G7 to Abandon Coal, While China Coals Ahead! By James Reed
The Group of Seven G7 nations will end the use of coal by 2030-2035, to meet the dictates of the globalist net-zero, climate change hysterics. That means the shutting down of coal-fired plants during that time. However, China is charging ahead building at present six times more coal-fired power plants than the rest of the world, and that equates to two such plants per week:
If this is not a conspiracy, to end Western industrialism for China, I will walk to China!
"Energy ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) major democracies will sign a deal to end the use of coal in power generation between 2030 and 2035, but could offer a leeway to Germany and Japan, two diplomatic sources said on Tuesday.
G7 countries will pledge to shut down their coal-fired plants in the first half of the 2030s but may also say countries could also opt for a date consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C global temperature rise within reach, the sources said.
This caveat would give room for manoeuvre to Berlin and Tokyo, whose coal-fired plants produce more than one-fourth of their total electricity, sources said.
Germany has written in its legislation a final target to shut coal plants by 2038 at the latest, while Japan has not set a date.
The agreement on coal would mark a significant step in the direction indicated last year by the COP28 United Nations climate summit to phase out fossil fuels, of which coal is the most polluting.
The G7 ministers' final communique is expected to be published in the early afternoon when ministers from Italy, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Japan will rubber stamp a technical agreement reached on Monday.
Italian Energy Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, who chairs the G7 meeting, said the ministers were also discussing potential restrictions to Russian imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe.
"The issue is on the technical and political agenda (of the G7). We are working on it, I cannot go any further... if there is a final decision I will communicate it," the minister told reporters on Monday."
The UK government is taking statutory powers for unlimited snooping on bank and building society accounts connected with receipt of social security benefits and the state pension, even when there is no suspicion of fraud. This is the latest chapter in the right-wing coup that began in the 1980s.
Millions of individuals, landlords, charities, clubs, voluntary organisations and companies will become subject to 24/7 surveillance. No court order is needed and you won't be told anything about the information extracted and how it is used or abused. There is no right of appeal.
The source of latest rush towards totalitarianism is the misleadingly titled Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. It has been passed by the House of Commons where the government used its big majority to stifle debate. It is now going through the House of Lords.
The attack on civil liberties is dressed up as a fraud prevention measure, but the government is unable to provide relevant data. The government claims that mass monitoring is needed to check benefit fraud, estimated to be around £6.4bn a year or 2.7% of the total benefit payments. Under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, the government can request information from bank accounts on a case-by-case basis, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. This is being replaced by mass surveillance of bank accounts. A Minister told parliament that "proportionately fraud in the state pension is very low", and was unable to provide any financial numbers but the government will place 12.7m retirees under surveillance.
The government claims that mass surveillance would reduce fraud by £600 million over the next five years though this somehow became £500m during the debate in the Commons, i.e. £100m-£120m a year. To put this into context, during 2023-24, the government spent £1,189bn.
Financial institutions will be paid unspecified millions to conduct mass snooping and look for cash flow sources and patterns or the level of savings, and flag people exceeding thresholds for benefits. There is a danger that gifts to loved ones to buy clothes or a new bed could be counted as income, and result in loss of benefits. The inherent assumption in the Bill is that information generated by IT systems would be correct. The Post Office scandal shows that computer generated information isn't necessarily correct, and can lead to injustices. Neither financial institutions nor the Department of Work and Pensions will owe a 'duty of care' to any injured party.
The Information Commissioner is unhappy and has stated that "the legislative measure must be drafted sufficiently tightly to expressly minimise the level of data collected and so that is clear what information will be processed and for what purpose. At this point in time, I do not feel that the drafting achieves this". Neither Clause 128 nor the accompanying Schedule 11 of the Bill provides the criteria for triggering, reporting, recording or scope of surveillance. Therefore, the government cannot easily be held to account. The Bill states that the government "may" (not "will") issue a Code of Practice to regulate disclosure of information by banks and financial institutions. It will not be part of the Bill. In any case, voluntary codes rarely empower people to exercise rights and are often unenforceable in courts.
Surveillance will apply to all bank accounts held by eligible persons. Anyone connected with the account being monitored will become subject to surveillance. For example, many people's housing benefit is paid directly to their landlord. In such cases, the landlord's immediate bank account and all other business and personal accounts too will become subject to surveillance. The only way of escaping surveillance will be for the landlord to refuse to receive the housing benefit directly. Some landlords may refuse to rent accommodation to recipients of benefits.
If the benefit is paid into a joint bank account, then all accounts of the joint account holder will come under surveillance. If the benefit is paid into the account of a friend or a family member, all their bank accounts will become subject to surveillance. If anyone holds a power of attorney to operate a bank account, then all their bank accounts too will become subject to monitoring.
Some 38% of Universal Credit claimants are in work and may run a small business. That account too will become subject to surveillance. If a person receives state pension and is simultaneously a company director of a large or small company, then that company's bank account will be monitored.
If the person under surveillance is a signatory to the bank account of a local bowling club or a line-dancing club, that too will become subject to surveillance. Many recipients of benefits voluntarily act as treasurers and trustees to small charities and are signatories to their bank accounts. Those charities too will become subject to surveillance. The only way of avoiding surveillance will be for people to withdraw from community roles."
Comments