Analysis: What the World Needs Now is a Lot Less Poverty

What is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.”?

In a News & Analysis item recently published in Science, Kintisch (2014) discusses the most recent IPCC report, noting it “is meant to be a practical guide to action,” especially in regard to what the report identifies as eight major climate risks: coastal flooding, inland flooding, extreme weather, extreme heat, food insecurity, water shortages, loss of marine ecosystems and loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems.

Interestingly, however, all eight of these threats already occur at various times and places throughout the world; and trying to prevent the harm they cause by mandating policies designed to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the height of folly, as spending the trillions of dollars that would be needed to only maybe make an impact on these weather phenomena is far, far worse than doing nothing at all. And why is that?

A hint is provided when Kintisch rhetorically inquires just what is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.” In response to himself, he writes the most recent IPCC report says it is “poverty.” And in this case, the IPCC is absolutely correct; for the spending of ungodly sums of money to try to alter the planet’s climate will only lessen the well-being of the great bulk of humanity, which is to say it will drive us even further into poverty.

Consider, for example, the recent words of Peabody Energy’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gregory H. Boyce, who in a recent Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Interview (www.peabodyenergy.com/Investor-News-Release-Details.aspx?nr=818) was quoted as reminding us that “energy inequality is the blight of energy poverty, limiting access to basic needs like food, water and medicine; stunting education and cutting lives short.” In addition, he notes “every one of the U.N. Millennium Development goals depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge.”

Boyce also noted at the 2014 ECO:nomics conference that was recently held in Santa Barbara, California, that fully 3.5 billion people currently lack proper access to energy, and “more energy is needed to create energy access for billions, to sustain growth for a new global middle class and improve access to low-cost electricity,” while reminding us “too many families in developed nations face the tough choice of paying for food or energy.”

And thus Boyce concludes, “the greatest environmental crisis we confront today is not a crisis predicted by computer models but a human crisis fully within our power to solve,” which can be accomplished via the means of low-cost power that can readily be provided by today’s advanced coal technologies that (1) have the scale to meet these needs, and (2) are employed in today’s high-efficiency supercritical coal plants that have state-of-the-art controls and ultra-low emission rates, which facts allow him to state that “every large, advanced coal plant brings the equivalent carbon benefit of removing 1 million cars from the road.”

And the marketplace would appear to agree, for Boyce notes coal has been the fastest-growing major fuel of the past decade and is set to surpass oil as the world’s largest fuel in coming years. Indeed, he says coal’s market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by fully one-third over the past two years, and that it now has twice the market share of natural gas.

Perhaps these several observations suggest there may be a potential for both the IPCC and the NIPCC to agree on the core aspect of reducing poverty, as each moves forward in attempting to determine what is best for the biosphere – and humanity – as time marches on.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC, IPCC AR5 Report. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Analysis: What the World Needs Now is a Lot Less Poverty

  1. Eustace Cranch says:

    Low-cost energy is crucial. However, two other factors must be recognized:

    1. The primary cause of poverty worldwide is tyranny.
    2. The primary cause of poverty in a free society is personal behavior.

  2. empiresentry says:

    Oh gawd. someone please help me. I am trying to find the quote where climate Catastropharians claim making fake adjustments to real data in order to make models work is valid because the cause is so important. Anyone that can help?

  3. Richard says:

    World poverty is shrinking rapidly, new index reveals | Society | The …
    http://www.theguardian.com › News › Society › Poverty
    Mar 16, 2013 – UN development report uses nutrition and education as yardsticks as well as income.

  4. jones says:

    Poverty, grinding poverty, is the DESIRED state of being for this lot.

    A little bit of tyranny thrown in doesn’t harm either.

    .
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/north-korea-unlikely-champion-fight-against-climate-change

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/the-ideal-climate-citizen-north-korea.php

  5. more soylent green! says:

    Don’t forget the legal and culture aspects necessary to eliminate poverty — Free markets, free enterprise, individual rights, property rights, the rule of law, etc. In my opinion, those are the things the AGW proponents most want to stop. Carbon is just a handy excuse.

  6. M Courtney says:

    Q: What is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.” (?)
    A: Poverty

    Yep,. that’s right.
    So let’s accept that creating wealth for the most vulnerable is the key issue and own that the world’s problems are political and economic.
    Not climatological.

  7. Louis says:

    “…coal’s market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by fully one-third over the past two years, and that it now has twice the market share of natural gas.”

    That’s news to me. I thought coal powered plants were on the decrease. This is what was predicted for the US just last year:

    “Coal-burning facilities are expected to slip to 10% of total new capacity in the U.S. in 2013, down from 18% in 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. Gas, meanwhile, is expected to soar to 82% of new capacity in 2013 from 42% last year.”

    Were they that wrong? If coal has twice the market share of natural gas, why do the stats from 2012 show them almost equal with natural gas on the increase? Something doesn’t add up:

    [US] Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:
    Coal 37%
    Natural Gas 30%
    Nuclear 19%
    Hydropower 7%
    Other Renewable 5%
    Biomass 1.42%
    Geothermal 0.41%
    Solar 0.11%
    Wind 3.46%
    Petroleum 1%
    Other Gases < 1%

  8. Chad Wozniak says:

    The biggest single barrier to alleviating poverty is restrictions on fossil fuel development; therefore, the biggest single barrier to alleviating poverty is global warming alarmism.

  9. Gamecock says:

    Solyent is correct. Property rights and free trade will end poverty.

    A big coal plant next to people with no property rights will produce nothing.

    I am uncomfortable with this:

    “In addition, he notes “every one of the U.N. Millennium Development goals depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge.””

    “Adequate energy,” in the context here, is not the natural state of man. Most has been created in the last century or two. Lives lost to the impacts of this scourge – Man living in his natural state – seems contrived. “One out of every two citizens” would be 4 billion people. 4 million lives lost is tiny, gutting their argument. Electricity for all would be good, but I find their analysis strange.

  10. Mike H says:

    Eustace Cranch:
    Very true, but let’s not forget the other side. The primary cause of wealth creation in a free society is personal behavior.

  11. James at 48 says:

    And meanwhile, in other news, the 1%ers, led by the “Green Billionaire,” have declared war on skeptics. It is time for The People to realize just how this game has been rigged.

  12. Eustace Cranch says:

    Mike H- yes. I absolutely agree.

  13. Jimbo says:

    It’s quite simple. Increased standards of living leads to women wanting fewer babies. Compare any 5 EU countries to 5 developing countries. Tell me about the fertility rates etc. Better standards of living leads to lower numbers which leads to panic over. (Did I hear Singapore? Japan? Italy? Mexico? Germany? Can I go on and on?) Even the poorest continent on Earth is seeing falling fertility rates. STOP THE ALARM, IT’S BORING ME TO DEATH. Good night.

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/population-bomb-so-wrong/
    http://geocurrents.info/population-geography/indias-plummeting-birthrate-a-television-induced-transformation
    http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/television-and-fertility-in-india-response-to-critics

  14. R. de Haan says:

    Just a few years earlier cleaning house and you all would have been fine.
    Today we’re too late. The world is bankrupt and what we see today is just the end game : http://detlevschlichter.com/2014/05/keynesian-madness-central-banks-waging-war-on-price-stability-savers/

  15. David L. Hagen says:

    In “The Morality of Cheap Energy” Stephen Moore observes:

    there’s a wonderful new essay out by energy expert Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It is called, provocatively: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

    Her thesis is fairly logical when you think about it: “Affordable energy is the wellspring of life itself. We use it for food, shelter, clothing and everything that we need to live a productive life.”
    She also notes that cheap energy is the great equalizer in terms of levelizing living standards. “The poor,” she explains, “benefit most from cheap energy, and keeping energy production up and prices low is one of the best anti-poverty programs.”

    Moore further questions:

    Is it moral to take money from taxpayers without their consent to support one industry over another?
    Is it moral to have an energy policy that intentionally keeps prices high? Is it moral to eliminate potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. and ship them to China and India and Mexico when we have 18 million unemployed Americans?

    Bjorn Lomborg writes The Poor Need Cheap Fossil Fuels

    What those living in energy poverty need are reliable, low-cost fossil fuels, at least until we can make a global transition to a greener energy future. This is not just about powering stoves and refrigerators to improve billions of lives but about powering agriculture and industry that will improve lives.

    Over the last 30 years, China moved an estimated 680 million people out of poverty by giving them access to modern energy, mostly powered by coal. Yes, this has resulted in terrible air pollution and a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions. But it is a trade-off many developing countries would gratefully choose.

  16. milodonharlani says:

    What the world needs now is love, sweet love.

    And nuclear power.

  17. milodonharlani says:

    Not just for some, but for everyone.

    If only the hard-core Greens would embrace the atom.

  18. David Riser says:

    Louis,
    Both are right, you are looking at the “new” vs old. A powerplant is not something we ever seem to replace, we just keep adding more plants to meet demand. When coal gets the shut down we are going to have power problems like nobody’s business.
    v/r,
    David Riser

  19. and trying to prevent the harm they cause by mandating policies designed to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the height of folly, as spending the trillions of dollars that would be needed to only maybe make an impact on these weather phenomena is far, far worse than doing nothing at all.

    File this under Kerry’s “supposing scientists are wrong, What’s the WORST that can happen?”

  20. u.k.(us) says:

    I think I’ll stay out of this quagmire.

  21. Speaking of poverty and “height of folly”….

    WSJ 5/23/14:

    Then, on Nov. 25, the EPA regional office in Texas did an about-face when it decided that Exxon Mobil would not have to install the [carbon capture storage (CCS)] technology in its planned chemical plant (such plants emit carbon dioxide) in Harris County, because it would be prohibitively expensive.

    Enter the Sierra Club, which challenged the EPA’s Exxon Mobil decision on Dec. 26. Last week, three administrative law judges on the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board upheld the Texas office’s decision not to require CCS. Why? Because the EPA regional office found, and the judges agreed, that the “addition of CCS would increase the total capital project costs by more than 25%.”
    …..
    ” Then there is the ongoing saga of Southern Company’s planned power plant in Kemper County, Miss. The Washington Post noted May 17 that the coal-fired Kemper plant—hailed for its plan to use CCS technology—is a year behind schedule and expected to cost $5.5 billion, or more than double the original estimate, partly due to miscalculations designing and building the carbon-capture system.

    The piece is written by Brian H. Potts, lamenting how the EPA legal house of cards is in jeopardy. His analysis and recommendation to EPA:

    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act says that the agency can’t regulate greenhouse-gas emissions [see my Note 1] from existing power plants, unless and until it has regulations in place for new power plants. So if a court overturns the agency’s carbon capture and sequester requirement for new plants, the EPA won’t be able to implement its climate rules for existing power plants (which the agency plans to propose on June 2).
    … The agency has to scrap the CCS requirement for new coal plants and instead adopt something more legally defensible, such as requiring that all new coal plants be built using the most efficient plant design.

    This would require Ms. McCarthy and the EPA to eat some crow. But it’s the right decision for many reasons, including protecting the climate.

    Note 1: This is far down the road of interpretation, re-interpretation and inference. Section 111 says nothing about “greenhouse-gas emissions”. Sec. 111 refers to “pollutants.” Hence the administrations invention of “carbon pollution.” See pages 5 and 6 of Regulating Carbon Dioxide under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act: Options, Limits, and Impacts 3.5MB PDF Duke Univ. Jan. 2013.

  22. Forgot the citation and link to the WSJ opinion piece by Potts.
    The EPA’s Carbon Capture Flip-Flop
    One of the agency’s own regional offices and a panel of EPA judges have ruled that the policy is too expensive.

  23. george e. smith says:

    Well just use the Obama approach. Have the UN set a world wide minimum wage of $25 US per hour. That should fix world poverty.

  24. Willis Eschenbach says:

    empiresentry says:
    May 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Oh gawd. someone please help me. I am trying to find the quote where climate Catastropharians claim making fake adjustments to real data in order to make models work is valid because the cause is so important. Anyone that can help?

    Stephen Schneider, who famously said:

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    He discusses the quote here.

    w.

  25. Chuck Nolan says:

    I say the UN gets moved to Somalia.
    cn

  26. Old'un says:

    Resistance to antibiotics greater threat to the world than Global Warming!

    Slightly off thread, but this was in The (UK) Times this morning:

    The threat to humanity from drug-resistant infections is worse than that of climate change, a group of Britain’s most eminent medical experts warned yesterday as they called for a global body to be created to tackle the crisis.
    Speaking at the Royal Society in London, the group, which includes Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer and Dr Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, warned that the world is facing an apocalyptic scenario in which people die from routine infections because effective drugs have run out.
    In a future without antibiotics, surgery would become deadly, treatment for cancer, diabetes and organ failure would be impossible in their present form and farmers could not contain diseases such as tuberculosis.
    Faced with the spectre of a growing number of drug-resistant infections and with few new antibiotics in development, the medical leaders have called for the creation of an equivalent body to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which co-ordinates action on climate change.
    “I don’t want to see my children, their children or even myself in hospital with an untreatable infection,” said Dame Sally. “I have pointed out to the government, would they want to be on watch when the health service falls over because they didn’t take action early enough?”
    Professor Mark Woolhouse, of the University of Edinburgh, said: “In terms of threats to my own health and that of my children and my family, I am much more concerned about the threat of anti-microbial resistance than I am about climate change.”
    Professor Woolhouse and Dr Farrar are co-authors of an article, published in the journal Nature, which calls for “independent, international leadership on this issue”, before the massive health gains made possible by the discovery of penicillin, the first antibiotic, are lost.
    Roy Anderson, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Imperial College London, said that some might take the “cynical” view that the IPCC was a poor model as it had failed to deliver legally binding international targets on climate change.
    He added that action on drug resistance was likely to be less fraught with controversy. There are already about 5,000 deaths in England each year owing to antibiotic-resistant strains of infections and resistance is continuing to emerge in a wide spectrum of diseases. About 80 per cent of gonorrhea infections are resistant to the frontline antibiotic tetracycline, and multi-drug-resistant salmonella, TB, and E. coli are also considered significant threats.
    Possible measures that might feature in a future treaty include a ban on over-the-counter antibiotics, which are at present available in countries such as India, incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop new classes of antibiotics and tighter regulation of antibiotic use in agriculture.
    Dame Sally said that the medical establishment was horrified about the extent of antibiotic use in farming. “In the United States, 70 per cent of antibiotics are used for growth promotion,” she said. “It’s horrible to think about.”
    She added that a farmed salmon in the US has typically consumed its own weight in antibiotics by the time it is eaten.
    The emergence of antibiotic resistance is an inevitability of natural selection. When the drugs are used to kill infections, they occasionally leave resilient strains behind, which multiply and become progressively hardier the more they are exposed to antibiotics. The eventual result is so-called superbugs, such as MRSA, which are untreatable with frontline medicines.
    Dr Farrar said: “Despite repeated warnings, the international response has been feeble. The World Health Organisation has missed opportunities to provide leadership, and little progress has been made.”

  27. David A says:

    “the greatest environmental crisis we confront today is not a crisis predicted by computer models but a human crisis fully within our power to solve,” which can be accomplished via the means of low-cost power that can readily be provided by today’s advanced coal technologies that (1) have the scale to meet these needs, and (2) are employed in today’s high-efficiency supercritical coal plants that have state-of-the-art controls and ultra-low emission rates, which facts allow him to state that “every large, advanced coal plant brings the equivalent carbon benefit of removing 1 million cars from the road.”
    ========================================
    It is that simple. Poverty is anthropogenic. Energy is the life blood of EVERY economy.

  28. Tom O says:

    “Eustace Cranch says:
    May 22, 2014 at 1:08 pm
    Low-cost energy is crucial. However, two other factors must be recognized:

    1. The primary cause of poverty worldwide is tyranny.
    2. The primary cause of poverty in a free society is personal behavior.”

    Sorry, I don’t agree. The primary cause of poverty worldwide is lack of access to the means to get out of poverty. Tyranny may be a factor, but not much of one.

    The primary cause of poverty in a “free society” has nothing to do with “personal choice.” You will not convince me that the millions of Americans that lost their jobs and could not find other ones to support their moderate lifestyles and ended up in poverty did so “by choice.” I woud say you are either drinking too much koolaid, or you have found a wonderful hallucigen that if shared at a reasonable price would make you a billionaire.

  29. Tom O says:

    Sorry, that was suppose to say personal behavior, not personal choice.

  30. Peter Taylor says:

    Producing more energy for the poorest countries will not solve the problems of poverty and vulnerability to climate. Two billion people lack adequate sanitation and clean water. That has not changed much as a percentage of the globe in over thirty years of ‘development’ aid running at about $200 billion (50:50 between private and governmental). From my own research (available at http://www.ethos-uk.com) on the issues of ‘Resilience’ – less than 5% of global development aid reaches the grass-roots poor who need stable community, ecologically resilient agriculture, clean water and sustainable biodiversity..the majority of funding goes to ‘capacity building’ – i.e. to create clone economies for globalised corporations and the market. This does create ‘wealth’ but only if masses of people move from the land to the city – where the majority then live in abject poverty without the real wealth of community and sustainable livelihood outside of the globalised economy.

    The current global system creates as much poverty as it alleviates – it simply shifts the focus from rural to urban, lifts the average wage and total GDP, leaving the urban masses totally dependent on ‘energy’ sources that are increasingly expensive.

    The whole system cannot now function: however much coal is rejuvenated, it is still expensive, as is oil or gas, limited in production, and geographically scarce. Nuclear is not only just as expensive, but requires a high level of technical infrastructure (with risks of high-consequence and expensive accidents also). Renewable are of course out of the question for the poor – even wealthy Germany cannot afford to make an effective shift.

    This is to say that there is NO answer that relates energy to relieving poverty – and it may be the opposite, that its high cost for rural communities will create greater poverty. Poverty needs to be carefully studied – it is not only a matter of money and economic policies – it is also a matter of sustainable community, soil, water, sanitation and food. These needs cost very little to fulfil, but they are consistently ignored by aid programmes disguised as humanitarian when in reality, they are extensions of a global market system.

  31. Eustace Cranch says:

    (Tom O says:)

    Wow.

    I stand behind what I said.

  32. more soylent green! says:

    R. de Haan says:
    May 22, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Yes, but we’re not going to get it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-22/us-government-explained-one-chart

    You almost had me. You see, we do have real terrorism and real threats to our national security. The threat of global terrorism motivated by a particular religion and culture I won’t name, is very, very real. Not that threat isn’t frequently exploited for political purposes and the money to combat misspent on crony projects — that much is also very, very real.

  33. Zeke says:

    What I would like to quantify is how much carbon dioxide/methane/refrigerant/nitrous oxide emissions are generated by one prisoner in a high security prison in one year.

    Then I would like to know why I should be reduced to prison conditions by environmentalist activists in NGOs and in government, who are hawking renewables and claiming cattle, crops, and fire are “dirty” or “toxic.”

    I propose an experiment to show that one woman, using concentrated, always available, inexpensive energy could actually support more and more of her family’s needs, granted that she can use:

    1. personal transportation/pick up truck for hauling;

    2. unrestricted internet access for purchase of books and products from all over the world and to sell items;

    3. inexpensive, mass manufactured gadgets which perform most work for her;

    4. all disease and pest controls and crop varieties now in use, along with the choice to purchase new, higher yield and more disease resistant cultivars;

    5. has full freedom to educate her children through home, charter, or private schools, and

    6. has no government rationing of water use; and 7. may have domesticated animals.

    This could be a new era for home independence! We should be thinking of the possibilities for home/property ownership, and what can now be produced at home. This experiment should be run.

  34. Tom O says:

    “Eustace Cranch says:
    May 23, 2014 at 8:58 am
    (Tom O says:)

    Wow.

    I stand behind what I said.”

    And you’re still wrong.

  35. RobRoy says:

    The energy inequality mentioned here, I believe, is the root of CAGW alarmists being called “racist” by skeptics.
    Third-World-ism, Poverty-ism, Class-ism, Culture-ism, these all apply.
    “Racism” is not really what it is.
    Whatever one calls it, CAGW “actions” are Western elitists in a war. Not against “poverty” per se, but against the poverty stricken.

  36. David A says:

    Peter Taylor says:
    May 23, 2014 at 6:32 am
    Producing more energy for the poorest countries will not solve the problems of poverty and vulnerability to climate. Two billion people lack adequate sanitation and clean water.
    ============================================================
    Peter, sanitation and palatable water require energy, the cheaper the better. The cost of energy has risen dramatically due to the false demonization of CO2. You want clean water. Right now, due exclusively to the world moving from 280 ppm to 400 ppm CO2, the world effectively needs about 15% less water to produce the same amount of food.

    Yes, there are other reasons for poverty, most all of them are anthropogenic and government caused. Yet the single most effective way out of poverty is abundant inexpensive energy. Energy is the verb of every facet of society. Cheep energy, liberty, and education, both formal and cultural with integrity, can solve most of the worlds poverty.

  37. David A says:

    “Indeed, he (Boyce) says coal’s market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by fully one-third over the past two years, and that it now has twice the market share of natural gas.”
    ============================.=====================
    I would like to see the support for this assertion. My understanding is that US coal has declined significantly as to the percentage of electrical generation.

    Also I wish this article, which directly addresses the simplest most attainable benefit for the world’s poor, received more attention.

  38. David A says:

    Eustace Cranch & Tom O
    Tom O, I must side Eustace here. Eustace said personal behavior, not choice. As an example to illustrate his point, consider the disparate experience of the Black culture in the US, vs the Asian culture. Simply put, this is a result of behavior, cultural behavior. (One cultural says “we are hungry, work our butts off for pride and family”, the other says, “we are owed”

    Tyranny, which can vary from democide (death by government) in the millions, such as Stalin’s Russia, to something as simple as heavy handed government decrees driving up the cost of energy, or simply take the form of endless bureaucratic regulations which cripple investment and capitol growth, all conspire to create poverty.

    In affect Eustace is saying that both individual and group behavior produce poverty.

  39. R. de Haan says:

    Peter Taylor says:
    May 23, 2014 at 6:32 am

    Producing more energy for the poorest countries will not solve the problems of poverty and vulnerability to climate.

    You’re a nut case.

  40. R. de Haan says:

    more soylent green! says:
    May 23, 2014 at 10:06 am

    R. de Haan says:
    May 22, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Yes, but we’re not going to get it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-22/us-government-explained-one-chart

    You almost had me. You see, we do have real terrorism and real threats to our national security. The threat of global terrorism motivated by a particular religion and culture I won’t name, is very, very real. Not that threat isn’t frequently exploited for political purposes and the money to combat misspent on crony projects — that much is also very, very real.

    Yes, the threat is real but made by the West, continued by hte West and exploited by the West.
    Ever spend a single moment thinking about the triggering effect of the bio fuel mandate processing 40% of our food crops in the US and Europe to produce ethanol on the fuel and food protests AKA Arab Spring?

    We always fought the bad guy’s.

    Today we are the bad guy’s.

    Just think about it.

  41. R. de Haan says:

    Hannan telling how it is.

    Unfortunately the centralists have ruined the party.

  42. R. de Haan says:

    When does the story break: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-25/when-does-story-break?

    Spreading the wealth.

Comments are closed.