Energy / Energie

French Ex President Sarkozy accepted about 50 Mio USD from Libya’s (killed 2011 by rebel groups) dictator Gaddafi as “friendship gift” which he spend in the 2007 election campaign to win presidency by 53.1%.

Of course General Gaddafi ruled Libya with a iron fist and now another General tries to take power and brought war back to Libya.

General Haftar Attack of Tripoli escalates civil war in splintered Libya

04/11/2019  By Bob Tippee

New York Times: blocks proposed draft statement calling for halt to Libyan National Army offensive around . EU will now attempt to draft new statement.

The French oil company TOTAL is operating in Libya

and Gaddafi’s removal was very much in their interest.

When insurgents surged (maybe started by US CIA and  backed by the US) France stepped in with it’s Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to drop even more bombs on Gaddafi – for the single purpose to directly extract the oil from the ground without a middleman.

March 2, 2018 / 8:30 AM:

Oil major TOTAL expands in Libya, buys U.S. Marathon‘s Waha stake for $450 million

The sideffects of this greedy tactic: the refugee crisis of 2015

which swept accross europe and the resulting boost for right-wing parties accross europe. (Poland is strictly Catholic, while massively profiting from EU investments, did not accept ANY refugees)

While Sarkozy is himself a centre-right politician – so i guess it is the old game: greedy eats brains.

Macron will probably be the last elected president of France, Le Pen will kill democracy in France – Sarkozy and TOTAL are to blame.

Just look at this horrible video from calais and you know why – 30.000 migrants try to cross over from France to UK, but are stuck in France for years.

Merkel ‘Fed up With Erdogan Blackmailing Germany’ With Refugee Deal

Mrs Merkel had to bribe Erdogan to keep the refugees in his country.

The people that flee are mostly – young male black that steal and rape.

And the European governments just don’t know what to do.

“GOOD JOB” all involved.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.[1][2]

Hillary Clinton argued that, though arming anti-Gaddafi forces was not being proposed at the time, it would be legal to do so.[5]

(src: Wikipedia)

it seems NATO and was involved, Canadian Lt. Gen Charles Bouchard, WTF!? SERIOUSLY!

HERE YOU CAN SEE AGAIN: NATO IS A PROBLEM – NOT A SOLUTION!

Canada, want some refugees?

Military intervention in Libya began on 19 March, as fighter jets of the French Air Force destroyed several pro-Gaddafi vehicles advancing on rebel stronghold Benghazi. U.S. and British submarines then fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets throughout Libya, severely disabling the regime’s air defense capability and allowing a wider enforcement of the no-fly zone to begin. A coalition of 10 states from Europe and the Middle East initially participated in the intervention, later expanding to 17. On 31 March, NATO assumed command of the operation. The intervention succeeded in preventing pro-Gaddafi forces from capturing Benghazi.[16]

On 24 August, it was acknowledged for the first time that special forces troops from Britain,[17] Italy, France, Jordan, Qatar,[18] and the UAE[18] had intervened on the ground in Libyan territory, stepping up operations in Tripoli and other cities.[19] This has been questioned as a possible violation of Resolution 1973[20] although the use of special forces is not prohibited by the resolution.

Noam Chomsky has argued that the Western military intervention into Libya was a clear breach of UNSCR 1973 since it nullified the attempts for a ceasefire that were put forward by the resolution and welcomed by Gaddafi. As he puts it, “NATO powers (France and Britain in the lead and the United States following) violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for “all necessary steps” to protect civilians, but there’s a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels.” [21]

(src: wikipedia)

IT IS SICKENING and might even result in many Hitlers 2.0 coming to power all across Europe

All for a little oil.

HURRAY!

“Businessman Ziad Takiéddine arrives at the anti-corruption police office in Nanterre, France, on November 17, 2016, for a hearing after admitting

he delivered three cash-stuffed suitcases from Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy”

src: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/28/sarkozy-gaddafi-libya-bombing/

About Sarkozy:

He won the French presidential election, 2007 by a 53.1% to 46.9% margin to Socialist Ségolène Royal. During his term, he faced the late-2000s financial crisis (causing a recession and the European sovereign debt crisis) and the Arab Spring (especially in Tunisia, Libya, and Syria). He initiated the reform of French universities (2007) and the pension reform (2010).

He was the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party from 2004 to 2007.

UK/Blair’s role:

  1. Blair’s ultimatum on Libya

In February 2011 Tony Blair’s assistant Catherine Rimmer, emailed Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, enclosing a copy of notes from Blair’s recent personal call with Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi. At this time, the US and UK were on the verge of going to war with Libya, claiming that the Libyan leader was promoting civilian massacres in his country. Blair was by now out of UK office and was Middle East Envoy for the UN but had personal relations with Gadaffi over a number of years. Rimmer noted:

Mr Blair wanted me to let you know that he is making these calls very privately and is not briefing the media”. Rimmer stated that “Tony Blair delivered a very strong message to Gaddafi that the violence had to end and that he had to stand aside to allow a peaceful process to take place”.[35]

Blair went further, however. The notes of the call show that Blair specifically threatened Gadaffi with war unless he stand down. He told Gadaffi: “The US and the EU are in a tough position right now and I need to take something back to them which ensures this ends peacefully”.[36] This call was made on 25 February. Three weeks later, on 19 March, the US and UK began bombing Libya.

The outcome was disastrous for the people of Libya, plunging the country into lawlessness in which ungoverned spaces new terrorist forces arose while Libya became a dangerous transit hub for refugees seeking to reach Europe.

src: defend.wikileaks.org

Links:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkozy-police-custody-french-president-campaign-funding-libya

https://www.france24.com/en/20180321-sarkozy-placed-under-formal-investigation-illegal-campaign-financing-libya-gaddafi

http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/europeennes-les-republicains-attendent-un-geste-de-sarkozy-12-04-2019-8051634.php#xtor=AD-1481423553

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sarkozy?f=tweets&vertical=default

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Libya?f=tweets&vertical=default

 

Prof Dr Altvater: capitalism will not collapse

“As long as nature plays with us, as long as we do not provoke the ecological disaster, this cannot be ruled out”

“who is supposed to buy German exports, if the Euro zone is financially defect”

Solar cells for peace – dependence on oil

Germany – despite massive throtteling of subsidies – reached 50% of renewable electricity in 2019 (not heating, not transport, only light bulbs).

It is impressive – but it should be only the beginning/a first step towards 100% renewable electricity (that Denmark already did).

But German energy companies fear for their future and profits and thus engage in even heavier lobbying against more subsidies for renewables – practically silencing the government.

It is yet to be seen if higher electricity prices (currently 0.26Cent to 0.30Cent per 1kWh) even support investments into renewables (a lot of new houses are build with small battery + solar packages, that generate 60% of the electricity the house needs) or not.

Solar technology for warm water (thermal) and electricity absolutely make sense and the technology’s quality has developed so it can be seen as long term investment of 15-30 years with hopefully little maintenance costs.

Peak-Oil is over – although ever better techniques for oil demand are developed (Fracking, oil sand) and new oil sources are found (North Pole), but the end is still foreseeable

This is why the statement “the oil will go out” is practically wrong – but the oil that can be produced affordable – becomes less and less.

Of course, predictions in this direction are “wild guess” / rough estimates, because you can not know, if oil of the North Pole can not be produced by new technology cost-effectively.

However, a fact is quite certain:

  • it will be more expensive and expensive to promote oil, because the easily accessible sources have slipped out in the foreseeable future.
    • One cannot rely on engineers to solve all problems for us at all times.
  • Oil is a weapon against (industry)nations that depend on crude oil

short lived Fracking:

The massive Fracking processes in the US, could be “at the end” in 2025.

If less producable oil sources are found than existing oil with existing technologies is sucked out, the end is foreseeable.

Or, as Elon Musk says: If it has no sustainability – will stop it.

In 2011, Mercedes drove hydrogen around the planet – in order to demonstrate the everyday suitability of the technology-since then?

Not much/almost no move in transport has been made by governments and car manufactuerers. (except Toyota)

Elon’s rockets already fly with hydrogen and oxygen – but what is the logistics/transport sector, everyone is still completely dependent on the “black Gold” – a migration to natural gas would be a start. (also pretty much ignored by govs and car companies)

2006: war of the currcencies: Prof Dr Elmar Altvater: Dollar and Euro-in competition for oil?

“So the US can continue to buy the lifeblood of its economy with its own currency.

The Federal Reserve printing house turns into a”bubbling oil spring”.”…

“Is Europe supposed to engage in a monetary war?

Better not, because the consequences are negative for all involved, there is an Alternative:

Development of solar energies, especially since they do not have supply lines that need to be costly militarily guarded and do not heat up the climate.

This could also be the longer-term European response to the challenges of a monetary war for the oil currency.

If this direction is not reversed, the Dollar imperialism could be replaced by some form of short-lived Euro-imperialism, as it must be assumed.”

Conclusion: The currency war has not yet broken out.

“However, currency competition in a bipolar currency system has risen considerably.

This is problematic because the supply of the world economy with its own currency brings Seignorage benefits, especially when the oil price is invoiced in its own currency.

Since the finite nature of oil resources has been of interest not only to ecologists, but as a fact in the strategic considerations of future energy supply (Cheney report of 2001 or NATO security concept of 1999), the importance of the function of a central currency as an oil currency has been recognised.

As long as there was no Alternative for the US$, this Problem was rather subordinate, as the oil crisis of 1973 had shown very clearly.

But at the beginning of the new century, the Euro was an alternative, and therefore, the conflict over the invoicing of oil is inevitable.

To avoid this conflict is only possible through a long-term policy of turning away from oil and promoting alternative (solar) energy sources.

These can only be developed on a decentralised basis, the long logistics transport chains are eliminated, and therefore they do not need to be backed up militarily.

The development of solar energy is supported by ecological reasons, but also by peace policy.”

Translated from source: https://www.sid-berlin.de/files/2006_07_Altvater.pdf

Prof Dr Altvater: Der Kapitalismus wird nicht zusammen brechen

“So lange die Natur mit spielt, so lange wir nicht die ökologische Katastrophe provozieren, das ist nicht auszuschließen”

Solarzellen für den Frieden – Erdöl Abhängigkeit

Peak-Oil is over – es werden zwar immer bessere Techniken zur Ölforderung entwickelt (Fracking, Ölsand) und neue Ölquellen gefunden (Nordpol), aber das Ende ist trotzdem absehbar.

Deswegen ist quasi die Aussage “das Eröl wird ausgehen” falsch – aber das Erdöl welches sich bezahlbar fördern lässt – wird weniger und weniger.

Natürlich sind Vorhersagen in dieser Richtung “wild guess” / grobe Schätzungen, weil man nicht wissen kann, ob Erdöl des Nordpols nicht doch, durch neue Technik kosten-effektiv gefördert werden kann.

Doch ein Faktum ist ziemlich sicher:

  • Es wird teurer und teurer Öl zu Fördern, weil die leicht zugänglichen Quellen in absehbarer Zeit ausgelutscht sind.
    • Man kann sich nicht darauf verlassen, dass Ingenieure ALLE Probleme für uns IMMER lösen können.
  • Erdöl ist eine Waffe gegen (Industrie)Nationen welche von Erdöl abhängig sind

Dazu zählen: die massiven Fracking-Vorgänge in den USA, welche aber 2025 “am Ende” sein könnten.

Wird weniger förder-würdiges Erdöl gefunden als existierende ausgesaugt, ist das Ende absehbar.

Oder wie Elon Musk es sagt: Wenn es keine Nachhaltigkeit hat – wird es aufhören.

2011 ist Mercedes mit Wasserstoff um den Planeten gefahren – um die Alltagstauglichkeit der Technologie zu demonstrieren – seit dem? Seit dem hat man von der Zukunfts-Technologie nichts mehr gehört. (ausser von Toyota)

Seine Raketen fliegen jetzt schon mit Wasserstoff und Sauerstoff – aber was das Logistik/Transportwesen an geht, sind wir immer noch komplett Abhängig mit dem “schwarzen Gold” – eine Migration zu Erdgas wäre schon mal ein Anfang.

2006: Prof Dr Elmar Altvater: Dollar und Euro – in Konkurrenz um Erdöl?

“Die USA können also auch weiterhin den Lebenssaft ihrer Ökonomie mit ihrer
eigenen Währung kaufen.

Die Druckerei der Federal Reserve verwandelt sich in eine
„sprudelnde Ölquelle“.”

“Soll Europa sich auf einen Währungskrieg einlassen?

Besser nicht, denn die Konsequenzen sind für alle Beteiligten negativ, zumal es eine Alternative gibt.

Diese heißt:

Entwicklung der solaren Energien, zumal diese nicht den Nachteil der fossilen Energieträger haben, dass sie das Klima aufheizen.

Dies könnte auch die längerfristige europäische Antwort auf die Herausforderungen eines Währungskriegs um die Ölwährung sein.

Wenn nicht in diese Richtung umgesteuert wird, findet nur ein Austausch des Dollar-Imperialismus durch einen wie auch immer gearteten

Euro-Imperialismus statt – mit kurzer Halbwertzeit, wie vermutet werden muss.

Fazit: Der Währungskrieg ist noch nicht ausgebrochen.

Doch hat sich die Währungskonkurrenz in einem bipolaren Währungssystem erheblich zugespitzt.

Dies ist deshalb problematisch, weil die Versorgung der Weltwirtschaft mit der eigenen Währung Seignorage-Vorteile bringt, insbesondere wenn in der eigenen Währung der Ölpreis fakturiert wird. Seitdem die Endlichkeit der Ölressourcen nicht nur Ökologen interessiert, sondern als Faktum in die strategischen Überlegungen der
zukünftigen Energieversorgung (Cheney-Bericht von 2001 oder NATO-Sicherheitskonzept von 1999) eingeht, ist die Bedeutung der Funktion einer
Leitwährung als Ölwährung erkannt.

Solange es für den US$ keine Alternative gab, war dieses Problem eher nachrangig, wie die Ölkrise von 1973 sehr deutlich gezeigt hatte.

Mit dem Euro ist aber zu Beginn des neuen Jahrhunderts eine Alternative
entstanden, und daher ist der Konflikt um die Fakturierung des Öls unvermeidlich.

Diesem Konflikt auszuweichen, ist nur möglich durch eine langfristig angelegte
Politik der Abkehr vom Öl und der Förderung alternativer (solarer) Energieträger.

Diese können nur dezentral erschlossen werden, die langen logistischen
Transportketten entfallen und daher müssen sie auch nicht militärisch gesichert
werden.

Für die Entwicklung der solaren Energie sprechen ökologische, aber
inzwischen auch friedenspolitische Gründe.”

Quelle: https://www.sid-berlin.de/files/2006_07_Altvater.pdf

Backup der Quelle / download mirror:

Quelle: 2006_07_Altvater – Von der Währungskonkurrenz zum Währungskonflikt – Was passiert wenn das Erdöl nicht mehr in Dollar sondern in Euro fakturiert wird – Elmar Altvater.pdf

Über Prof Dr “Elmar Altvater:

Prof Dr “Elmar Altvater (* 24. August 1938 in Kamen; † 1. Mai 2018 in Berlin) war ein deutscher Politikwissenschaftler, Autor und Professor für Politikwissenschaft am Otto-Suhr-Institut der FU Berlin. Nach der Emeritierung am 30. September 2004 war Altvater in Forschung und Lehre am Institut weiterhin aktiv. Außerdem war er Mitglied im wissenschaftlichen Beirat von Attac.”

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmar_Altvater

Competition – THE key word for many economists for

  • progress defined as:
    • (hopefully) cheaper product prices
    • (hopefully) more innovative products

I would argue that “more competition” “more free trade” does not solve the problem – if the monetary system is fundamentally broken or in other words: no matter how cheap the product – if people have no money to buy them.

“Competition is good, but having only competition is not good” (Bernhard Lietaer, 2015)

This is unsustainable and asking for trouble

Free trade zones (EU, Euro, NAFTA, TTIP) and the abolition of customs duties serve solely to intensify competition.

It brings companies from different countries that do the same/produce the same (e.g. corn or cars) in even more direct conflict with each other without a tariff firewall – while at the same time – all the local laws and regulations are still in place – so it’s an unfair competition.

This in fact – leads to closing down of many companies that can not compete.

EU = Euro = Free Trade Zone, increases misery and sparks anger in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal but also France and UK

One example are German Solar Panel producers (could not compete with China, especially not after they bought machines from Germany to manufacturer solar panels of even higher quality) so they had to close down – now basically ALL solar panels and batteries sold in Germany come from Asia – is this good?

Good for Asia not sooo good for Germany – at least Germans now can enjoy cheaper solar power having become very competing with local power costs of up to 30Cents per 1kWh! (experts calculated 1kWh of solar power has “ownership” costs of 11Cents and falling, if quality of all parts is well done, a 10.000€ investment in solar + battery is necessary per household, so most people can produce 60% of their electricity themselves for the next 30 years)

the Berlin (fire)wall

A lot of East-German companies were closed down straight after the fall of the Berlin (fire)wall – West-German companies did not want to have more competition in the same country/free trade zone.

this is the “creative destruction” that also lead to the economic downfall of East-Germany and 30 years later – unemployment is still way higher than in West-Germany, still people flee these countries, it has not recovered to old strengths – this form of (more or less creative) “destruction”/demolition/closing down of East-German companies was and is a catastrophe for East and West-Germany.

No more people vote far-right in East-Germany than in West-Germany – for exactly this reason.

So i guess we have to decide – more profits at any costs – or engage in more sustainable ways of conduct – after all the next financial crisis will come because it’s the fundamental defects of the debt-money system are not fixed (except maybe in Canada, because the government of Canada has a law that says, the (cash printing) Central Bank of Canada HAS to buy state-bonds – no matter what)).

The EU:

If Kohl and Mitterrand argued (both fathers of the EU and the Euro) – that the EU is a peace project – he just increased amount of conflicts by this free trade zone.

It is not called a free trade zone but that is exactly what it is.

Now highly in debt south states (Greece, Italy, Spain) lost the free trade whoever has more slaves and the cheaper economy game to the North and everybody is angry and the whole thing creates a lot of anger.

The EU-project has shutdown all trade-firewalls across Europe (Switzerland was not that stupid) and with every free trade deal, trade-firewalls with USA, Japan and China are gradually shut down – also hurting German companies that (just as US companies) are paying their people a higher wage than Chinese companies would do.

So the state itself abolishes all means to protect their companies and hopes that everything will regulate itself.

What happens is – when one company has won the competition – the other company needs to close down – resulting in mass unemployment.

Trump still firmly believes in capitalism, but apparently no longer in globalization as means to bring mankind forward (or at least reduce US debt).

Trump restarts the US-trade-Firewalls because he realizes that US is losing the economic war against the Rest of the world.

This economy is unfortunately a war like situation – often not played with fair means. (China is very strategically buying up Western companies with state-loans, that would be like: Amazon gets a governmental loan to buy/take over Alibaba and expand it’s monopoly)

So free trade increases monopolies – also not good.

Even if Greek cars – can not immediately compete with German cars – they should build their own cars – just to be independent from a maybe soon to be dysfunctional monopolistic car manufacturer market – but yes – also to create jobs and build skills.

NAFTA has brought Mexican corn farmers (a lot of manual labor, little machines and chemicals) in DIRECT TRADE CONFLICT with U.S. corn farmers (a lot of automation/machines and chemicals) with devastating consequences.

Competition is good, but having only competition is not good” (Bernhard Lietaer, 2015)

i never quiet understood while every small farmer and small shop keeper “Aunt Emma” has to be brought into compete with all farmers and shop keepers of this world?

I would argue it results in:

Right now the German health care system (thanks to our stupid and corrupt politician puppets and their “advisors” (evil influencers)) get’s sold – just as it’s democracy.

Politicians changed 4 words in a law, and now German HealthCare becomes more privatized and monolithic.

A lot of small doctors will have to close their practice and tell the patients, sorry i mean “customers” or “products”, to take a longer road trip of 100km to the next doctor-HQ, where 100x doctors work in one practice.

More travel costs for the patient but of course – when 100x doctors share the same house and machines – they can “process” more patients per day and hour.

German Supermarkets Aldi and Lidl – do it just like their customers – they only offer few products but in massive quantities.

The small companies vanish the big get bigger – but not every small shop keeper will travel 100km a day to work for the big players.

forget your nice theories about reality. they do not work and are at best “mistakes” and at worst blatant lies that will hurt and anger many many people.

If you want more anger keep going!

Most Lethal Competition: war