logy there is. Ask France. It's not like France didn't exist which has very robust nuclear energy, sort of the envy of other countries I would say. It's not like Germany didn't notice that France was in a much better situation. So they basically crippled themselves so that energy is hard to get which means the price will be high which means the things manufactured will be a higher price.

But it gets worse. Well actually the Germans voted for a change in direction. This is also from the New York Post. So they've got a new person there. They elected Friedrich Merz. So he said he's going to prioritize the economy over warring on carbon. So what does that sound like? A Republican. It's just a Republican.

But here's one that blew me away. British economic growth has been anemic for years and one of the biggest reasons is because the industrial and commercial electric rates in the UK are among the highest in the world. It's four times more expensive just energy-wise to make something in the UK, just the energy part. Now of course that's always a big part so how can they even be globally competitive if they've tripled their costs? So every single thing they make is going to be wildly overpriced compared to everybody else. And they didn't see that coming? Like nobody could see that coming? It was the most obvious thing you could ever imagine that if you used less efficient forms of energy prices go up. If you close down other forms you know prices go up.

And so they call him a climate change denier. I wouldn't call him a climate change denier. Rather he's you know that even in the worst case scenario it doesn't look like it'd be that bad. So he points out that even if global warming is kind of what you think it is, and by the way I don't think he calls himself an economist but the New York Post did, and he said that the difference would be that by 2100 your growth would be 435% instead of 450%. Basically you wouldn't even notice the effect of climate change on your economy in between now and 2100. That's a long time. Long time.

Well in related news, and I'd like to say before I start you're taking my CO2. It's my plant food. All the plants are going to die if you try to take the CO2 out of the air. All the plants will die. Don't you understand it's plant food you fool? Swimming is the best exercise. Use a French press. Soil and green as people. So those of you who are NPCs you need to say the most obvious thing that you could say after I read this story.

So Yale announced has some kind of super efficient way to turn carbon dioxide into usable energy with incredible efficiency. Now I won't read you the details but it turns it into something called methanol which could be used as a fuel. But I think it also uses a lot of energy to get it done so I don't know if it's a net positive or not. But it is interesting that they have a way to turn CO2 into a useful fuel. Right? They're going to kill all the plants. They're going to take all my CO2. I don't know. They'd have to work pretty hard to suck enough out of the air that they could make up for whatever China and India are going to be doing for the next 100 years. I think your plants will be okay.

Well Data Republican, the data analyst who's just making a lot of waves on X, was talking about the NGOs on a podcast and I think I heard that there are 55,000 NGOs. In other words 55,000 entities that directly or indirectly take money from the United States government and have no accountability. 55,000 of them. If you have any doubt that this is a money laundering operation, in addition to it might do some good things but it seems like it's at least half of it is money laundering but also a sort of a parallel government because they can control so much through the NGOs. Everything from censoring people to all kinds of probably some lawfare, just all kinds of things. So it's a way to control the country but also probably a money laundering thing.

But Data Republican says that 7,000 of them are politically connected and hoarding 90% of all the taxpayer money meant for nonprofits. So apparently there's about 300 billion a year that our government puts into these NGOs with zero transparency. So nobody knows where the money goes after it goes there. Isn't that mind-blowing that we don't know? Like the Department of Defense has never passed an audit and there might be a trillion dollars missing. We don't know. And 300 billion a year go into these NGOs which have no accountability and just sort of disappears.

Now under those circumstances do you think there's any chance it's not corruption? What else could it be? Because the most, you know everybody would at least have a report of how the money got spent so they could get more next time. But apparently their access to money, the NGOs, is not in any way affected by what they do with the money. That answers all the questions. If their performance with the last money you gave them doesn't make any difference to how much you get next time that's got to be corruption right? What