New York On The March To Climate Utopia
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | January 2, 2025
In a post a couple of weeks ago on December 21, I observed that the country of Germany appeared to have won the race among all countries and states to be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” Its pursuit of the “renewable” wind and solar electricity fantasy has put it in a spot where regular wind/sun droughts cause huge electricity price spikes, and major industries have become uncompetitive. It has no solution to its dead end, and can go no farther.
If Germany has “hit the wall,” what is the appropriate analogy for New York? New York passed its Climate Act with great fanfare in 2019. The Act orders that we are to have a “net zero” energy system by 2050, with interim deadlines along the way. The first serious deadline arrives in 2030, where the official mandate is 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” (aka “70 x 30”). That deadline is now just five years away. Within the past year, all the efforts to move toward the 70 x 30 goal are falling apart, as anybody who had given the subject any critical thought knew that they inevitably would. But nobody in authority has yet been willing to acknowledge that this has turned into a farce.
Here’s my analogy: New York is like the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote, who has run off the cliff and is now suspended in mid-air, apparently not knowing what will happen next.
We know what’s next: shortly, he will crash to earth.
Consider a few data points:
Off-shore wind procurement
The Scoping Plan developed under the Climate Act calls for some 9000 MW of offshore wind by 2035. People with elementary-school-level arithmetic skills knew that this amount of intermittent generation would not be nearly enough to replace the amounts of dispatchable generation set to close; but maybe this would at least be a serious start. By early 2023, it was reported that some 4300 MW out of the 9000 MW were in “active development,” with wholesale prices having been agreed to with developers in the range of $100/MWh.
But then reality started to hit. In this post on October 15, 2023 I reported that “essentially all” of the developers of the 4300 MW of off-shore wind in “active development” had backed out and demanded price increases in the range of 30 – 50% to proceed. New York rejected that maneuver, but ultimately had no option other than to re-bid the contracts and get bids in the range that the developers were demanding.
On February 29, 2024, the State announced that it had accepted re-bids for two of the projects in question, for a total of only about 1700 MW and at a price of over $150 per MWh. (This level of price would require retail electricity prices in the range of at least $0.40 per kWh and would be completely uneconomic if it were to become the norm for New York electricity production.).
Meanwhile, the remainder of the offshore wind procurement appears to be in complete disarray. On April 19, E&E News reported that New York had canceled efforts on three of its big offshore wind development areas, Attentive Energy, Community Offshore Wind, and Excelsior Wind. These three, had they proceeded, would have totaled about 4000 MW out of the 9000 MW 2035 goal. Excerpt:
New York canceled power contracts for three offshore wind projects Friday, citing a turbine maker’s plans to scrap its biggest machines. The news is a heavy blow to the U.S. offshore wind industry and a major setback for the climate ambitions of New York — and President Joe Biden. The three projects would have delivered 4 gigawatts of offshore wind to the state, amounting to almost half of New York’s 2035 goal.
At this point nobody has any idea how to get large amounts of offshore wind developed around New York at a price anybody is willing to pay. And of course, nobody has a solution to the intermittency problem either.
Green hydrogen
The New York regulators have recognized that a de-carbonized and predominantly wind/solar electricity generation system will require something called the “dispatchable emissions-free resource,” or DEFR, to make it work. The best idea that anybody has for the DEFR is so-called “green” hydrogen, that is, hydrogen produced by some non-emitting system, like wind, solar, or hydro.
Currently, only negligible amounts of green hydrogen are produced in the world, and none in New York. But somehow, New York got the idea that it could make this work. Two green hydrogen facilities have been granted state subsidies and are supposedly under way. One is being developed by a company called Plug Power, and is at an industrial park called STAMP west of Rochester; and the other is being developed by Air Products at Massena, on the St. Lawrence River. Both of these facitilities are almost comically small relative to the amounts of hydrogen that would be needed to fully back up New York’s electricity generation in a world of mostly wind and solar generation. But at least they would be something.
On October 18, the Batavian reported that the Plug Power hydrogen facility was “on pause.” Excerpt:
Chris Suozzi, VP for business and workforce development at the Genesee County Economic Development Center, reportedly told a Washington, D.C.-based commercial real estate firm that Plug Power’s STAMP project is on hold. . . . “They’re not ready to go,” Suozzi reportedly said. “They’re on pause. We don’t know what’s going to happen with them at this point.”
The pausing or cancellation of a green hydrogen project should surprise no one. The past year has seen major cancellations of much larger such projects by big players like Australia’s Fortescue and Origin. The fact is that the cost of producing green hydrogen is a large multiple of the cost of getting natural gas out of the ground for the same energy content, besides which natural gas is a much superior fuel in every way (higher energy density, easier to handle, less corrosive, less subject to leaks, far less dangerous and explosive, etc.). Meanwhile, the developer of the STAMP green hydrogen project, Plug Power, reported as its results for the third quarter of 2024 a loss of $211 million on revenues of $174 million. They are hoping for a loan from the federal Department of Energy to keep themselves going. I wonder what Chris Wright is going to think about that.
The Air Products facility in Massena plans to use hydro power from a dam on the St. Lawrence to produce its hydrogen. Excuse me? The hydro power is already dispatchable. How can it possibly make any sense to use dispatchable electricity to produce hydrogen whose purpose is to make dispatchable electricity? At least about 40% of the energy is going to get lost on the round trip from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. It simply has to be that there is a better use for the St. Lawrence River hydro power than turning it into hydrogen and then using the hydrogen. But nothing here makes any sense.
Clean Path Transmission Line
Another key facility to make renewable energy work for New York was supposed to be the Clean Path transmission line. This is a proposed 175-mile high-capacity (4 GW) transmission line to bring to New York City and the downstate region power generated at various new “renewable” (wind and solar) facilities being developed in the northern and western parts of the state. The stated cost of this major project was to be $11 billion.
On November 27, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority informed the Public Service Commission that the Clean Path project had been canceled. Here is a copy of the NYSERDA letter. Here is a piece from Utility Dive on December 3 about the cancellation.
I don’t find any discussion about the reasons for the cancellation, but it has to be that the developers figured out the the economics did not work. Here’s the problem: because wind and solar generators only work about 20-40% of the time, this enormously expensive transmission line would not be operated at anywhere near its capacity. Likely, it would only average about one-third of capacity. That means, compared to a line that operates at or near 100% of capacity, its charges for transmission would be about triple.
The cancellation of this line has only occurred within the past month, and I haven’t seen anything about plans for a re-bid or an alternative strategy. So far, nobody is saying “this can’t possibly work.” But no matter how you approach the problem, the cost of transmitting intermittent wind and solar power from far upstate to New York City is going to be around triple the cost of transmitting power from a natural gas plant that runs nearly all the time.
So here we are, suspended up in the air, and nobody seems to realize that we will shortly crash to earth. Everybody involved is trying to milk the last dollars out of the taxpayers before the crash hits.
The 2050 Net Zero Climate Scam
By William Levin | American Thinker | December 29, 2024
Twenty fifty is the official date for net zero emissions. According to the experts, it is the last chance to stop a catastrophic rise in temperature. The leading source for climate change science, the U.N. IPCC, says so. Corporations run commercials helpfully informing the public that net zero is a top priority. Few can outdo Delta Air Lines, which promises compliance using “a fully sustainable long-haul aircraft [that] has yet to be invented.”
The urgency is palpable and the science compelling. Humanity itself is at risk without net zero CO2 and non-CO2 emissions.
Politically, 2050 is the ideal climate date because it is close enough to justify immediate action, and just far enough as to be unprovable for climate disaster.
For a science so settled and a date so specific, there must exist a wealth of data scientifically supporting the hypothesis that 25 years from now marks a deadline and turning point for the Earth’s future.
An A.I. query provides the answer:
The target year 2050 for achieving carbon neutrality is primarily driven by scientific consensus and international agreements aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Paris Agreement outline that reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is crucial to avoiding catastrophic climate impacts.
A.I. is correct that the IPCC and the signatories of the Paris Agreement are the parties responsible for promoting 2050 net zero. But who exactly are these organizations, and do they deserve our trust?
The IPCC is a political body consisting of 195 member-governments, charged with providing assessments in support of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. In theory, the IPCC mandate is to collect the best available climate science. The IPCC expressly commits that its “reports should be neutral with respect to policy.” And by its own admission, “the IPCC does not conduct its own research.” Its role is to summarize the objective science.
The signatories to the Paris Agreement are likewise 195 nations convened under the auspices of the U.N. But unlike the IPCC, the Paris Agreement signatories make no pretense to being a scientific body, and indeed, no one is confused on this point. The signatories are a political body and the Paris Agreement a purely political document.
With an overlapping membership, it should come as no surprise that the two organizations coordinate their efforts. In the process, the IPCC has become the loudest and most strident advocate for existential change in human activity. In the latest IPCC report, deepening red gradient shadings convey that the Earth is a looming inferno.
According to the IPCC, the danger of imminent collapse due to rising CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, particularly methane, requires immediate action. Humanity must downsize and restructure the global economy, including, in their modest terminology, “governments, private sector, and civil society.” Everyone is responsible, and everyone must contribute.
Not only must GDP be lowered, but the world must immediately and drastically curtail fossil fuels; limit global agriculture output based on emissions, not feeding the world; spend and redistribute upwards of $125 trillion; rely on expensive, unreliable, discredited solar and wind for global power needs; and virtually ignore nuclear power, all the while “prioritizing equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes.” To make the math work, governments and the private sector must implement on a global scale yet-to-exist carbon capture technologies, of unknown cost and consequence.
There is no imputation here that climate science is not real. It is the political choices of the IPCC at issue, specifically the 2023 Sixth Assessment’s Summary for Policymakers, as opposed to the physical scientists reporting as Working Group 1. As summarized by scientist Roger Pielke, “it is not within the IPCC’s mandate to call for action or to implore urgency.”
The IPCC task is to vet and summarize thousands of complex models and scientific papers produced annually. In each instance, a climate model incorporates assumptions not easily aggregated. The IPCC solution groups the models into five arbitrary scenarios based on forecasted warming in 2100. At no point does the IPCC ever declare one set of scenarios more likely than another. Indeed, as aggregators, they have no scientific basis for making any such assertion. In these scenarios, 2050 does not exist as a scientifically significant year. It is simply a point on the curve connecting the current temperature to the 2100 end point.
To get to 2050, and urgency, the IPCC needs to import the political findings of the Paris Agreement.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement signatories reviewed the then most current IPCC report, the 5th Assessment. These 195 government actors arbitrarily concluded that “well below 2 degrees Celsius” of warming was the maximum threshold the Earth could survive. Nothing in the IPCC 5th Assessment supports the “well below 2 degree warming” as a scientific consensus. No IPCC evidence identifies a scientific threshold for global warming beyond which the Earth tips into collapse. Especially relevant, the signatories to the Paris Agreement in no manner highlighted 2050 as a year of special climate meaning, nor would it matter, scientifically speaking, if they had. Following the 5th Assessment, the Paris Agreement target date is merely a “long-term temperature goal,” with one reference to “the second half” of the century.
The Paris Agreement signatories went farther, deciding by imperial fiat that the temperature goal needed a guardrail, the now infamous, endlessly repeated 1.5-degree-warming “limit.” In popular parlance, many, many people will swear that 1.5 degrees of warming is a scientifically valid statement of the limit to global warming, beyond which climate catastrophe ensues.
As important to note, all IPCC warming targets, including the Paris Agreement, start from the pre-industrial period 1850–1900. According to the IPCC, 1.1 degrees of warming has already occurred, meaning the Paris Agreement target at present is a mere 0.4 degrees over 75 years to the IPCC 2100 model date. This equates to an imperceptible 0.005 degrees of annual warming — hardly the stuff of headlines and catastrophic collapse. And nothing compared to the 10 degrees of warming observed in the Earth’s last interglacial warm period in Siberia some 115,000 to 130,000 years ago.
It needs to be said as loudly as possible. The 1.5-degree climate tipping limit has no basis in any finding of the IPCC. It is the arbitrary finding of 195 political actors, in defense of the non-scientific “well below 2 degree” catastrophe, magically transported by the IPCC from 2100 to 2050.
How does the IPCC move the climate clock back 50 years, in violation of its 2100 science? By intentional sleight of hand, the IPCC provides a science answer to a policy question. How much CO2 can be emitted before the 1.5-degree target is breached? The sole source of the 1.5 degrees is the Paris Agreement.
Pro-IPCC climate scientists confirm that the global warming limit, whether it be 1.5 degrees from the Paris Agreement or some other number, is based solely on “value judgments and choice,” not “climate science.” (See page 7 chart.) The IPCC would have readers believe the exact opposite: that the global warming limit is scientifically determined, and those who disagree are “science deniers.” It is a deception of massive consequence.
Twenty fifty, as it turns out, is a long con between 195 governments and the IPCC.
As part of his Day One actions, President Trump needs to, once again, remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and disavow the overtly political IPCC Sixth Assessment Summary for Policymakers. The IPCC global prescription is not scientific, and it most certainly is not benign.
Climate Bombshell: New Evidence Reveals 30 Year Global Drop in Hurricane Frequency and Power
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 4, 2025
Last month a small but powerful cyclone named Chido made landfall in Mayotte before sweeping into Mozambique, causing considerable damage and leading to the loss of around 100 lives. Days after the tragedy, the Green Blob-funded Carbon Brief noted that scientists have “long suggested” that climate change is making cyclones worse in the region, while Blob-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) at Imperial College London made a near-instant and curiously precise estimate that a Chido-like cyclone was about 40% more likely to happen in 2024 than during the pre-industrial age. Not to be outdone, Green Blob-funded cheerleader the Guardian chipped in with the obligatory “cyclones are getting worse because of the climate emergency”. Almost unnoticed, it seems, among all the Net Zero dooming and grooming was a science paper published during December by Nature that found no increase in the destructive power of cyclones – the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes – in any ocean basin over the last 30 years. In the South Indian basin, the location of cyclone Chido, there was a dramatic decrease in both frequency and duration in recent times.
Reality rarely gets much of a look-in these days when fanatical Net Zero activism is afoot, but the paper, written by a group of Chinese meteorologists, makes its case by considering the facts and the data. The scientists apply a “power dissipation index” (PDI) which they consider superior to single measure indicators since it combines storm intensity, duration and frequency. The graphs below show the cumulative index for tropical cyclones across all ocean basins along with a global indication.
Downward trends in the cumulative PDI can be seen in a number of Pacific regions, while the trend holds steady in the North Atlantic. The southern Indian ocean downward trend is particularly pronounced while the overall global line is also heading in a similar direction.
So why does all this scientific twaddle get written by the green activists in mainstream media? Much of it arises from the new pseudoscience that claims it can tie individual weather events to human-caused climate change. Press releases peddling climate Armageddon are issued days after a natural disaster and are eagerly reprinted by activist journalists promoting the Net Zero fantasy. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is a fierce critic of this new pseudoscience, which he calls weather attribution alchemy. In a recent Substack post in the aftermath of Chido, he noted that the WWA at Imperial College simply assumes the conclusion that it seeks to prove by accepting that every storm is made stronger because of warmer oceans. Using this explanation, continues Pielke, it is straightforward to conclude that the storm was made more likely due to climate change. Or as Imperial states: “The difference in the storm intensity and likelihood of this storm intensity between the counterfactual climate and today’s climate can be attributed to climate change.”
As the new Chinese paper shows, the matter is not quite so simple. Pielke notes that tropical storms encounter numerous environmental influences such as vertical wind shear and storm-induced ocean surface cooling, even when they remain over warmer waters. “Such complexities mean that simple storyline attribution – warmer oceans predictably mean stronger storms – is inappropriate when used to characterise the behaviour of individual storms,” he argues. Pielke also comes down hard on the statistical evidence backing the WWA claims. Even if storms such as Chido were more likely in the future, it would take a very long time to detect a significant change using the threshold 90% confidence set down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And by very long time, he means thousands of years.
“Perhaps that is why assumptions are favoured over evidence,” suggests Pielke.
There were plenty of assumptions on display in a now routine end-of-year weather report from the BBC headed: ‘A year of extreme weather that challenged billions.‘ Written by Esme Stallard, it claims that record-breaking heat brought extreme weather including hurricanes and month-long droughts. Pride of place is given to Dr. Friederike Otto, lead of WWA and Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at Imperial, who claimed: “We are living in a dangerous new era – extreme weather caused unrelenting suffering.” “The impacts of fossil fuel warming has never been clear or more devastating than in 2024,” she added.
The redoubtable Paul Homewood is unimpressed with Stallard’s opening line about increasing extreme weather and has filed a complaint with the BBC. Stallard goes on to list a handful of random events, “but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time”, states Homewood. “Nor is any evidence provided that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time,” he adds.
The BBC story highlighted typhoons in the Philippines as well as hurricane Beryl and stated that such events may be increasing in intensity due to climate change. Official data do not show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time, notes Homewood. Much play was made of a recent drought in the Amazon, but Homewood points out that the World Bank Climate Portal reveals that rainfall has increased in the area by 5% over the last 30 years. Throughout the report, observes Homewood, the BBC bases its claims on weather attribution computer models. “However, computer models are not evidence, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community,” he states.
For Roger Pielke, extreme weather attributions are “puzzling”. The most charitable explanation for their proliferation is that there is a demand for them, including from many in the media. The demand will be filled by someone, he concludes. “A less charitable explanation is that there is a systematic effort underway to contest and undermine actual climate science, including the assessments of the IPCC, in order to present a picture of reality that is simply false in support of climate advocacy. We might call that pseudo-scientific gaslighting,” he suggests.
Hoax Alert: Acker is Angry (2024)
Karl’s Substack | January 4, 2025
According to Jake Tapper writing for CNN there was a so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in Detroit, Michigan in December 2024.
We read how:
‘The home of a Jewish member of the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents was vandalized early Monday, in what the university described as “a clear act of antisemitic intimidation.”
The incident marks the third time Jordan Acker, a Michigan attorney elected to the board overseeing the university’s governance, has been targeted since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
“The University of Michigan condemns these criminal acts in the strongest possible terms,” the school said in a statement. “They are abhorrent and, unfortunately, just the latest in a number of incidents where individuals have been harassed because of their work on behalf of the university. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The sound of shattering glass jolted Acker from his sleep just after 2 a.m. Monday, he told CNN. He went downstairs to find his front windows had been smashed and his wife’s car vandalized with what he described as “messages about Palestine with a Hamas upside triangle.”
The upside-down triangle has become a symbol of violent resistance to Israel, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Photos provided by Acker show someone scrawled “Divest” and “Free Palestine” on the vehicle.
Acker said his neighbors captured the incident on their ring camera and called the police. CNN has reached out to the Huntington Woods Police Department for comment.
“As a public official, you expect a certain level of criticism – even protests – but this is not protest, this is terrorism,” Acker said, adding the incident took place while his daughters were asleep upstairs.
“This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, has nothing to do with Palestine, nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with trying to harass and intimidate Jews,” Acker said, “And this Jew will not be intimidated by it.”’ (1)
Now before I get into the meat of this claim this is the ‘anti-Semitic’ vandalism:
Now while it can be reasonably described as politically motivated vandalism given the political message, damage to Acker’s car and the smashed window; ‘anti-Semitic’ is not only pushing it but ludicrous.
This is because it is clearly targeted at Israel – hence the BDS and ‘Free Palestine’ references in the graffiti on Acker’s car – and Acker while jewish has been a staunch and vocal pro-Israel supporter for quite some time who has had the police violently break up pro-Palestine protests of the University of Michigan campus (2) and as such as been the focus on anti-Zionist political protest stunts – such as the vandalising of the sign of his legal practice – (3) for quite some time.
Acker’s response has been exactly the same and has claimed that anyone protesting against him is ‘anti-Semitic’ and criticism of the jewish state is also ipso facto ‘anti-Semitic’. (4)
To quote Acker:
‘I was not targeted here today because I am a regent. I am a target of this because I am Jewish. This neighborhood is Jewish, and because some people, under the pretext of helping Palestinians, feel the obligation to single out Jews, especially liberal ones for an attack. It is unacceptable, it is un-American, and it must stop now.’ (5)
Given this and the fact – as Jacob Maggid has explained in the ‘Times of Israel’ – that:
‘The activists shouted various accusations and grievances at Acker, claiming that he “supports Israeli genocide” in Gaza and is behind the “persecution” of anti-Israel protesters who were recently indicted for trespassing and resisting law enforcement during the break-up of a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus.’ (6)
Or put another way: Acker is a jewish lawyer who is using his position as Regent of the University of Michigan to crack down on anti-Israel sentiment and protests on campus and thus limit the scope of intellectual inquiry as it pertains to Israel, but also uses his jewishness as a shield to enable him to label any resistance and/or criticism of him and his policies as ‘anti-Semitic’.
So thus, while this is a case of politically motivated vandalism it is not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in any way, shape or form.
Israeli forces block food to north Gaza’s Indonesian Hospital to force doctors out
Press TV – January 5, 2025
The Israeli regime forces have blocked the supply of water and food to northern Gaza’s Indonesian Hospital to force the doctors there to flee.
The doctors are refusing to leave their patients behind, the nongovernmental organization that funded the supplies to the Indonesia Hospital said on Sunday.
The Indonesia Hospital in Beit Lahiya near the Jabalia refugee camp was built from donations organized by the Jakarta-based Medical Emergency Rescue Committee.
The four-story facility has been sheltering more than a dozen patients, caregivers, and health workers from Gaza’s Kamal Adwan hospital, which was destroyed in December after months of relentless Israeli attacks.
The doctors who have remained in the building are defying orders to leave the Indonesia Hospital, MER-C said, adding that they last received food aid from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
“They are still holding out. The condition is deteriorating, there’s a lack of water and food,” Marissa Noriti, a MER-C volunteer in Deir el-Balah told media via WhatsApp.
“The Israeli occupation forces are blocking supply … The doctors are staying for the patients. They refuse to leave them behind.”
According to UNOCHA, the Indonesia Hospital is out of medical service due to the damage inflicted on it in frequent Israeli attacks since October 2023. However, the structure is still being used as a shelter for critically ill patients, despite not having electricity, water or supplies.
On Friday, the hospital was surrounded by Israeli forces attacking the area and ordering the doctors there to leave the facility and the patients.
“We are monitoring the situation. Israel’s occupation forces are cutting off all supplies to force them out; this is their strategy to empty north Gaza, to empty all the hospitals in the north so the people have no place to go to seek help,” said Sarbini Abdul Murad, chairman of MER-C’s board of trustees in Jakarta.
Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli regime force’s genocidal war against the defenseless people in Gaza has left more than 45,800 Palestinians dead and over 109,000 more wounded.
Israeli forces set homes ablaze, block roads in southern Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | January 5, 2025
Israeli occupation forces made advances toward the town of Taybeh, opening fire with machine guns at homes, several of which were set ablaze by the invading units, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported on Sunday.
Explosions were also heard as the Israeli forces launched hand grenades during their infiltration into the neighborhood. In addition, the occupation forces erected an earthen berm to block the road linking the towns of Qantara and Taybeh.
Our correspondent further reported that Israeli forces carried out demolition operations on the outskirts of Aytaroun, followed by a barrage of machine gunfire aimed at the town, and a series of explosions at Tayr Harfa-Al-Jubayn junction.
These recent incidents bring the total number of Israeli violations since the implementation of the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon 40 days ago to more than 380.
Ongoing Israeli violations
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported that on Saturday morning, Israeli occupation forces carried out bombings between the towns of Odaisseh and Taybeh.
She noted that Israeli occupation forces continue bulldozing land in several towns, particularly in Houla, Bani Hayyan, and Markaba.
On Thursday, the Lebanese Army entered al-Naqoura to reposition its forces, following the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the area. This marked the third such Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the recent ground invasion.
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported that Israeli invading units were observed withdrawing from al-Naqoura’s neighborhoods toward Ras al-Naqoura and Alma al-Shaab while conducting sweeps with automatic rifles. At the same time, Israeli Merkava tanks continued to shell several homes in the area.
Our correspondent also noted that an Israeli military convoy, reinforced with eight Merkava tanks, a bulldozer, and Hummer vehicles, advanced from the town of Ramieh toward al-Salhani, al-Qawzah, and reached Wadi Mazlam near the outskirts of Beit Lif—territory that had not been accessed during the recent Israeli war on Lebanon.
However, Israeli soldiers conducted searches of homes and surrounding forests, and machine gun fire was heard within the village. Additionally, Israeli drones launched two missiles at the outskirts of Yater.
Hezbollah is “stronger and more resilient than steel” and “more powerful than ever before, as witnessed by the enemy,” affirmed Wafiq Safa, head of Hezbollah’s Coordination and Liaison Unit.
In his first media appearance after the war on Lebanon, Safa stated Sunday that Hezbollah is “ready for all challenges,” and “will stand with the people, behind them, and on the ground” to rebuild what was destroyed during the Israeli aggression.
During a tour in the southern suburbs of Beirut, specifically at the site where Hezbollah’s former Secretary-General martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated by “Israel”, Safa stressed that the group will be “involved in every aspect” that impacts the morale of the people.
He added, “We have always stood and will continue to stand with the people of resistance, protecting them from any harm internally, and there will be no possibility for anyone to break our morale,” reassuring everyone that there is no need for concern.
Regarding whether Hezbollah will respond to Israeli violations, Safa revealed that Hezbollah’s capabilities have been restored and that the group has the ability to confront any aggression in the manner it deems appropriate.
He added that what happens after the 60-day period designated for the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation forces from Lebanon “is up to Hezbollah and its leadership.”
Safa also noted that Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri will engage with US mediator Amos Hochstein regarding the Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement.
On the subject of electing a new Lebanese president, Safa asserted that Hezbollah does not veto the nomination of Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun for the presidency but that of the leader of the Lebanese Forces party Samir Geagea, whose “project is destructive to Lebanon.”
Concerning the funeral of martyr Sayyed Nasrallah, Safa revealed that the ceremony will take place in the Southern Suburb after the 60-day period.
Elsewhere, he emphasized that martyr Sayyed Nasrallah’s “presence is embodied in the resistance, its fighters, and the people of resistance.”
Cecilia Sala, or the stupidity of the western narrative
Western propaganda made of distortion and manipulation has a new face of the month: Cecilia Sala
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2025
Facts and… misdeeds
It is a familiar and perfectly functioning pattern that has been adopted in the case of Cecilia Sala, a mainstream Italian journalist, who arrived in Iran on 13 December on a journalistic visa and was arrested on the 19th ‘for violating the law of the Islamic Republic of Iran’. The event occurred a few days after the arrest in Italy, at Milan’s Malpensa Airport, of Iranian engineer Mohammad Abedini Najafabadi.
So far, nothing strange. These things happen for many reasons. People are arrested every day and this is not news.
The oddities, however, begin when you explore the background.
Let’s start with Abedini: an engineer specialising in drone design, who was on a business trip. He is arrested not for breaking any laws, but because… the United States of America asked for it. The master orders, the servant executes. Now the US has asked for his extradition and one can guess that they have no intention of treating Mr Abedini politely. The charge, of course, is international terrorism.
As far as Cecilia Sala is concerned, things are even more captivating. Her CV leaves little doubt. Born in 1995, she studied at Bocconi but did not graduate. She started working for Vice Italia, then went on to work for other magazines all from the same publisher and then appeared on television. The interesting thing is that he always passed under the aegis of Rupert Murdoch, one of the ‘oligarchs’ of British intelligence and politics, who in Italy invested a lot of money first in football and then in telecommunications, but also the man who owns Fox, News Corp and Disney. One of the richest men in the world, whose first interest is obviously to do independent and truthful journalism, right?
Curious that his numerous employees, especially journalists, have constant collaborations with the intelligence agencies of the USA, the UK and Israel, with offices appearing as veritable ‘schools’ of infowarfare and human intelligence; curious how there have already been convictions in this regard, as there were for the Sunday Times in the late 1970s and in 2011 with the News of the World ; equally curious that a good slice of mainstream information is in the hands of this man and his empire. And even more curious is that we should think of Cecilia Sala as a ‘clean’ person working for the universal good.
Since we are in the realm of fantasy, let’s try an imaginative suggestion: let’s think for a moment of Cecilia Sala as an advisor or intelligence agent, perhaps under a British or American flag, who goes to Iran, a country notoriously hostile to the two empires mentioned above, and is arrested. If we see it for just one minute like this, we immediately realise that there is nothing strange about it. If Abedini can be considered a ‘terrorist’ and arrested just because he deals with drones, why should we not be able to consider Sala a ‘spy’ who goes on a mission in a foreign land to do something she has been asked to do?
Let’s add another biographical detail: Cecilia Sala’s father was an executive at Monte dei Paschi di Siena and is Senior Advisor for Italy at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and has been a member of the Greenmantle Think Tank since 2017. He is one of the Founding Members of the Canova Club in Milan. He is currently CEO of Advisor S.R.L. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
What a curious coincidence… because it is a coincidence, isn’t it?
A few blots on the Curriculum
It must be pointed out that Cecilia Sala was a well-known anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-Palestinian and anti-Iranian propagandist, coincidentally a journalist for Il Foglio, in contact with the Zionist sectors of the anti-Iranian opposition, and despite this she was freely allowed to enter Iranian soil by the government in Tehran. This is not the case, for example, for Russian journalists.
After Abdeini’s anomalous arrest, since Ms Sala had all the elements to be detained by the Iranian justice system, culturally collaborating with part of that opposition that has carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian soil, even deadly ones, it did not follow that the government in Tehran, not being the monster depicted today by the western and Italian media, but simply a sovereign nation that does not accept interference, proceeded to detain the goliardic journalist.
We reiterate this for those who had not grasped the ‘subtle’ difference: Abedini’s arrest at Malpensa is entirely arbitrary, while Sala’s is justified under the laws in force in the Islamic Republic.
The Italian press immediately turned to somersaults worthy of the Olympics to attack Iran, ignoring both the truth of the facts – a subject, the truth, that most Western journalists have not been interested in for years – and how certain ordinary diplomatic protocols between hostile countries work.
Diplomatic bodies and intelligence agencies are in constant contact with each other and carry out such activities every day.
A journalist with Cecilia Sala’s CV does not just happen to be arrested. Is that clear?
We know nothing about the circumstances of her arrest. However, those who know a little about the country know that it is unlikely that she was arrested for her work as a reporter on women’s movements or for her opinions, which may transpire from her writings, which were certainly scrutinised by those who granted her the visa. Under normal conditions, i.e. not in this geopolitical context that has taken shape in the last year, and not with Iran as a ‘live’ and perhaps imminent target of the US, UK and Israeli administrations, we could have assumed a classic detention due to active participation in political demonstrations or more likely any photos at military, government or nuclear installations; however, it is very likely that Cecilia Sala knew these things very well and did not do this kind of journalism. Perhaps there is much more behind it.
The point is that this ‘more’ is not the subject of journalistic comment. The vast majority of western journalists are talking out of their ass about things they do not know.
The US ordered the capture in Italy of an Iranian engineer who was travelling, Iran arrested a journalist with a respectable resume to find a job with MI6 and the CIA because she violated the laws of the Republic. Incidentally, in America one can be arrested on the free initiative of a policeman, who can also shoot at a distance of 21 paces on his own free initiative. This, in Iran, is illegal. But the Western press does not know this and writes nonsense anyway.
The newspapers have spoken of the shadow of an Iranian ‘blackmail’, but if we are to accept it as such, we must remember two things: it is also American blackmail to countries called upon to arrest Iranian civilians on the basis of embarrassing and specious US laws, according to imposed sanctions that magically take effect even in vassal states; how it got to this point, after 20 years of assassinations of Iranian scientists and physicists, that is, to the point where Iran, under threat of bombing by Israel, uses even with a country considered a ‘friend’ like Italy the methods of diplomatic soft power to get a break in the interminable Western attack.
The point is that Iran is not a country born yesterday, nor is it just any old colony that can be exploited at will. Iranians still enjoy two things that are bitterly lacking in the West: sovereignty and dignity.
From slogan to slogan
In the sum of the parts, Cecilia Sala’s case is a great gimmick for anti-Iranian propaganda and will be used for a long time to come.
All this, of course, with the usual Western hypocrisy.
It is full of journalists who on social networks (sick!) are indignant about the arrest and write posts about the importance of free journalism, but not one of them has been tearing their hair out over all the crimes committed against freedom of the press and information in the West or in Israel, for example, with more than 200 journalists killed in Palestine in one year, even with targeted killings
Juicy news for the western press: much worse has come into Iran, Il Foglio fortunately counts for nothing in the world, and those who have come in have written much worse things than Cecilia Sala who, let’s be honest, is not worth a lira as a journalist (this is proven by her own articles and posts, many of which will remain in the annals of propaganda vileness).
In Iran, and elsewhere, as a foreigner they stop you or arrest you if they suspect you are a spy, and this is a fact we should learn to understand and keep in mind, because at home these terms and definitions or accusations belong only to the cinematic dimension but in certain quadrants of the world they are anchored in tangible reality.
In the past few days I read a brilliant commentary on the matter, which I quote from memory: ‘We have agreed to participate in the American sanctions festival – which began well before last year – and to consider as a ‘global threat’ even those who are not, or who are at worst for Israel, and not for us; we have agreed to harass, detain, interdict Iranian citizens who until proven otherwise are civilians and not guilty of any crime that has not been configured ad hoc in the American ‘acts’; we have even agreed at certain times to interrupt supplies of stocks of goods that have already been paid for, just as the USA has reserved the right to withhold tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian state property for decades; we have decided to join a belligerent and hostile coalition, without yet having understood what role to play, other than that of paper-pusher. We should, however, be careful in the future about which cards we pass on to the next one’.
Once again, from slogan to slogan, the truth that journalism is supposed to investigate and tell will be of no interest to anyone. On the other hand, no one is interested in reporting on what is happening in Gaza, but there has never been a shortage of time to post some new hashtag to win the war against Russia, China, Iran and any other enemy, evidently terrified by the use of social network posts with a few well-functioning keywords for psy ops marketing.
Once again, we will have to settle for the words of Seneca: ‘Magis veritas elucet quo sepius ad manum venit’.
Countdown to the European Collapse
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2025
Finally, energy cooperation between Russia and Europe is (almost) completely over. After nearly three years of sanctions and sabotage, the bilateral Moscow-EU energy partnership suffered its greatest historical blow. Kiev fulfilled its promise not to extend its contract with Gazprom, which was allowing the arrival of Russian gas to Europe, then creating an extremely uncomfortable energy insecurity situation for its own “partners” in the European Union.
On the morning of the first day of 2025, the Russian Federation stopped supplying gas to European buyers via Ukraine. Even amidst the conflict, the Russian Gazprom and Ukrainian Naftogaz had kept in operation an energy transit agreement signed in 2020, which expired on the last day of 2024. Previously, Kiev had already announced it was unwilling to renew the contract with Gazprom, although some European countries repeatedly asked Ukraine to do so.
Despite the sanctions imposed on Russia since 2022, some European countries continued benefiting from the import of Russian gas, particularly Slovakia and Hungary – nations that refused to participate in the Western-sponsored anti-Russian boycott – as well as Austria, a country historically neutral in Europe’s geopolitical and military disputes. Other nations, even adhering to the sanctions, continued hypocritically receiving Russian gas, such as Italy, Poland, Romania, and Moldova. There were also cases of gas resale, with receiving nations re-exporting the commodity to countries seeking to bypass the sanctions.
With the end of the Ukrainian route, all these states lost any guarantee of a safe energy source – precisely during winter, the time of year when gas consumption in Europe is at its highest. Obviously, there are currently energy reserves that may be enough to cope with the challenges of the current season, but the situation will progressively become more critical over time. European nations will have to find new sources of gas or expand the use of the only two remaining routes for Russian gas (via Turkey and the Black Sea). Recent indicators show a substantial rise in gas prices among Asian exporters. Ankara is also expected to take the opportunity to gain more profits from its pipeline.
There is currently hope among Europeans for a cheap gas supply through the long-awaited Qatari-Turkish pipeline project via Syria. With the fall of Bashar al Assad’s legitimate government, energy giants from Turkey and the Gulf have revived the proposal, although they are waiting for domestic pacification in Syria by the Al-Qaeda junta to begin the construction. Some optimistic analysts in Europe believe this would be the antidote to Europe’s dependency on Russian gas – or Asian and American, as in the current circumstances.
The main problem with this hope is believing in the goodwill of the Western hawks to “pacify Syria.” Without Assad, Damascus became a “failed state,” with territory divided between different factions in constant hostilities. It is unlikely this will change – simply because, despite the tactical operators of the Syrian crisis (Turkey and Qatar) wanting pacification, the strategic mentors (Israel and the USA) are not interested. Tel Aviv prefers a polarized and war-torn Syria, unable to do anything to prevent territorial progress in the Golan and beyond. Washington, which is subservient to Israeli interests through the international Zionist lobby, is interested in the same – along with, of course, fostering Kurdish terrorists to worsen the internal Syrian situation even further.
In other words, Western analysts still do not understand that the decision-makers of the unipolar axis simply do not want to solve Europe’s problems. It is not in the US’ interest that its “partners” in Europe regain cheap energy and a strong industrial base. For Washington, the collapse of Europe is not a tragedy but a strategic goal, whose roots lie in the science of geopolitics itself. According to the fundamentals of Western geopolitics, Russian-European integration would be disastrous for the US-UK Atlantic axis. Therefore, in the face of Russia’s imminent military victory and Moscow’s rehabilitation as a Eurasian geopolitical power, the Americans and the British have adopted a “scorched earth” strategy in Europe.
Sanctions, the terrorist attack on Nord Stream, and the closure of the Ukrainian route to Europe are events that are part of the same strategic context: in all these cases, Anglo-American strategists want to provoke an energy collapse in Europe to enable deindustrialization and the subsequent economic and social crisis. The final goal is a ruined Europe, not only unwilling but also incapable of establishing any future strategic ties with Moscow.
With the fall of the Ukrainian gas route, it can be said that the US won an important battle in its economic war against Europe. The total collapse is merely a matter of time.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.