Korybko: Brazil’s Veto Of Venezuela’s BRICS Bid Exposes Multipolar Rift

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Brazil’s ruling Workers’ Party (PT per its Portuguese abbreviation) has presented itself as an Ibero-American champion of multipolarity since its inception, as has its leader President Lula since his first term began in 2003, but these narratives are now challenged like never before after last week.

Brasil de Fato cited diplomatic sources to report that Brazil vetoed Venezuela’s BRICS partnership request while Putin also acknowledged during a press conference that Russia and Brazil disagree on Venezuela.

This outcome was made all the more scandalous by Lula’s unexpected “head injury” that was allegedly responsible for him not flying to Kazan and Venezuelan President Maduro’s surprise visit to the event. Lula might have either made-up his injury or exaggerated it in order not to embarrass himself any further by arguing in person against his multipolar neighbor’s requested BRICS partnership. He might also have caught wind of Maduro’s plans and thus ducked out in order to avoid a potential confrontation there.

In any case, one of the world’s top energy producers wasn’t able to achieve the consensual support required for partnering with the world’s top financial multipolarity platform, though this analysis here from last month explains how non-members and -partners can still coordinate their associated policies with BRICS. Be that as it may, it was still a blow to Venezuela’s prestige not to be inaugurated as an official partner, but Lula’s PT harmed its own reputation in a much worse way by reportedly vetoing this.

Keeping in mind the abovementioned insight about how any country can voluntarily coordinate its associated policies with BRICS even in the absence of formal membership or partnership status, Brazil could have let Venezuela join in order to keep up the PT’s charade about being a multipolar champion. Instead, it maliciously prevented this, which only served to virtue signal support for the US’ ruling Democrats’ shared policy towards that country at the expense of the trust that Brazil built within BRICS.

It was explained in August how “Ortega’s Condemnation Of Lula’s Meddling In Venezuela Debunks A Top Alt-Media Lie”, which hyperlinked at the end to a list of over 50 related analyses from October 2022 till then about Lula’s post-imprisonment ideological alignment with that aforesaid imperialist party. In brief, he and his party were never true multipolar champions like they presented themselves as, but were always more akin to “social democrats” or what’s been called the “compatible left” by traditional leftists.

All the while, however, the PT’s social media influencers and cultish clique of supporters across the world aggressively gatekept the false narrative that their “heroes” pushed. This most often took the form of viciously “canceling” anyone who dared to even remotely question this debunked dogma. This charade was thus kept up until last week when it became impossible to deny that Lula’s PT had betrayed regional multipolar leader Venezuela solely to curry favor from what might soon be the US’ outgoing ruling party.

There shouldn’t be any question about the veracity of Brasil de Fato’s diplomatic sources either after Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry came out with an official statement slamming Lula’s veto. They described it as an “immoral aggression” that “reproduce[ed] the hatred, exclusion and intolerance promoted from the centres of power in the West.” They then added that “The Venezuelan people feel indignation and shame” after what Lula just did. These are very strong words that should be taken very seriously.

Readers should also know that while Lula hasn’t acknowledged Maduro’s re-election, Putin proudly thundered during last week’s event that “Venezuela is fighting for its independence, for its sovereignty…We believe that President Maduro won the elections, won fairly. He formed a government.” His words threw the PT onto the horns of yet another narrative dilemma by suggesting that Brazil’s stance is against another fellow Global South country’s “independence” and “sovereignty”.

The Venezuelan Question is therefore a black-and-white issue: one either supports Lula and Biden’s regime change efforts in Venezuela, with each advancing this in their own but still coordinated way, or they support Maduro and Putin’s defense of Venezuela’s independence and sovereignty.

There’s no middle ground no matter what lies top PT influencers might soon spew. Honest members from the Alt-Media Community will accurately report this while dishonest ones will keep covering up for the PT.

Loading…

Originally Posted at; https://www.zerohedge.com//

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30