BRICS Coin – Part 2: To Kazan and Beyond – news.freeptomaineradio.com

This is the second part of my BRICS Coin series examining the many facets of the emerging BRICS financial system. In it, we will look at some of the new proposed institutions that have been announced, and what we can expect going forward.

BRICS+, a group of non-Western nations, are developing a new parallel set of financial institutions. In response to increasing Western sanctions and the weaponisation of hegemonic financial institutions – the emerging multi-ploar consensus has decided that enough is enough, and that they will build their own monetary system, outside of the US dollar dominion.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Enter Kazan

Russia is hosting the BRICS annual summit this week. It takes place in Kazan, an increasingly important central Asian hub. The name Kazan comes from the name of a large cooking pot or cauldron used extensively in Central Asia, from Afghanistan to the Balkans. It’s a symbol of cultural importance: a huge Kazan (or Qazan) is often the focal point of weddings where families come together to share from the communal pot. This seems to be an apt metaphor for the emerging currency and trading system that is being discussed at this year’s gathering. All members are invited to create a ‘central pot’, whereby they can partake in the communal success and ongoing development of the BRICS bloc. One thing is for sure, America and its staunch allies are not invited to this wedding party.

De-Dollarisation

As I outlined in my prior article, BRICS coin – The Unit vs. The Dollar, there has been an excessive regime of sanctions levied against Russia and its allies by the USA, the Five Eyes alliance, and their quislings in Europe. The massive ramping-up of the policy of sanctions, as well as the CIA coup d’etat in 2014 in Ukraine, has forced Russia out of the US-dominated global financial system. However, the policy has proven to be a failure on the part of America, as it has pushed the BRICS bloc even closer together. BRICS founders; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, as well as a large contingent of aspirational members, can now see the benefit of flouting of the so-called “rules based international order” which the US and its allies are constantly referring to when justifying the collective punishment of countries that will not bend to their will.

Thus, the BRICS network of nations have begun the work in creating a payments system that will sit outside of Western control. For the last century, the US has dominated global finance, with the US dollar being the successor to the Britain’s Pound Sterling as the world’s reserve currency. However, it now looks like BRICS is calling time on American dominance, and the gunboat diplomacy that backs it up. We can remind readers that when asked, Paul Krugman, the former economic advisor to President Reagan, once let slip that, “Fiat money is backed by guns”. Conversely, the BRICS policy is not to regime change into the next fiat currency, but to make the American fiat currency system obsolete by fostering its own institutions. I see this as a strong policy, whilst cautioning that diplomacy takes much longer than violence to achieve its end. In the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:

“This protracted phase of decline is confronted by an unequivocal historical movement towards a multipolar world order, where the fundamental principles of the UN Charter – sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs – will be implemented in practice, ensuring a fair process that balances interests rather than imposing external will. This is a lengthy and arduous process, but the momentum of history favours our cause. No force can impede these objective trends.”

Russia’s Role

Russia is chair of the BRICS group for 2024. The BRICS+ (including Egypt, Ethiopia, UAE and Iran) is not a strict political institution, more often likened to network of governments, or even as a high-level ‘talking shop’ for the Global South. In the last few years it has gained in its political caché and geopolitical importance. With the proposed accession of states like Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, BRICS+ will encompass the majority of the global oil supply. With accession of NATO member Turkiye, it will gain more in terms of importance for international relations. But the engine house of the BRICS movement is Asiatic in character, with the center of gravity oscillating between Russia, India and China. Whilst no country rules the bloc – unlike ASEAN which China clearly dominates – there is primacy among equals. I see Russia and China as dominant motivators among the group. Russia due to the sanctions regime and the hangover from the Cold War, and China as a bona fide global superpower who has been snubbed by the USA and is now pursuing a route of diplomatic diversity away from its previous West-centric outlook. India is a reluctant yet energetic member of BRICS, still fostering ties with the West, but playing on both fields at once. Brazil and South Africa are important emerging economies, but don’t yet have the clout of the leading BRICS states.

Read More @ 21stCenturyWire.com

Originally Posted at https://www.sgtreport.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