Phase out fossil fuels: no choice

I’m reproducing The Conversation newsletter which was emailed to me. It is a response to Tony Blair’s recent advice to not phase out fossil fuels with the Net Zero objective:

Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and limiting energy consumption to tackle climate change is “a strategy doomed to fail” according to former UK prime minister Tony Blair.

In the foreword of a new report, Blair urges governments to rethink their approach to reaching net zero emissions. 

Instead of policies that are seen by people as involving “financial sacrifices”, he says world leaders should deploy carbon capture and storage, including technological and nature-based approaches, to meet the rising demand for fossil fuels.

But speak to many academic experts on climate change and they will tell a very different story: that there is no strategy for addressing climate change that does not involve ending, or at least massively reducing, fossil fuel combustion.

You’re reading the Imagine newsletter – a weekly synthesis of academic insight on solutions to climate change, brought to you by The Conversation. I’m Jack Marley, energy and environment editor. This week, we respond to Tony Blair’s net zero claims.

A fossil fuel phase-out is ‘essential’

“There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change,” says Steve Pye, an associate professor of energy at UCL.

“I know because I have published some of it.”

Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, agrees.

“Rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and not issuing new licenses to extract oil and gas, is the most effective way of minimising future climate-related disruptions,” he says. 

“The sooner those with the power to shape our future recognise this, the better.”

Fossil fuels are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide heating the climate. The amount burned annually is still rising, and so is the rate at which the world is getting hotter. Scientists now fear we are approaching irreversible tipping points in the climate system, hence their support for an urgent replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.

Blair is confident that an emergency response on this scale can be avoided by absorbing CO₂ immediately after burning fossil fuels, from the smokestacks where the greenhouse gas is concentrated.

Not all of the emissions responsible for climate change would be prevented. UCL earth system scientist Mark Maslin says that natural gas, which would linger as an energy source thanks to carbon capture, still leaks from pipelines and storage vessels upstream of power plants.

Commercial applications of the technology also have a poor track record. Just two large-scale coal-fired power plants are operating with CCS worldwide – one in the US and one in Canada.

“Both have experienced consistent underperformance, recurring technical issues and ballooning costs,” Maslin says.

Blair might baulk at what he perceives to be the expense of ditching fossil fuels. But economic modelling led by Oxford University’s Andrea Bacilieri suggests his concern is misplaced. A rapid phase-out of fossil fuels could save US$30 trillion (US$1 trillion a year) by 2050 she concludes, compared with allowing power plants and factories to keep burning them with CCS.

Developing CCS will be necessary to help manage an orderly transition from fossil fuels according to Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at Oxford University. But it is not a substitute for undergoing that transition, he says.

“Above all, we need to make sure the availability of CCS does not encourage yet more CO₂ production.”

Keeping the public on board

Is Blair right to fret about a public backlash to lower energy use? Academics suggest multiple reasons to think otherwise if the alternative is prolonging the use of fossil fuels. 

Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump that runs on electricity, for example, can lower a household’s energy consumption without a deliberate effort. That’s because renewable appliances convert power to heat more efficiently (how much depends on how well insulated the home is). 

In fact, it’s dependence on fossil fuel that is preventing many households from making this switch. The high wholesale price of gas determines the cost of electricity for UK consumers.

And surveys repeatedly show that support for net zero policies is broad and deep in the UK – including those that would involve lifestyle changes say Lorraine Whitmarsh (University of Bath), Caroline Verfuerth and Steve Westlake (both Cardiff University), who research public behaviour and climate change. 

“Crucially, the public wants and needs the government to show clear and consistent leadership on climate change,” they say.

Meanwhile, what can corrode public acceptance of sacrifices is the high-consuming behaviour of a minority (think pop stars in rockets, as Westlake recently argued). And, arguably, the statements of powerful people like Blair.

New research even suggests the politics that Blair and many others like him favour might also play a role here. Felix Schulz (Lund University) and Christian Bretter (The University of Queensland) are social scientists who study how ideology affects personal views on climate policy.

They identified respondents in six countries (the UK, US, Germany, Brazil, South Africa and China) who shared Blair’s neoliberal worldview, which the pair define as a belief that individuals are primarily responsible for their own fortune, and need to take care of themselves – as well as an abiding faith in the free market.

“We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study,” they say.

Schulz and Bretter urge us to consider not only how well-informed a commentator is on climate change – but how their ideology ultimately shapes their understanding of the problem and its solutions as well.

– Jack Marley, Environment commissioning editor

Was this email forwarded to you? Join the 45,000 people who get one email every week about the most important issue of our time. Subscribe to Imagine.

Sent every Friday, Climate Weekly is an essential resource for anyone working on environmental or climate issues. For 15 years, Climate Home News has helped inform and inspire by covering the latest news, analysis and commentary on the international politics of the climate crisis. With reporters on three continents, their award-winning coverage helps you make sense of the world.

A banner image promoting a newsletter by the Climate Home News website.
View from overhead of a town flooded with dirty water.

People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research

We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study.

Read more

A woman in a blue jumpsuit in front of a white capsule.

Why Katy Perry’s celebrity spaceflight blazed a trail for climate breakdown

Katy Perry and friends were savaged after their journey into space. The backlash is justified.

Read more

An oil drilling platform against a dark sky.

Science shows the severe climate consequences of new fossil fuel extraction

More than a century of research shows that burning fossil fuels warms the climate – that’s exactly why granting new North Sea oil and gas licenses is a bad idea.

Read more

A line of politicians in a factory.

The UK’s £22 billion bet on carbon capture will lock in fossil fuels for decades

A climate scientist says there are better things to invest in.

Read more

Wind turbine construction platform.

How gas keeps the UK’s electricity bills so high – despite lots of cheap wind power

For now, gas power is still needed to fill in the gaps when renewables can’t cover demand.

Read more

A person installing solar panels on a roof.

Net zero: direct costs of climate policies aren’t a major barrier to public support, research reveals

Reneging on climate commitments indicates the UK government’s misreading of public attitudes.

Read more

Latest from The Conversation on climate change

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Al Gore, his speech at Climate Week

April 2025, Climate Week, 77 year old Al Gore gave this speech which you can also see and hear on YouTube.

Thanks to Robert Reich for reproducing this speech on Substack.

It is abundantly clear, after only three months and one day, that the new Trump administration is attempting to do everything it possibly can to try to halt the transition to a clean energy future and a deep reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. The climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis, basically 80% of it.

Many of you here today have likely felt the chilling effect of the policies and the rhetoric coming from Washington, D.C. and what the effect has been on businesses and investors and far beyond.

The Dow Jones, of course, today fell another thousand points and since Donald Trump’s inauguration it’s gone down six thousand points. But while the most visible impacts of what the new administration is doing may be in the market for stocks and bonds, that’s not the only thing that he has caused to crash.

The trust market has crashed.

The market for democracy has taken a major hit.

Hope is being arbitraged in the growing market for fear.

Truth has been devalued and confidence in U.S. leadership around the world has plummeted.

We are facing a national emergency for our democracy and a global emergency for our climate system.

We have to deal with the democracy crisis in order to solve the climate crisis.

The scale and scope of the ongoing attacks on liberty are literally unprecedented. With that in mind, I want to note before I use what is not a precedent, I understand very well why it is wrong to compare Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich to any other movement. It was uniquely evil, full stop. I get it.

But there are important lessons from the history of that emergent evil, and here is one that I regard as essential.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, a small group of philosophers who had escaped Hitler’s murderous regime returned to Germany and performed a kind of moral autopsy on the Third Reich. The most famous of the so-called Frankfurt School of Philosophers was a man named Jurgen Habermas – best known, I would say. But it was Habermas’ mentor, Theodor Adorno, who wrote that the first step of that nation’s descent into Hell was, and I quote, “the conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power.” He described how the Nazis, and I quote again, “attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false.”

The Trump administration is insisting on trying to create their own preferred version of reality. They say Ukraine attacked Russia instead of the other way around, and expect us to believe it! At home, they attack heroes who have defended our nation in war and against cyberattacks as traitors.

They say the climate crisis is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese to destroy American manufacturing.

They say coal is clean.

They say wind turbines cause cancer.

They say sea level rise just creates more beachfront property.

Their allies in the oligarchic backlash to climate action argue that those who want to stop using the sky as an open sewer, for God’s sake, need to be more “realistic” and acquiesce to the huge increases in the burning of more and more fossil fuels (which is what they’re pushing), even though that is the principal cause of the climate crisis.

You may not be surprised to learn that this propagandistic notion of “climate realism” is one that the fossil fuel industry has peddled for years.

The CEO of the largest oil company in the world, Saudi Aramco has said “We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas.”

His colleague, Exxon CEO Darren Woods, has claimed that “the world needs to get real. … The problem is not oil and gas. It’s emissions.”

The American Petroleum Institute says that we need “a more realistic energy approach” – one that, you guessed it, includes buying and burning even more oil and gas.

So, allow me to put this question to all of you: What exactly is it that they want us to be realistic about?

Their twisted version of “realism” is colliding with the reality that humanity is now confronting.

The accumulated global warming pollution (because these molecules linger there on average about 100 years and it builds up over time), it’s trapping as much extra heat now every single day as would be released by the explosion of 750,000 first generation atomic bombs blowing up on the Earth every single day!

Is it realistic to let that continue?

Is it realistic to think that if we opt out of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, we’ll be able to just wish it away and continue with business as usual? Well, Mother Nature makes a pretty good case against that argument. Every night on the TV news is like a nature walk through the Book of Revelation.

Is it realistic, for example, to continue stoking the risk of wildfire in California, after what has already happened to so many communities in Northern California? And just look at the devastation caused by the Los Angeles wildfires in January.

Is it realistic to tell homeowners around the world that the global housing market is expected to suffer a $25 trillion loss in the next 25 years? Fifteen percent of all the residential housing stock in the world if we do not change what we’re doing? Is that realistic in their view?

Is it realistic to continue quietly accepting 8.7 million deaths every single year from breathing in the particulate co-pollution that also comes from the burning of fossil fuels? That is the number of people who are already being killed. According to health experts, it is, and I quote, “the leading contributor to the global disease burden.” When you’re burning coal, oil and gas, it puts the heat trapping pollution up there and it puts the particulate and PM 2.5 pollution into the lungs of people downwind from where the facilities are burning the fossil fuels.

Is it realistic, in their view, for governments to manage 1 billion climate migrants crossing international borders in the balance of this century? That’s how many the Lancet Commission estimates will be crossing borders in the decades to come, if we continue driving temperatures and humidity higher and making the physiologically unlivable regions of the world vastly larger by continuing to put 175 million tons of man-made heat-trapping pollution into that thin shell of the troposphere surrounding the planet. You know what that blue line looks like, that thin blue shell is blue because that’s where the oxygen is. And it’s so thin, if you could drive a car straight up in the air at highway speeds, you’d get to the top of that blue line in five to seven minutes.

That’s what we’re using as an open sewer. Is that realistic? I don’t think it is.

We’ve already seen, by the way, how populist authoritarian leaders have used migrants as scapegoats and have fanned the fires of xenophobia to fuel their own rise to power. And power-seeking is what this is all about. Our Constitution, written by our founders, is intended to protect us against a threat identical to Donald Trump: someone who seeks power at all costs to get more power. Imagine what the demagogues would do as we continued toward a billion migrants crossing international borders. We could face a grave threat to our capacity for self-governance.

Is it “realistic” to continue inflicting the financial toll that the climate crisis is taking on the global economy? According to Deloitte, climate inaction will cost the economy $178 trillion over the next half century. And is it realistic to miss out on the economic opportunity that we could seize by going toward net-zero? Over that same period, climate action would increase the size of the global economy by $43 trillion.

A question with particular relevance in nearby Silicon Valley: is it realistic for the semiconductor industry to experience losses of up to 35% of annual revenues due to supply chain disruptions caused by the stronger and more severe cyclonic storms and supercell storms?

Is it realistic to continue with a system of financing that leaves the entire continent of Africa completely out? Right now, the entire continent of Africa, fastest-growing population in the world, has fewer solar panels installed than the single state of Florida in the United States of America. That’s a disgrace to the makeup of our financial system. But Africa has three times as many oil and gas pipelines under construction and preparing for construction to begin than all of North America. It is ridiculous to allow this system to continue as it is. How is that realistic? Or fair? Or just?

Is it realistic for us, all of us here, to consign our children and grandchildren to what scientists warn us would be Hell on Earth in order to conserve the profits of the fossil fuel industry? The predictions of the scientists 50 years ago have turned out to be spot on correct. Their predictions just a few decades ago have turned out to be exactly right. Should not that cause us to listen more carefully to what they’re warning us will happen if we do not sharply and quickly reduce the emissions from burning fossil fuels?

Is that unrealistic to listen to a proven source of advice?

This newfound so-called climate realism is nothing more than climate denial in disguise. It is an attempt to pretend there is no problem and to ignore the reality that is right in front of our faces.

What’s never present in any of this so-called “realism” is any credible challenge whatsoever to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. They never address that. They just wish it away and say, “Oh it’s unrealistic to actually do anything about it.”

I wish we could wish it away, but we cannot.

The hard reality is that the fossil fuel industry has grown desperate for more capital. They’re seeing their two largest markets wither away: electricity generation, number one and transportation, number two. They’ve been losing their share of investment in the energy market to renewables and so they’re panicked.

That explains why they are so aggressively using their captive policymakers to block meaningful solutions. Of course, as you know, they’re way better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions. They’ve grown very skillful at that.

They are the wealthiest and most powerful industry lobby in the history of the world. They make the East India Company look like a popcorn vendor. They are the effective global hegemon.

They have used their war chests and their legacy network of political and economic power to block any reductions of fossil fuel burning emissions – whether at the international conferences that we call the COPs, the Conference of Parties in the UN process, or at the global negotiations for a plastic treaty. They blocked anything there, too.

Why? They’re losing the first market of electricity generation because 93% of all the new electricity generation installed worldwide last year was solar and wind. They’re losing that market steadily. EVs are rising dramatically. They say they’ve slowed down. Well, we just got the new figures – an 18% increase year-on-year here in the United States. In many countries much faster than that.

And so, their third market – they’re telling Wall Street that they’re going to make up all of the expected lost revenue in their first two markets by tripling the production of plastics over the next 35 years.

Well, we might have a word to say about that. Is that realistic? Because we’ve already found – the scientists say – that some seabirds are manifesting symptoms like Alzheimer’s disease from the plastic particles in their brains and they found that it crosses the blood-brain barrier in humans, and the size of the amount has doubled just in the last decade.

Do we really want to continue that?

It’s crazy, but they are blocking action at both of these international forums and they’re blocking action in the deliberations of nation-states, even in states and provinces, and even at the local level. Anywhere in the world where there is an effort to pass legislation or regulations that reduces the burning of fossil fuels, they are there with their money, with their lobbyists, with their captive politicians, blocking it as best they can.

And the solution is what you’re doing here at Climate Week here in San Francisco. We have got to rise up and change this situation.

That’s also why they are ballyhooing ridiculously expensive and hilariously impractical technologies like building giant mechanical vacuuming machines to suck it back out of the atmosphere after they put it up there. Could that someday be a realistic part of the solution? Perhaps, perhaps. But not now! Not even close.

They use it as a bright, shiny object to distract attention and say, ‘see this, see this, this could be so miraculous, we don’t have to stop burning fossil fuels at all! We can actually continue to increase the burning of fossil fuels because look at this bright, shiny object. We’ve got this vacuuming machine.’

Well, CO2 is 0.035% of the molecules in the air. You’re gonna use an energy-intensive, ridiculous, expensive process to filter through the other 99.965% of the molecules? It’s absolutely preposterous.

In reality, the Sustainability Revolution is powering more and more of our global economy. It has the scale and impact of the Industrial Revolution and is moving at the pace of the Digital Revolution.

By the way, in Texas, which used to have a free market for energy, over 90% of all their new electricity generation last year was solar and wind. And, you know, they’ve got captured politicians there. They’re pushing legislation in Texas to legally require any developers of solar and wind to spend time and money developing more oil and gas before they’re given permission to develop renewables.

That’s not realism, that’s pathetic.

That is a sign of desperation.

They don’t trust the free market. They’re just relying more and more on the politicians who will jump when they tell them jump and ask how high when they tell them to jump again.

So, around the world, the market is transforming. Since the Paris Agreement, the cost of solar has dropped 76%. The cost of wind is down 66%. Utility-scale batteries are down 87%.

In 2004, when Generation was founded, it took a full year for the world to install one gigawatt of solar power. Now it takes one day to install one gigawatt of solar power.

And it’s not just renewables. We’re seeing the Sustainability Revolution rapidly take hold across the rest of the global economy from transportation, to regenerative agriculture, to circular manufacturing, and so much more.

So, as we gather here to kick off Climate Week and as we gather on the eve of Earth Day, we have to treat this moment as a call to action.

So, I’m here not only to respond to the invitation for which I’m grateful…. I’m here to recruit you.

Many of you are already working on this, but those of you who are not, I’m here to recruit you. We need you. This is the time and this is a break glass moment. This is an all hands on deck moment.

Now is the time to look at every aspect of your businesses, your investments, and your civic engagement to determine whether or not you can contribute even more to solving the climate crisis.

It’s easy to adopt our own versions of climate realism to say that the challenge is too great. Some people worry about that. To say that our individual role is too small to have an impact. Some use that as an excuse: that if the government won’t act, what can any of us do about it?

Well, just as the climate crisis does not recognize borders between countries, it does not either recognize delineations between the duty of government and businesses and all significant participants in the global economy.

Climate change is already impacting your life and work and will more so through disrupted supply chains, increased liability, changes in consumer demand, and more.

This is a moment when we all have to mobilize to defend our country. And remember the antidote to climate despair is climate action. It was in this city in the 1960s that Joan Baez first said that the antidote to despair is action. And we need to remember that now.

And during a time of when people were tempted to despair in the struggle for civil rights in this country, Martin Luther King said something about overcoming the forces that try to discourage you and halt progress. He said this: “If you can’t fly, run. If you can’t run, walk. If you can’t walk, crawl. But by all means, keep moving.”

And that’s where we are.

Every one of the morally based movements in the past had periods when advocates felt despair. But when the central choice was revealed as a choice between right and wrong, then the outcome at a very deep level became foreordained.

Because of the way Pope Francis reminded us we have been created as God’s children.

We love our families.

We are devoted to our communities.

We have to protect our future.

And if you doubt for one moment ever that we as human beings have the capacity to muster sufficient political will to solve this crisis, just remember that political will is itself a renewable resource.

 

Africa:

https://www.climatejusticecentral.org/fossil-fuel-expansion-africa

 and

https://www.fossilfuelmapping.org/

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Survivors who lived in a large land mass

Since the US is now running a tarrif trade war, mostly targeting China, it has been said that Xi told his people “eat bitterness” and that was interpreted as “absorb the pain”. It is well known, throughout the 5000 year history of China, its people have known great suffering. It is a large land mass, like Russia, and Russians too have known great suffering.

Since Russia is a huge country and Britain is a small one, I have chosen to read this book to educate myself about Stalin’s brutal treatment of these children:

Cathy Frierson was introduced to survivors through NGOs The Return and civil rights group Memorial. Since then:

Russian court orders oldest civil rights group Memorial to shut

  • Published 28 December 2021 (BBC report)

Here is the introduction:

This book introduces ten people who were survivors of childhood trauma during the Soviet era and who were still living in Russia in 2005–2007. The Soviet government created their suffering when it orphaned them in the 1930s and 1940s by arresting one or both of their parents, whom the state then imprisoned, exiled, or executed. The children subsequently endured social, political, and economic stigmas as offspring of “enemies of the people” or “traitors to the motherland.” These categories excluded them for life from many opportunities their peers enjoyed as unstigmatized Soviet citizens. When World War II began in Poland in 1939, the horrors on the Eastern Front of Soviet-occupied territory made these fatherless, and sometimes motherless, children more vulnerable than others to hunger, exposure, violence, homelessness, and death. And yet they survived. They agreed to share their stories with me, believing that in doing so they would make an important contribution to the history of the Soviet Union, Soviet terror, and the Soviet network of penal institutions known as the Gulag. Unwittingly, they were also offering lessons in survival…..

…….I define the Gulag broadly here to include the entire network of detention facilities; transit prisons; long-term prisons; execution chambers and fields; forced labor camps; and “special settlements” run out of the Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD), renamed the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) in 1946 and the Committee of State Security (KGB) in 1954. The Gulag also includes the network of NKVD institutions for children: so-called child receiver-distributors, orphanages, and labor colonies. The youngest Soviet citizens who entered this vast network thereby became “children of the Gulag.”

Around 10 million of these children were orphaned when their parents were taken from them. From babies to age 16.

The author located people from 5 different cities:

Survivors in this volume lived in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Staritsa, Vologda, and Kotlas. Their parents ranged from peasants to leaders of the Bolshevik Party, from manual workers to intellectuals………

………..The very fact that they lived to tell the tale may encourage them to look for factors that contributed to their resilience and survival. This cohort of Soviet citizens was also the age group most thoroughly indoctrinated in mandatory gratitude to the Communist Party, the Soviet state, and Joseph Stalin. They had to read and repeat the expression “Thank you, Comrade Stalin, for my happy childhood!” much as an American child has to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.26 Classroom in Stalingrad, early 1940s (Private collection of Irina Dubrovina) Expressing gratitude was a well-practiced skill; these survivors transferred the object of their gratitude from the Party and Stalin to those who saved them from the Stalinist system. We might also explain these survivors’ positive memories as a product of this group’s peculiar perspective as a tiny minority of child victims of Soviet political repression who survived well into old age and recognized fully their exceptional good fortune in having done so.

When a nation creates laws which point the finger at children, even babies, there is something seriously sick with that nation’s lawmakers:

The Soviet state’s laws and regulations prescribed the punitive actions to be taken against individual men and their wives, children, and other relatives when they were deemed dangerous to the system. It was thus perfectly legal for state agents to target children as young as twelve months for separation from their families to be raised by the Soviet state, and to place teenagers in labor colonies for “correctional labor.”

And as we wonder about those thousands of Ukrainian children (730,000 by February 2024), kidnapped and being Russified in some place in Russia, let us hope they remember their roots and will return to Ukraine one day, in the not too distant future.

Meanwhile, whilst I am familiar with the stories told by Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, I am not familiar with these stories of trauma suffered during the 1930s -1940s in Stalin’s Russia.

I will refer to this book in future blogs.

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tearing apart or holding together?

Yesterday, whilst Pope Francis lay in state and his mourners continued their grieving, the media showed clips of his past expressions of love of humanity. This man, who promoted that we each care for one another, died on Easter Monday, April 21st 2025, the next morning after meeting his last visitor at the Vatican on Easter Sunday, (J.D. Vance, US Vice President).

On April 23rd we also shared the sorrow Days of Remembrance for Victims of the Holocaust, whilst the suffering remaining populations in Gaza are herded by Israelis into smaller parcels of land, with no food, water, shelter being supplied. It is said Gaza was a topic raised by Pope Francis as he spoke to the Vice President.

The lack of love and the overflowing of love, that we can both protect and destroy one another is perhaps best expressed by the Taoist ancient wisdom of ‘Yin-Yang’.

The symbol summed up by an AI trawl:

The yin yang symbol, also known as the taijitu, represents the duality of opposing forces in the universe, illustrating how they are interconnected and interdependent. It consists of a circle divided into black (yin) and white (yang) halves, each containing a dot of the opposite color, symbolizing that each force contains the essence of the other.

Those opposing forces may explain why we humans can feel so full of love but can also be cruel beyond belief with no ounce of compassion for those we have ‘othered’. Perhaps life is in balance though some of us perceive that we humans are polarised into extreme beliefs which may accelerate our destruction.

We can read of past cruelty or see it daily, expressed verbally and physically. Is this the intensity of life forces at play, where we are so caught up it can feel like a maelstrom?

The Ying-Yang suggests there is an equal amount of positive and negative energy, but the forces work in harmony. If this wisdom is valid, then perhaps the more recent wisdom of Desiderata also holds true:

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

by Max Ehrmann ©1927

This poet was born in the USA.

Max Ehrmann was born in Terre Haute, Indiana on September 16, 1872 to German immigrant parents. In 1894 he graduated from DePauw University in Greencastle. Later Ehrmann studied law and philosophy at Harvard University. He returned to Terre Haute where he practiced law. When he began writing, he devoted every day to his work. Ehrmann wrote many poems, but his most famous poems are “Desiderata” (1927) and “A Prayer (1906)”.

He studied at Harvard and looks to have lived a fulfilling life. But he died in 1942 knowing WW2 was well underway, and he was of German descent.

There is a negative cloud over Harvard now, since 31st March of this year:

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/trump-administration-harvard-research-funding-threats

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The killing of Rabin

Extract from “Rise and Kill First”, by Ronen Bergman:

1995

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, a senior member of the VIP protection unit of the Shin Bet, responsible for the safety of the prime minister, made an encrypted phone call to a colleague, Yitzhak Ilan, who was in charge of intelligence collection for the agency’s southern region. “The day after tomorrow in the evening,” the caller told Ilan, “there’s going to be a huge rally in Tel Aviv’s Kings of Israel Square, in support of the government and the peace process. Rabin will be speaking. Since the hit on Fathi Shaqaqi, have you got any info on whether Islamic Jihad aims to avenge their leader by trying to kill the prime minister?”

Ilan replied that there was no specific information, but there was a lot of agitation in the area in the wake of the Shaqaqi assassination, and although Israel hadn’t taken responsibility for it, the PIJ had no doubt who was behind it. Ilan’s chief concern was that there might be a car bomb at the rally, and he recommended clearing the whole area around the square of vehicles. After their conversation, the VIP protection unit decided to put on extra precautions.

The peace rally was organized by left-wing groups as a counter to the angry protests the right had been staging, which had become spectacles of vicious incitement against Rabin. Pictures of him were set aflame, he was depicted in the uniform of the Nazi SS, and coffins bearing his name were carried along. At some of these protests, demonstrators had tried, and almost succeeded, to break through the security cordon and attack him. Shin Bet chief Gillon warned that Jewish terrorists might try to harm a government leader, and he even asked Rabin to travel in an armor-plated car and to wear a flak jacket. Rabin, who didn’t take Gillon’s warnings seriously, recoiled at the latter idea, and complied only on rare occasions.

The rally was a great success. Although Rabin had doubted that the supporters of the left would come out and demonstrate, at least a hundred thousand crammed into the square and cheered for him. They saw Rabin, generally a very introverted man, showing rare emotion. “I want to thank each one of you for standing up against violence and for peace,” he began his speech. “This government … has decided to give peace a chance. I’ve been a military man all my life. I fought wars as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and it must be taken.

“Peace has enemies, who are trying to harm us in order to sabotage peace. I want to say, without any ifs or buts: We have found a partner for peace, even among the Palestinians: the PLO, which was an enemy and has ceased terror. Without partners for peace there can be no peace.”

Afterward, Rabin shook hands with the people on the platform and headed for the armor-plated car waiting nearby, accompanied by his bodyguards. Shin Bet security personnel saw a young, dark-skinned man standing in the prime minister’s path. But because of his Jewish appearance, they did not try to move him out of the way. The young man, Yigal Amir, a law student close to the extremist settlers in Hebron, slipped past Rabin’s bodyguards with astonishing ease and fired three shots at the prime minister, killing him.

In 2015, an article in the Conversation appeared, here is part of it:

The Oslo process, which culminated with the awkward handshake between Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn in September 1993, established limited self-rule for Palestinians and entailed an Israeli redeployment from the West Bank, territory that Amir believed to be the biblical birthright of the Jewish people.

The 1990s – a relatively secure decade

Rabin knew that by the 1990s, Israel was more secure than it had ever been since its establishment in 1948.

By the time he became prime minister (for the second time) in 1992, Israel had a peace treaty with Egypt and a close alliance with the United States. It was the strongest military power in the region, with the most advanced weapons systems and a powerful domestic arms industry, while its most vociferous enemies – Iraq and the Palestine Liberation Organization – had either been defeated (Iraq in the First Gulf War) or were at the nadir of their influence and appeal (the PLO at the end of the First Intifada). It was also in the early 1990s that the country established diplomatic relations with key states in the world, including Russia, China and India. Israel could, Rabin felt, afford a peace process with the Palestinians.

Disinformation is dangerous. We fight it with facts and expertise

That realism also led Rabin to the belief that a Palestinian state was inevitable as a result of Oslo, as he told his close aide Eitan Haber (who in turn told me during an interview).

Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. Gary Hershorn/Reuters

Rabin didn’t like or trust Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and it’s not clear whether he had a sense of what such a state would look like. But he knew ruling over another people was no longer viable. And he was already thinking about Iran as the primary strategic threat to the country.

At the same time, however, Rabin was capable of using brute force when he deemed it necessary.

A ‘risk’ for peace?

Rabin’s “break their bones” instructions regarding Palestinian protesters and rioters in the First Intifada helped legitimize a harsh Israeli response to civilian rallies against the occupation.

He used deportation and border closures as he thought necessary. In other words, he did not hesitate to use force and coercion. But he was, at the same time, willing to innovate for the sake of Israeli security, and to adopt nonmilitary means as well.

It’s become a cliché to talk of “risks for peace,” and Rabin used similar language in defending Oslo.

But Rabin didn’t see things as gambles. As a military man, he saw issues as having best solutions, which might still fail. But it was important to try.

Almost all of Israel’s leaders have dismissed this part of his legacy – his willingness to take risks. Even those on the left and in the center worry that the Israeli public doesn’t want to hear about an end to the occupation while Palestinian terrorism continues. Unlike Rabin, they have been unwilling to confront public opinion on the matter.

A golden era for Jewish-Arab relations in Israel

There is another important issue of Yitzhak Rabin’s time in office that has been eclipsed in the past 20 years.

Rabin’s second tenure as prime minister is known as the “golden era” of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. Rabin paid more attention to Arab citizens of Israel, about 20% of the population, than any other Jewish Israeli leader had before or has since.

In addition to directing more resources to the community, he responded to their concerns by dropping the traditional paternalistic attitude the Zionist parties had long held regarding the Arab minority.

Perhaps more importantly, for the first and only time, Arab political parties played an indirect role in policymaking.

In 1993, as a result of the Oslo accords, Rabin lost his majority in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Two Arab parties propped him up from outside his own coalition, voting with the government on no-confidence measures brought by the opposition.

Rabin’s views on Israel’s Arab minority reflected his analysis of Israeli-Palestinian relations more broadly – namely, that coercion was simply untenable as a solution to Israel’s relations with Palestinians inside and outside of Israel.

Since 1995, Arab citizens have either disengaged from the political process or voted for Arab parties in increasing numbers, at the expense of Rabin’s party, Labor. The percentage of Arab citizens’ votes for the top three Arab parties, for example, has climbed from 68.7% in 1999 to 80% in 2015.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-legacy-of-yitzhak-rabin-49794

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If it’s digital, it’s hackable

President Bukele had high hopes for Bitcoin in 2022.

El Salvador became the first country in the world to use bitcoin as legal tender, after it was adopted as such by the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador in 2021.[1] It has been promoted by Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, who claimed that it would improve the economy by making banking easier for Salvadorans, and that it would encourage foreign investment. In 2022, more Salvadorians had Bitcoin Lightning wallets than bank accounts……..

In March 2025, The Economist wrote that El Salvador’s bitcoin experiment had been a failure, bringing more costs than benefits to the El Salvador economy.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_in_El_Salvador

On 10th March 2025, North Korean Lazarus Group hacked ByBit crypto exchange and stole £232m unrecoverable funds. Once exchanged into traditional currency, a trick they are also adept at, the funds contribute to the North Korea military build up.

Investigator Dr Tom Robinson of Elliptic, explains this group are highly diligent and sophisticated in cyber hacking and laundering funds acquired in this way. They have round the clock operations. They are highly successful at what they do.

Just a month earlier they stole 401,000 Ethereum coins from a wallet of one of ByBit’s suppliers by secretly altering the digital address the coins were being sent to.

Bybit’s CEO Ben Zhou, had to assure customers their funds were safe, having to obtain loans from investors to replenish the lost funds.

Dr Dorit Dor of Checkpoint doesn’t think the funds are likely to be recoverable due to the closed isolation of North Korea.

The attraction of crypto currency exchange is its private and anonymous nature and anyone who can trace and track customers successfully, maybe to catch criminals, would undermine the safety of funds of legitimate users.

The companies involved in the industry seem to have poor security in place. Thus the Lazarus Group target them.

2019 UpBit hacked for $40m

KuCoin hacked for $275m

2022 Ronin Bridge hacked for $600

Atomic Wallet hacked for $100m

Just take a look at Justin Sun, who brought in ‘stablecoin’.

Justin Sun is a Chinese-born Kittitian crypto billionaire and businessperson. He is the founder of TRON, a cryptocurrency with an associated blockchain DAO ecosystem and USDD, a stablecoin issued by TRON DAO Reserve. Wikipedia

He invested millions in Trump’s World Liberty Financial crypto project. The deal made was to make the Trump family enriched with 75% of the tokens revenues.

By its nature, crypto offers a particularly easy way to, anonymously or otherwise, funnel money into assets that directly benefit the president and his family.

………SEC, America’s top financial regulator, which two years ago charged Sun and his companies — Tron, BitTorrent and Rainberry — with selling unregistered securities and fraudulently manipulating the price of digital token Tronix. Sun and his companies sought to have the case dismissed……….

………Meanwhile, in a widely expected move, the SEC on Thursday officially dropped its enforcement action against US crypto exchange Coinbase, citing “the Commission’s ongoing efforts to reform and renew its regulatory approach to the crypto industry.”………

“Now anyone in world can essentially deposit money into bank account of President of USA with a couple clicks,” tweeted Anthony Scaramucci, former Trump White House communications director, after Trump launched a digital token known as a memecoin last month. “Every favor — geopolitical, corporate or personal — is now on sale, right out in the open.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/business/crypto-mogul-trump-coins-civil-fraud-charges/index.html

The lesson seems to be to become an isolated country and emulate the Lazarus Group approach. From evidence of the current administrations use of cryptocurrency, the US might be going in that direction.

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The dark side of the plate

Chronic illness is caused by over consumption of:

Alcohol

Tobacco

Salt

Sugar

Ultra processed foods

And the health system is overwhelmed by the consequences.

Yet there are huge industries involved who have powerful lobbyists. 

Government must not be contaminated by such lobbying. Instead it must reverse the permeation of these 5 causes of such chronic diseases. Then costs will reduce exponentially once addictions to these harmful food industry products are managed.

Corporate Lobbying briefing

Report

Corporate Lobbying: The Dark Side of the Plate

03/04/2025

The extent to which corporate lobbying and conflicts of interest are negatively impacting food policy and our diets is a growing matter of concern.

UK dietary health is at a crisis point and the cost of our poor diets is ravaging the NHS, hampering economic growth, and ultimately impacting the long-term sustainability of food businesses.

Yet it needn’t be this way. Lobbying is an essential part of an open and consultative policymaking process which, if done transparently, can empower corporations, organisations and citizens to participate in the democratic process.

This briefing presents initial findings from research conducted by The Food Foundation and others that has begun to explore the extent of food industry lobbying in the UK.

https://foodfoundation.org.uk/publication/corporate-lobbying-dark-side-plate

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Globalisation and Gangsterism

The post-Second World War order began to crumble in the first half of the 1980s. Its dissolution followed no obvious pattern, occurring instead as a series of seemingly disparate events: the spectacular rise of the Japanese car industry; communist Hungary’s clandestine approach to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to explore a possible application for membership; the stagnation of India’s economy; President F.W. de Klerk’s first discreet contacts with the imprisoned Nelson Mandela; the advent of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in China; Margaret Thatcher’s decisive confrontation with Britain’s trade-union movement. Individually, these and other events seemed to reflect the everyday ups and downs of politics; at most they were adjustments to the world order. In fact, powerful currents below the surface had provoked a number of economic crises and opportunities, especially outside the great citadels of power in Western Europe and the United States, that were to have profound consequences for the emergence of what we now call globalisation.

Above quote from book ‘McMafia: seriously organised crime’ by Misha Glenny, the author continues:

There was one development, however, that had its roots firmly in America and in its primary European ally, Britain. The world was taking its first steps towards the liberalisation of international financial and commodity markets. American and European corporations and banks had begun to prise open markets that had hitherto maintained strict controls on foreign investment and currency exchange. Then came the fall of communism in 1989, first in Eastern Europe and then in the mighty Soviet Union itself. Out of ideas, short of money and beaten in the race for technological superiority, communism fizzled out in days rather than years. This was a monumental event, which fused with the processes of globalisation to trigger an exponential rise in the shadow economy. These huge economic and political shifts affected every part of the planet. Overall there was a significant worldwide upsurge in trade, investment and the creation of wealth. That wealth was, however, distributed very unevenly. Countless states found themselves cast into the purgatory that became known as ‘transition’, a territory with ever-shifting borders. In these badlands, economic survival frequently involved grabbing a gun and snatching what you could to survive.

One infamous Bratva international organized crime gangboss, born 1946 in Kyiv, Ukraine, still survives in Moscow, well known around the world – Semion Mogilevich. Plenty to read on him on the Internet, for example:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/semion-mogilevich

This man has moved in the highest political circles, using his leverage to get rival gangs caught and jailed in European countries. This man honed his skills and psychopathic tendencies to spare no compassion for his chosen victims. The emergence of global trade ensured he spread his tentacles and influence worldwide. It is people like him who have understood how to retain power over their lifetime.

He earned a bachelor degree in economics which helped him understand the world economy. He paired that with a fondness for violence.

Born on June 30 or July 6, 1946, in Kiev in the Ukrainian Soviet Union,
Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich was raised in the Podol neighborhood
by Jewish parents. The ambitious young criminal launched his career
in the 1980s by scamming fellow Russian Jews who simply sought to
emigrate to Israel or America.
Mogilevich promised Jewish families that he would purchase their
assets, sell them legally for a fair market value, and then graciously
return the proceeds, but as one might expect, he simply pocketed the
money. He served two prison terms for this stunt.
Meanwhile, many of those Soviet Jews he defrauded settled in the
Brighton Beach area of Brooklyn, New York, and established their own
mob. Donald Trump would become embroiled with these characters,
as they bailed him out of a series of bankruptcies..

Charlie Sykes covers reactions to the attack on the American economy, using tariffs as a weapon, and also lists some of Trump’s bankruptcies and failures:

Charlie Sykes

Even as the markets plunged, businesses reeled, and our former allies girded their loins for a global trade war, analysts struggled to make sense of the president’s decision to wreak havoc on the economy.

“It’s hard to know which is more unsettling,” wrote the editors of the Economist, “that the leader of the free world could spout complete drivel about its most successful and admired economy. Or the fact that on April 2nd, spurred on by his delusions, Donald Trump announced the biggest break in America’s trade policy in over a century—and committed the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.”

The Financial Times calls Trump’s tariffs, “one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American history. They will wreak untold damage on households, businesses and financial markets across the world, upending a global economic order that America benefited from and helped to create.”

Trump is a true-believer who’s had a fetish for tariffs for decades — and his ignorance of global trade is profoundly 19th century. But the bizarre tariffs still came as a shock, especially to those in the business community who told themselves that surely Trump was merely bluffing; surely this pro-business president would not trash the economy; surely, he would listen to reason.

But Trump is not governing as a conservative; he is not pursuing incremental or coherent change. By now it should be obvious that on one issue after another — race, gender, deportations, DOGE, universities, law firms, pardons, foreign policy — his agenda is profoundly radical, driven more by his id than any ideology or plan.

So once again, he turned the world upside down. This Republican president — the same one who switched sides in the Russia-Ukraine war last month — unilaterally imposed $6 trillion in new taxes — the largest tax increase in American history. As CNN notes: “Even when adjusting for inflation, that amount would be triple the tax increase put in place in 1942 to pay the cost of fighting World War II.”

This is to economics what creationism is to biology, astrology is to astronomy, or RFK thought is to vaccine science. The Trump tariff policy makes little sense EVEN if you believe in protectionist mercantilist economics.

Trump’s tariffs targeted two islands populated by pengiuns, but somehow exempted Russia, Belarus and North Korea.

But, insists Howard Lutnick: Let Donald Trump run the global economy. What could possibly go wrong?

Here again, let’s connect the dots: Trump’s radicalism burns with Trumpian arrogance. Trump is not just smashing and burning his way through the federal government, but through the culture, and the world order. It’s symbolized by a billionaire with a chainsaw; the tattooed swagger of idiots; the cruelty porn of his cabinet members.

And the endless threats of presidential retribution, using the massive cudgel of federal power to cow his critics and his enemies.

His culture of fear worked with the supine GOP. It’s worked with the billionaire tech bros and big media companies. It’s worked with the universities. It’s worked with the quislings in Big Law.

But that was merely prologue.

Each victory, each surrender, each grovel fuels the arrogance. Trump and his claque are emboldened to seize even more power.

Now the massive and arbitrary tariffs mean that the whole world — both nations and industries alike — will have to beg Trump himself for exemptions and relief. He has replaced free markets with the fear and favor of Donald Trump.

“Those trying to understand the tariffs as economic policy are dangerously naive,” notes Senator Chris Murphy. “No, the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief.”

Murphy gets it:

“This week you will read many confused economists and political pundits who won’t understand how the tariffs make economic sense. That’s because they don’t. They aren’t designed as economic policy. The tariffs are simply a new, super dangerous political tool…

What could Trump demand as part of a quiet loyalty pledge? Public shows of support from executives for all his economic policy. Contributions to his political efforts. Promises to police employees’ support for his political opposition.

The tariffs are DESIGNED to create economic hardship. Why? So that Trump has a straight face rationale for releasing them, business by business or industry by industry. As he adjusts or grants relief, it’s a win-win: the economy improves and dissent disappears.

Trump Trashes the Economy

Trump Trashes the Economy

Charlie Sykes

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that this is the same Donald Trump who went bankrupt six times. Including casinos.

Let’s start with Trump’s casinos in Atlantic City:

“The Trump Taj Mahal, which was built and owned by President Trump, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1991. The Trump Plaza, the Trump Castle, and the Plaza Hotel, all owned by President Trump at the time, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1992. THCR, which was founded by President Trump in 1995, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004. Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc., the new name given to Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts after its 2004 bankruptcy, declared bankruptcy in 2009.”

Then there’s the list of “companies that had license agreements with President Trump [that] have failed”:

“Trump Shuttle Inc., launched by President Trump in 1989, defaulted on its loans in 1990 and ceased to exist by 1992. Trump University, founded by President Trump in 2005, ceased operations in 2011 amid lawsuits and investigations regarding the company’s business practices. Trump Vodka, a brand of vodka produced by Drinks Americas under license from the Trump Organization, was introduced in 2005 and discontinued in 2011.”

Also, “Trump Mortgage, LLC, a financial services company founded by President Trump in 2006, ceased operations in 2007. GoTrump.com, a travel site founded by President Trump in 2006, ceased operations in 2007. Trump Steaks, a brand of steak and other meats founded by President Trump in 2007, discontinued sales two months after its launch.”

Etc. etc. etc.

And now back to some history in Misha Glenny’s book:

One group of people, however, saw real opportunity in this dazzling mixture of upheaval, hope and uncertainty. These men (and occasionally women) understood instinctively that rising living standards in the West, increased trade and migration flows, and the greatly reduced ability of many governments to police their countries combined to form a goldmine. They were criminals, organised and disorganised, but they were also good capitalists and entrepreneurs, intent on obeying the laws of supply and demand. As such, they valued economies of scale, just as multinational corporations did, and so they sought out overseas partners and markets to develop industries that were every bit as cosmopolitan as Shell, Nike or McDonald’s. They first became visible in Russia and Eastern Europe, but they were also exerting an influence on countries as far away from one another as India, Colombia and Japan. I spotted them in the early 1990s when I was covering the wars in the former Yugoslavia as the BBC’s Central Europe correspondent. The booty that paramilitary units brought home with them after destroying towns and villages in Croatia and Bosnia was used as capital to establish large criminal empires. The bosses of these syndicates became rich very quickly. Soon, they established smuggling franchises that conveyed illicit goods and services from all over the world into the consumer paradise of the European Union. As a writer on the Balkans, I was invited to many conferences to discuss the political issues behind the disastrous wars in the region. It was not long before I received invitations to gatherings discussing security issues. Politicians, policemen and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were all hoping to learn what lay behind the immense power of organised crime in the Balkans and beyond. However, most knowledge of the new wave of global crime was anecdotal at best. Nobody had joined up the dots.

Well, maybe some people had found themselves joining the dots but did not publicise the fact, due to fear of repercussions they could not handle.

There are many books by learned researchers which explain the growth, rise, fall and rise again of criminal activity which has become part of global political parties, corporate industries and ‘respectable’ social positions. In the current climate of aggression in trade and battle for resources, it is enlightening to read the following:

https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2019/12/16/gangs-and-gulags-how-vladimir-putin-utilizes-organized-crime-to-power-his-mafia-state/

Here is an extract:

This decentralization makes it incredibly difficult to take down, and the Russian government’s implicit support of the vast array of organized crime means that the surge of activity across the European Union won’t be going away any time soon. As demonstrated by its handling of political dissidents and freedom fighters, Russia and Vladimir Putin have little care for the opposition voices to their harsh tactics, whether such opposition comes domestically or from the international community. 

It is likely the stress on nations suffering tariffs might well assist those involved in organized crime, see:

https://insightcrime.org/news/tariffs-wont-upend-fentanyl-migrant-flows-from-mexico/

Sanctions and tariffs are laughable to organised criminals intertwined with the global trade system.

As usual, the most vulnerable in the world are going to take the hit.

And where does gangsterism start? Always where people are mistreated and desperate:

More people in the U.K. are shoplifting food and selling it on the black market

01/03/2024 / By Arsenio Toledo

https://www.starvation.news/2024-01-03-more-people-uk-shoplifting-selling-black-market.html

And you can read of historical roots of Soviet Russia hardline Stalin days of the Vory (“thieves”) as they rose out of brutal times, in ‘Vory: Russia’s Super Mafia’ by Mark Galeotti. He says:

Do the gangsters run Russia? No, of course not, and I have met many determined, dedicated Russian police officers and judges committed to the struggle against them. However, businesses and politicians alike use many methods that owe more to the vorovskoi mir than legal practice, the state hires hackers and arms gangsters to fight its wars, and you can hear vor songs and vor slang on the streets. Even President Putin uses it from time to time to reassert his streetwise credentials. Perhaps the real question, with which this book ends, is not so much how far the state has managed to tame the gangsters, but how far the values and practices of the vory have come to shape modern Russia.

And Trump pardons an admitted guilty money laundering act, using crypto currency, of a corporate:

April 4-6, 2025

Olga Lautman

Apr 7READ IN APP

📆 Trump Tyranny Tracker: April 4-6

Welcome to today’s Trump


🔥 In Corruption News

Trump Just Pardoned … a Corporation?

What Happened: In a highly unusual move, Trump issued a full pardon to HDR Global Trading, the parent company of crypto exchange BitMEX, which had pleaded guilty to violating anti-money laundering laws and was fined $100 million. The pardon came just before the payment deadline and included three of the company’s co-founders.

Why It Matters: Legal experts say this could be the first-ever full presidential pardon granted to a corporation, raising alarm over the precedent it sets. This further blurs the line between corporate accountability and political favoritism, especially as Trump rolls back enforcement actions across the crypto sector and he and his family enrich themselves with crypto.

Source: The Intercept

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American People

Consider watching the 1981 documentary ‘The Killing of America’ and don’t be surprised to see how decades later the horror deepens.

Below, Bernie Sanders, whose life spans 8 decades, stands up to reflect on the present day experiences of Americans.

Bernie Sanders March 2025 speech reproduced here:

Mr. President,

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to travel in many parts of our country. And I have been able to talk to folks in Nebraska, in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. And what I am hearing from in all of these states and in fact all over the country is that our nation right now faces enormous crises, unprecedented crises in the modern history of our country.

And how right now at this moment we respond to these crises will not only impact our lives, it will impact the lives of our kids and future generations. And in terms of climate change, the well-being of the entire planet.

And Mr. President, what I have to tell you is that the American people are angry at what is happening here in Washington, DC and they are prepared to stand up and fight back. In my view and what I have heard from many, many people is that they will not accept an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires control our government, where the wealthiest person on Earth, Mr. Musk, is running all over Washington, DC slashing the Social Security Administration so that our elderly people today are finding it extremely difficult to access the benefits that they paid into.

Where Mr. Musk and his friends are slashing the Veterans Administration so that people who put their lives on the line to defend us will not be able to get the health care that they are entitled to or get the benefits that they are owed in a timely manner. Slashing the Department of Education. Slashing USAID.

And why is all of this slashing taking place? It is taking place so that the wealthiest people in this country can receive over $1 trillion dollars in tax breaks.Rise

Now, I don’t care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. There are very few people in this country who think that you slash programs that working families desperately need in order to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Mr. President, I am the former chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and I have had the honor of meeting with veterans in my own state of Vermont—all over Vermont—but all over the country. These are the men and women who put the uniform of this country on and have been prepared to die to defend our nation and American democracy.

And these veterans and Americans all over our nation will not accept an authoritarian form of society with a president who undermines our Constitution every day. Every day there’s something else out there where he’s undermining our Constitution and threatening the very foundations of American democracy. That is not what people fought and died to allow to happen.

Mr. President, I am not a historian, but I do know that the founding fathers of this country were no dummies. They were really smart guys. And in the 1780s, they wrote a Constitution and established a form of government with a separation of powers.

A separation of powers—with an executive branch, the president; a legislative branch, the Congress; and a judicial branch.

These revolutionaries in the 1780s had just fought a war against the imperial rule of the King of England who was an absolute dictator, the most powerful person on Earth. And these revolutionaries here in America forming a new government wanted to make absolutely sure that no one person in this brand new country that they were forming would have unlimited powers.

And that is why we have a separation of powers. That is why we have a judiciary, a Congress, and an executive branch. In other words, way back in the 1780s, they wrote a Constitution to prevent exactly what Donald Trump is trying to do today.

So, let us be clear about what is going on. Donald Trump is attacking our First Amendment and is trying to intimidate the media and those who speak out against him in an absolutely unprecedented way.

Mr. President, he has sued ABC, CBS, Meta, the Des Moines Register. His FCC is now threatening to investigate NPR and PBS. He has called CNN and MSNBC “illegal.”

In other words, the leader—or the so-called leader—of the free world is afraid of freedom. He doesn’t like criticism. Well, guess what? None of us like criticism. But you don’t get elected to the Senate, you don’t get elected to the House, you don’t become a governor, you don’t become a president of the United States unless you are prepared to deal with that criticism.

And the response to that criticism in a democracy is not to sue the media, is not to intimidate the media. It’s to respond in the way you think best.

But Mr. President, it is not just the media that Trump is going after. He is going after the constitutional responsibilities that this body, the United States Congress, has. And I will say it amazes me, it really does, how easily my Republican colleagues here in the Senate and in the House are willing to surrender their constitutional responsibilities. Give it over to the president.

Trump has illegally and unconstitutionally withheld funds that Congress has appropriated. You can’t do that. Congress has the power of the purse. We make a decision. We argue about it here. Big debates, vote-aras, the whole thing. Make that decision. That money goes out. The president does not have the right to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated.

Trump has illegally and unconstitutionally decimated agencies that can only be changed or reformed by Congress. You don’t like the Department of Education, you don’t like USAID, fine. Come to the Congress. Tell us what reforms you want to see. You do not have the right to unilaterally do away with these agencies.

Trump has fired members of independent agencies and inspectors general that he does not have the authority to do.

But Mr. President, it is not just the media that he is trying to intimidate. It is not just the powers of Congress that he wants.

Now, in an absolutely outrageous, unconstitutional and extraordinarily dangerous way, he is going after the judiciary. His view is that if you don’t like a decision that a judge renders, you get rid of that judge. You try to impeach that judge. You intimidate judges so that you get the decisions that you want.

You know, I’m thinking back now as someone who is not a supporter of the Roberts court, and I’m thinking about one of the worst Supreme Court decisions that has ever been rendered—that is Citizens United. I’ll say more about that in a moment. And I’m thinking about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, taking away American women’s right to control their own bodies.

In my view, these were outrageous decisions, unpopular decisions. But it never occurred to me, because maybe I’m old-fashioned and conservative, and I believe that you live by the rule of law, to say, “Hey, look at the decision Roberts made. We’re going to impeach him.”

No, we try to elect a new president who’s going to appoint new Supreme Court justices. That is the system that people have fought and died to defend.

But it’s not just the movement toward oligarchy, which is outraging millions of Americans—Democrats and Republicans, by the way—and it’s not just the movement toward authoritarianism that we are seeing. The American people, especially with Mr. Musk and 13 billionaires in the Trump administration running agency after agency…

The American people are saying as loudly as they can that they will not accept a society of massive economic and wealth inequalities, where the very richest people in our country are becoming much richer while working families are struggling to put food on the table.

Having gone all over this country, I can tell you that the American people are sick and tired of these inequalities and they want an economy that works for all of us—not just the 1%.

You know, Mr. President, we deal with a whole lot of stuff here in the Congress, and you know, virtually all of it is important in one way or another.

But let’s do something, you know, fairly radical today. Let’s try to tell the truth—the real truth—about what is going on in our society today. Something that we don’t talk about too much here in the Senate. We don’t talk about it too much in the House. We don’t talk about it too much in the corporate media.

But the reality is that today we have two Americas. Two very, very different Americas.

And in one of those Americas, the wealthiest people have never ever had it so good. In the whole history of our country, the people on top have never ever had it so good as they have it today.

Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than there has ever been in the history of America. Now, I know we don’t discuss it. You don’t see it much on TV. You don’t hear it talked about here at all. But the American people do not believe that it is appropriate that three people—one, two, three—Mr. Musk, Mr. Bezos, and Mr. Zuckerberg, three Americans, own more wealth than the bottom half of American society. 170 million people. Really? Three people own more wealth than 170 million people? Anybody here think that is vaguely appropriate?

And by the way, those very same three people—the three richest people in America—were right there at Trump’s inaugural, standing right behind the president. So, you want to know what oligarchy is? I know there’s some confusion out there. What is oligarchy? Well, it starts off when you have the three wealthiest people in the country standing right behind the president when he gets inaugurated.

The top 1% in our country now own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

CEOs make 300 times more than their average worker.

And unbelievably—real inflation-accounted-for wages today—the average American worker, if you can believe it, despite a massive increase in worker productivity, is lower today than it was 52 years ago. And during that period, there was a $75 trillion transfer of wealth that went from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. That is the reality of the American economy today. And you know what? Maybe we might want to be talking about that.

And in our America today, in that top America, that one America, the 1% are completely separate and isolated from the rest of the country. You think they get on a subway to get to work? Think they sit in a traffic jam for an hour trying to get to work? Not the case.

They fly around in the jets and the helicopters that they own. They live in their mansions all over the world in their gated communities. They have nannies taking care of their babies. They don’t worry about the cost of child care. And they send their kids to the best private schools and colleges.

Sometimes they vacation not in a Motel 6, not in a national park, but on the very own islands that they have. And on occasion, for the very very richest—just to have for a kick, have a little bit of fun—maybe they’ll spend a few million dollars flying off into space in one of their own spaceships. Sounds like fun.

But it is not just massive income and wealth inequality that we’re dealing with today. We have more concentration of ownership than ever before. While the profits on Wall Street and corporate America soar, a handful of giant corporations dominate sector after sector—whether it’s agriculture, transportation, media, financial services, etc., etc.

Small number of huge corporations—international corporations—dominating sector after sector. And as a result of that concentration of ownership, they are able to charge the American people outrageously high prices for the goods and services we need.

Mr. President, we don’t talk about it too much. Maybe we should. But there are three Wall Street firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—that combined are the major stockholders in 95% of our corporations. Got that? Three Wall Street firms—three—are the major stockholders in 95% of American corporations.

So, Mr. President, that is one America. People on top doing phenomenally well. Not only do they have economic power, they have enormous political power. That’s what’s going on there. They live like kings. That’s one America.

But there is another America.

And in that other America, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. And millions of workers from one end of this country to the other are trying to survive on starvation wages.

And unlike Donald Trump, I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck. And I know the anxieties that my mom and dad had, living in a rent-controlled apartment. Can we afford to buy this? Why did you buy that?

And that’s the story taking place all over America.

What does living paycheck to paycheck mean?

It means that every single day, millions of Americans worry about how they’re going to pay their rent or their mortgage. All over the country, rents are skyrocketing. And people are wondering: What happens—what happens to me and my kids if rent goes up by 20% and I can’t afford it? Where do I live? Do I have to take my kid out of school? Where do I put my kid? In worst case scenario, do I live in my car?

Let’s be clear. There are many people who are working today who are living in the back of their cars.

How do I pay for child care?

I talked to a cop, a guy the other day—a police officer—spending $20,000 a year for child care.

How do I buy decent food for my kids when the price of groceries is off the charts?

What happens if I get sick or my kid gets sick or my mother gets sick and I got a $12,000 deductible and I can’t afford to go to the doctor?

How, at the end of the month, am I going to pay my credit card bill—even though I am being charged 20 or 30% interest rates by the usurious credit card companies?

People are worrying about simple things. What happens if my car breaks down and the guy at the repair shop says it’s going to cost $1,000 and I don’t have $1,000 in the bank? And if I don’t have a car, how do I get to work? And if I don’t get to work, how do I have an income? And if I don’t have an income, how do I take care of my family?

Those are the crises that millions of Americans are experiencing today.

But it’s not just working-age Americans.

Today, in our country, half of older workers—older workers—have nothing in the bank as they face retirement. And they’re watching TV and they’re saying, “Mr. Musk is firing Social Security workers,” and actually worrying whether Social Security will be there for them.

And it’s not just older workers with nothing in the bank wondering what happens when they retire. Twenty-two percent of seniors are trying to survive on $15,000 a year.

I dare anybody in this country—let alone somebody who’s old, who needs health care, needs to keep the house warm—try to survive on $15,000 a year. And there are people here, by the way, talking about cutting Social Security.

Mr. President, it is not just about income and wealth inequality. It is about a health care system which everyone in the nation understands is broken, is dysfunctional, and is outrageously expensive.

I hear my Republican friends—you know, I don’t know where they are today—wanting to destroy the ACA. And my Democratic friends say, “Oh, we got to defend the ACA.” ACA is broken. It doesn’t work.

In my state, the cost of health care is going up 10, 15%. In America today, you got 85 million people uninsured or underinsured.

Function of the health care system today is not to do what a sane society would do—guarantee health care to all people in a cost-effective way—something which, by the way, every other major nation on Earth manages to do.

The function of our health care system, as everybody knows, is to make billions of dollars in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies.

So I say to my Democratic friends: It’s not good enough to defend the Affordable Care Act. It’s a broken system. You got to have the guts to stand up and allow us to do what every other major nation does—guarantee health care to all people as a human right—not allow the drug companies and the insurance companies to make massive profits every year.

And Mr. President, I want to touch on an issue that gets virtually no discussion, but I think it is enormously important—and it says a hell of a lot about what’s going on in our society today.

In America, according to international studies, our life expectancy—how long we live as a people—is about four years lower than other countries. Most European countries—people there live longer lives. Japan—they live even more longer lives than in Europe.

So, question number one: Why is that happening?

We spend $14,000 a year per person on health care—almost double what any other country spends. And yet people around the world are living, on average, four years longer than we do.

But here is the really ugly fact—even worse than that.

And that is that in this country, on average, if you are a working-class person, you will live seven years shorter lives than if you’re in the top 1%. If you’re a working-class person, your life will be seven years shorter than if you are wealthy.

In other words, being poor or working-class in America today amounts to a death sentence.

Mr. President, it’s not only a broken health care system.

We have got to ask ourselves a simple question—and the Biden administration began a little bit of movement in this direction—and that is: Why are we living in a nation where one out of four people can’t even afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe?

Why are we in some cases paying ten times more than our neighbors in Canada or in Europe? How does that happen?

And the answer of course has to do with the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and their power right here—all of the campaign contributions that they make—which has prevented us from negotiating prices.

But it’s not just health care or prescription drugs.

When we look at what’s going on in America—in Vermont and throughout this country—we have a major housing crisis. Here we are, the richest country on Earth: 800,000 people sleeping out on the streets, and 20 million people are spending more than 50% of their limited incomes on housing.

Can you imagine that? You’re a working person, spending 50% of your income on housing. How do you have money to do anything else? And the cost of housing is soaring.

Do not tell me, Mr. President, that in a nation which could spend a trillion dollars on the military—a nation that gives massive tax breaks to the rich—that we cannot build the millions of units of housing that we desperately need.

So, Mr. President, why is all of this happening?

Why do we have a health care system that is broken? Prescription drugs that are the most expensive in the world? A housing system? Education in deep trouble?

Talked to educators in Vermont, all over the country. Talked to a principal the other day from Vermont. Their starting salary at a public school? $32,000 a year. But don’t worry—they can’t afford to even bring people in because they can’t afford the housing in the community.

Why have we let education sink to the level that it has?

So I think the bottom line of all this is: The American people, I think, are catching on. And Mr. Musk—I must thank him—because he has made it very clear we are living in an oligarchic form of society.

If anybody out there thinks that Mr. Musk is running around out of the goodness of his heart trying to make our government more efficient, you have not a clue as to what is going on.

What these guys want to do is destroy virtually every federal program that impacts the well-being of working people—Social Security, Medicare, postal service, public education, you name it—so they can get huge tax breaks for the rich and eventually make government so inefficient that they will have the ability, as large corporations, to come in and privatize everything that is going on.

So, Mr. President, this is a pivotal moment in American history. And I sense that the American people have had it up to here.

They are prepared to fight back.

They do not want a government run by billionaires who have it all—whose greed is uncontrollable.

You know, we have in Vermont—and I think a lot of this country—serious problems with addiction, with drugs. People drinking too much alcohol. People smoking too many cigarettes.

But the worst form of addiction that this country now faces is the greed of the oligarchy.

You might think that if you had 10, 20 billion dollars, it would be enough. You know—kind of enough to let your family live for the next 20 generations.

But it’s not.

For whatever reason—whatever compulsive reason they have—these guys want more and more and more, and they are prepared to destroy Social Security, Medicare, nutrition programs for hungry people in order to get even more.

That, to me, is disgusting.

So, Mr. President, we are at a pivotal moment in American history. But having been all over this country—or many parts of this country—I am absolutely confident that the American people (and I’m not just talking about Democrats, who are as complicit in the problems that we have right now as our Republicans, because we got a two-party system which is basically corrupt)…

You got Mr. Musk over on the Republican side saying to any Republican who dares to stand up and defy the Trump agenda, we are going to primary you.

And on the Democratic side, you got AIPAC and you got other super PACs saying, you stand up for working people—you’re in trouble as well.

We got a corrupt campaign finance system in which billionaires are able to buy elections. And that’s why all over this country, people are not happy with our two-party system—the Republicans and the Democrats.

So, Mr. President, this is a pivotal moment in American history.

But we have had difficult moments before. And I am confident, from the bottom of my heart, that if we stand together, and we do not allow some right-wing extremists to divide us up by the color of our skin, or our religion, or where we were born, or our sexual orientation…

If we stand together, we can save this country. We can defeat oligarchy. We can defeat the movement toward authoritarianism. And in fact, we can create an economy and a government that works for all—not just a few.

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Oil keeps wars going

Here are some extracts from a .pdf from oil change.org.

The previous blog shows how purchasing oil from a warring nation may constitute aiding war crimes, as the profits from sales can build military capabilities. Here, supplying vital oil to a warring nation (Israel) lends that nation power to destroy lives they deem of no value (Palestinians):

Oil to Israel:

And let us not forget British Petroleum (now BP) for its flouting of so many health and safety rules, so why would it care about supplying the Israeli war machine?

BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company that operates in the United States. Between 2007 and 2010, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas accounted for 97% of “egregious, willful” violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). BP had 760 “egregious, willful” violations during that period, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo two and Exxon had one.[389] The deputy assistant secretary of labour at OSHA, said “The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company.”[390]

A report in ProPublica, published in The Washington Post in 2010, found that over a decade of internal investigations of BP’s Alaska operations during the 2000s warned senior BP managers that the company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways. ProPublica found that “Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations – from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.”[391]

The Project On Government Oversight, an independent non-profit organisation in the United States which investigates and seeks to expose corruption and other misconduct, lists BP as number one on their listing of the 100 worst corporations based on instances of misconduct.[392]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Posted in anthropocene | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment