diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

The EAT Forum (Davos for Food)



The EAT Forum is an organization cofounded by the Wellcome Trust (yes, that Wellcome Trust). It emerged from the Stockholm Food Forum, a by-invitation-only conference on the business, science and politics of food production that is sometimes billed as the "Davos for Food."

Never heard of EAT? Its "About" page reads like the usual corporate whitewash: "EAT is a non-profit dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships."

But if the very idea of a "Davos for Food" puts you off your lunch and EAT founder and executive chairman Gunhild Stordalen gives you some strong Lieutenant Ilia vibes, then you might want to take a look at Dr. Joseph Mercola's assessment of the group in his article on the global technocrat cabal:

The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.
Given a pedigree like that, you'd expect that EAT Forum's advisory board to be stacked with globalists, insiders and career supergophers for the world's elite . . . and you'd be right!

Unsurprisingly, among its many initiatives is "Shifting Urban Diets," a plan to "demonstrate how scientific targets for food systems can be operationalized in the city context" by adopting the Lancet's "Planetary Health Diet," a WEF-promoted response to climate change hysteria that says you should eat more vegetables to stop hurricanes . . . or something like that.

Yes, the EAT Forum may not have crossed your radar yet, but if its track record, ambition to become the "Davos for food" and connections to seemingly every globalist insider and crony corporation in the industrial food system indicate anything, we'll be hearing a lot more about this group in the near future.

USAID



Remember last week, when I discussed Henry Kissinger's 1974 plan to start using foreign aid as a weapon to encourage developing countries to start sterilizing their population? Well, then, it won't shock you to learn that another organization with its hands in the Great Food Reset pie is USAID. (Yes, that USAID.)

The Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) is, according to USAID's website, "a seven-member, presidentially appointed advisory board to USAID established in 1975 under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to ensure that USAID brings the assets of U.S. universities to bear on development challenges in agriculture and food security and supports their representation in USAID programming."

Last year, BIFAD, in conjunction with "Feed the Future" (the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative), released a working paper titled "Systemic Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation." The paper argues that:

. . . a perfect storm of circumstances in which supply chain issues, regional agricultural and nutrition challenges, the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional conflict have combined to form a looming food security crisis.
After shoehorning in some climate change hysteria for good measure, they call for—you guessed it—a complete transformation of the food supply and global agriculture!

Specifically, BIFAD's "Systemic Change" subcommittee has been tasked with providing "evidence-based recommendations to accelerate inclusive systems change to achieve transformative climate change adaptation and mitigation outcomes in agriculture, nutrition, and food systems." The subcommittee's proposals for achieving this ambitious goal include:

  • linking "carbon markets" to "regenerative agriculture" (i.e., the financialization of nature that is all the rage in globalist circles these days);
  • using ESG scores as a way to pressure companies into acquiescing to the vague, nebulous and ever-shifting demands of the Food Reset mafia;
  • and, of course, "the promotion of insects as sustainable sources of proteins."
The whole document is couched in the bland bureaucratic doublespeak of "equity," "inclusion" and "sustainability." Of course, it avoids delving too deeply into the specifics of this fundamental transformation of the food system that BIFAD is ostensibly investigating. But, if you know how to read between the lines, it isn't hard to understand what the report is really saying. USAID's "leverage" over developing countries—specifically referenced no less than 125 times—gives an insight into the Kissingerian food-as-a-weapon mentality that is the very basis of USAID and its mission. The entire enterprise reeks of a neocolonial landgrab masquerading as "philanthropy"—the kind of territorial taking that people in Africa and elsewhere have been warning about for decades.
 

Regarding food today, a key question is: is lab-grown meat safe? According to a new in-depth analysis by FAO and a WHO expert panel, there are 53 potential health hazards. As commercial cell-based food production grows, there is an increasing urgency to answer one of the consumers’ most important questions: is it safe to eat?

For this reason, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), in collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO), has produced a publication, Food safety aspects of cell-based foods. The 134-page document, based on extensive scientific literature, aims to share the current state of knowledge with relevant stakeholders and inform consumers about the food safety aspects of cell-based foods.

During the expert consultation, all potential hazards in the four stages of cell-based food production were discussed: cell procurement, cell growth and production, cell harvesting and food processing. The results show that there are 53 potential sources of hazards that can lead to problems and negative health consequences. These include contamination with heavy metals, microplastics and nanoplastics, allergens such as additives to improve the taste and texture of these products, chemical contaminants, toxic components, antibiotics and prions.

Most potential food safety hazards in cell-based food production, such as microbiological contaminants and residues, are not new. For such common food safety hazards, many risk mitigation tools exist, such as good hygiene, manufacturing, cell culture, hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP), as well as the general principles and methods for assessing the safety of the final product as a whole food. The experts agreed that while many hazards are already known and exist in conventionally produced foods, the focus should be on the specific materials, inputs, ingredients, potential allergens and equipment that play a particular role in cell-based food production.

Particular attention should be paid to the mechanism of cell proliferation in bioreactors, using biological components such as growth factors and hormones from animal serum or non-animal origin to trigger and accelerate cell cultivation. These biologically active molecules could interfere with metabolism or have been linked to the development of certain cancers. Therefore, these products potentially carcinogenic effects could be particularly serious for human health.

At a recent symposium organised by the Animal Task Force and the Belgian Association for Meat Science and Technology in Brussels, Peer Ederer from Goal Sciences spoke about lab-grown meat, highlighting that lab-grown meat is not the answer. Despite the billions of dollars invested in cellular agriculture, as Paul Wood and others show, cultured meat will not be a true substitute for natural meat.

He said cell-based meat products are not identical to those they are meant to replace. First, there are still significant differences in sensory, nutritional and textural properties, while important quality-enhancing steps in transforming muscle into conventional meat are missing. Second, many societal functions of livestock and animal production beyond nutrition may be lost, including ecosystem services, by-product benefits, and contributions to livelihoods and cultural significance.

Moreover, detailed production methods are unavailable, making it impossible to confirm the many product characteristics and sustainability claims. A study by Oxford University shows that production in very energy-intensive bioreactors could have worse long-term environmental consequences than livestock farming in terms of CO2 emissions, which have a less powerful greenhouse effect but are much more persistent than methane. Recent calculations also show that if we wanted to meet the additional demand for meat by 2030 exclusively with cultured meat, we would have to build almost 150,000 bioreactors, which would have more than twice the impact on the production of this man-made product (352 million tonnes of CO2e) than if consumption were met with natural livestock (150 million tonnes of CO2e).

The FAO/WHO document concludes that hazard identification is only the first step in the formal risk assessment process. To conduct an adequate risk assessment for cell-based foods, collecting sufficient scientific data/information necessary for exposure assessment and risk characterisation is essential. The hazard identification conducted by the Technical Panel members is an extremely important first step in brainstorming all potential food safety issues that could arise from cell-based food consumption. In addition, feedback and comments on this publication from the international scientific communities will help move the field forward. Extreme caution is needed as there is still too little information and insufficient data on the actual safety of lab-grown meat.
 
YOU are the carbon they want to eliminate! Dont fall for the hoax. Dont believe the hypocrite shills.
 
TommySr, for them you have no value. You are a useless eater getting in the way of their megayachts, private jets and angus steak parties. You useless eater is also blocking the roads when they try to get to their party in their V12 powered sports car.

 

Automaker lobbying threatens the global transition to electric vehicles

Opinion: if you don't produce products people need, someone else will and you lose marketshare. Hubris to have negative policies and think no other companies can fill the need or that you're too big to fail. No wonder BYD has them running to politicians asking for protections.



Opinion: 10 minutes to charge for 400 miles range on a 1,000 mile LFP battery? At 3 miles/kwh that's 13 kWh/min or 800 kWh/h. We'd need chargers....

Opinion: Turning old blades into 3d printer pellets for concrete replacement. Meh... I doubt there are enough blades to make it worthwhile.

 

Transitioning Fleet Trucks To Electric Raises Costs By Up To 114 Percent, Report Warns​


Transitioning conventional truck fleets to electric vehicles (EVs) pushes up annual operational costs, which subsequently increases economic inflation, according to a recent report from transportation and logistics firm Ryder.


Florida-based Ryder analyzed the potential cost of transportation if internal combustion engine trucks are converted to EVs. There is a 5 percent cost increase for light-duty EVs and a 94–114 percent increase for heavy-duty trucks, the May 8 report states. For a fleet of 25 mixed vehicles—light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks—costs surge by 56–67 percent.

As transportation costs have a direct bearing on the price of goods sold in markets across the country, Ryder estimates such increases to eventually add about 0.5–1 percent to overall price inflation in the economy.

There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited. Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing,” said Karen Jones, executive vice president and head of new product development for Ryder.

“Until the gap in TCT [total cost to transport] for heavier duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition; and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

In California, the annual TCT increase for a heavy-duty EV tractor was approximately $315,000, with the number rising to more than $330,000 in Georgia. In both cases, equipment costs were the biggest contributor to the increase, rising by 500 percent.

Ryder noted there were 16.4 million Class 3 to Class 8 commercial vehicles in operation in the United States, out of which only an estimated 18,000 EVs have been deployed.

“Therefore, if companies are required to convert to EVs in the near future, availability and production of EVs may be far less than the vehicles needed to run America’s supply chains,” the report states.

The report points to a statement made by Clean Freight Coalition (CFC) that there is currently no network in the United States where truck drivers can take rest breaks and charge their EV batteries at the same time.

CFC estimates that electrifying the United States’ current commercial vehicle fleet would necessitate a $1 trillion investment.

Moreover, the International Council on Clean Transportation calculates that almost 700,000 chargers will be required to accommodate the 1 million Class 4, 6, and 8 electric trucks expected to be deployed by 2030. This alone will consume 140,000 megawatts of electricity per day, which is equivalent to the daily electricity needs of roughly 5 million U.S. homes.

Ryder’s analysis underscores the reasons EV adoption for commercial vehicles remains in its infancy. In addition to the limited support infrastructure and EV availability, the business case for converting to EV for most payload and mileage applications, is extremely challenging,” the report reads.

Robert Sanchez, chairman and CEO of Ryder, said that although the company is actively deploying EVs and charging infrastructure, it has not seen any “significant adoption” of this technology.

“For many of our customers, the business case for converting to EV technology just isn’t there yet, given the limitations of the technology and lack of sufficient charging infrastructure,” he said.

Stuttering EV Adoption​

The Ryder report comes as the Biden administration announced last month that it plans to spend nearly $1.5 billion to make the U.S. freight industry “zero-emissions.”

As part of the program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will offer $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act to cities and states “to replace Class 6 and Class 7 heavy-duty vehicles—which include school buses, trash trucks, and delivery trucks—with zero-emissions vehicles,” the White House said.

“Freight movement continues to represent a significant share of local air pollution, increasing the risk of asthma, heart disease, hospitalization, and other adverse health outcomes for the millions of Americans, especially overburdened communities, who live and work near highways, ports, railyards, warehouses, and other freight routes,” it stated.

The goal to transition to a zero-emissions freight sector “will prioritize actions to address air pollution hot spots and tackle the climate crisis, mobilizing a broad range of government resources, and reflect public participation and meaningful community engagement, furthering the President’s commitment to environmental justice for all.”

A recent report from consulting firm Roland Berger noted that full electrification of the U.S. commercial truck fleet would be an expensive affair. The cost of new electric trucks is twice or three times that of their diesel equivalents. A diesel Class 8 truck costs about $180,000, and a battery-electric truck costs more than $400,000.

Earlier, the EPA finalized the “strongest ever” greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles, a move that attracted strong criticism from trucking organizations.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association called the standards an “assault on small-business truck drivers,” who make up 96 percent of commercial motor carriers.

On April 30, Nick Nigro, the founder of Atlas Public Policy, testified at a House hearing on fleet electrification efforts, supporting such initiatives. He insisted that such a transition is crucial to protect people’s health.

“We aren’t just racing against foreign nations to lead the development of 21st-century vehicle technology,“ he said. ”We’re also in a race to mitigate the worst effects of climate change on the planet and tailpipe pollution on human health.”

The American Lung Association estimates that transitioning to zero-emission trucks could result in $735 billion in public health benefits by 2050, he noted.

In his testimony at the hearing, Taki Darakos, the vice president of vehicle maintenance and fleet service at PITT OHIO, raised concerns about the high costs involved in electrifying fleets.

The upfront costs of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) “are much higher than their diesel equivalent, making it difficult for fleets to embrace electrification until they see meaningful year-over-year upfront purchase price declines.”

The company incorporated some EVs in its fleet, and Mr. Darakos said: “Increased vehicle weight from the batteries reduced our payload and limited our usage of haul. These limitations have impacted the company’s timeline on how and when to transition to ZEV.”

The American Transportation Research Institute estimated that electrifying the entire vehicle fleet in the United States will consume 40 percent of the United States’ existing electricity generation while requiring a 14 percent overall increase in energy generation.

“Yet our aging grid can hardly meet current demands,“ Mr. Darakos said. ”In California, where rolling blackouts and brownouts are not uncommon, utilities would need to generate an additional 57 percent beyond their current output to support an electric vehicle fleet.”

He pointed out that a truck driver can refuel a new diesel truck within 15 minutes for a journey of up to 1,200 miles. However, charging an EV truck for two hours provides a range of only about 200 miles.
 
200 miles on a 2 hour charge! Likely half of that in cold weather!
Svetz will starve to death when they fail to deliver the bugz to his 15 minute city apartment.
 
What this is REALLY all about - getting rid of private transportation


First published JoNova; Remember when we used to laugh about Soviets queuing for years to purchase an automobile?

Ford threatens to restrict petrol car sales to meet the UK’s EV targets
Ford boss says ICE prices could rise as it seeks to dodge looming ZEV mandate penalty fines
by: Tom Jervis
9 May 2024
Ford could resort to limiting the sales of its petrol cars in the UK, as it struggles to meet the electric car sales targets laid down in the government’s Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate.
Introduced at the start of this year, the ZEV mandate requires manufacturers to ensure that a minimum percentage of their overall sales are battery-powered, or face fines of up to £15,000 for every ICE car sold over the limit. This year, the target is set at 22 per cent, however, while EV sales continue to grow due to fleet demand, private buyers are proving reluctant to make the transition and EV targets are looking hard to meet. According to the latest industry figures, fewer than 17 per cent of models registered in April boasted zero-emissions powertrains.
Ford, which currently only has the Mach-E in its EV passenger car line-up, is one of the manufacturers feeling the pressure. The company’s European boss of its ‘Model e’ electric car division, Martin Sander, told the Financial Times’ Future of the Car Summit: “We can’t push EVs into the market against demand. We’re not going to pay penalties. We are not going to sell EVs at huge losses just to buy compliance. The only alternative is to take our shipments of [engine-powered] vehicles to the UK down, and sell these vehicles somewhere else”.

Read more: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/...restrict-petrol-car-sales-meet-uks-ev-targets
What can I say? Unless we find a way to derail the Western march towards green communism, a system in which the government will dictate what you are allowed to buy and own, Soviet style queues and shortages are exactly what we shall all have to get used to.
 
TommySr, for them you have no value. You are a useless eater getting in the way of their megayachts, private jets and angus steak parties. You useless eater is also blocking the roads when they try to get to their party in their V12 powered sports car.
aenyc, again you are confusing me :unsure: "for them you have no value" people like me make and repair the things
they can afford. while I can't afford them, but that's on me.

but I never understood the whole "scorn for the elites" thinking. because if someone is successful by talent
or family of birth IMO does not minimize me.

I'm sure you could explain "scorn for the elites thinking" to me so I can understand your animosity .
 
Last edited:
aenyc, again you are confusing me :unsure: "for them you have no value" people like me make and repair the things
they can afford. while I can't afford them, but that's on me.

but I never understood the whole "scorn for the elites" thinking. because if someone is successful by talent
or family of birth IMO does not minimize me.

I'm sure you could explain "scorn for the elites thinking" to me.

There is no scorn. I could care less about these psychopaths if it wasnt for the agenda that they are trying to install on us, regular folks.

What's important is that you realize what is coming and what it is disguised under. So you have a chance to resist and refuse.
Just like the Covid scamdemic, those of us who have been paying attention knew the dangers of mrna vaxx (this info was available as early as 2003 when the did mouse trials (all mice died from heart problems) for the SARS1 that they were circulating). Same with cLIEmate change - its a narrative designed to make people accept the control agenda willingly, but we must refuse and resist because it is nonsense, and the very "elite" prove it themselves with their private jets, waterfront property, steak parties, prostitutes, sports cars - the list is endless - but for you they want to implement energy rationing (disguised as carbon credits or any of such nonsence), all while they completely ignore (and actually encourage) real problems - geoengineering, bioengineering, chemical pollution and the like.


The rest is noise.
 
Last edited:
You are often presenting a strawman argument Tommysr.
You are showing a megacity skyline. Cities are subjects to all kinds of "microconditions" such as Smog, etc. These things can happen at any time at any year. So your picture can show a clear sky day in 1970 and then a smoggy sky in the 1990. And vise versa. So its extremely unscientific in a traditional sense and extremely easy to disprove.

You really need to start researching things on a large enough timeline and once you do, you WILL 100% know that cLIEmate change narrative they are pushing is complete scam.
 
aenyc, I get what you are saying, but I've lived and worked the Chicago area my adult life
I've seen the changes, I've seen the improvements in air quality over the last 30 years first hand.
yes the price was high, but millions have benefited in quality of life issues IMO.
 
Last edited:
aenyc, I get what you are saying, but I've lived and worked the Chicago area my adult life
I've seen the changes, I've seen the improvements in air quality over the last 30 years first hand.

There is no doubt that ICE car technology has improved dramatically and the actual tailpipe emissions are orders of magnitudes less today than what they were in the 70s. (Manufacturing has also mostly been moved out of big cities)

What should really be taking place is open discussion such as total pollution generated by ice vs EV and if you do the research you quickly realize that EV with current battery tech is almost anti-environmental. These batteries and their manufacturing process is one of the most toxic in the history of humanity but the agenda propagandists will never tell you that. That and that there is essentially no real way to recycle them that is both technologically and economically feasible. Same for solar panels and wind turbine blades.

And then you get to the one of the most ridiculous ideas ever designed - manufacturing crap half way across the world and then SHIPPING it all the way across the world! (But suprise - it greatly benefits if you want tight control over supplies)

But that does not change the fact that cLIEmate change narrative that is being pushed on us is complete and utter scam. Start doing research and start looking at independent media, because you will NOT get the truth from mainstream media. They publish occasional bits of truth (Which independent journalists are pretty good at pointing out - from the horses' mouth), but it is getting harder and harder to find it due to shadowbanning, online "cancelling" and sensorship, but the truth is out there. And it goes completely against the cLIEmage change narrative.
 
Last edited:
And then you get to the one of the most ridiculous ideas ever designed - manufacturing crap half way across the world and then SHIPPING it all the way across the world! (But suprise - it greatly benefits if you want tight control over supplies)
aenyc, (But suprise - it greatly benefits if you want tight control over supplies) some would say there are
other intangible benefits for the world, if you notice USA rates have not increased as a result of the manufacturing shifts.

Capture499.PNG
 
Back
Top