• offtopic
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: awmaneva
  4 hours ago
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 2
• offtopic
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: elizawaret
  04-18-2024, 08:42 AM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 22
• Breaking News
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: Robyie
  04-18-2024, 04:06 AM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 23
• download galaxy swapper v...
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: AngeloMew
  04-17-2024, 11:06 AM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 25
• Rufus download
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: AnthonyWar
  04-17-2024, 07:34 AM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 23
• Died Suddenly
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: Jasonfah
  04-16-2024, 08:10 PM
  » Replies: 4
  » Views: 4,114
• SHOCK! U.S. Military Cove...
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: JamalSnoge
  04-16-2024, 09:50 AM
  » Replies: 3
  » Views: 4,168
• casino
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: casino
  04-13-2024, 10:17 AM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 53
• offtopic
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: hatmoilka
  04-12-2024, 08:01 PM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 44
• casino
  Forum: The Truth is in Here
  Last Post: casino
  04-11-2024, 09:29 PM
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 36

• Forum posts:541
• Forum threads:280
• Members:105
• Latest member:awmaneva

They used to tell us that we were in danger due to external foreign terrorists threatening our safety. Now they are pointing their weapons at US, telling us the threat lives inside of us & monitoring & policing us like we are the enemy & are now waging a war on terror against us. And just like our lives & society were restructured to fight the war on terror, they are now too, except they are brainwashing & manipulating us to believe that WE are the threat, making us feel dirty & to treat our friends and loved ones as if they are now potential terrorists.

The war against terror has moved from pointing guns at foreign invaders to pointing weapons at ourselves & assuming anyone around us may be a threat to us or our loved ones’s life. Instead of being suspicious of foreign entities, we’re suspicions of ourselves & our neighbors. Can you hear the war call? They are gathering troops & supplies to defeat the enemy, which they’ve convinced you lives inside of you & will use a vaccine to blast it out of you, so you can feel safe. But you never will be, because they own your mind & now your body if you allow this.

Now everyone thinks they’re dirty & contaminated & we look at loved ones as threats to us. They’ve not only restructured the way our society functions, but also how we interact with our families & our children. Anyone could be a terrorist now-everyone is a threat.

UNBELIEVABLE: In New Interview Bobby Kennedy Jr. Claims Dr. Fauci will Make Millions on Coronavirus Vaccine and Owns Half the Patent

Robert Kennedy Jr. and Harvard Attorney Alan Dershowitz debated on the topic of the coronavirus vaccine back in July. During the debate, Kennedy Jr. claimed that Dr. Anthony Fauci invested $500 million in the vaccine that is not safe by any means and Fauci owns half the patent so he’s due to make millions.

On May 5, 2009, Bill Gates gathered together a handful of the West’s richest men who met in Manhattan to discuss what they considered the most dangerous, most critical threat to the planet. 

Those attending included Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, George Soros, and David Rockefeller, Jr. What did they deem the world’s biggest threat? They each gave a 15-minute presentation on their primary concern for the planet. “Taking their cue from Gates, they agreed overpopulation was a priority,” according to the report from London’s Sunday Times.

Gates, Rockefeller, and Soros

Meanwhile, the staffers of the oligarchs were told that “security briefings” were the reason for their meeting. “We only learned about it afterward,” said Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Normally these people are happy to talk about good causes, but this is different—maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal.” ][1]

Gates meeting was a great success, as his billionaire friends and all the major foundations decided to contribute to the Gates Foundation’s population control efforts. Warren Buffett, the second richest at the time behind Gates, shifted $31 billion of his assets to his friend Bill. In 2011, Gates told CNN: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.” In a 2010 Ted Talk he said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [population] by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.”

Such quotes alarmed many that Gates’ obsession with vaccines might be accompanied by a sinister agenda for population reduction. This concern materialized in Kenya in 2014 when of 3 million women there unknowingly received vaccinations from the Gates-funded World Health Organization that were secretly laced with a sterilant and contraceptive. The WHO denied it, but in 2017, the former prime minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga backed the doctors: “Today, we can confirm to the country that the Catholic Church was right.” ][2]

My article last week highlighted Gates’s association with eugenicist, Nazi sympathizer, and white supremacist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, through Bill Gates, Sr. being “head of Planned Parenthood,” according a 2003 Bill Gates interview with Bill Moyers. My second article this week documents that Gates, along with George Soros, is a key donor for the Lucis Trust, originally named after Lucifer.

What about the others attending that 2009 meeting, such as David Rockefeller? The Rockefeller Foundation funded Margaret Sanger in her early years. A little research on the Kenya HCG vaccine that sterilizes women also brings to the fore the Rockefeller family. I tracked down the Rockefeller Foundation’s 1968 Annual Report. On page 52, it calls for “progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility.” Their 1988 Annual Report cites a large grant given to India for “a large anti-fertility vaccine for women.” Another generous grant is listed on page 56 “for research on a potential contraceptive vaccine based on beta-hCG synthesized bacteria”—just a few years before the 1993 experiments in Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. ][3]

Ted TurnerLet’s look at one more member of the famous 2009 meeting of oligarchs in Manhattan—Ted Turner. The founder of CNN has been concerned about overpopulation for decades. In 1996, he told Audubon magazine, “We’re all 5 billion of us on this little earth swimming around in space, and there’s too many of us,” he said. “If we had a much smaller population . . . we could cut back to 250 million—350 million people.” 

Turner’s longings are memorialized by a monument of huge, druid-like stone tablets that sit atop a rural hill in Elbert County, Georgia, 30 minutes from CNN headquarters. Yoko Ono wrote a musical score with John Cage in three movements to honor these “Georgia Stones,” which proclaim in eight languages the “Ten Guides” for the billions of people now on earth.

The First Guide says in engraved script: “Maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature.” [4]

There are no instructions for how to get from today’s 7+ billion down to 500 million people, causing us to wonder what kinds of plans were being made by Turner, Gates, Rockefeller and the others at their secret meeting in 2009.

Georgia Guidestones

UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program, quoted an expert in its Global Biodiversity Assessment Report: “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”

Some high-profile figures, however, have called for a deliberate attempt by world leaders to kill off large segments of the population. In a 1991 United Nations publication, world famous oceanographer Jacques Cousteau said: “It’s terrible to have to say this: World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. Prince Philip, royal spouse of Queen Elizabeth, declared his ambition to solve the “population explosion” by being reincarnated as a “particularly deadly virus.” Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist philosopher and humanist leader, celebrated worldwide by population control institutions, provided a careful, reasoned quote to help understand how rational people just might consider eliminating half of humanity.

Bertrand Russell

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing,” wrote Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. “War so far has had no great effect on this increase . . .  perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full . . . the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of other people’s.” [5]

Bertrand Russell received the Nobel Prize for literature. He was by all accounts a cordial man. And he dressed nicely.

Again, it is difficult for all of us to imagine “nice” people thinking this way, or acting upon it. However, the elite mentality has always been with us, since Plato wrote his Republic 2300 years ago. Every kid studies this book at prep schools like the Gates’s attended. This most famous of Greek philosophers told us that the ruling class are those “whose aim will be to preserve the average of population.” He further stated, “There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.”

Plato adds that population control must be done in secret—what you might call a conspiracy. “Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd… breaking out into rebellion.”

David RockefellerIn his 2003 memoirs, David Rockefeller does nothing to dispel the notion that Plato’s Republic is the oligarch’s go-to playbook: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Margaret SangerThe Rockefellers have another black mark on their record that is particularly egregious. Dr. Gregory Pincus, who helped Sanger develop the birth control pill, studied and worked with the Rockefeller funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, exposed for sterilizing 600 French African children and closely associating with the Nazi eugenics program. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was in fact the primary driver of eugenics in Hitler’s Third Reich, overseeing a complex of hospitals and research centers, including the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Hitler was highly influenced by the first director, Eugen Fischer, and his two volume Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene. Many ideas from this book reappear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Dr. Karin Magnussen conducted experiments at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute on eye color to prove Nazi racial theories, and her eye specimens were supplied from concentration camps by famous Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele. When funding began to fall, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s eugenicist center looked to the Rockefellers, who provided more support.

Excerpted from Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa.

Link to the original article and its footnotes.

Gold is over $2000 an ounce and silver is at $25. It is a beautiful day.

The rich know what is coming.

• [url=https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing][/url]
  

Jul 31, 2020

Traders on the main gold futures exchange in New York have issued the largest daily delivery notice on record.
In the latest sign of how the market’s norms have been upended by the price disconnect that struck in March, traders on Thursday declared their intent to deliver 3.27 million ounces of gold against the August Comex contract, the largest daily notice in bourse data going back to 1994.
While millions of ounces of gold trade on the futures market every day, typically only a tiny fraction of that goes to delivery. But in recent months, huge amounts of bullion have flowed into New York and the Comex has seen record deliveries.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/gold-traders...-1.1473573

---

Today:
Gold prices hit an all-time of $2,000 per ounce Tuesday, extending a year-to-date gain that has driven a rally in bullion and prompted the largest inflows into gold ETFs in history.
Spot gold prices traded at $2,000 per ounce in early New York dealing, rising 1.7% on the session as the U.S. dollar struggled to hold gains against a basket of its global peers. The gain extends gold's year-to-date advance to just over 31.5% Comex gold futures for August delivery, meanwhile, rose 1.65% to $1,998.40 per ounce.
Data from the World Gold Council, published last week showed that  flows into gold-backed ETFs have risen to 734 tonnes over the first half of the year, an all time high that surpasses the previous record set in 2009.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/gold...s-declines

---

United States will be losing its AAA rating soon. The warning has been issued, watch for the downgrade.

Fitch Ratings revised its outlook on the country’s credit score to negative from stable, citing a “deterioration in the U.S. public finances and the absence of a credible fiscal consolidation plan.” The country’s ranking remains AAA.

“High fiscal deficits and debt were already on a rising medium-term path even before the onset of the huge economic shock precipitated by the coronavirus,” Fitch said. “They have started to erode the traditional credit strengths of the U.S.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-st...48506.html

When asked about states' rights to decide when to reopen schools and businesses, Trump said, "The president of the United States calls the shots."

While discussing whether he or the nation's governors have the power to lift restrictions states put in place to fight the spread of the coronavirus, President Donald Trump declared at a news briefing Monday, "When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total."

The president's unprecedented claim of total power met with immediate pushback from Democrats and Republicans, many of them arguing the U.S. Constitution explicitly refutes his claim to absolute authority.

"The federal government does not have absolute power," said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who went on to quote the text of the 10th Amendment in a tweet that went viral. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said changes to the social-distancing orders should be made by the governors. Federal guidelines "will be very influential. But the Constitution & common sense dictates these decisions be made at the state level," he tweeted.

Jonathan Turley – a law professor at George Washington University who argued against Trump's impeachment before the House Judiciary Committee and a USA TODAY contributor – said the framers wrote the Constitution precisely to bar presidents from claiming the type of authority asserted by Trump.

"Our constitutional system was forged during a period of grave unease over executive authority. After all, the nation had just broken away from the control of a tyrant," Turley said. And if there is "one overriding principle" in the Constitution, it is to avoid the concentration of power, and it does so "in myriad ways," he said.

The 10th Amendment was one instrument written to help ensure that the federal government would not be able to impose the kind of absolute authority the framers feared.

'Disgraceful': Trump spars with CBS reporter over questioning of early coronavirus response

[bq2]
Pres Trump stated that “When somebody is President of the United States, his authority is total.” The Constitution was written precisely the deny that particular claim. It also reserved to the states (& individuals) rights not expressly given to the federal government.

[/bq2]


What the 10th Amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What it means
Turley said federalism, in which states are granted a large degree of autonomy, was one of the ways the framers sought to avoid authoritarianism. The other was to limit the possibility of "constitutional drift" – in which individual officials or branches of the federal government slowly expand their authority – by creating "clear structural limitations" on the powers of the federal government.

He described the 10th Amendment as an "insurance policy" against such constitutional "mission creep."

"It basically mandates that the default position" in conflicts between the states and the federal government "rests with the states," he said, "So, when federal push comes to states' shove, the states are supposed to prevail."

"There is nothing particularly ambiguous about that."

Kathleen Bergin, a law professor at Cornell University, agreed.

"It's so plain and obvious it's not even debatable," Begin said. "Trump has no authority to ease social distancing, or to open schools or private businesses. These are matters for states to decide under their power to promote public health and welfare, a power guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution."

How it applies to the coronavirus outbreak
"Federalism was not designed to combat a contagion, it was designed to combat tyranny," Turley said. But according to the principles of federalism, it is the "primary responsibility of the states to prepare for and to deal with pandemics" such as this, he added.

Previously, Trump denied it was his responsibility to supply the states with the medicine and equipment needed to contain and treat the virus when asked about governors' complaints that the federal government was not doing enough to help them. And when pressured to issue a nationwide stay-at-home order, Trump said he preferred to leave it up to each governor to impose such restrictions.

"What the president said directly contradicts his position of the last three weeks," said Turley, who has written columns supporting Trump's previous approach.

"One of his most unnerving statements was that governors imposed these orders simply because he let them do it and that he could have declared a national quarantine earlier," Turley said. "That's a direct contradiction of what he has previously stated, but, more importantly, what the Constitution states."

Bergin said Trump was not "powerless," however.

"He could lift international travel restrictions and issue directives to the military or federal agencies," she said. "But he doesn't get constitutional authority simply by claiming it. What he tries to do and what he's authorized by the Constitution to do are two different things."

No statutory power when it comes to social distancing
Charles Fried, who has taught at Harvard Law School since 1961, strongly disputed the idea that the 10th Amendment was relevant to Trump's claim of total authority and said the real issue was that Congress had not passed any law granting Trump authority to order a national quarantine or stay-at-home directive.

Fried said the 10th Amendment was a "bogus concern" in this instance and anyone making that argument is "barking up the wrong tree" or is a "10th Amendment nut."

"People like Cheney just want to bring federalism into everything, but it's not a federalism problem," Fried told USA TODAY.

Fried said the problem was really in the fact that Congress hadn't given Trump the power that he claimed. But he said it theoretically could under its authority to regulate business as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

"And that's why I don't like referring to the 10th Amendment. It's not really a 10th Amendment issue. It's a rule of law issue," Fried said. "The president can't just say, 'I am the boss.'"

Fried pointed to the 1952 Supreme Court case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in which the court ruled President Harry Truman did not have the power to take control of the nation's steel mills despite a labor strike that threatened production during the Korean War.

"The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," wrote Justice Hugo Black.

How would Trump enforce it?
David Cole, the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told USA TODAY that even if Congress passed a law granting the president the authority to implement a national curfew, quarantine or stay-at-home order, and it survived constitutional challenges, Trump would not be able to compel the states to enforce it.

Under what is known at the "anti-commandeering principle" the courts have ruled that states don't have to use their resources or law enforcement officials to enact federal programs.

For example, in the 1997 case Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required background checks for handgun sales, was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment because it required local law enforcement officers to carry out the background checks.

"He could not direct the mayor of New York, or the governor of New York to carry out that program," Cole said. Trump could ask the National Guard to carry it out, or the FBI, but not state or local officials, Cole said.

So, despite the president's claims, his authority is far from total, Cole and other legal experts agreed.

"He can only execute laws that Congress has passed, and Congress can only pass laws that are authorized by the Constitution," Cole said.

COVID-19 Facts That Flatten the Fear

Updated as of July 20, 2020

The CDC recently revised its death rate estimate down to just 0.4 percent.

One percent of counties in the country account for nearly half of all Covid-19 deaths nationally.

Ten percent of counties account for nearly 90 percent of all deaths.

Roughly 30 percent of the counties in the country haven’t experienced a single coronavirus death.

Nearly half of all coronavirus deaths have come in nursing homes.

In many states, nursing homes and assisted living facilities account for far more than half of all deaths—around 80 percent in Minnesota and around 70 percent in Ohio.

More than 80 percent of all Covid-19 deaths are among those over 65 years old.

Those aged under 55 account for just eight percent of all Covid-19 deaths.

If you are 34 years old or younger, your probability of dying from Covid-19 as of June 3rd was 0.0005 percent.

The overwhelming majority of deaths are among those with at least one other underlying medical condition. For six percent of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause mentioned.

Most ICU admissions—in some cases 75 percent or more—aren’t Covid-related.

The resumption of elective—yet vital—surgeries is contributing to increased ICU-utilization rates around the country.

More children die each year from the flu than Covid-19. Children rarely display serious symptoms from Covid-19 or infect others. Some scientists believe children are a “brake” on transmissions.

After European schools reopened, there was no observable increase in Covid-19 cases.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Academy of Sciences conclude that children can safely return to school.


www.flattenthefear.com

Right now I want to, need to, create a logo for this forum. So I'll get started on this post when I get the chance, but if you do have any questions don't hold back.

The economic shutdown associated with coronavirus has taken a huge bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a recent analysis from the UK-based research outfit Carbon Brief, it could add up to the largest one-year drop in emissions in history: 2,000 metric tonnes of CO2, equal to about 5.5% of the planet’s 2019 carbon footprint. Before coronavirus, global emissions were expected to increase at least 1% this year. 

That’s an astounding reversal. But it reveals a stark reality: Even sustained emissions reductions on this scale wouldn’t be enough to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement. To make that possible, emissions need to drop 7.6% every year this decade, according to the UN. 

So how is it possible that everything we’re living through—all the shuttered factories and construction sites, grounded airplanes, parked cars, falling electricity use, vanishing oil demand, and more—isn’t enough to get us on track? In the short term, it actually is: Carbon Brief found that during the peak of its shutdown, China’s emissions dropped 25%; in April, India’s may fall by 30%. But the problem is that, assuming total shutdown conditions relax in the next month or two, emissions are likely to jump right back to business as usual, said Simon Evans, a biochemist and Carbon Brief’s deputy editor. 

“The current situation is a terrible model for getting on track for 1.5C,” he said. “Fundamentally nothing has changed. Once people get back in their cars, it’s the same cars. We just hit pause, but reaching any climate goal requires structural shifts.”  Scientists have devised dozens of different pathways for reaching the 1.5C goal, different combinations of strategies carried out over different periods of time between now and 2050, each with its own pros and cons. These are explored in detail in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 special report on 1.5C, which painted a fairly grim picture of our odds of reaching that goal. The San Francisco-based nonprofit Drawdown Project also has a useful guide. But they all boil down to a few key steps to eliminate our use of fossil fuels:     

Make the electric grid work on 100% renewable energy. Make cars and everything else that consumes fossil fuels run on electricity instead—and use less of it. Deploy high-tech fixes for things that are hard to run on electricity with current technology, like airplanes, and to remove CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere. Reduce emissions from agriculture by using resources, including land, more efficiently.  It’s clear that travel restrictions and social distancing don’t do much to advance those goals; even if they did, Evans said, there are few climate activists who think making millions of people suffer extreme economic and medical hardship is the best way forward. If anything, the shutdown has been detrimental to the clean energy industry. And depending on what kind of stimulus measures governments put in place after the pandemic, emissions could grow even faster than before.

The economic shutdown associated with coronavirus has taken a huge bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a recent analysis from the UK-based research outfit Carbon Brief, it could add up to the largest one-year drop in emissions in history: 2,000 metric tonnes of CO2, equal to about 5.5% of the planet’s 2019 carbon footprint. Before coronavirus, global emissions were expected to increase at least 1% this year.

That’s an astounding reversal. But it reveals a stark reality: Even sustained emissions reductions on this scale wouldn’t be enough to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement. To make that possible, emissions need to drop 7.6% every year this decade, according to the UN.

So how is it possible that everything we’re living through—all the shuttered factories and construction sites, grounded airplanes, parked cars, falling electricity use, vanishing oil demand, and more—isn’t enough to get us on track? In the short term, it actually is: Carbon Brief found that during the peak of its shutdown, China’s emissions dropped 25%; in April, India’s may fall by 30%. But the problem is that, assuming total shutdown conditions relax in the next month or two, emissions are likely to jump right back to business as usual, said Simon Evans, a biochemist and Carbon Brief’s deputy editor.

“The current situation is a terrible model for getting on track for 1.5C,” he said. “Fundamentally nothing has changed. Once people get back in their cars, it’s the same cars. We just hit pause, but reaching any climate goal requires structural shifts.”

Scientists have devised dozens of different pathways for reaching the 1.5C goal, different combinations of strategies carried out over different periods of time between now and 2050, each with its own pros and cons. These are explored in detail in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 special report on 1.5C, which painted a fairly grim picture of our odds of reaching that goal. The San Francisco-based nonprofit Drawdown Project also has a useful guide.

But they all boil down to a few key steps to eliminate our use of fossil fuels:

• Make the electric grid work on 100% renewable energy.
  
• Make cars and everything else that consumes fossil fuels run on electricity instead—and use less of it.
  
• Deploy high-tech fixes for things that are hard to run on electricity with current technology, like airplanes, and to remove CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere.
  
• Reduce emissions from agriculture by using resources, including land, more efficiently.
  

It’s clear that travel restrictions and social distancing don’t do much to advance those goals; even if they did, Evans said, there are few climate activists who think making millions of people suffer extreme economic and medical hardship is the best way forward. If anything, the shutdown has been detrimental to the clean energy industry. And depending on what kind of stimulus measures governments put in place after the pandemic, emissions could grow even faster than before.