The Biden administration’s clean energy racket, prowling for new victims, has now set its sights on Africa.
On Wednesday, Biden told the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that the United States, along with other G-7 countries, will donate $8 billion in public and private funds to South Africa to get them off coal and on renewables. “Today’s announcement joined a portfolio of Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment projects already underway in Africa,” Biden said.
That’s not all. Biden claimed the funding would be spent in helping to “develop cutting-edge energy solutions like clean hydrogen, a deal worth $2 billion to build solar energy projects in Angola, $600 million high-speed communications cables that will connect Southeast Asia to Europe via Egypt and the Horn of Africa and help bring high-speed internet connectivity to countries all along the way.”
All this while continuing to supply Ukraine with billions in foreign aid, which has to date cost more than the first five years of the Afghan conflict. In the meantime, the invasion of our southern border continues and Christmas dinner will cost 16.4 percent more this year. If money is to grow on trees, the soil is in need of some fertilizer.
When America comes last on the Biden administration’s global agenda, other countries may prosper with an infusion of new funding. But for how long? As goes the United States, so goes the world. If Biden and the company keep up the free-for-all spending abroad, will the U.S. economy continue to weaken? If it does, what county is on the rise to take our place on the world stage? China, anyone?
Trending:
After an attempt to butter up those attending the summit with, “When I was on the Foreign Relations Committee, I was chairman of the African Affairs subcommittee and got to spend a lot of time in Africa. I’ve visited almost all of your countries,” — visiting almost all of Africa’s 54 countries is probably a stretch of Biden’s free-flowing imagination — he then invited them into the globalist cabal.
Biden cited a number of politicized calamities, including “a deadly pandemic, facing down war and instability, addressing economic challenges of … fighting rising food prices, tackling the impacts of climate change.”
He then declared, “each of these crises has only heightened … the vital role African nations and peoples play to address the global challenges that drive our global progress.” Global progress is the key phrase of the entire speech. If there is any doubt Biden and Company are in with the globalist elites of Davos, the Biden speechwriter’s strategic use of “global progress” should help to expel it.
In short: The U.S. has become a pawn in a bigger game.
Is “clean energy” really clean?
Yes: 1% (10 Votes)
No: 99% (1303 Votes)
Not everybody was in a kumbaya moment after hearing the address. Twitter erupted with backlash, as reported by Fox News.
Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio., tweeted, “Just like student debt transfers, Joe Biden doesn’t have the authority to deliver on his foolish promise. He also doesn’t have a clue… #FireJoeBiden.”
Just like student debt transfers, Joe Biden doesn’t have the authority to deliver on his foolish promise. He also doesn’t have a clue…#FireJoeBiden https://t.co/pQS8tnoukp
— Warren Davidson (@WarrenDavidson) December 14, 2022
Rita Panahi of Sky News news skewered the announcement as “Weapon-grade lunacy. As if South Africans haven’t suffered enough with unreliable energy.”
Ian Miles Cheong, a political commentator, tweeted the acidic taunt, “Print more money.”
The account of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, according to Fox, tweeted that spreading misery is merely modern U.S. policy.
Apparently, Biden and Company make no distinction between spreading misery abroad or at home. This is progressive equity in action. Misery for all (except the elite).
The Biden administration is breaking the bank when the jury, contrary to popular belief, is still out on climate change and “clean” renewable energy. Way back in 2008, the summary of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report was titled “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate”. This is a truism. Humans can’t control nature. Not now, not then. If they could, why are there still droughts, floods and erupting volcanoes?
Even if we could control nature with clean energy — though this is hubris — would it be a heaven on earth? Probably not.
In April of this year, Forbes noted that “There are well documented environmental concerns with solar and wind power, not to mention the higher energy costs that consumers of electricity generated from wind and solar must bear. Yet environmentalists continually fail to account for ‘the effects that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.’ Instead, they exclusively focus on the effects that are readily seen while downplaying, or outright ignoring, those effects that are more obscured from view.”
Calling an energy source “clean and renewable” is a misnomer when the “effects that must be foreseen” are brought into the equation.
For example, solar panels and wind turbines are fueled by natural resources to generate electricity, just like fossil fuel-powered plants. This includes toxic acids like hydrochloric, sulfuric and nitric. It also includes minerals such as arsenic, gallium, germanium, indium, tellurium, aluminum and rare earth minerals.
According to the Harvard International Review, mining rare earth commodities alone “produce[s] mountains of toxic waste, with a high risk of environmental and health hazards. For every ton of rare earth produced, the mining process yields 13kg of dust, 9,600-12,000 cubic meters of waste gas, 75 cubic meters of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue.”
Let’s repeat that, shall we? One ton of radioactive residue for every ton of rare earth produced.
So why is Biden trying so hard to export his clean energy agenda? Is it to save the planet or to move a piece on the globalist chessboard? If it is the latter, Africa isn’t only being targeted by the United States. China has had Africa in its sights for quite some time.
Is the globalist game really just one of imperial forces from east and west trying to claim new ground? If so, in the race for global domination, who loses? American sovereignty, for one. And the “winner,” whoever that might be? I’d wager they are going to have a lot more than they can handle. A man without a country is a man with nothing to lose.
Propagating the world with the utopian dream of “clean” energy is a dingy endeavor at best, a nightmare at worse.
