The Permian Basin spans Texas and New Mexico. Why do they want to shut down 20% of domestic oil production? Ozone emission. Didn't they ban cheap refrigerants because they harmed the ozone layer? It's confusing because whether ozone is harmful or beneficial depends on where it's at. High in the atmosphere it blocks harmful U V radiation. At ground level it is harmful to peoples' health. There is much concern about the holes in the ozone layer above the poles. However, and it's big however, those holes are shrinking. Cleaner power generation and cleaner car emissions are having an effect. That effect is enough that we need not reduce or shut down our oil production. That doesn't matter to the globalists. They just want to kill us however they can.
Globalists actually want the opposite: that's because the ones who control the global economy are financial corporations. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/ The problem is that they also want to appear that they care for the human race; hence, environmentalism that's actually part of sustainable development, or sustaining economic development. Hence, just change light bulbs, "green" energy and "gamechangers," and so on. That's why the main investors in oil companies are also the main investors in solar power components.
I'll add that I don't think any corporation is necessarily malign or benevolent. Much depends on their size. Smaller corporations simply don't have the power to control our lives. Large ones do, especially when linked by common shareholders and intertwined boards of directors with other large corporations. Your comment is obscure. What is the 'opposite' the globalists want? "Competition is a sin." - John D. Rockefeller
The political left is actively destroying our economy and everything else -- on purpose. There is no mystery here. They want economic disruption and shortages, they want to control our movements, they want widespread violent crime, they want people scared, hungry and helpless. At some point the masses will BEG government to "fix" everything -- meaning more government power, less liberty. They will be more than happy to clean up the streets for real (after we're disarmed) and ration food, energy, etc. That's what Communists do.
they will find out that solar panels...millions of them are acting like giant mirrors...burning holes by the thousands in the ozone....
They don't want to kill us, which is why they are not malign. Killing almost everyone is a bad idea for corporations, as that leads to less economic activity.
Back in the 1950s, Hubbert argued that conventional oil production per capita in the states would peak by 1970, and it happened. Later, he argued in 1976 that world conventional oil production would peak in 2005 or so. In 2010, the IEA acknowledged that conventional production entered a plateau in 2006. During the same time, one researcher noted that oil production per capita peaked back in 1979. Later, the EIA reported that shale production would also peak earlier because of high capex and depletion rates. In general, the oil industry has been facing diminishing returns. One analyst pointed out that its capex was tripling while the rate of new oil produced was cut by more than half. The BIS estimates current debts at more than $2.5 trillion. To pay for that plus borrow more in order to increase production, the price per barrel has to be at least $100, and rise continuously. Currently, the Saudis are fighting with the U.S. over oil production. A decade earlier, Saudi Arabia started paying for solar power and nuclear reactors. A decade before that, someone reported that the water cut was rising, and that the cost of putting Manifa online was around $150 a barrel.
And returning the thread to the topic of the Permian Basin... "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have broad authority to require states to decarbonize their electricity sectors, a decision that is expected to dramatically slow the United States’ ability to reduce greenhouse gases and mitigate the effects of climate change. The court’s 6-3 ruling on a case sparked by Texas and 16 other states — which addressed an Obama-era regulation aimed at coal-fired power plants, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation — was a blow to President Joe Biden’s plan to reduce U.S. emissions and meet the country’s goals under international agreements.
My favorite climate scientist: If the globalist' efforts result in lower greenhouse emissions, that is more or less an afterthought. Their primary goal is to destroy this country's economy and culture and reduce its viability as a nation-state in order to usher in their precious world government. World vaccine expert Bizarre Bill is on record stating that he wants either the population or the level of Co2 emission reduced to zero. Less Co2 means lower crop production. Think about that. What's he going to grow on his half a million acres of American prime farmland then? He's buying farmland to prevent food from being grown on it.
I'd post you links to prove the opposite but I doubt you like or would look at information that conflicts with your foregone conclusions.
Corporations are for-profit, and they earn from combinations of financial speculation and sales of goods and services, and because they want maximization of profit, they want both to increase. That can't happen if most people are killed.
You've repeated your point. I heard it the first time so I'll repeat mine. After a period in which the wealthy control most people and most governments, they shift from a purely profit motive to one in which they seek total control of all people and all governments with a view towards world government. If that is achieved they simply don't need all of us useless eaters using their resources. To understand this you need to break out of the strict confines of your anti-capitalist stance. It appears you're unable to do that. The discussion is going in circles and getting boring. I won't respond any further.
How does that even make sense? Much of the wealth of the wealthy consists of numbers in hard drives, and whatever physical assets they own are protected by armed useless eaters. What allows for production of goods and services that they use come from the same majority of what you call useless eaters. What are they going to offer to those armed useless eaters to protect them from the unarmed useless eaters? Numbers in hard drives that are useless? Precious metals with no practical value? Arable land that the same armed useless eaters can easily take from them and that can be made productive only with useless eaters doing manual labor? Perhaps get more armed useless eaters to go against the armed useless eaters, and after which one armed group takes down the other, will go after that? Or are you imagining the rich using robot soldiers and workers making more of the same and killing everyone? To understand what I'm saying you need to break away from fantasizing, and especially what you think is a capitalist stance. And let's get the last point clear: my stance is not anti-capitalist but capitalist because what I just explained to you is exactly how capitalist systems operate. In contrast, what you have in mind is not a capitalist but a feudal stance, where the leader of an armed group takes over and eslaves the unarmed using physical force. And unless you have some Hollywood The Postman storyline where a salesman gets to be a warlord one day, it's highly unlikely that many of the wealthy people you are referring to will become warlords, let alone survive. Finally, don't forget honor among thieves: many of these armed people will eventually turn on each other.