Agenda 21
Politicians Should Be Jailed for Pushing the “Unreliable Renewables” scam!
Lunacy of Wind & Solar Power Policy: Political Incompetence or Conspiracy?
September 26, 2014 by
John Kutsch heads up the Thorium Energy Alliance an outfit that aims to see power generated using thorium enjoy a place at our reliable energy table.
Thorium is an abundant silver-gray element named for the Norse god of thunder. It’s less radioactive than the uranium used to power conventional nuclear plants; it produces less waste; and is more difficult to turn into nuclear weapons.
Advocates like Kutsch want to adapt traditional nuclear plants to use thorium as a fuel or replace them with a completely new kind of reactor called a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”). The LFTR would use a mixture of molten chemical salts to cool the reactor and to transfer energy from the fission reaction to a turbine.
Kutsch argues that such a system is more efficient and safer than existing plants, which use pressurized water to cool uranium fuel rods and boiling water or steam to transfer the energy they create. Kutsch says: “A molten-salt reactor is not a pressurized reactor. It doesn’t use water for cooling, so you don’t have the possibility of a hydrogen explosion, as you did in Fukushima.”
Kutsch and other advocates say that a thorium-fueled reactor burns hotter than uranium reactors, consuming more of the fuel. Kutsch says that “Ninety-nine percent of the thorium is burned up. Instead of 10,000 pounds of waste, you would have 300 pounds of waste.”
STT isn’t about to weigh into the debate about thorium, but we’re on the same page as Kutsch when he slams into the lunacy of wind power.
Here’s a video of John belting into the infantile logic of trying to rely upon power sources delivered at crazy, random intervals. Oh and it comes with a “PG” warning: John’s frustration at our political betters leads to one or two “F” bombs.
blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/b6668f91-9d89-49a1-9a99-190b7f2f361a
AGENDA 21….WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! Fight Agenda 21!
AGENDA 21: THE ROCKEFELLERS ARE BUILDING HUMAN SETTLEMENT ZONES
According to many “experts”, such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities, by 2050. Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities. What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community? Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.
What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world’s top “leaders”, and leading organizations. By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city. This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled. If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.
In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like “livable communities”, “complete streets”, and “resilient cities”, and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations….
http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com/2014/03/agenda-21-rockefellers-are-building.html
This is a continuation of the great ripoff of the 1930’s by other means. And it implies depopulation, psychological control (by obstetrical abuse, circumcision, “diet, injections, and injunctions”) and social regimentation.
Communists Masquerading as Environmentalists…..Watermelons!
Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda
September 23rd, 2014 – 4:31 pm
Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.
Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.
At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.
The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.
Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.
Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.
Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)
This proof will necessarily entail posting a lot of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.
Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.
As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by Socialist Action, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…
…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as the communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…
…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.
Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…
…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.
“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”
“Capitali$m is Destroying the Environment.”
Do I even need to point out that socialist and communist countries like China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and elsewhere have absolutely appalling environmental histories, past present and future, which far exceed in ecological destruction anything encountered in capitalist societies? No, I don’t need to point that out, because you already know it. You do — but apparently the people at this rally live in a fantasy world where “socialism” is the opposite of “pollution.”
“Capitalism is Killing the Planet. FIGHT FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE!” This same message from the International Socialist Organization, a self-professed Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist revolutionary group, was also prominent at the New York climate march.
If you enter the rally from the other side, you encounter
The Socialist Alternative, one of the few socialist parties to actually have a member elected to public office in mainstream society…
…The Democratic Socialists of America, a comparatively mild-mannered group who want to make America communist via peaceful democratic transition instead of the violent revolution advocated by most other extreme left revolutionary parties….
…and Freedom Socialist, a lesser-known group who nonetheless managed to gain control of the coveted “socialism.com” URL which they use to promote their radical feminist version of communism in “the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.”
Many of these Marxist, communist and socialist groups, by the way, were official sponsors of the event. They weren’t hangers-on — they helped to organize the rally.
Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”
Had enough? Sorry. I apologize. Because we’re just getting started with the proof that communists dominate the narrative of the climate change movement.
Everywhere I turned, I encountered people with the message, “System Change, Not Climate Change.” If anything, this was the motto of the entire rally.
Stop the Outrageous Subsidies, and the Wind Scam Dies!
US Wind Industry Under Siege: Congress Set to Cut Subsidies as Communities Boil Over
September 23, 2014 by
Wind power opponents seek repeal of tax credit
The Seattle Times
Hal Bernton and Erin Heffernan
21 September 2014
FOREST, Wisconsin — When wind-power developers prospected the rolling hills around this small dairy town, they found plenty of gusty sites for turbines. In 2011, they proposed a $250 million project with up to 44 turbines that could produce enough energy to power thousands of homes.
Since then, nothing has come easy for the developer in a state that has emerged as a stronghold of resistance to the spread of wind power.
In Forest, opponents gained enough votes to take over the town government, sued in state court to try to block the project, and added their support to a national movement that seeks to end the federal tax credit for the wind-power industry.
“We are here to protect our property values, our eagles, our health and our town,” said Brenda Salseg, spokeswoman for the Forest Voice, the local opposition group, which posted online a form letter urging the Wisconsin congressional delegation to oppose the tax credit.
The tax credit was passed by Congress in 1992 and has been periodically extended. It is currently set at 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour, and, during times of glutted electricity markets, can be worth more than the wholesale price of power.
This tax credit has helped catapult wind power to the front of the U.S. efforts to launch a renewable-energy industry.
By the end of 2012, wind power represented 43 percent of all new U.S. electric generation installed that year and was hailed by the Obama administration as a key in the global effort to combat climate change.
Wind power also has been bolstered by state mandates that require utilities to acquire a certain percentage of the power from renewable-energy sources.
The turbines operate in more than three dozen states, from Washington’s Columbia River Plateau to the Allegheny Mountains of Maryland, and in 2013 provided more than 4 percent of the nation’s power, according to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.
In many areas, wind turbines have been welcomed as an economic boon to landowners who are paid for leasing acreage.
But as wind power has grown, so, too, has the opposition.
In some communities, such as Forest, developers have faced a backlash from residents concerned about the noise and health effects of living near wind-power projects.
The toll on birds and bats killed by turbine blades has drawn scrutiny.
Critics have attacked wind power as a fickle source of electricity that ebbs whenever the wind dies down. They fault the tax credit for encouraging new projects when many utilities have plenty of power.
Over time, the politics of wind power have become more partisan.
Most of the wind-power capacity is within Republican congressional districts, but many politicians in the party have made ending the tax credit part of their agenda. This year, efforts to extend the tax credit have made little headway in the Republican-controlled House.
Some House Republicans such as Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., still back the tax credit, according to Reichert’s spokeswoman. But some former supporters have turned against it.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, once advocated the tax credit that helped spur investment in wind farms in his California district. But before his June election to his leadership position, he told the Wall Street Journal he thinks wind companies no longer need the tax credit.
“My feeling is the current situation is as bad as it has ever been,” said Robert Kahn, a Seattle consultant who represents wind-power developers. “Congress is so polarized about so many things that if some people are for it, other people are going to have to be against it.”
The fight against the tax credit also has been championed by Americans for Prosperity. One of the nation’s most prominent conservative advocacy groups, it was co-founded by billionaire David Koch, who has extensive interests in the fossil-fuels industry.
The organization last fall sent an open letter to Congress signed by more than 100 groups, including many smaller groups formed to fight wind power.
Wind-power advocates note that fossil-fuel industries have received federal subsidies for decades, such as a tax provision that allows favorable write-offs of oil-drilling costs. They say the government should put a price on carbon, or continue offering incentives for technologies that produce energy without carbon emissions. “We don’t want to lower or eliminate our tax credit when everyone else gets to keep theirs,” said Jim Reilly, a senior vice president of the American Wind Energy Association.
The wind-power tax credit extends over the first 10 years of a project’s operation. Congress has typically extended the credit a few years at a time, creating financial uncertainties for the wind-power industry.
In 2013, installations of wind farms declined by more than 90 percent from the previous year, reflecting concerns that the credit would not be extended.
Congress did extend the credit that year, eventually prompting many companies to break ground on projects.
Many are going in this year, putting the industry on a record pace for construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
The cost of new power has plummeted to record lows. The average price of about $25 per megawatt hour for power-purchase agreements in 2013 was nearly a third less than in 2009, according to a study by the Lawrence Berkeley lab.
What would happen if the tax credit dies?
Ryan Wiser, a co-author of the Berkeley report, said that would push the price of wind power past $40 a megawatt hour, and cool investor interest.
“The number of projects would be much less, but there is no doubt there would be some,” Wiser said.
Even without a tax credit, wind power also would receive a boost from President Barack Obama’s proposed rule to limit emissions from existing power plants. It could prompt the closing of some coal plants and open up more demand for turbine power.
But the proposed rule is opposed by many Republicans, and already is facing court challenges.
Conflict still rages Wisconsin once was swept up in the wind-power boom. But it’s now an example of how a state, even with federal incentives in place, can put the brakes on turbines. Many wind-power projects in Wisconsin are on relatively small properties, increasing the potential for conflicts with neighbors who don’t receive any lease payments but find themselves living next to turbines.
“The first day the turbines came on, I thought it was a jet plane taking off,” said Gerry Meyer, a retired mail carrier who complains of health effects from living near turbines in rural southeast Wisconsin.
Meyer has testified at state legislative hearings and also networked with Forest activists seeking to block the wind-power project proposed there by Emerging Energies.
These opponents have found some powerful allies among state Republican politicians.
“Wind turbines have proved to be an expensive, inefficient source of electricity, and thus any future construction of turbines simply is not a policy goal or object that should be pursued further,” Gov. Scott Walker wrote in a 2010 campaign memo obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Walker, once in office, backed a legislative effort to increase setbacks for turbines by increasing the distance they must be located from a neighbor, and measuring that setback from the neighbor’s house rather than property line. That 2011 effort failed.
But a legislative committee voted to suspend the state’s wind-siting rule to study the health effects of wind turbines.
By the time the rule was reinstated a year later, five Wisconsin wind projects had been suspended or canceled, according to Clean Wisconsin, a wind-power advocacy group. New installations of turbines plummeted in the state.
In the months ahead, developers’ attorneys will argue in court for the right to finally move ahead on the Forest project.
Meanwhile, an emotional battle over the project continues to rage within the community. “It’s been devastating for the town,” said Carol Johnson, a Forest resident who supports the project. “Many family members will never speak again … It’s just torn the town apart.”
The Seattle Times
As it goes in Wisconsin, it goes all around the globe: spear giant fans into closely settled rural communities and the only thing guaranteed to be generated isn’t meaningful power, but a constant source of anger, hostility and community division. What makes these people so wild is that all their suffering has done nothing for the economy or the environment, leaving them feeling like dupes in the greatest fraud of all time (see our post here).
We love the line about how closing coal plants would “open up more demand for turbine power”. We think that’s a form of flattery best reserved for first dates. There is no “demand for turbine power”. In the absence of mandated targets (shortfall charges, penalties and the like) or massive subsidies there is NO demand for an unreliable and intermittent power source that can only ever be delivered at crazy, random intervals (see our post here). Wind power is not an alternative energy source (unless you’re prepared to sit in the dark for hours and days on end?) and will never be a substitute for conventional generation sources available on demand (see our post here).
We note a lot of “brave” talk about the wind industry being able to survive if the US Congress does away with the Production Tax Credit (PTC).
If the tax credit dies, the US wind industry dies – it will not be a case – as Ryan Wiser asserts – that: “The number of projects would be much less, but there is no doubt there would be some”.
What utter piffle. Cut the subsidies and there will never be another wind turbine erected anywhere, ever again.
The massive stream of subsidies – like the REC and PTC – provide the ONLY explanation for the wind industry – as recognised by the “Sage of Omaha”, billionaire Warren Buffett – whose company Berkshire Hathaway has invested $billions in wind power in order to get at federal subsidies – namely the PTC – which is worth US$23 per MW/h for the first 10 years of operation.
A subsidiary of the Buffett-owned MidAmerican Energy Holdings owns 1,267 turbines in the US with a capacity of 2,285 MW – eventually when the company’s Wind VIII expansion is finished, MidAmerican will own 1,715 turbines with a capacity of 3,335 MW. Buffett has piled into giant fans for one reason only: to lower the tax rate paid by Berkshire Hathaway.
As Buffett put it earlier this year at his annual investor jamboree in Omaha, Nebraska:
“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
There, Warren Buffett said it, not us.
At least he had the honesty and integrity to explain the only conceivable basis for the greatest rort of all time. And isn’t it so much better when those that profit from it choose not to speak with “forked tongue”. Maybe Ryan Wiser, the CEC and AWEA can take a leaf out of Warren’s book?
Why Have So Many People Gone Enviro-Mental? It’s a Scam!
FULL-FRONTAL ENVIRONMENTALISM: WE KNEW IT ALL ALONG
There’s an old line that environmentalists are “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside. A lot of environmentalists will take great offense if you say this: No no! We like economic growth and capitalism just fine! We just want it to be “sustainable,” whatever that means. And don’t ask for specificity about what “sustainability” means in detail, unless you have a lot of time and a full bottle of hootch handy. Before long you’ll figure out that “sustainable” is just a code word for green things we like, and that it has no rigor whatsoever aside from old-fashioned factor-efficiency, which economists figured out over a century ago at least.
But anyway, environmentalists resist being called socialists. But next week Naomi Klein is coming out with a book called This Changes Everything. In case you’ve forgotten your show notes, Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine, a book ragingly popular with the far left that is so far gone into absurd conspiracizing and looney renderings of “neoliberalism” that it makes Lyndon LaRouche look positively staid by comparison.
What is the “this” that “changes everything” in her title? Why climate change, don’t you know? And what does it “change”? Why capitalism, of course. The argument of the book in one sentence is that only overthrowing capitalism can solve climate change. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s how the progressive lefty site CommonDreams described it today: “Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.” For this bit of candor about what we’ve long suspected of the climate campaign, we owe Klein and her followers a debt of thanks. I’m going to send her a bouquet of (sustainably-raised) flowers.
Climate change is just the ultimate in “late capitalism” I guess but what’s really getting late is the odor of this badly decayed Marxism. (Klein still uses the uproariously hilarious term “late capitalism” without a trace of irony in her pre-publications articles.) Talk about trying to sell something past its “use by” date! Wasn’t World War I the crisis that “changed everything”? Then the Great Depression? Then the Cold War? The panic and crash of 2008? “This changes everything,” as G.K. Chesterton probably said somewhere, is the refrain of the lunatic in the asylum who thinks he’s Napoleon. It’s always something.
The book unwittingly reveals that none of this crusading and posturing is about the environment at all. Bill McKibben’s dust jacket blurb gives the game away: “This is the best book about climate change in a very long time—in large part because it’s about much more.” Silly me: I thought it was about greenhouse gas emissions.Thought experiment: if we wave a magic wand, will Klein, McKibben, et al suddenly say, “Oh, I guess capitalism is okay after all”? Anyone want to buy some sustainable swampland in Florida?
It will be interesting to see whether “mainstream” environmental groups will distance themselves from Klein’s book. I intend to ask them about her argument at every opportunity. I expect every kind of weasel excuse imaginable. So I guess I better put in for a large order of free-range, gluten-free, sustainably-raised Green Weenies.
“Watermelons”, as James Delingpole so aptly describes them, Green on the Outside, & Red on the Inside!
Communists coming out of the Green Closet.
 |
| Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze |
Christopher Monckton is presently in Australia. Previously he has said: (link – WUWT)
So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
Patrick Moore who will soon visit Australia, co-founder of Greenpeace, left the Green Movement when it was infiltrated by communists: (link)
The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.
Further:
Progressives are very resilient, so when Soviet communism finally collapsed after 70 years of world wide tyranny, progressives and liberal Democrats pushed the existential green movement to the forefront, which was in reality the same old exhausted red communism in a new disguise.
The “Green” Movement tried to disguise their “Red” Socialist/Communist ideas, however, now they are coming out of the closet.
The New York “Climate” March, as reported by the Blaze had socialists elements spread through it. (link)
Dozens of signs denouncing capitalism were spotted at the demonstration, often held by self-proclaimed socialists.
“Capitalism is destroying the planet,” a sticker on one woman’s shirt read, “We need revolution, nothing less.”
 |
| Image source: Oliver Darcy/TheBlaze |
Members of the Socialists Workers Party also manned a table, passing out flyers attempting to make “the case for ecosocialism.”
United Nations – Not What We Thought it Was, At All! Agenda 21 is Evil!
What the United Nations Doesn’t Want You to Know
By: Brent Parrish
My friend Lt. Robert Powell from the Pacific Freedom Foundation recently emailed me about a new PowerPoint presentation he put together (compiled and written by Irving Baxter Jr.) on the murky origins of the United Nations. This is also a subject matter I’ve delved into quite deeply myself. Powell’s slides offer the history in manageable chunks, and I’ve converted the slides into web-ready images. Please feel free to share this information with others (with proper citations, of course).
Not too long ago I posted a video produced in the mid-nineties concerning a U.S. Army soldier, SPC Michael New, who refused to wear the UN insignia and uniform, or accept orders from a foreign commander under the auspices of the United Nations. New’s reasoning was simple: he pledged an oath to defend the United States and the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations and its Charter.
The Michael New case received very little press coverage at the time. New was threatened with court-martial, but he decided to fight the charges. Unfortunately, Michael New lost the case and eventually received a court-martial and a dishonorable discharge. (Jeff Lindsay has written about New’s case. Read more here.)
In preparation for his case, Michael New did his homework. New pointed out that the U.N. does not own a land mass per se (of course, the U.N. considers the entire earth its “land mass”), but they do have most of the elements a fully-functioning government needs to have–meaning: they have a ruler (Secretary General), a governing body (the General Assembly and Security Council), a treasury/banking system (i.e. World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements, etc.), a legal system (International Criminal Court), an array of bureaucratic agencies (NGO’s), a flag, an oath of allegiance. and a charter.
The one thing the U.N. does not have is a tax. But there have been many who are calling for a global tax administered by the United Nations. In 2012, Vice President Joe Biden called for a “minimum global tax.” Furthermore, a global tax could be implemented via sweeping “climate change” regulations presently being pushed by the United Nations to supposedly reduce “carbon emissions” globally .
Recently, President Obama has threatened to use executive order to enact a sweeping “climate change accord” proposed by the U.N. in lieu of a treaty. While some argue the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty without confirmation from the Senate, the administration is instead calling it an “accord,” as opposed to a treaty, thus attempting to bypass the Senate altogether.
Of course, one last thing needed for the United Nations to become a fully functioning global government is an all-powerful military force. In 1961, Council of Foreign Relations member and “Disarmament Adviser” to President Kennedy, John J. McCloy, authored a State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (read here), which urges the disarmament of all national military forces and the creation of a United Nations’ superforce.
– See more at: http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/09/what-the-united-nations-doesnt-want-you-to-know/#sthash.iStK2w4o.dpuf
This man, Bobby Jindal, Exposes the Truth Behind Skyrocketing Energy Costs….Outrageous
Another Reason We Have to Fight Agenda 21! This is happening worldwide!
ENERGYNEWS
Bobby Jindal: How the ‘Radical Left’ Uses Energy Costs to Control Americans
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at The Heritage Foundation to a group of reporters about his new energy plan. (Photo: Steven Purcell)
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal yesterday accused the Obama administration of making energy more expensive with the goal of making Americans more dependent on government.
“The Left, they like to tell us they are the ones [who] are following science and we’re the science deniers,” Jindal said to a small group of reporters after delivering a speech at The Heritage Foundation to debut his energy jobs plan. “But I think overall, their approach to energy is telling.”
The Republican governor said the “radical” Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive because it empowers the federal government to be more involved in Americans’ lives.
Doing so, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said, essentially allows the Obama administration to decide what kind of car you drive, what kind of home you live in, what kind of education your children receive, what kind of health care insurance is adequate for you, and what size soda you can drink.
Right now, Jindal said, America “is on the road to failure.” He said:
It’s war on coal today; it’s going to be a war on natural gas tomorrow—it’s a war on any natural energy source. [The Left] wants it to be scarce; they want it to be expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies.
Jindal, elected governor of Lousiana in 2008 after two terms in Congress, has presided over a state hit by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.
The Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies. -@BobbyJindal
He cited what he called the Left’s “startling” views on natural gas.
“When [natural gas] was 13 dollars, boy they loved it. As soon as it became affordable, all of the sudden they decided they didn’t like it so much,” Jindal said.
>>> What Contributes to Gas Prices and Solutions to Help
Nicolas Loris, a Heritage economist who specializes in energy policy, agreed that some liberals initially supported natural gas “as a bridge fuel to take us to renewables.” But because the revolution in shale gas provided an abundance of cheap natural gas, he said, “that bridge became a lot longer than they anticipated.”
“While it may be bad news for other sources of energy,” Loris added, “the low-cost energy is great news for American families and businesses.”
>>> Commentary: Obama May Be Bypassing Congress on Climate
Jindal also cited regulations on carbon dioxide as proof of an “ideologically extreme” agenda by President Obama and other liberals. He said:
“For much of the Left, the whole debate about [carbon dioxide] is really a Trojan horse because these are folks that never did want a free market. This was a group that was always looking for an excuse to impose more government regulation, more government oversight. … This is just their latest vehicle to do it.”
Jindal’s energy plan, co-authored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, is called “Organizing Around Abundance: Making America an Energy Superpower” and promises to usher in an “unprecedented” era of energy development and job growth.
Here are the main points:
1. Promote responsible development of domestic energy resources and construct infrastructure to transport it.
2. Encourage technological innovation of renewables and emerging energy without picking winners and losers. In other words:Stop giving taxpayer-funded handouts to politically preferred energy sources and technologies. Let the market work.
3. Unlock the economic potential of the manufacturing renaissance by putting America’s energy resources to work.
4. Eliminate burdensome regulations such as the Obama administration’s increased carbon dioxide restrictions on power plants.
5. Bolster national security by ending policies that ban the exporting of natural resources.
6. Pursue “no regrets” policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions without punishing the U.S. economy by putting it at a disadvantage to those of other nations.
Loris gave points to the Jindal-Flores plan for building on “what we see and know to be successful” when it comes to American energy production.
“Free market policies that open access, remove handouts and peel back burdensome regulations will reward risk-taking, stimulate economic growth and provide Americans with affordable energy,” he said.
What the nation shouldn’t pursue, Loris added, is a policy of reducing carbon dioxide.
“That assumes carbon emissions are a problem,” he said. Instead, “we can recognize that free markets that reward technological innovation can fuel the economy and reduce emissions.”
Watch this video for Jindal’s complete public remarks at The Heritage Foundation.
Corrupt and Inaccurate Research, Hides Negative Effects from Wind Turbines!
Biology professor blows the whistle on wind farms
The biggest danger: corrupt research
Infrasound and other problems recognized
In an interview published in Truthout, Dr Patricia Mora casts doubts about the way in which environmental studies are conducted.
“What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.
“Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology)accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.
“The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) does follow-up to the studies, but everything can be negotiated. The bureaucrats have the last word.”
Patricia Mora is a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Comprehensive Regional Development, Oaxaca Unit (CIIDIR Oaxaca), at the National Institute of Technology.
She also raises other issues: the thorough destruction of biotopes by wind farms…
“… we find ourselves at the meeting point of various intimately related aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, known as “ecotones.” What occurs in each distinct ecosystem affects the dynamic on a larger scale, placing the existence of the adjoining ecosystems in danger.”
… the issues of low frequency sound, infrasound, and electromagnetic fields…
“There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms. Western science has given very little weight to electromagnetic and sound waves. In contrast, Eastern science, which gives greater importance to the flow of energy through the body, links the origin of many illnesses to the pollution we generate through the emission of human-made energy flows. The harm caused by this pollution has only recently begun to be accepted.”
… the adverse effects on the population…
“The inhabitants would have to leave behind their traditional activities. Migration and misery would be their future. You can see how this has happened in other areas of the country. They would lose their culture and a lifestyle that has a deep respect for nature. For example, in the northwest coastal region of the country, the arrival of these projects has displaced the fishing communities and farmers. Today, many of these people and their children have migrated. In the worst cases, they have joined the drug trafficking business.”
“The only benefit has been for the companies. The carbon credits they have received have allowed them to avoid taxes and have permitted them to continue polluting.”
Read more: http://truth-out.org/news/item/26244-mexico-researcher-raises-alert-about-environmental-risks-in-region-with-highest-concentration-of-wind-farms-in-latin-america
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 