the stock market for these certificates has collapsed several times, the EU has had and continues to have recourse to “regulatory” intervention, i.e., as absurd as it may seem, it siphons off some of these unused certificates before they drive prices down. Marine Godelier explains:

“Today, more than 12,000 industrial facilities are involved in the carbon market in Europe, totaling more than 50% of CO2 emissions on the continent. (Credits: Gonzalo Fuentes) After many setbacks, due to a surplus of emission permits and low carbon prices, the EU ETS will undergo adjustments to match the new climate trajectory adopted by the Union.

On Wednesday 21 April, MEPs adopted an ambitious new climate target: a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The very next day, carbon prices jumped, reaching an unprecedented level of 47 euros per ton. “

By 2013, the certificate had plummeted to 5 euros. The EU tried, without much success, to allocate regressive quotas to reduce supply. Finally, the author concludes, “So, starting in 2019, the EU has put in place a mechanism to reduce this surplus: the financial market reserve. “Each year, it punctures the volume of allowances that should be auctioned, if it is greater than 800 million per year, to absorb the surplus,” says Emilie Alberola. Nearly 387 million carbon allowances were thus withdrawn from circulation, or 24% of the total at the time. This is the first time that a new European carbon market has been created to increase the price of CO2,” in “Towards a new European carbon market to increase the price of CO2”, by Marine Godelier | 27/04/2021, https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/transitions-ecologiques/vers-un-nouveau-marche-europeen-du-carbone-pour-augmenter-le-prix-du-co2-883322.html

It is to hasten this dual logic of reducing emissions and reducing supply that the end of free allowances is being discussed. As the thresholds of the Paris Agreement concern the national economic space, an attempt is being made to optimize emissions by transferring to the biggest polluters the gains in emissions made by others. Since technological prowess is not always forthcoming, the case of Renault preparing its conversion to hydrogen by sacrificing its national steel industries clearly shows what can be expected. We will see later what can be projected in this area when we mention the questions arising from the carbon tax at the borders.

2 ) Taxonomy, green accounting, preference and risk assessment criteria for investors.

In addition to the Green Allowance Exchange, the European normative framework includes: a taxonomy of companies, a green accounting system to assess sustainability and a kind of list providing green investors and traders with criteria to assess sustainability and risk preferences.

The whole thing is officially detailed in the following document: “COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Taxonomy, Corporate Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Preferences and Fiduciary Duties: Directing finance towards the European Green Deal” Communication on EU taxonomy, corporate sustainability reporting, sustainability preferences and fiduciary duties: Directing finance towards the European Green Deal (europa.eu)

For our purposes here, the list of these three elements of this bureaucratic planning to perfect the “CO2 market” will suffice. It is important, however, to understand the dual purpose of this plan: on the one hand, to hasten the transition to the Paris Agreement thresholds by providing financial disincentives for CO2 emissions, and on the other hand, to create a taxonomy that can be used to establish and manage the carbon tax at the borders.

While it continues to sign all the free trade treaties that come its way without even asking the opinion of the parliaments of the member States, the EU seems to be concerned, within this specific free trade framework, about the surge of relocations that could be caused by the ecological transition. It intends to establish internal carbon standards that will act as new customs barriers, but it fears the repercussions on the production costs of transnational companies that are used to optimizing their taxes – head offices with no location other than on paper, as the Trade Commissioner learned not so long ago, tax ruilings, tax havens, etc. – but also to optimize their production chains. – but also to optimize their supply and production chains as well as the location of assembly sites.

In the USA, the normative framework seems to be developing around more flexible deadlines – reduction and net zero – 2005 instead of 1990 and 2050 and around 3 main categories of emission intensity or Scope 1, 2 and 3, which already gives rise to all sorts of calculations. For the categories see : United States environmental protection agency https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance . For the stock market calculations involved, see “More ESG Fraud = BofA Finds That Tech Is One Of The Dirtiest Industries”, by Tyler Durden, Friday, Apr 23, 2021 – 05:45 AM, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/more-esg-fraud-bofa-finds-tech-one-dirtiest-industries .

One can easily imagine the high stakes of this normative framework under discussion. See https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12228-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism

We can also see the upheaval at both the micro and macro levels. The CO2 data and the economic data will gradually become clearer. What we can already try to do from the point of view of international political economy is to evaluate this global business strategy, knowing that the EU is putting all its efforts into it – as is the Biden Administration – not only by establishing the green normative and accounting framework but also by allocating 37% of the Next Generation EU or Recovery Plan to this kind of capitalist ecology, to which we must add another 20% for digital.

My opinion is that this will be even more disastrous than the strategy of soft imperialism under the guise of “asymmetric interdependence” and for the same reasons. The main reason is the self-sufficiency of the Western elites who are already too late in economic terms and who are no longer able to understand the inanity of their speculative finance which is leading them rapidly to final decline. The attempt by the USA to repeat the Cocom via a new Cold War will only make things worse with regard to European partners and rivals who will have to be subservient in order to compensate for the lost opportunities in China, Russia and elsewhere. This version of preventive war against all military and commercial rivals does not have a great future, despite Washington’s strong interference, for example in Ukraine, where Russian pipelines pass through, or against the North Stream 2 project, which is vital for Germany, and others of the kind.

I have already dealt with this subject here: « COMMERCE MONDIAL ET TAXE CARBONE », http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/commerce-mondial-et-taxe-carbone-5-decembre-2020/

We will try to synthesize the debate. The problem lies in two concepts that Marginalism is ontologically incapable of understanding.

On the one hand, there is no microeconomy without macroeconomy. Microeconomic functions of production find their resolution in the total demand of the system, i.e., in the Simple and Enlarged Reproduction Equations. I refer for the details here to my Methodological Introduction and to my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy already quoted.

On the other hand, and correlatively, micro-economic productivity depends on macro-economic competitiveness, which is all the more solid as it is based on the public mutualization of the cost of infrastructures and social services, in particular Social Security. The two examples I always cite are European public health and pension systems that cost less than half as much while being universally accessible without the risk of recurrent bankruptcy compared to the same American private systems. GM and the U.S. auto industry nearly went broke due to their inability to fund in-house pension plans as a result of technological attrition of the active workforce in relation to the retirees. In the latest 1.9 trillion bailout, the Biden Administration again had to save some pension funds by allocating $89 billion to them, thus avoiding a costly increase in contribution rates in advance while taking advantage of the current low borrowing rates. (Neither France nor Italy had the intelligence to do this to save their own social security system, which has been damaged by the health crisis, even though rates are close to zero or even slightly negative in France; instead, the government prefers to cut hospital beds, slash unemployment insurance and prepare for the forced introduction of the points-based pension system, a prelude to its creeping privatization. )

Because of this, Marginalists of all stripes, and especially monetarist neo-liberals, are fundamentally incapable of understanding the ABCs of Ricardo’s comparative advantage mechanism. With asymmetric interdependency, they had pitifully tried to do for the USA what Ricardo had done for the UK with the series of laws leading from 1815 to 1848 to the Repeal of the Corn Laws: bread being the main component of the consumption basket of British workers, it was convenient, within the framework of imperial preferences, to import wheat and other commodities from the Dominions rather than to produce them painfully at home. Note that this was no longer true for countries such as the United States, which were outside the imperial preferences, but was still valid in Portugal because of the British economic and military aid against the presence of Napoleon’s armies in the Iberian Peninsula. This last case gave us the famous illustration of the exchange between English cotton and manufactured goods for Portuguese wine. Since Marx, List and Dockès, we know that such a fool’s bargain leads inexorably to the development of the underdevelopment of the least industrialized country and to its accelerated depopulation insofar as the mobility of labor accompanies the mobility of capital.

The monetarist neo-liberals, not understanding this, followed Ricardo’s illusions without understanding his motivations. It is this slavish imitation that explains the illusory strategy of interdependent asymmetry. This led to what I then called the “wal-martyrization” of the consumption basket of American workers. A few years ago, 50% of Chinese exports to the United States were produced by transnational firms based in China, a country where, with the same machines but a highly qualified and disciplined workforce, their production costs were unbeatable.

At this game, the US repeated its sin of self-sufficiency already committed two decades earlier against Japan: with its national planning, the justly famous MITI, its education system and its national control on credit – and therefore of capital flows – Japan was able to move very quickly from a strategy of imitation to a strategy of innovation emphasizing product reliability and quality. It then very quickly prepared its 5th technological revolution with robots, AI, etc. This provoked hysteria in the USA – see the typical example of the attacks against Motorola in the 80s, followed by the commercial slams including the carefully staged diplomatic meals with more than a dozen Japanese soy dishes that the country wanted to protect… – but, for the USA, it was too late.

The same blindness seems to be happening again with the demonization of CO2 and the carbon tax. China already controls most of the innovative patents in solar panels, wind turbines – in addition to rare earths – storage batteries, hydrogen and so on. It controls all the energy sectors, including the nuclear sector. It is rapidly gaining power in terms of the energy intensity of its production and consumption. By gradually replacing its coal-fired power plants, it is winning on all fronts, including by protecting the lives of its miners and the air in its urban centers. There is nothing to prevent science, which was already able to liquefy coal in Germany at the beginning of the last century, from designing a clean coal plant, apart from the beneficial CO2. In addition to the filters, dust could probably be eliminated by passing the smoke through large water “hookahs” before it passes through the other filters. Coupling with a dedicated molten salt plant could even allow CO2 to be recovered and mixed with hydrogen to make a useful fuel. I’m not kidding as much as it sounds because coal remains the most available and best distributed energy source on the planet.

The predictable macro-economic disaster of the ecological transition dictated by the IPCC’s nonsense.

The analysis must be made here on the basis of an economy dominated by speculative capital, privatization and deregulation, all inserted in a series of free trade treaties under the umbrella of the current definition of anti-dumping prevailing at the WTO. As we know, it disregards the social rights of the workers, a choice which induces strong and global wage deflation, as well as rational environmental criteria that should normally be covered by the public health principle precaution, even if it were only the most restricted one.

However, the formation of exchange value occurs in the national or multinational Social Formation. Imports and exports are mediated by the exchange rate. Thus, changes in the capital invested in production (C= c + v) will affect not only the essential ratios for determining the productivity of microeconomic functions of production, but also the macroeconomic competitiveness that informs the exchange rate. These essential ratios are the organic composition of capital (v/C ) and the rate of surplus value (pv/v), both of which are linked by an inverse proportional relationship as I have shown. By defining the exchange value, the macro-economic level defines the whole structure of the relative prices of the system. With important consequences.

The function of production focused on the circulating capital that passes into the product is written: c + v + pv = p. It allows us to define the essential ratios for apprehending the microeconomic productivity rate, i.e. v/C (where C = c + v ) and pv/v.

This production function contains the seeds of the whole system of social reproduction, giving rise to the two great sectors, the SI Sector of the Means of Production and the SII Sector of the Means of Consumption, under which can be subsumed all the sub-sectors one wants – the statistics emerging from the equations of Simple Reproduction (SR) – or stationary – and Extended Reproduction (ER) – or dynamic – make it possible to apprehend statistically the sectors which are trans-sectoral arrangements. I refer to my Précis for the details.

Let us simply note that the SR is written :

SI = c1 + v1 + pv1 = M1

SII = c2 + v2 + pv2 = M2

Total = c + v + pv = M or total capital

( The total productivity rate of the sum (SI + SII) will constitute the macroeconomic competitiveness rate of the SF which will define the exchange rate, sometimes taking into account the status of the national currency as an important international reserve, which is the case for the US dollar and, in part, for the euro)

The stationary economic equilibrium is therefore written :

c2 = (v1 + pv1)

M1 = (c1 + c2)

M2 = (v1 + pv1 ) + (v2 + pv2)

Contrary to the Marginalist equilibrium always given in a post-hoc fashion by an “invisible hand” responding to the motives of private accumulation, a mechanism that never leads to both economic and social equilibrium but often in times of crisis to “a graveyard equilibrium”, we have here an equilibrium scientifically established by Marx and therefore scientifically manageable. Because it takes into account in a scientifically coherent way both the quantitative data – numbers of Mp or Cn – and their qualitative expression in exchange value (or in price), which I was the only one to be able to demonstrate by elaborating the Marxist law of productivity and by inserting it in a coherent way in the Equations of the SR and RE of Marx. In this way we obtain a scientific economic accounting.

If you administratively change the inputs of a function of production, you change the whole system and thus all relative prices.

With their carbon quotas aiming at reaching the crazy extra-economic thresholds of the Paris Agreement, the IPCC, the EU and others propose to raise sharply the cost of the two main productive inputs simultaneously, i.e. the cost of energy and the cost of food affecting both “c” and “v”. This without the slightest chance of being able to compensate by a proportional increase in productivity, unless we can count on a coupling of intermittent energies with natural or artificially produced gas or with nuclear energy, or both. As far as food sovereignty is concerned, let’s not forget that oil is still essential for the production of fertilizers…

In addition to this aspect, which is intuitively understandable to all but scientifically framed by the SR-RE Equations, there remains the economic context dominated by hegemonic speculative capital. Now, this form of capital, which cannibalises the real economy with its unsustainable Roe is not compatible with long-term infrastructure investments. However this does not worry at all the good-natured ecologists with a high personal ecological footprint. We had already demonstrated this in Tous ensemble in our defense of the public goods offered by public enterprises while their privatization was underway, despite the catastrophe of the so-called Californian model with Enron. The Californian model under attack had been “corrected” by the ineffable Frazer Institute, its proposal quickly re-named by me, in the manner of Schopenhauer for whom “if one errs, it is always appropriate to err importantly “, as the “British-Colombian model”: it consists of making the State bear the long-term cost of construction, which, once it is finished, will transfer the infrastructure to the superior management of the private sector in order to benefit from the “just market price”! Of course, this brilliant proposal hit the nail on the head with our brilliant elites… In France, 150 functional and fully depreciated hydroelectric dams have been or ar in the process of being transferred…

However, in order to be successful, the ecological transition cannot be accomplished by insisting on the disincentive of consumers who are increasingly immobilized – « attachés à la glèbe » – and subjected to green negative growth, but rather through the refurbishment and extension of public infrastructures. The Green Neal Deal is therefore based on an economic absurdity, namely the attempt to redirect the huge speculative capital, now dedicated to stock market rotations and gigantic buybacks, towards the long term investments necessary for the transition through the normative framework and the green certificate market. This is antithetical to short-term capital. (State financing is therefore kicking in together with increased public debt …)

Even more seriously, the deterioration of internal functions of production through higher input costs will push speculative capital out of these sectors. Unless, as is the case for intermittent energies, these investments will be made profitable in an artificial way by the cannibalization of existing public enterprises – the Hercules plan being the latest example of an evolution well illustrated by Mr. Balbastre and the CGT comrades – and by the profit grabbing through the growing bill passed on to consumers, individuals or companies.

It is therefore clear, when we consider the consequences for total capital, that the exchange rate, and therefore the external balances, will be heavily affected.

As far as employment is concerned, we have already given some figures above. They show that green jobs will be more precarious and will not be enough to absorb the jobs still provided by the condemned traditional industries, which are still full time and pay social contributions and taxes of all kinds. In addition, macroeconomic competitiveness will deteriorate. In the framework of the current definition of anti-dumping, this degradation will inevitably lead to more wage deflation and more precariousness, because, in order to manage official unemployment figures according to the ILO – one hour worked and you disappear from the statistics – the tendency to accelerate the division of a full-time job by two or three, will accelerate. The active population rate is falling all over the West. In Calabria, the advanced laboratory of the institutionalized police-mafia society of the new domesticity and slavery, the participation rate is already around 40%. This is worse than the “Mexicanization” denounced in the 80s-90s!!!

A cognitive bias well-known and maintained as such by the leaders consists in rejecting the most obvious destabilizing data in order to maintain the comfort of a semblance of equilibrium. Before the eco-sanitary crisis, the period spent on precarious hard work on a fixed-term contract basis after which a young person could hope to find a full-time job oscillated around 11 years in France and 17 years in Italy, which leads to endemic impoverishment and a chronic crisis in the synthetic fertility rate. However, before the current health crisis, the Davos Forum and the OECD had predicted a net loss of 5 million jobs due to robotization, AI, etc., before 2035.

This gloomy outlook is strongly aggravated by the economic and health crisis so badly managed -in my opinion, by design. No one will be surprised to learn that, as early as 2009/2011, Jacques Attali had called for such a health crisis to allow for reforms otherwise difficult to impose on hard-working citizens, harsh reforms to be carried out under the control of the American Army (!). Nor in learning that Bill Gates and a whole group of high ranking executives in the private sector had carried out a simulation on the management of a health crisis, Event 201 in September 2029, i.e., shortly before the Sars-CoV-2 was discovered by the Chinese authorities in Wuhan. Nor by learning that Klaus Schwab of the Davos Forum welcomed this health crisis as a “window of opportunity” – a reactionary Reaganite expression if ever there was one! – to proceed with the neoliberal reforms that remain to be imposed on citizens who would otherwise never accept them, a strategy that he openly formulated in his Great Reset proposal. (On J. Attali see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIwBGe0VwUY ; on Event 201, see: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+event+201&qpvt=youtube+event+201&view=detail&mid=9891F448D29D31B93A729891F448D29D31B93A72&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dyoutube%2Bevent%2B201%26qpvt%3Dyoutube%2Bevent%2B201%26FORM%3DVDRE ; on Klaus Schwab see : https://straight2point.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/COVID-19_-The-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab.pdf )

This is why this ecological transition, for me an irrational and criminal affair, is based on a neo-Malthusian inegalitarian catechism but also on an absurd and hypocritical international framework, namely the commitments of each individual country with respect to the Thresholds of the Paris Agreement, which are already by themselves adjusted in an opportunistic but realistic way because they are based, above all, on an incentive to systematic cheating through mitigations and compensations. Methane gas being considered clean and nuclear being the safest (*) and cheapest source, a global inequality framework risks freezing at 1990 levels and this against the qualitative growth necessary to lift the vast majority of the human population out of poverty.

Countries with strategic planning and public credit thus have a colossal advantage in mastering any ecological transition they decide to undertake, including taking advantage of a trade order that irrational Western elites believe they can impose on them. Like the fallacious and smug strategy of asymmetrical interdependency…

We have said above that macroeconomic competitiveness depends strongly on the degree of productive coherence of the SF. This points to the degree of nationalization of public services that mutualize costs which would otherwise be the responsibility of individual firms, such as in-house pension schemes, health care, unemployment insurance and sick leave, etc., or the degree of nationalization of public infrastructure, which affects the mobility of people and goods.

In this way, solid macroeconomic competitiveness becomes the best asset for the best microeconomic productivity. The proof of this is the undeniable fact that France, which was socially rehabilitated during the Jospin government, was ranked among the top countries for foreign direct investment. Far from being frightened by the RTT –the reduction of the workweek – and by the rigorous program of Prime Minister Jospin and his “gauche plurielle “, they appreciated the functioning of the French State bureaucracy and of the public infrastructure, not to mention the standard of living, a determining factor in any theory of economic localization, since the RTT had given rise to the spontaneous blossoming of a sociology of leisure and free time. Let us recall the excellent Filippetti Report which establishes that culture involves nearly 7% of the GDP…

We know that multinational and then transnational companies took advantage of globalization before and especially after the end of the GATT and its replacement by the Uruguay Round and the current WTO. This made it possible to optimize activities and profits, and therefore the management of taxes and salaries. The organization chart illustrates this globalization of supply chains – production mandates granted to subsidiaries abroad and assembly of parts where this remains more profitable thanks to the robotization of assembly lines.

This whole organization must be reviewed in the light of CO2 quotas, the cost of green certificates and the normative framework – emission reductions and a new accounting framework allowing a new evaluation of ecological risk without much real relation to economic and social requirements.

Free trade under Thatcher and Reagan sacrificed the soft, labor-intensive sectors, leading to increasing wage deflation and precariousness. In the same way, we will be obliged, as we go along, to double the European taxonomy with a more relevant taxonomy, which will take into account the industries most affected by the transition. Then we can try to assess the inanity of carbon taxation at the borders. Yet, our elites are inclined to believe that they can sacrifice industry – which pollutes because of CO2! – in favor of services, as if services did not have to serve the production and exchange needs of industry! To specialize in services for foreign companies is, in the classical terms of the literature, to play with foreseeable turbulence and with the unforeseen saliency of crises. In my Book III – 2005 – I had already warned against the temptation to imitate Singapore, because the creation of a vast warehouse or global trade hub may be appropriate for a City-State but certainly not for a medium-sized or a big national State…

In terms of micro-economics, and therefore of the productive choices of companies, the first thing to notice is the obvious contradiction between the macro-economic thresholds of the Paris Agreement and the defensive desire for a micro-economic carbon tax in a vain attempt to block the relocations – à la Larry Summers – that will follow the transition.

Having said this, the question is simple: will it be possible to relocate supply chains as much as possible to compensate for the production cost differential, and is this compatible with the wage deflation caused by the obligation to export once domestic markets are saturated? Knowing also that the structure of relative internal prices will be pushed upwards, given the increasing price of energy, food and green certificates.

This question will be influenced by the carbon typology of the industries. Thus, to produce cement requires a lot of energy and limestone, which has stored large amounts of CO2 during its geological formation; the hot-furnace steel industry has similar conditions, while special steels require even more electricity and/or oxygen; the maliciously demonized oil industry also has similar problems in its own right and especially for its necessary ancillary industries, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and polymers and plastics; as for rare earths for electronics and batteries, we have already mentioned their great needs in terms of energy and water. Raw material requirements will generally remain the same, only their energy intensity in production may change, unless competitive mass substitutes are available. The allocation of quotas mediated by the exchange of green certificates between companies with low or high CO2 emissions will not be enough to do the job. The production organization chart of globalized companies will therefore only be modified at the margin, but in an increasingly capital intensive context, “freeing” the labor force that is nowhere else reabsorbed at the same level.

Everything will be played out on the basis of the best competitiveness. This means the most skilful cheating, for example in energy production – coupling, compensation, etc. – but also the use or not of economic planning and public credit.

In fact, the countries that have these winning assets will be able to quickly make the necessary infrastructural adjustments to make the most of the new ideological world order, while at the same time proceeding with real ecomarxist management of the environment. I notice that in the West there is a lot of gargling about GREENHOUSE GASES when the calculations are only reserved for CO2. Russia and China, on the other hand, take great care in calculating all greenhouse gases because, apart from the beneficial CO2, the others do pose real problems of soil pollution and real health problems.

Mitigations and compensations.

They mainly concern CO2 and aim at accelerating the race towards zero net emissions by 2050 or 2060. They concern above all the irrational and costly creation of artificial carbon storage techniques, such as dangerous wells into which CO 2 can be injected in order to benefit from pollution certificates… Presumably chemistry will also make its contribution, for example the mixture of CO2 and hydrogen to create a fuel gas with a high energy cost… The artificial creation of gypsum in imitation of marine shells could have its interest.

The most sensible countries like Venezuela propose to make the most of the tree plantations calculated to satisfy the far-fetched demands of the IPCC as soon as they are about to be imposed. See “Mitigación de CO2 por plantaciones forestales en Venezuela” in https://rebelion.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CO2-Venezuela4.pdf

In this game of plant storage, it would probably be best to focus, without harming biodiversity, on trees that produce fruit, biofuels or timber, since the CO2 used to produce fruit or vegetable oils will be recycled advantageously into animal or human energy, while the boards that can be pulled from the trunks have an appreciable life span.

In the same way, the cultivation of cereals – wheat, rice, maize, dual rape, etc. – has a great advantage because it takes advantage of the natural resources of the land. The great advantage lies in the fact that it takes advantage of the beneficial CO2 year after year, transforms it into food, and therefore into energy, so that when the animal or human consumer dies, only a small amount of material or ash remains. Life is carbon based on Earth … It is difficult, I believe, to do better in terms of carbon footprint, especially if one has at heart to feed all humans and their domesticated animals properly. The rest will have to be taken care of by expanding biodiversity areas and protected national parks. Food sovereignty as opposed to “food security” based on agricultural futures and financial derivatives will thus have to be imposed everywhere – see the Introduction and the Appendix on Ecomarxism in my Book III.

Mitigation and compensation will therefore be based on this and especially on energy coupling, in particular gas and nuclear. Emerging countries will have to quickly claim their rights to civil nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while joining forces to develop civil molten salt power plants. Without these real energy mediations, these countries risk being frozen in a brutally neo-Malthusian way, but with the holy water of the IPCC and the troops of good-natured environmentalists, in their 1990 underdevelopment status ad vitam aeternam.

Since there is as much chance that the international Green Fund instituted to allow their transition will be better funded than the one promised to President Correa for the oil in Yasuni Park, these countries will have to resort to the following mitigation strategy:

1 ) Have a public bank that controls public credit. Only then, as in France, Italy, etc. after the Second World War, will they be able to finance the infrastructures and technologies necessary to protect themselves without incurring public debt, except for the 20% to 30% corresponding to the anticipation of investments decided by the indicative and incentive planning that is appropriate for a well-regulated mixed economy.

2) To speed things up, they should propose to China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. to create joint ventures between public enterprises. For example, for hydroelectric dams, for molten salt power plants, for the transformation of oil into fertilizers, pharmacology and other derivatives. These joint ventures – the old and very efficient European public enhanced cooperation – allow important technology transfers while preserving national sovereignty because they enjoy public credit and precise production/distribution mandates. Public companies that do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders amortize their costs more quickly and turn profits into investments more quickly.

3) This strategy of accelerated economic development through joint ventures and public credit should be accompanied by a policy of bilateral credit line swaps with trading partners. The amount of these swaps would be established according to the import-export needs planned in the medium and long term. As the trades are realized these lines of credit transform in real value equally for both partners. Indeed, it is perfectly idiotic to be economically and financially subservient to the USA or any other power in order to earn dollars to trade with a third country! Bilateral swaps of credit lines between central banks eliminate these problems, accelerate the desired and planned bilateral exchanges and make it possible to operate according to a quasi-guaranteed balance of external balances. In this way we achieve a much more efficient and equitable international division of labor. For maximum flexibility, we can provide for the possible convertibility of unused credits in a common currency basket – pending the democratization of SDRs within the IMF. But the renewal of bilateral agreements will allow the automatic correction of these differences.

4 ) Russia, China and Vietnam should immediately realize the stakes of such a win-win international cooperation system that could diversify their own economic exchanges without weakening their partners. This is a constructive opportunity that the pilo-Semite Nietzschean West does not enjoy. For it is now doomed to barbaric exclusivism – the Palestinization of peoples, thenew segregations via useless vaccine passports given the uncovered variants and the contagiousness of the vaccinated, etc. It is also dedicated to the destruction of real economies by speculation and short-term capital. I recall that speculative interest remains, like all interest, deducted from real profit; however, financial deregulation has legally crowned it as legitimate profit. Since its investments in fixed capital are far lower than in the classical industrial and economic sectors, its volumes of “profit” are far higher, which explains the privatizations, the takeovers, the purely speculative rotations on the stock exchange and the gigantic buybacks.

5 ) An effort should in any case be made to better control greenhouse gases other than CO2, for example by developing better filters, for which public competitions should be organized.

6 ) Particular efforts should be made to reduce fine particles, especially those coming from the wheels and brakes of vehicles, whether they are electric or hydrogen-powered or conventional. Personally, I believe that autonomous cars are intrinsically dangerous because all possible hazards can hardly be anticipated, especially in urban areas. This is not the case with drones or flying cars. All human mobility must therefore be redesigned on the basis of publicly rented drones and public and rapid ground transportation. Better knowledge is needed about nanoparticles. Unlike heavy metals, they are hardly or not at all eliminated by our organism, but their economic weight puts them largely under the sanitary radar. The same concern should inform the control of plastic for all uses that do not benefit from its waterproofness over very long periods. It seems that fishing nets are among the biggest contributors to plastic pollution in the oceans, accounting for nearly 46% of this pollution. ( See: “Greenwashing The Ugly Truth: Box-Ticking ESG Investment Stupidity Exposed”, by Tyler Durden, Saturday, Apr 10, 2021 – 08:10 AM, Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/greenwashing-ugly-truth-box-ticking-esg-investment-stupidity-exposed

7 ) Finally we hope that the World Ecological Tribunal proposed by the Bolivian comrades will have the wisdom to leave aside the CO2 beneficial to the Madre Tierra to focus on the real pollutants.

In the best of cases, it would be necessary to work to put the key under the door of the IPCC and its neo-Malthusian charlatans now behind the emancipating march of the World. It is necessary to move quickly to a real strategy of protection of the environment and human health, which puts aside completely the criminal obsession on CO2, thus on the energy vital to all human activities. This must be done through the realistic and proportionate operationalization of the precautionary principle, operationalization already in place through rural and urban zoning – including Seveso zones – and through the normative framework of public hygiene and health, without excluding the new priority to be given to intensive production and breeding.

This is all the more true, and this will be the final word, since pandemics are not due to forest fires in Amazonia or Australia but rather to agricultural capitalism with its intensive production and breeding and its bad GMOs combining private control of seeds and patented pesticides. These practices, contrary to the healthy preservation of the natural or productive environment, are carried out without taking into account the fact that, by doing so, they poison the soil and trigger a race for resistance, since the life cycle of insects is very short and their capacity to mutate is all the more rapid.

In a nutshell, to preserve the environment, we must put the key under the IPCC door and reverse its forced march towards a Stone Age that is less funny than the Flintstones. We must therefore urgently remove CO2 and nuclear power from the calculations, while progressing towards zirconium-free nuclear power and molten salt power plants … while waiting for fusion.

Paul De Marco.

NOTES:

1 ) See “Estensione del ghiaccio artico”, Il 14 dicembre 2008 -10 anni fa- Al Gore, ex vice presidente ed ex candidato alla presidenza USA dichiarò che la calotta artica sarebbe completamente scomparsa entro 5 anni. Gore made this statement to a Swedish TV (font: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16/ten-years-ago-algore-predicted-the-north-polarice-cap-would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/ (anche filmati). In http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/sono_scettico.pdf , 10 sept. 2020, (p 19/34)

2 ) Voir «The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine scientific errors and thus must be accompanied by an explanation of those errors before being shown to school children. The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws.^[131]^{» in}^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#In_the_United_Kingdom}

^{3 ) Voir}^{https://polarbearscience.com/}

4 ) Voir « Key findings of the Pentagon » ,Sun 22 Feb 2004 12.05 GMT, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link (Utiliser le traducteur https://www.deepl.com/translator )

These are some of the key findings of the 2004 report commissioned by Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall.

· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.

5 ) https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/fiche-pedagogique/protocole-de-kyoto . « Le protocole de Kyoto est un traité international ayant pour objectif de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Acté en 1997, il est le prolongement de la Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur les Changements Climatiques (CCNUCC) adoptée en 1992 au sommet de la Terre à Rio de Janeiro (Brésil). »

6 ) « Géo-ingénierie contre le dérèglement climatique : une prestigieuse institution scientifique américaine remet en lumière une idée longtemps considérée »

Par goods, 29 mars dans Sciences https://www.forumfr.com/sujet926299-g%C3%A9o-ing%C3%A9nierie-contre-le-d%C3%A9r%C3%A8glement-climatique-une-prestigieuse-institution-scientifique-am%C3%A9ricaine-remet-en-lumi%C3%A8re-une-id%C3%A9e-longtemps-consid%C3%A9r%C3%A9e.html?tab=comments#comment-12828054

7 ) Pour les concepts nécessaires pour comprendre le nouveau philosémitisme nietzschéen, tels « nihiliste militant et nihiliste éveillé », « déférence envers l’Autorité – auto-conférée et non l’Autorité scientifique, seule respectable – et « contrôle des flux autorisé des communications » voir mon Pour Marx contre le nihilisme ainsi que « Le lit du néo-fascisme » et son Annexe respectivement dans les sections Livres-Books et Racisme/Fascisme/Exclusivisme de mon vieux site jurassique www.la-commune-paraclet.com

8 ) Voir la synthèse composée par le mathématicien Jean-Claude Pont . « Y a-t-il augmentation des catastrophes naturelles ? La réponse est NON ! » Lettre d’information sur le climat 16 , https://www.climato-realistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/JC-PONT-lettre-16-8-mars-.pdf

9 ) « Crédit d’impôt pour la Transition Energétique (CITE) » http://impotsurlerevenu.org/reductions-et-credits-d-impots/117-les-equipements-d-economie-d-energie-cite.php

10 ) « Transition écologique, un million d’emplois à la clé », Le 20/11/2020 par Benjamin Leclercq, https://www.wedemain.fr/decouvrir/transition-ecologique-un-million-demplois-a-la-cle/

11 ) “TICPE: La discrète poule aux œufs d’or fiscale “, Nicolas DOZE, On 28/09/2018 at 9:47, https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/economie-social/ticpe-la-discrete-poule-aux-oeufs-d-or-fiscale_AN-201809280217.html

Add my proposal to halve the TICPE for the benefit of companies and households, which would structurally reduce the cost of production and therefore the trade deficit while supporting domestic demand. The operation would be at zero cost if we recovered an equal amount from useless exemptions, such as the CICE, which go directly to profits and therefore to evasion, to Openlux and other tax rulings or to buybacks. The TICPE was a European way to counter the recycling of petrodollars by Kissinger after the 1973 crisis. But the context has changed, so we need to adapt to the cost of production. In any case, the IPCC’s zero emission target for 2050 is a joke that is impossible without mitigation. Saving nuclear power will allow us to have a much more interesting mitigation than solar and wind power which are both very polluting – rare earths etc. – and which also waste a lot of water and chemicals which really pollute, unlike CO2 which is beneficial to vegetation.

12 ) “Saami indigenous back down Gates-funded geoengineering experiment”, Private governance vs. democratic accountability https://theraven.substack.com/p/saami-indigenous-back-down-gates

Imbedded Video Sami Women at Standing Rock – YouTube

(quoted in https://rebelion.org/indigenas-samis-impiden-un-experimento-de-geoingenieria-financiado-por-bill-gates/ )

* ) Despite an earthquake of some 10 on the Richter scale and the devastating tsunami that followed, the accident at the Fukushima plant would have been a local incident had it not been for the privatization of the plant and the use of zirconium. Indeed, the plant should have been shut down 5 years before the accident, but since it had been privatized and fully depreciated for years, the profits were even greater. The explosions that caused the main damage came from the zirconium. In contact with water at very high temperatures, it produces hydrogen. It took the rescue teams some time to realize that they had to saturate with nitrogen to prevent these explosions, rather than just trying to deal with a malfunctioning cooling system.

Let us add that after treatment, the water accumulated by the current cooling system contains radioactive elements with a half-life of 20 years more or less. This should allow, through the creation of an international ecological solidarity fund, the creation of additional storage tanks on reliable anti-seismic foundations to ensure a rotation taking into account the half-life of these elements. In the meantime, an international team could be created to devise better filtering or other useful means. We think in particular here of the laser technology of prof. Mourou’s laser technology which opens new perspectives for the treatment of the most radioactive nuclear waste. Once this gradual turnover is in place, it will be possible to decontaminate the most polluted soils by washing.

This kind of internationally supported initiative would allow the industry to regain real credibility, at least until the replacement of fission power plants that are to be decommissioned by molten salt power plants and, in the longer term, by the replacement of fission by fusion – which is already possible for a few seconds, the major problems now being technological ones, mainly related to the control of the magma

Xxx

Marché du carbone https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/fiche-pedagogique/marches-du-carbone

xxx

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

xxx

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

xxx

Comments are closed.

Blog di rivincita sociale

Latest Posts

Categories

Popular Tags

Post Archives

Paris Agreement, climate, decarbonization and the problems with ETS : the climate crime against emerging countries and against the vast majority of Humanity to be frozen at the unequal development level of 1990 , 9 April- 2 May 2021

Social Connections

Recent Comments