Renewable energy is creating a new set of environmental problems

Written by Cassie B.

While climate alarmists have been pushing for the use of wind turbines, solar panels and large-scale batteries to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, they seem to be ignoring the fact that the minerals and materials that are needed to create these solutions depend on the mining industry and create environmental problems of their own.

In Australia and many other countries, mining operations being carried out to obtain the minerals needed for renewable energy solutions are leading to problems like the destruction of wilderness areas and toxic runoff into important sources of water.

In fact, creating this renewable energy seems to have the opposite effect of the green energy movement’s stated goal of reducing harm to the environment.

Saul Griffith of Re-Wiring America, a climate activist group, has called for what he termed a “massive wartime mobilization effort to transform the fossil fuel economy into a fully electrified one.”

He said: “We need to be making wind turbines 10 times as fast as we do. We need to be making solar cells 10 times as fast as we do. We need to be making batteries and electric vehicles 10 times as fast as we do today.”

However, in response to this type of pressure from climate change alarmists, some governments seem to be overlooking safety concerns in the quest to obtain more of the minerals and other materials needed to create these energy sources, such as copper, cobalt, lithium and nickel.

Environmental concerns over green energy generation growing in Australia

See here

One example of this can be seen at the Rosebery Mine in the Australian state of Tasmania, which produces copper, lead and zinc for the production of electric vehicles and wind turbines. The Tasmanian Environmental Protection authority reports that a dam erected by the mine has been leaking contaminated water for the last five years. However, their Chinese owner/operator has never been fined for these toxic leaks. In fact, they have said they want to build a new dam in the same area despite the contamination because the minerals they produce are vital for wind turbines, electric cars and solar panels.

Meanwhile, King Island, an area known in Australia for its natural beauty and high-quality cheese, kelp, oysters and beef, is about to become home to one of the biggest tungsten mines.

An open-cut mine outside of Darwin that produces lithium for electric car batteries is already affecting local waterways. Neighbors are complaining of very milky and murky waters that once flowed clear. With the mines only in the early stages, they are concerned how far the damage will go.

According to Australia’s ABC News, each electric vehicle produced needs roughly 200 kilograms of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper – which is six times more than a gas-powered vehicle needs. A wind turbine, meanwhile, needs four times the minerals a coal-fired power station requires for generating the same amount of electricity.

The most conservative forecasts by the International Energy Agency see demand for lithium growing 13-fold in the years leading up to 2040, with demand for cobalt rising at least six times, rare earth tripling and copper doubling, illustrating just how much damage may be in store for our planet.

To feed the “green dream,” it will take commercial strip mining of forests on a grand scale, fueled by slave labor and marked by vast ecological destruction. Mining materials for renewable energy are already polluting local water sources and destroying wildlife, and the problem is only likely to get worse as calls for going fully renewable ramp up. And with global sales of electric vehicles more than doubling last year and further gains expected this year, we’re in a prime position to find out just how dirty “clean” energy really is.

(In CLIMATEALARMISM.NEWS) 

Experts warn that UN failure to ban slaughterbots could spell the end of humanity

Written by Cassie B.

See here

Experts in military strategy and artificial intelligence are raising the alarm after a UN conference did not reach an agreement on banning the use of so-called slaughterbots at a recent meeting in Geneva.

Slaughterbots is the name that has been given to weapons that can select and apply force to targets without using any human intervention. These weapons make their decisions using a series of algorithms in artificial intelligence software. Capable of hunting and striking targets without any input from controllers, their technology is growing so fast that many fear societies and governments have not taken the time to fully consider the dangers.

This year, for the first time, most of the 125 nations in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons called for new laws governing the killer robots. However, some countries opposed the measure, such as the U.S. and Russia, both of whom are known to be working on developing such weapons. Other nations that objected included India, Australia and the UK, with some arguing that continuing the development of these killer robots is vital to avoid having a strategic disadvantage.

The leader of the Future of Life Institute’s advocacy program on autonomous weapons, Emilia Javorsky, called the group’s failure to reach an agreement an “epic failure.”

She added: “It is now blatantly clear this forum — whose unanimity requirement makes it easily derailed by any state with a vested interest — is utterly incapable of taking seriously, let alone meaningfully addressing, the urgent threats posed by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.”

Unfortunately, time appears to be running out as slaughterbots are already being used in some places on the battlefield. For example, a UN report published this spring showed that STM Kargu drones have been used in the Libyan civil war. These small, portable rotary wing attack drones have precision strike capabilities and were used to hunt down soldiers who were retreating.

The companies that are developing the drones are working on AI systems that will be able to find a human target’s thermal signature or even identify people’s faces using a camera. However, they seem to lack some of the accuracy needed to make the distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant.

These weapons could be easy for anyone to obtain

The STM drones are among the most worrying for many officials, not least because of their resemblance to a normal consumer drone. They are fairly inexpensive, easy to mass produce, and can be equipped with guns. Some experts have warned that this accessibility means that gangs and other criminals could try to use them.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Max Tegmark believes we’re headed for the “worst possible outcome.” He said: “That’s going to be the weapon of choice for basically anyone who wants to kill anyone. A slaughterbot would basically be able to anonymously assassinate anybody who’s pissed off anybody.”

Tegmark told The Sun some of the ways this technology could be used. For example, he pointed out that if slaughterbots cost the same as AK-47s, drug cartels would use the bots to evade getting caught when they kill people. He also said that a judge with lots of bodyguards could still be killed by one of these if it was flown into their bedroom window while they were sleeping.

Macalester College Professor James Dawes said: “It is a world where the sort of unavoidable algorithmic errors that plague even tech giants like Amazon and Google can now lead to the elimination of whole cities.”

“The world should not repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the nuclear arms race. It should not sleepwalk into dystopia,” he added.

There’s no way it can end well when you let machines that are prone to unpredictable errors make their own decisions about who to kill. If these artificial intelligence weapons were to be equipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads, they could even wipe out humanity.

(In ROBOT.NEWS)

See here 

WHO corruption is one of the biggest threats to public health – and its power may be about to expand like never before

Written by Cassie B.

See here

In recent years, many problems have been presented as posing the biggest threat to public health of our time, from antibiotic resistance to the pandemic and the effects of vaccines. However, we can’t ignore another threat that has the potential to do far more damage than any of those issues on their own: the World Health Organization.

By now, it is clear that the WHO colluded with China to spread misinformation about COVID-19. Their slow response and initial downplaying of the pandemic are being blamed for the disease’s quick spread in the early days. Initially, they echoed the official party line from Beijing that there was little to no risk of the virus being transmitted among humans, despite there being plenty of evidence to contrary. Even when nearby Taiwan warned about the disease’s propensity to spread, they refused to take action. Millions of people traveled to and from Wuhan at the time, and we all know how that ended up.

Despite hospitals in Wuhan overflowing with patients and medical supplies running out, the WHO claimed it was too early to declare it a public health emergency, refusing to restrict travel and trade. It wouldn’t be until several months later, on March 11, that they declared coronavirus a pandemic, even while continuing to praise China for its handling of the disease. The situation was so appalling that President Trump directed his administration to stop funding the organization while reviewing its handling of the pandemic and then pulled the U.S. out of the WHO altogether.

However, one of Joe Biden’s first acts as president was retracting that withdrawal, recommitting the country to full participation in the WHO and the financial obligations that come with it. Unfortunately, this gives them the power to continue to threaten public health in many ways.

Proposed amendments to International Health Regulations are causing major concerns

One of the biggest concerns right now, however, are amendments proposed by the WHO to the International Health Regulations, or IHR, to set up a globalist architecture of health surveillance, reporting and management. The public, not surprisingly, will not be allowed to provide any input regarding the amendments, in direct violation of the basic concept of democracy.

See here

The IHR, which were adopted by the WHO’s 194 member states in 2005, allow the body to declare what is known as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or PHEIC, if an infectious disease outbreak takes place in a member state, but it currently must be done with the consent of the state in question.

The proposed amendments, however, allow the WHO Director-General to control the declaration of public health emergencies in any member state, even if they object, completely ignoring the sovereignty of the nations involved.

The amendments would also give WHO regional directors authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC) wherever they choose. The Director-General will also be granted the power to declare an Intermediate Public Health Alert.

Increased surveillance and secret sources among the proposed amendments

Part of the proposal is an amendment to Article 5 of the IHR that will increase surveillance to develop risk assessments, using the types of predictions and modeling that exaggerated Covid risks a few years ago and sent the world into panic mode.

Article 9, meanwhile, allows WHO to rely on undisclosed sources for the information they use to declare public health emergencies. There are fears that pharmaceutical companies and major WHO donors like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation could have undue power over how countries operate. This influence is already seen in the body’s biased drug recommendations and lists of “essential medicines.”

The significant influence of private money at the corrupt WHO prompted a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy to declare the body’s corruption the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time” – and it may be about to get worse.

(In SURVEILLANCE.NEWS)

See here, here, here, and here

See here and here

See here and here

See here

See here and here

See here

Study of 145 countries finds sharp rise in virus transmission and death AFTER introduction of Covid vaccines

Written by Cassie B.

See here

Despite growing awareness of the risks of COVID-19 vaccines, many people are willing to take their chances in hopes of slashing their odds of getting severely ill or dying from COVID-19. However, those who are calculating the risk versus reward might want to keep a recent study in mind that indicates an association between the vaccines and a higher rate of COVID-19 infections and deaths.

The study, Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of 145 Countries, essentially found that vaccines are doing precisely the opposite of what everyone hoped they would accomplish.

As the title indicates, this was not a small study; it involved analyzing data from 145 countries, and the conclusions are mind-blowing: The vaccines were associated with a 38 percent rise in the number of Covid cases per million in the U.S. and a 31 percent rise in the number of deaths per million associated with Covid. And it’s not the only one to reach this conclusion; many other studies have shown that the overall situation seems to get worse, not better, with more vaccination.

Overall, the study found that 89.94 percent of the 145 countries studied experienced a rise in total deaths per million associated with Covid as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines, while 86.78 percent of countries noted a rise in total cases per million of the virus as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines.

The study reports: “Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 [variable chosen for deaths per million] or y2 [variable chosen for cases per million] over and above what would have been expected with no treatment.” 

See here

The study reached its findings after carrying out a causal analysis that compared pre- and post-treatment periods to determine the differences in cases and deaths since the vaccines were implemented using publicly available COVID-19 data. After eliminating the results from countries that had incomplete data or very low vaccination rates, they came up with 128 countries that had sufficient data on deaths and 103 for examining total cases, for a total of 145 unique countries.

Interestingly, the countries that noted the fewest Covid deaths in 2020 saw the biggest jumps in cases and deaths after the introduction of the vaccine, with some noting rises of as much as 1,000 percent. Some of the countries that fared the worst in this regard include Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Seychelles, Cambodia and Mongolia.

It’s a very disheartening finding, particularly for the many people who got these vaccines because they believed what governments around the world were telling us: that getting vaccinated would help the world get back to normal and allow people to enjoy their freedoms. In many cases, people who had serious reservations about the potential risks of the jabs got them anyway because they faced losing their jobs and livelihoods. The vaccines were supposed to bring infections and deaths down, not up.

It’s time for a new approach

The study suggests a new approach to dealing with the pandemic: “These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns.”

While there’s a lot more money to be made from giving the entire population vaccines followed by endless boosters, the only real way out of this is finding safe and effective prevention and treatments. From communicating the importance of having sufficient levels of nutrients to acknowledging the efficacy of treatments like Ivermectin, there is much more that could be done right now to alleviate the pandemic than focusing on vaccines that aren’t living up to their promises.

(In VACCINNES.NEWS)

See here and here

See here

ZERO FREEDOM: “Zero COVID” strategy will see Australians lose freedoms, face jail time for entering shops without a vaccine passport

Written by Cassie B.

See here and here

Australia’s new zero COVID strategy is being used by the government to restrict people’s participation in society, and leaders of the state of New South Wales announced in a press briefing this week that unvaccinated people are going to lose their freedoms next month.

In the announcement of updated COVID protocols they’re calling a “blueprint for freedom,” NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced that residents who are vaccinated can enjoy a list of “extra freedoms” when the state reaches an 80 percent vaccination rate.

The state, which is home to Australia’s most populous city, Sydney, had already set a 70 percent threshold goal that would open up certain freedoms to people who are vaccinated. These include the ability to have up to five visitors in a person’s own home as long as all the adults there are vaccinated and up to 20 people in outdoor gatherings. Those who get vaccinated will be able to attend weddings and funerals of up to 50 guests, but eating and drinking may only take place there while seated. They will also be allowed to attend churches and places of worship, but singing will not be allowed. In addition, those who are vaccinated will be allowed to go to hospitality venues and retail stores as well as personal services such as hair salons, gyms, indoor recreation facilities and sporting facilities. However, all of this must be done while wearing a mask.

The list of updated “freedoms” that are being granted when they reach the 80 percent mark will include the ability to travel freely anywhere within the NSW state, allowing up to 10 visitors in a private residence, no limits on attendance of funerals and weddings, the ability to stand up and drink at bars, and gatherings of up to 20 people outdoors.

When these restrictions come into effect on October 11 for the state of NSW, unvaccinated people will not only lose access to “new” freedoms tied to the reopening, but they will also lose some freedoms that they are currently enjoying, particularly those in areas of regional and rural NSW that are currently already open.

Deputy Premier John Barilaro said: “So there will be individuals in regional and rural New South Wales who choose not to be vaccinated who will lose their freedoms on the 11th of October.”

Berejiklian said that people who do not get vaccinated will be barred entry to restaurants, entertainment venues and shops even after the state has lifted all restrictions pertaining to them in December. She said: “Life for the unvaccinated will be very difficult indefinitely.”

Jail time a possibility for those who do not produce vaccine passports

Unvaccinated residents of NSW who try to enter businesses without the required vaccine passports have been warned that they could face jail time for their actions. Leaders have said that the policing of vaccine passports should not be up to businesses; instead, the focus should be on individual compliance.

He told the media: “If people want to do the wrong thing, if they get found out, as I said, it could be jail time there.”

Some business owners have expressed concerns that employees could be attacked by people who are denied access to their shops over the new rules and are worried about the economic impact of excluding some members of society from the reopening.

The current Delta variant outbreaks being seen in some parts of Australia have divided leaders of its states and territories. Some leaders in relatively virus-free areas of the country have indicated they will defy federal plans to reopen internal borders when the adult population reaches 80 percent full vaccination, which is expected in November.

(in VACCINES.NEWS)

See here, here and here