SPECIAL REPORT The VATICAN ADVISORS: An Unholy Alliance with the UN Global Warming Agenda September 2015 In the preparation and promotion of its widely touted encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the Vatican relied on advisors who can only be described as the most extreme elements in the global warming debate. These climate advisors are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe. Many of these advisors oppose individual freedom and market economics and stand against traditional family values. The Vatican and Pope Francis did not allow dissent or alternative perspectives to be heard during the creation and promotion of the encyclical. The Vatican only listened to activist voices within the climate movement. Even more startling, many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. The proceedings of the Vatican climate workshop included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs. Pope Francis’ advisors, and the UN climate agenda he is aligning himself with, are strong supporters of development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion. Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control. There has been nothing short of an “Unholy Alliance” between the Vatican and promoters of man-made climate fear. The Vatican advisors can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment. Here are profiles of some of the key radical voices with whom the Vatican has associated itself. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/02/pope-francis-apparently-doesnt-know-un-ipcc-climate-objective-contradicts-catholic-doctrine/ http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/02/07/read-all-about-it-climate-depots-round-up-of-uns-sustainable-development-efforts/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/27/gore-fertility-management-is-needed-in-africa-to-help-control-the-proliferation-of-unusual-weather/ http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html UN Advisor Jeffrey Sachs Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, participated in a 2014 Vatican workshop on sustainability as well as in the Vatican summit on climate that took place in April 2015. Sachs was reportedly the author of the Pontifical statement, Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of the Problem and the Demand for Transformative Solutions, issued on April 29, 2015. Sachs, who is also the director of The Earth Institute, believes climate skeptics are responsible for the deaths of people due to alleged man-made, global warming driven, extreme storms. Sachs tweeted on November 10, 2014, that “Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & the Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.” Sachs is such a devoted salesman for UN “solutions” to global warming that he declared: “We’ve got six months to save the world or we’re all doomed.” Many of Sachs’ views are at odds with Catholic teachings. Catholic activist Liz Yore detailed Sachs’ view on overpopulation. “At a 2007 international lecture, Sachs claimed that ‘we are bursting at the seams.’ The focus of Sachs’ overpopulation mantra is primarily the continent of Africa. He argues that if only poor African countries would just lower their fertility rate, the world and Africa would thrive economically. This fear mongering is nothing new. Sachs is standing on the shoulders of Paul Ehrlich, architect of the ‘sky is falling’ deception perpetrated in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb.” Yore concluded: It is “incomprehensible that the Vatican would be duped into thinking that the United Nations and its Millennium and Sustainable Development goals share common solutions for the world’s problems. The Catholic Church welcomes children as a gift from God. The UN Secretary General and Jeffrey Sachs want to limit children.” 2 http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/02/pope-francis-apparently-doesnt-know-un-ipcc-climate-objective-contradicts-catholic-doctrine/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/20/update-vatican-banned-skeptical-french-scientist-from-climate-summit-they-did-not-want-to-hear-an-off-note/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/20/update-vatican-banned-skeptical-french-scientist-from-climate-summit-they-did-not-want-to-hear-an-off-note/ 3 In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists. He described the “profound honor” of addressing the far-Left Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world — Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability, and fiscal redistribution are the successful elements in managing a just society, Sachs maintained. This is, he argues, in marked contrast to the U.S., whose taxes are too low and where the poor are ignored. In 2009, in advance of the Copenhagen UN climate meeting, Sachs called for a carbon levy, claiming that millions were suffering because of drought caused by Western-induced climate change. Sachs has advocated for a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund, and a global climate fund. Sachs’ Earth Institute at Columbia has included members of an external advisory board such as George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri (former UN IPCC chairman). Soros has funded Sachs via his Open Society Institute. German climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has called for the “creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet,” was appointed a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in June 2015 and was one of the four presenters of Pope Francis’ new encyclical on the environment. Schellnhuber was also a key player at the Vatican climate presentation in 2014. Schellnhuber is an atheist who believes in “Gaia, but not in God.” In 2015, Schellnhuber boasted about having climate skeptics excluded from participating in drafting the Pope’s climate encyclical. The April 2015 Vatican climate summit in Rome banned a skeptical French scientist from attending because the organizers reportedly “did not want to hear an off note” during the summit. Schellnhuber is a scientific activist who is mocked even by his fellow warmist colleagues. See: Warmist Ray Bradley trashes prominent warmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber for “spouting bullsh*t”; Phil Jones says “We all agree on that.” At a meeting in Japan in 2004, Scientist Tom Wigley found prominent EU warmist Schellnhuber to be “a bit of a laughing stock among these people.” Schellnhuber has also declared human society needs to be managed by an elite group of “wise men.” He referred to this idea as his “master plan” for the “great transformation” of global society. Schellnhuber’s views on population also are at odds with Catholic teachings. Echoing the claims of overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich, he has claimed that when the Earth reaches nine billion people, which is projected to occur soon, “the Earth will explode” due to resource depletion. Schellnhuber also berates those who disagree with him, calling his critics “vicious liars” and mocking Americans as “climate illiterate” for being skeptics. 4 Naomi Oreskes Climate historian Naomi Oreskes has been actively involved in helping produce the Papal encyclical. Oreskes wrote the introduction to Pope Francis’ book version of the encyclical. See: Papal Encyclical book w/ introduction by Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes is perhaps best known for her calls for placing restrictions on the freedom of speech of global warming skeptics. Oreskes believes climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist point of view should be prosecuted as mobsters for their tobacco lobbyist style tactics. See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Critics of Oreskes fired back that it is Oreskes herself – not the skeptics — who uses the tactics of the tobacco lobby. As a researcher, Oreskes’ body of work has not fared well among her peers. She has been criticized by warmist and skeptical scientists alike. See: Statistician from the U. of Mass Amherst performs very polite savaging of claims of Naomi Oreskes. Warmist scientist Tom Wigley wrote that Oreskes’ work is “useless”. Wigley wrote: “Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.” 5 Warmist scientist William M. Connolley slammed Oreskes for “silly” and “shoddy” work. Connolley, a former UN IPCC scientist, wrote that he “eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong.” He explained that a highprofile Oreskes “paper seems to have been written around pre-arranged conclusions…it is unlikely that anyone outside the incestuous field of climate history scholarship will notice or care.” Others have been equally as uncharitable in describing Oreskes’ research. See: Warmist Naomi Oreskes taken down — “consistently misrepresents the meaning of statistical significance and confidence intervals” – “Oreskes, the historian, gets the history wrong” Oreskes has been undeterred, continually ratcheting up climate alarmism to the point of silliness. See: Forget Polar Bears, cats & dogs to die! Warmist Naomi Oreskes prophesizes the climate deaths of puppies and kittens – Oreskes: “The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal.” Sadly, Pope Francis is allowing Oreskes, who equates climate change to a “Nazi atomic bomb,” to write the introduction to the book form of his encyclical. Prof. Peter Wadhams Another key advisor to Pope Francis is Cambridge University Professor Peter Wadhams. Wadhams is a scientist and activist whose views are so extreme that even many of his fellow global warming advocates distance themselves from him. In 2014, NASA’s lead global warming scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt ridiculed Wadhams for “using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics.” Wadhams’s fellow warmist colleagues have also piled on and ridiculed him, claiming Wadhams “uses anecdotal…very, very poor data; not credible plots…no physics behind his extrapolations.” One of his colleagues even chided: “Hasn’t Wadhams already predicted four of the last zero ice-free summers?” 6 Wadhams was at the center of international controversy in 2015, when he suggested three global warming scientists were assassinated by the oil industry. These claims were wholly unsubstantiated. See: Cambridge professor Peter Wadhams insists three scientists have been assassinated. Wadhams later tried to claim his comments about the deaths were “completely off the record.” Other colleagues have also criticized Wadhams. See: German Scientists: Former IPCC Author Peter Wadhams Showing Pattern Of Irrationality …”Extremely Far-Fringe Corner” Pope Francis has also reached out to climate activist and anti-capitalist crusader Naomi Klein. See: Pope Francis recruits ‘ferocious critic’ of capitalism — Naomi Klein — in climate battle Klein was brought into the Vatican climate process by one of the Pope’s key aides, Cardinal Peter Turkson, to lead a high-level conference. Klein, described by the Washington Post as a “secular” feminist, is a “ferocious critic” of 21st century capitalism. Klein believes: “To fight climate change we must fight capitalism.” Klein explained: “There is still time to avoid catastrophic warming but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed.” Klein is author of the book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. She has declared that “Capitalism is irreconcilable with a livable climate.” She also noted: “Dealing with the climate crisis will require a completely different economic system.” Klein’s anti-capitalist advocacy clearly places her science as subservient to her politics. During the panel discussion at an event at the People’s Climate March, Klein was asked: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?” Klein responded: “Yeah.” Naomi Klein 7 8 1875 Eye Street NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cfact.org http://www.climatedepot.com Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore criticized Pope Francis for sounding like Naomi Klein. Klein has also claimed that “It’s Clear” Climate Change Is Making Racism Worse.
Faux-green
Negative Health Effects From Wind Turbines…Chickens Coming Home to Roost!
US Wind Industry in Flat Panic: Report Confirms Turbines a ‘Human Health Hazard’
September 24, 2015 by
Back in October last year, we reported on the Brown County’s Board of Health’s declaration that Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development is a “Hazard to Human Health”:
Board of Health Declares Wisconsin Wind Farm a “Human Health Hazard”
Since then, for the wind industry, things have gone from bad to worse.
Wisconsin ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry
E&E Publishing, LLC
Jeremy P. Jacobs
17 September 2015
A Wisconsin town of fewer than 1,200 stands on the verge of sending shock waves through the wind energy industry.
Late last year, Glenmore, a rural community just south of Green Bay, persuaded its county’s board of health to declare that the sounds of an eight-turbine wind farm pose a “human health hazard.”
It was the first time a health board has made such a determination. Wind energy opponents from across the country seized on the decision as proof of “wind turbine syndrome,” a supposed illness caused by low-frequency noise and “infrasound” that is typically undetectable to the human ear.
Local activists have continued to press the issue in hopes of shutting down the turbines, pointing to families who complain of sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and dizziness — symptoms similar to sea sickness. Lawns display signs saying, “Turbines kill: Birds, Bats, Communities” and “Consider How Your Turbine May Harm Your Neighbor.” More than one family has moved out of their home.
Duke Energy Corp., which purchased the Shirley wind farm in 2011, has strongly pushed back against the hazard determination, pointing to a series of studies that have found no connection between infrasound and the symptoms described by the local residents. The case has caught the attention of the national wind industry, which is concerned about the precedent it could set and whether it could embolden local activists around the country. They claim it is part of a politically motivated campaign by anti-wind advocates.
Attention has now turned to the county’s lead health official, who has said she will rule on the issue by the end of the year. It’s unclear whether the official can force the wind farm to shut down, but if she does, Duke will be quick to challenge the decision in court.
By the end of the month, the local campaign, Duke Energy and other parties will submit binders of public comments making their cases. The local advocates appear bullish about their chances.
“Abandoned homes, sick families, continued Duke Energy ordinance violations,” said Steve Deslauriers of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the principal group opposing the farm. “If this were any other industry, they would already be shut down. It is high time that wind developers are held accountable for the hell they levy upon families.”
The Shirley wind farm looms large over Glenmore, with its sweeping turbines situated close to farms and family homes. It went online in December 2010 amid local opposition. Local newspapers featured opinion pieces and letters to the editor that expressed various concerns about the project, including health effects.
It produces 20 megawatts of electricity that it supplies to the utility Wisconsin Public Service Corp., enough to power 6,000 homes.
The controversy over the farm ramped up after Duke purchased it at the end of 2011. As the state was preparing to permit a larger wind farm elsewhere, it requested a study on the sound and health issues reported at the Shirley turbines.
In December 2012, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which is an independent regulatory agency, and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin released a study that included the findings of four acousticians. The consultants spanned the ideological spectrum; some worked primarily for opponents of wind farms, while others had worked on both sides of the issue.
The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.
“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry,” it said.
It acknowledged that there is “sparse or non-existent” evidence of sickness in “peer-reviewed literature” but concluded that the four specialists “strongly recommend additional testing” at the Shirley farm.
Local advocates seized on the findings as validation that their symptoms were caused by the turbines. They pressed the seven-member Brown County Board of Health to declare the farm a health hazard. In particular, they highlighted the conclusions of Robert Rand, a Maine-based “acoustics investigator” who has primarily worked for groups opposing wind projects.
Rand said turbine sounds and infrasound cause effects similar to sea sickness and health boards shouldn’t need peer-reviewed scientific papers to accept the health impacts.
“Most people accept — because it’s been occurring for thousands of years — that people get motion sickness,” Rand said in an interview. “And yet, in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of pushback.”
The findings grabbed the attention of the health board. Audrey Murphy, its president, said in an interview that the “symptoms are pretty universal throughout the world.”
Murphy insisted the board doesn’t oppose wind energy, saying the turbines should be located farther from homes. In Wisconsin, they must be at least 1,250 feet away.
There is some precedent for the board’s decision. The issue has long plagued local health boards in Massachusetts. Fairhaven, for example, in June 2013 shut down the town’s two turbines at night in response to complaints about sleep deprivation.
Falmouth, Massachusetts, found in 2012 that one turbine was violating local ordinances because it was too close to a home and emitting too much audible noise — not infrasound. But the controversy spurred studies by acousticians, including Rand, that concluded the turbines produce sounds capable of disturbing nearby residents and may lead to annoyance, sleep disturbance and other impacts. That led multiple residents to file lawsuits seeking damages for their health problems, claiming the turbines were to blame.
But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.
Murphy said the Wisconsin board has sought to take all the relevant findings into account.
“This has been done very slowly and very methodically,” she said. “The board has been concerned about the health of these people.”
‘No factual basis’
Wind proponents are quick to try to poke holes in the board’s findings, as well as the local activists’ evidence.
They start in Massachusetts. After the action in Falmouth, the state agency convened a panel of independent scientists and doctors. They found no evidence that wind turbines pose a tangible health risk to those living near them.
Plus, there have been several peer-reviewed scientific studies since then that have reached similar conclusions, including one by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by Canada’s health ministry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize “wind turbine syndrome” as an illness. The term was created by a pediatrician, Nina Pierpont, around 2006. Pierpont’s husband is an anti-wind activist.
Health Canada’s 2014 study, for example, found no evidence to suggest a link between exposure to turbine noise and any self-reported illnesses, including dizziness, migraines and chronic conditions.
North Carolina-based Duke Energy claims the complaints are unique to Brown County.
“Duke Energy Renewables operates about 1,200 wind turbines around the United States, and we’ve only had health complaints about the eight turbines we operate in Brown County,” said Tammie McGee, a company spokeswoman. “We don’t see these kinds of complaints, for the most part, anywhere else.”
She added: “We feel confident that we’ve met all the state and the town of Glenmore’s conditions for operations and compliance with all noise ordinances and laws and regulations.”
The American Wind Energy Association has also responded to the local group’s claims and pointed to some research on a “nocebo” effect. The concept is the opposite of the placebo effect, meaning that people who are told to expect certain symptoms may experience them whether or not the supposed cause of the symptom — in this case, turbines — is actually present.
But perhaps most importantly, some who were involved in the 2012 Public Service Commission study dispute the advocates’ interpretation.
Katie Nekola, the general counsel of Clean Wisconsin, which helped fund the study, said it was only an inventory of noise levels and shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions on health effects.
The local groups, she said, “took the equivocal nature of the preamble to mean that things are falling apart and everyone is going to die.”
There is “no factual basis in what they found for the health determination that the county made,” she added. “Nothing in our study provided any kind of basis to say that noise was making them sick.”
Rand, the acoustician who worked on the earlier study, contended that the results show what he’s argued for years: Some people experience the health effects, and they are real and scary. Others simply don’t and refuse to acknowledge they exist.
“Some people are saying this isn’t happening — or people are making it up in their heads,” Rand said. “People who don’t get seasick will never understand what you’re talking about. … It doesn’t require peer-reviewed scientific studies to accept that some people get motion sickness and sea sickness.”
What comes next
Deslauriers, the representative of the local group opposing the farm, declined to comment further, citing the ongoing public comment period on the health board’s finding.
That window closes at the end of September. Then the county’s top health officer, Chua Xiong, will rule on the issue by the end of the year after meeting with stakeholders and doctors.
It is unclear, however, whether she has the authority to shut down the turbines. Murphy, the head of the county’s health board, thinks Xiong does. Duke isn’t sure but will challenge such a determination in court.
The county lawyer, Juliana Ruenzel, refused to answer a question on Xiong’s enforcement authority before abruptly ending an interview with Greenwire. Xiong did not return several messages seeking comment.
Nekola of Clean Wisconsin said a county determination would apply only to local projects and shouldn’t affect other wind farms that have obtained permits from the state.
She said the Brown County effort was indicative only of a localized desire to block wind farms motivated by a not-in-my-backyard sentiment.
“There is just a contingent of people who oppose wind,” she said. “And they will use any mechanism they can think of to stop a project.”
But Rand sought to emphasize that the symptoms are real and he has felt them.
“This isn’t an intellectual exercise,” he said. “People get sick.”
E&E Publishing and Mid-West Energy News
Good to see the AWEA still sticking the long-debunked ‘nocebo’ story. Proving that desperation is a stinky cologne – when you’ve got nothing else, cling to what’s left.
The AWEA’s – indeed the entire wind industry’s – last redoubt is the same theory that was cooked up by a former tobacco advertising guru – lambasted by the Australian Senate after his hand-trembling appearance before them, to defend the desktop ‘studies’ he has plopped together for his wind industry employers. Our Senate stating that:
The committee highlights the fact that Professor Chapman is not a qualified, registered nor experienced medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, acoustician, audiologist, physicist or engineer. Accordingly:
- he has not medically assessed a single person suffering adverse health impacts from wind turbines;
- his research work has been mainly—and perhaps solely—from an academic perspective without field studies;
- his views have been heavily criticised by several independent medical and acoustic experts in the international community; and
- many of his assertions do not withstand fact check analyses.
For more on the guru’s ‘nocebo’ theory and what the Australian Senate concluded about it:
As for what turbine noise does to the class of people the guru says never, ever complain about adverse health effects from turbine noise:
Lefty Pope Getting Involved in the Climate Scam….Who’d Have Ever Thought?
THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING SINCE GENESIS 1:1, SO WHY IS POPE FRANCIS SUDDENLY SO CONCERNED?
By Gene J. Koprowski on 9.21.15
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tells Townhall.com that he is planning to boycott the Congressional address of Pope Francis this week. The reason? The Congressman is concerned that the speech is going to be completely politically correct, not traditionally Christian in focus. He also is outraged that the secular progressives at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helped co-write His Holiness’ environmental encyclical earlier this year, and does not want to offer even tacit support for that ideological document.
“Media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change–a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis. More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into climate justice and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies. If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line,” wrote Rep. Gosar. “If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly. But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one. Artist and columnist Maureen Mullarkey effectively communicated this fallacy stating, ‘When papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) [they] impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual.’”
Concluded the Congressman, “the earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree. In Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment (written with the consultation of that great seminary the EPA and its embattled head Gina McCarthy), he condemned anyone skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change and adopted the false science being propagated by the Left. If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”
Investors Getting “Cold Feet”, When it Comes to Financing Wind Projects…
Banks Baulk at Lending to Wind Power Outfits as Brits Slash Subsidies & Communities Fight Back
September 23, 2015 by 1 Comment
****
Our British counter-parts are on a roll.
Since David Cameron’s thumping election win, wind power outfits in the UK have been copping a belting on all fronts. And the same is true across the ditch in the Emerald Isle.
Furious communities from Armagh to Kerry; and John O’Groats to Cornwall are gathering strength and fighting back, like never before:
Forces Marshall in International Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud
Communities Fight Back & Set the Wind Industry on Fire
In the post above the comment from Stop the Chislet Windfarm committee chairman Dr Ashley Lupin says it all really:
“We are determined this is not going to happen. We local people are not the handful of country bumpkins that you were expecting to walk all over. We are passionate, we are angry and we are organised”.
It’s that kind of ‘in-your-face’ community outrage that will bring the wind power fraud to a screaming halt. Fight; and they will flea.
The weakest links for the wind industry and its parasites are those with real ‘skin-in-the-game’; and that’s the Banks.
The slightest of hint of trouble for actual or would be lenders – be it the looming (or already realised) threat of governments forced by power consumers battling with escalating bills to slash subsidies – or the threat that their developer/customers will be sued for $millions in damages in nuisance and rendered insolvent (see our post here) – has the finance sector worried; VERY WORRIED, as this BBC lament shows.
Wind farm subsidy cut putting off lenders, research suggests
BBC News
14 September 2015
Investment in onshore wind energy is already being hit by the early withdrawal of government subsidies, according to a survey of lenders.
In June, UK ministers said new onshore wind farms would be excluded from a subsidy scheme from 1 April 2016.
Research for industry body Scottish Renewables suggests investors are now less willing to lend to projects.
The UK government said it was taking urgent action to address the projected overspend on subsidies.
It has previously said there are already enough subsidised wind energy projects in the pipeline.
The announcement that the Renewables Obligation (RO) – funded by levies added to household bills – would be withdrawn a year earlier than expected has been criticised by Scottish Renewables.
A survey, carried out on its behalf by EY, asked 10 major lenders about their willingness to provide investment.
Of the seven who responded, more than half said they were not prepared to lend until the UK Energy Bill had received Royal Assent, which is not expected until next year.
The political and regulatory risk concerning the RO was one of the key factors cited.
Michael Rieley, senior policy manager at Scottish Renewables, said the expected loss of the subsidy “had a clear and negative impact on the ability of developers to attract finance to their projects”.
The UK government says there are already enough subsidised wind farms in the pipeline.
“Our members have already expressed concern that they were entering an investment hiatus and this survey of lenders would indicate their suspicions are well founded,” he said.
Mr Rieley added: “With the decision to end support a year earlier than planned, around 2GW of onshore wind projects in Scotland have been put at risk.
Matthew Yard, assistant director at EY, said: “The results of the survey indicate that raising project finance for UK onshore wind RO projects has become more complex, more expensive and increasingly difficult since the announcement of the early closure of the RO.
“Those banks that have indicated they are considering lending to UK onshore wind RO projects are now seeking better terms and some form of mitigation against a situation with no RO revenue.”
BBC News
****
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we’ve said it before, and we’ll keep saying it – the wind industry exists – and ONLY exists – for one single purpose: to wallow in a massive subsidy stream that – in order to keep this monstrous Ponzi scheme alive – will need to outlast religion:
The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 1)
The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 2)
The ‘product’ has no commercial value, apart from the subsidies that it generates – hence British Bankers baulking at lending to wind power outfits there.
Then there’s the growing problem of communities fighting back to take control of their rights and futures.
People power blows away bid for Sturton wind farm scheme
Retford Times
13 September 2015
Sturton-le-Steeple villagers are celebrating after the wind was taken out of the sails of plans for a towering turbine farm.
EDF Energy Renewables has abandoned plans for its Maumhill project, to the delight of residents nearby.
It made the move after the Government announced onshore wind farms will be left out of a subsidy scheme.
Villagers have fought the proposals for nine huge turbines for more than five years.
Dave Langmead, clerk to Sturton-le-Steeple Parish Council, said the rural location already “does its bit” for energy production.
“On behalf of the Association of Trentside Parish Councils and Wheatley Energy Forum, it is a huge relief,” he said.
“We’ve got to thank all the people who have put in so much work to ensure this didn’t go ahead.
“This area produces around 10 per cent of the country’s energy with two power stations.
“Coupled with a 7.5 million tonne sand and gravel quarry about to come on line, I think we’re doing our bit!
“It’s not nimbyism – our backyard is already full.”
Despite the news being celebrated, campaigners are not resting on their laurels.
“You can never relax with these things,” said Mr Langmead.
“Even though it was the reduction of a subsidy scheme that was the death knell for this site, without the community getting together and fighting it, it could have gone through sooner.”
EDF Energy Renewables explained its decision.
“After reviewing the scheme in the light of recent government announcements on onshore wind, the company has informed Bassetlaw District Council that it does not intend to develop its plans for the project any further,” a spokesman said.
“EDF Energy Renewables’ original application for a nine turbine wind farm on the Maumhill site was refused by the council’s planning committee in February 2013.
“A subsequent appeal by the company against this decision had to be withdrawn when the Planning Inspectorate refused to consider a number of proposed changes to the scheme, prompting work to be undertaken on an intended new planning application for a reduced number of turbines on the site.
“Proposals for a revised seven turbine development were publicised last year at a series of local public exhibitions, but those plans will now not be taken any further.”
Retford Times
It’s “outrage” when they’re proposed and “delight” when they’re scrapped: that says it all really ….
Wonderful Video Showing How they Fight the Windscam, in France!
French Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud
September 22, 2015 by
****
The French have treated revolution as a National pastime, for much of their history: storming the Bastille in 1789; and the streets of Paris in 1969, to name a couple of people-power-hits.
Today, the target of the seething masses is these things; or to the French: éoliennes.
And – with a burning desire to Stop These Things – the French follow events here, with a keen interest. See this story, for example (you’ll need High School French or better): Les effets néfastes de fermes éoliennes sur la santé sont réels – STT followers will recognise STT Champions, Dr Sarah Laurie and Senator John Madigan, as the stars of that post.
The wind industry in France is equipped with same snake-like ‘charm’, as elsewhere. As we reported earlier this year, French wind power outfits are hell-bent on destroying the final resting places of thousands of Australian soldiers, who perished defending French soil a Century ago:
Now to a tale of a French farmer fighting to regain the health of his previously happy herd.
French farmer sues energy giant after wind turbines ‘make cows sick’
The Telegraph
Rory Mulholland
18 September 2015
Yann Joly is suing CSO Energy for €356,900 (£260,000) over wind turbines which he alleges have led to a dramatic fall in cows’ milk output
A French dairy farmer is suing a wind energy company whose turbines have allegedly made his cows sick and led to a dramatic fall in their milk output.
An expert brought in to provide evidence to a Paris court confirmed that the 120 animals had been drinking much less water since the turbines were installed in early 2011.
This had led to a large drop in milk production, as cows need to drink at least three litres of water for every litre of milk they produce, and has damaged the cows’ general health, the expert said.
“The farmer is ruined,” Philippe Bodereau, his lawyer, told The Telegraph. His client, Yann Joly, is suing CSO Energy, which operates wind farms in France and Germany, for €356,900 (£260,000). Mr Joly wants the firm to remove its turbines.
He says he is being forced to sell his cows and will grow crops on his land instead.
“I am now in the process of selling the cows because it is not profitable to keep them,” he told The Telegraph. “I had an employee on the farm and am having to let him go. I will have to get a job outside the farm in order to try and keep it. I will also use my fields to grow crops instead: beetroot, wheat and colza.”
Mr Bodereau said: “This is the first time in the world that there is a document from an expert concluding that there is no other reason but wind turbines that could be to blame for animals being sick.”
Christiane Nansot, an agricultural expert, who wrote the report, said the drop in milk production began when the 24 turbines were installed next to the family farm, in Le Boisle district, near the Abbeville, northern France.
“The geologist said that a geographical fault in the underlying rock could be leading to an amplification in the waves emanating from the turbines,” she said.
But she cautioned that other farms where turbines are installed near faults would have to be studied before it could be definitively concluded that the turbines were making the Le Boisle animals sick.
The report says that the cows are also prone to mastitis – udder inflammation.
It does not decisively lay the blame on the turbines for the milk yield drop or the symptoms, but says all other possible causes have been ruled out.
A ruling is expected next spring.
CSO Energy did not respond to requests for comment.
Wind turbines have been blamed for killing large numbers of wild birds and bats but there have been few other claims of them damaging animals’ health.
Critics insist they are damaging to human health because they create infrasound – sound at such low frequency that it cannot be picked up by the human ear, but can carry through the atmosphere for great distances.
The Telegraph
That incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound causes adverse health effects – such as sleep deprivation – is a FACT – and it’s been known by the wind industry (lied about and covered up) for 30 years:
That dairy cows set upon by the same forces of noise and vibration should also react unfavourably should – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – not come as any great surprise.
STT has reported on the impact of turbine noise on horses and dogs once or twice:
Farmers Tell Wind Farm Developer to Stick its Turbines Where the Sun Don’t Shine
As to the impact on humans and dogs, AGL operates a non-compliant wind farm called Oaklands Hill, near Glenthompson in Victoria – where the neighbours began complaining about excessive turbine noise the moment it kicked into operation in August 2011.
Complaints from neighbouring farmers, Bill and Sandy Rogerson, included the impact of turbine noise on their hard working sheepdogs.
The Rogersons – whose prized paddock dog goes ballistic every time AGL’s Suzlon s88s kick into action – complained bitterly about the noise impacts on them and their 5 working dogs: one of them became disobedient and extremely timid, hiding in her kennel whenever the turbines were operating.
In an effort to provide a little respite to the affected Kelpies, AGL stumped up $20,000 for a deluxe, soundproof dog kennel. AGL doesn’t give money away without a reason, so you’d tend to think there was something in it.
The Rogersons gave evidence to the Australian Senate earlier this year about the noise impacts on them and their prized working dogs, covered in this post:
Senate Inquiry: Hamish Cumming & Ors tip a bucket on the Great Wind Power Fraud
In France, it’s not just a bovine revolt that’s brewing; French men, women and children are fighting back too. As this clever – and very French – little video details.
****
More About Wind Travesty in Falmouth – Wind Proponents Ignored Harm to Citizens
Falmouth Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse
Below are three links it should be mandatory that everyone in Falmout watch these two videos and read the power point presentation by Attorney Chris Senie
What citizens should find interesting is the interaction between Attorney Chris Senie and the Zoning Board of Appeals just prior to the power point presentation in the Part 1 video about 35 minutes into the video.
Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals Orderer Ceast & Desist Falmouth Wind Turbine #1
Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 1
http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-1
Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 2
http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-2
Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors
https://windwisema.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senie-to-zba-ceasedesist-2015-09-17.pdf
Warning from Vestas Wind Company Falmouth Wind ll
Before the supply contract for Wind 2 was signed with the manufacturer, Vestas, the Town was asked by Vestas and its general contractor on the project (Lumus) to sign a letter taking full responsibility for the siting of Wind 2 in light of Vestas’ articulated concerns about the sound pressures this turbine is capable of creating in this location.
This request came in the form of a letter from Lumus dated August 3, 2010 (the “LumusLetter”).
Click here to read letter hidden for 5 years : August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540
Lumus Letter :
http://www.windaction.org/posts/41357-vestas-raises-concerns-about-turbine-noise-letter#.Vfy4Y99Viko
The Town had its Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis respond (the same day the Lumus letter was received), by sending a separate letter directly to Vestas. In that letter the Wastewater Superintendent assumed, for the Town, all such siting responsibility and liability (the “Potamis Letter”). An earlier draft of the Potamis letter, dated July 1, 2010 (so more than a month before the Potamis letter was sent to Vestas), called for the signature of the Falmouth
Town Manager.
The Town Manager was to Sign
During this month of discussion of what to do about the Vestas refusal to sell Wind 2 because of sound pressure concerns:
(1) it appears that no-one on the staff brought this to the attention of the Board of Selectmen (based on BOS meeting minutes); and (2) the signer was switched from the Town Manager to the Wastewater Superintendent (who apparently signed this letter assuming responsibility without authority).
The Distress Was Well Known (1)
As of August 3, 2010 Lumus warning letter, and the Potamis assumption of liability letter sent the same day (the “Warning Date”), The Town was well aware of the distress being caused by Wind 1.
By the Warning Date, the Town had received numerous complaints from neighbors. Brian and Kathryn Elder had sent the Town a registered letter (dated May 5, 2010), and met with the Assistant Town Manager and Building Commissioner at their property to show the degree of distress to Town officials. By the Warning Date the Town Planner had sent an email to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 3, 2010) regarding the turbine distress. Also by the Warning Date, the ZBA and the Falmouth Planning Board had held a joint meeting to discuss the problems with Wind 1 (that meeting took place on June 4, 2010
By the August 3, 2010 Warning Date the Town had held a meeting to discuss the scope of a sound study (to be done by an engineering firm known as HMMH) of Wind 1 (actual) and Wind 2 (projected) sound pressures (that meeting held on June 10, 2010).
Also a letter had been sent from Assistant Town Manager, Heather Harper, to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 15, 2010) discussing measures being taken by the Town in response to complaints. In her letter to Mr. Funfar, she indicates that the Town has instituted a mitigation measure which turns off Wind 1 in certain wind conditions, which had, by the date of that letter, been utilized 39 times, and had a “positive impact”.
Vestas Asked Weston & Sampson for an “updated study” for Wind 2
Fri 5/28/2010 1:48 PM
Brian Hopkins brhop@vestas.com
RE: Sound / Feasibility Studies
TO: Wiehe, Stephen, cc Duijvesteijn, Olle; Yanuskiewicz, Francis
“Steve, I don’t believe I saw a feasibility study for Falmouth other than Site Plans. Was a sound study updated with the additional turbine?
Does the information I provided in the octave band data support the conclusions that you are conservatvely within MA state sound regulations?
The table highlights the fact that V82 produces greater decibels when it reaches its stall regime beyond the IEC design standard at 95% capacity. The table also helps recognize the effects of shear on the sound levels experienced at receptors which should also be considering with the sound study.
My email was lost from the time we did the first turbine so I don’t have a great record of information but do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”
There never was a reponse to this above email in town records –
It was assumed due to the lack of an email response in town records no noise decibel mapping was done for both Falmouth 1 & 2 together.
Thanks to STT for Almost 3 Years of Educating the Public About the Wind Scam!
Costly & Pointless Wind Power Subsidies Slammed by Australia’s National Party
September 21, 2015 by
****
When STT cranked into gear in December 2012, hammering the wind industry was a fairly lonely occupation: hardly fashionable; a bit like wearing yellow to a funeral, really.
Back then, openly questioning the “wonders” of wind power was a guaranteed dinner party showstopper. Nervous hosts – choking on their organic pinot gris – would seek to segue to another less contentious topic – the joys of dancing cat videos, say; tempers might flare, among raised voices one of the more passionate would shout something about: “the science is settled man”.
The protagonist asserting that dreaded CO2 gas was an obvious planet killing “problem”; to which the only “solution” was carpeting the world in an endless sea of bat-chomping, bird slicing, blade-chucking, pyrotechnic,sonic-torture devices – not that the wound-up wind power advocate would have ever presented, let alone dealt with, minor issues like those, as part of his “we’ve gotta save the planet” manifesto.
But that was then, this is now.
Now, people with a modicum of intelligence – anything like an inquisitive nature; and gifted with a shred of logic – are able to unpick the fraud in several easy steps. Indeed, in discourse among those with an adult’s mental capacity it’s no longer a mortal sin these days to express the bleeding obvious: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK.
On the contrary, calling the great wind power fraud for what it is has become fashionable: for want of a better phrase it’s “the new black”.
For another look at the latest fashion trend, we’ll cross to a report on a motion to support the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time – foolishly pitched to members of Australia’s National Party (the minority Party that forms the Federal Coalition government).
Nats Reject Renewables
The Land
Colin Bettles
17 September 2015
THE Federal National party’s weekend conference rejected a controversial motion calling for support of the renewable energy sector and the federal government to back related projects based in regional centres.
The motion was moved and spoken for strongly mostly by delegates from Western Australia who raised concerns about excessive costs and access to power generation in regional areas.
The WA delegation also expressed concerns the party must be progressive through a statement of support for renewable energy projects and seeking to capture future economic opportunities.
But a rear-guard action – spearheaded by former long-serving Queensland Senator Ron Boswell and current Queensland Hinkler MP Keith Pitt – saw the motion eventually defeated by a 43-34 vote.
Opponents of the motion, including Queensland National Party Womens’ president Theresa Craig, argued that renewable energy projects like wind farms were heavily subsidised by taxpayer funds which they opposed.
Ms Craig said, as a scientist and a regional person “I’d love to support this but I can’t because the facts do not add up”.
“Unfortunately the Green propaganda has not given us the facts,” she said.
“Today, 5 per cent of clean energy adds an extra 15pc to our utility bill; reference Queensland University of Technology.”
Ms Craig said research by the Heartland Institute had also said that every job created by the renewable energy sector meant two to three jobs were lost.
“Renewable energies are the way of the future but right at the moment it’s being subsidised,” she said.
“What we need to do is put the support into getting renewable energies that can stand on their-own two feet.
“We as farmers, don’t we have to stand on our own two feet?
“We have to do it by ourselves, so this needs to be done the same way for the renewable energy people.”
Young WA Nationals president Lachlan Hunter said he majored in agricultural science studies at UWA and believed the conference should “get over the semantics” and consider the motion’s intent.
Mr Hunter said the motion wasn’t saying coal should be “cut out” or remove the way energy is traditionally produced in Australia.
He said it was “simply saying we support the renewable energy sector and to have those projects based in regional centres”.
“Don’t get hung up on the words ‘renewable energy’ just because it’s related to the Greens,” he said.
“I think we can be proactive in this space and actually support it if the science does prove that it’s out there and it’s a sustainable industry.”
Newly elected WA Nationals president James Hayward also spoke strongly for the motion saying its critics had strayed “well beyond what it’s about”.
He said the reality was, “sustainable energy is something that we need to embrace in some form”.
“Windmills that chop up birds are perhaps not the answer,” he said.
“This motion does not say (renewable energy) is the answer; it says this space needs to be part of who we are and what we do.
“We cannot allow the Greens or Labor to take responsibility for looking after our space, our environment.
“We’ve got a generation of younger people growing up and those people, for whatever reason, are simply more connected to the idea of looking after the environment and we need to grasp and get hold of that.
“This motion doesn’t talk about offering financial incentives.
“It just says it’s on the radar for us and we know that technology is out there and part of the future and we need to embrace it.”
But Mr Boswell returned fire with an impassioned plea saying he was “vehemently” against the motion.
“Whichever way you cut and dice this motion the motion goes out that says you support renewable energy,” he said.
Mr Boswell said his advice to Mr Hayward, gained by serving a number of years in federal parliament, was “don’t ever try and be a Green”.
“Don’t ever try and be one (a Green) because you are neither the Nationals or a Green and you just lose everyone so let’s be distinct about what we stand for,” he said.
Mr Boswell said subsidies on renewable energy were impacting energy prices and adding to agricultural production or processing costs in areas like beef, grains and dairy.
“You are paying through the nose for this renewable energy,” he said.
“Rural Australia is probably paying more than anyone else for it.
“It will only work if it’s subsidised and who’s going to pay for it, you are.”
WA Mining and Pastoral Region MLC Dave Grills said those in favour of the motion were asking the Nationals Australia to support renewable energy and were not asking for billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.
“We’re asking for your support to do it because economically, it suits regional WA,” he said.
Another speaker, representing Wide Bay in Queensland said, “I’m totally over it with my tax dollars paying for subsidies for renewable energy windmills”.
“I resent my birds in this nation being chopped sliced and diced by these devices.”
Mr Pitt said there was a place for renewables for remote power generation but that decision should be made by those who distribute it.
He said under the current agreed, Renewable Energy Target ET of 33,000 gigawatt hours, as much capacity as has been produced in last 15 years, will need to be built in five years.
Mr Pitt said renewable energy certificates on an average of $47 would, over the next 15 years, cost electricity users $24 billion – but could go as high as $93 costing $43 billion.
“Every single job in renewables is subsidised to the tune of $200,000,” he said.
Queensland LNP speaker Rohan McPhee said the purpose of the motion had been misconstrued.
“We’re not calling for the federal government to go out and start paying for wind farms in regional towns,” he said.
“This is just encouraging innovation and investment in renewable energy.
“Whether or not you believe in climate change – and we can debate that for days – but the fact of the matter is the world consensus is it’s here and whether we like it or not we have to get with the program.
“We’re going to be left behind.
“Australia has such a great landscape for innovation in this area we’ve got so much space – we’ve got sun and wind and we’ve got so much potential to develop new technologies in the renewable energy sector.
“It’s a global market and the renewable energy market is growing every day for new technology.
“The fear I have is that if we don’t support this motion we don’t send a message to potential businesses that can grow and innovate new technology and we get left behind.”
The Land
An obvious battle for common sense there, but, thankfully they got there in the end. STT always cringes when arguments are peppered with nineties-inanities like “proactive” and “sustainable”. It’s a sign that the protagonist hasn’t really got anything to say, but is keen to be heard, just the same.
****
The ‘meat and potatoes’, was helpfully dished up by long-time STT Champion, Ron Boswell and relative new-comer, Keith Pitt.
Ron targeting the cost of the wind power debacle to real, productive industries; and Keith Pitt ripping into the insane cost of the single largest corporate welfare scheme ever devised.
Keith Pitt – an electrical engineer – gets it. His speech to Parliament back in June is clearly worth a re-run. Here it is.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (18:34): I will not be supporting the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 that is currently before the Australian parliament. In my view, the renewable energy target—the RET, the deal the coalition has been forced into with Labor—will achieve only three things. It will increase the cost of electricity for those who can least afford it, Australian taxpayers will have spent billions of dollars subsidising private enterprise, and, come 2020, environmentalists will have little more to show for it than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Let me explain. When I entered parliament in 2013 I was still a registered professional electrical engineer in the state of Queensland, and I promised to be a common-sense voice for the people of Hinkler and regional Australia. Over the past 18 months the issue raised most often with my office has been the spiralling cost of electricity—and for good reason. The median personal income in Hinkler is just $411 a week—just $411. A substantial number of pensioners call Hinkler home, and we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Unfortunately, many of Hinkler’s major employers are making workforce decisions based on the cost of energy—local foundries, farmers and manufacturers all say their overheads are rising at an unsustainable rate. Any relief businesses and households might have felt with the repeal of Labor’s carbon tax quickly turned to dismay when Queensland electricity retailers substantially increased their tariffs. The end result was a net price increase of about five per cent. It is no coincidence that in 2013-14 the number of households in regional Queensland disconnected for debt or non-payment rose 87 per cent to 12,454. The Fraser Coast Chronicle last week reported that the local Meals on Wheels electricity bill jumped from $5,700 to $12,200 in just one year. The not-for-profit organisation says it has only two choices if it is to remain viable: to either increase the price of the meals or find $85,000 to buy solar panels.
What is the solution? I have heard politicians on both sides tell people to shop around for the best rate. That might be possible in the capital cities, but there is generally only one retailer in most regional communities. The lack of market competition will only worsen if the Queensland Labor government proceeds with its plan to merge state-owned corporations Ergon, Energex and Powerlink. The merger, combined with already high electricity prices, falling energy consumption and the renewable energy target, will result in substantial job losses in the energy sector. We heard a lot from the Electrical Trades Union during the January 2015 state election, but why aren’t they out there actively fighting for their members’ jobs right now?
In his second reading speech to this bill, the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, said the renewable energy target introduced by the Rudd government resulted in:
… new subsidised capacity … being forced into an oversupplied electricity market …
I appreciate the government is trying to put the RET on a sustainable footing, but, in my view, this current legislation will still result in an increase in power prices, paid for by the people who can least afford it. Australians are using less electricity now than they were 10 years ago. The AEMO Electricity statement of opportunities report in August 2014 stated:
More than 7,500 MW would need to be removed from the market to affect supply-adequacy in 2014-15.
There is potentially between 7,650 MW and 8,950 MW of surplus capacity across the NEM in 2014-15.
Under any risk scenario, no additional capacity is required for at least 10 years. It also states that approximately 90 per cent of this excess is in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. Furthermore: As operational consumption grows, the level of surplus capacity decreases. However, even with 10 years of consumption growth, by 2023-24 between 1,100 MW and 3,100 MW of capacity could still be withdrawn from each of New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria without breaching the reliability standard.
The problem is that forecast consumption is expected to fall by 1.1 per cent per year at a minimum.
Current renewable technologies like wind and solar do not reliably generate power on a constant basis, and so the baseload coal or gas fired power stations still have to maintain capacity for peak use times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Most of that peak occurs in the evening, after dark and, in many locations, when it is calm. Without some type of affordable storage system, there is no option but to maintain baseload power, and that will continue to force up the price of electricity. Put simply, if your running costs remain the same and you are selling less product, the next logical step is to increase the price of the product to be able to maintain your operations.
However, the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, has advised of its plans to restrict Ergon Energy’s proposed revenue by 27 per cent over the next five years, well below the $8.24 billion that Ergon requested. The measure is expected to save Ergon customers between $16 and $44 in network charges on their bills each year. The savings would have been substantially higher if not for the exorbitant feed-in tariff offered to solar users by the former Queensland Labor government. In very simple terms, the AER makes its decisions based on how much the businesses need to spend delivering electricity prudently through the distribution network, putting an end to the so-called ‘gold-plating’ that occurred in the Beattie years. The AER says any costs above efficient levels are to be funded by the network owners and not the customers. On the one hand, federally we are trying to keep power prices down for consumers by reducing the operating expenses and revenue of electricity companies; but, on the other hand, our current environmental policies are inflating the price of electricity because, without baseload power, you have to start turning the lights off.
The public expects coal fired energy companies to maintain the same availability and readiness, but the renewable energy target encourages people to use more renewables in an already oversupplied market. To give you a simple example, I spoke with a pensioner in my electorate last week. He gets up in the middle of the night, each and every night, to turn off his refrigerator so he does not use as much electricity. He relies on his rooftop solar to power the fridge during the day, and he would rather risk food poisoning than run up an electricity bill that he cannot afford to pay.
I would support the move towards renewable energy if wind, solar and battery technology actually worked—meaning if it were capable of reliably supplying electricity during peak periods to replace traditional baseload power generators. Plus, the cost at this point in time is astronomical.
Under this bill, $15 billion will be spent over the next five years on infrastructure that will run concurrently with coal fired generators, supplying into a market that is excessively supplied. Broad estimates by the department indicate that renewable energy certificates from 2015 to 2030, at an average of $47 per certificate, will cost $24 billion. If the RECs are allowed to reach penalty at $93, the cost to users will be $43 billion. Can you imagine the response if we went to the Australian people and said they needed to contribute an additional $43 billion through their electricity pricing as a surcharge? To meet the target, Australia will need to build as many renewable generators in five years as we have built over the past 15—all of which will need to be replaced in the short to medium term, when the technology outdates and the equipment deteriorates. Putting aside the cost of building the infrastructure, renewable energy is extremely expensive to generate. Coal fired power costs about $36 per megawatt hour to produce, compared to $190 per megawatt hour for solar and up to $120 for wind. If renewable energy were a sound investment, governments would not need to subsidise private businesses with renewable energy certificates.
I find it absurd that we on the conservative side of politics have abandoned the stated belief in the free market to reach a deal with Labor. Labor’s recalcitrance will only hurt the very people they always purport to represent, and that is the poor. The Coalition’s Direct Action Plan costs around $14.50 per tonne of carbon abated at its first auction. That is compared to $25 under Labor’s carbon tax and a whopping $95 to $175 per tonne of carbon abated through the renewable energy target for the small systems scheme. Rather than subsidising jobs in private renewable energy businesses to the tune of almost $200,000 each over the period 2015 to 2030, we should be spending taxpayers’ funds on research to advance renewable technologies that have real promise—growing our fuel, finding cheap and effective storage sources and ensuring ongoing jobs in Australian manufacturing through competitive energy pricing. The enormous buckets of money thrown at renewable research by Labor was haphazard and predominantly unsuccessful in large-scale trials.
I have personally worked in hydro power stations that have been operational for more than 50 years and they will continue to work into the future. These plants provide a multiplying effect into the local economy, providing water storage, generating capacity and long-term infrastructure with real benefits. They are a true renewable, with their energy source replenished every time it rains. The greatest of these installations is, of course, the Snowy hydro scheme. Hydros can be used as peakers. They are flexible and can be run up quickly, and at night, when there is no wind or sun, they still work.
If you really want to do something about emissions, we need to be having a proper debate about zero-emission next-generation nuclear technology. If you want renewables, we should consider growing the fuel source. Spend money on research for natural fuel sources such as biomass, where every year 100 per cent of the fuel supply can be regrown, providing long-term jobs. There is a proposal floating around for loans for irrigators to install solar pumps. Unfortunately, they will only be able to irrigate when the sun is shining—and it is back to the bad old days of watering in the middle of the day, when evaporation is at its highest. All of those years of water-use efficiency and capital installation down the drain. Typically, irrigation only occurs during times of low rainfall and drought, when water is scarce, but it is either be killed by electricity bills or invest in capital.
The public perception is that we have not done enough with respect to renewable energy. In fact, there was a large amount of capacity before the target was even set. The price of installing rooftop PV solar has fallen substantially. In terms of installed capacity, that is, gigawatts, rather than generation, that is, gigawatt hours, coal is currently only providing around 50 per cent of the energy mix. To even come close to meeting the target set in this bill, around 1,500 to 2,000 wind turbines would need to be built. Wind turbines are intrusive, ineffectual and always best placed in your neighbour’s property, and out of view of your own. The remaining sites capable of having any chance of even 30 per cent utilisation for wind turbines are very limited, because you need a location where the wind blows consistently, of which there are not that many. And it should be close to where the energy is used.
Do I honestly think they can install the capacity needed to meet the reduced target? My answer is no. We will be back having this debate again in two or three years’ time, when it becomes apparent that even huge subsidies will not be enough to get sufficient facilities built. If you want to subsidise businesses, subsidise exporters that create long-term jobs. Do not subsidise businesses that devalue and destroy assets already predominantly owned by the taxpayer.
Every business owner in my electorate would like to have the upper hand against their competitors. They would love to receive a guaranteed price for the products they produce, regardless of need, subsidised by someone else. If—and I say if—Australia meets its 2020 renewable energy target, it will not be because we have created an economically self-sustaining, reliable source of renewable energy. People will be using less coal-fired electricity for one reason only: they simply cannot afford it.
Hansard, 2 June 2015
Global Warming Alarmists Reject Science, by Trying to Shut Down Dissenters!
Climate Science Turned Monster
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.
Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.
The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.
The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Establishment of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) put national weather office bureaucrats in control of national climate policy and most of the research funding. They appointed the members of the IPCC and used their offices to promote and perpetuate the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Extreme measures taken to keep the monster alive included adjusting the record to eliminate previous warm periods and lowering the historic instrumental record to increase the slope of the curve to create or accentuate warming. More recently it was the adjustments designed to offset the pause they directly contradicted the hypothesis. They were on a treadmill for two main reasons. By accepting the IPCC AGW hypothesis as proved, required ignoring or diverting from evidence. It was the destructive effect T.H. Huxley identified when he wrote,
“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
By convincing politicians to establish policy based on their information, it became difficult to admit they were wrong.
The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible. This list summarizes the claims of those making the RICO charge. The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.
Another challenge is that the numbers of people involved, directly or indirectly, becomes large enough to influence votes and keep the monster alive. For example, how many tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees or anyone else in the taxation industry would vote for a flat tax? Other than those with a vested interest there are many others who Niccolo Machiavelli identified when he said,
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.
It is also why Upton Sinclair said,
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
There is also the problem of admitting error that many find difficult. Tolstoi summarized their plight.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, I identified some of the groups and agencies across the world involved in the promotion and opportunities that the global warming deception offered. They include
· Members of the cabal who chose climate and environment as vehicles for their political agenda.
· Academics attracted by the significant amounts of funding offered.
· Academics with political sympathies for the cabal’s objectives.
· Bureaucrats employed by the national weather offices that comprise the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) chosen as the vehicle for controlling the IPCC.
· Bureaucrats with political sympathies with the cabal objectives.
· Bureaucrats in other government agencies, such as Agriculture or Transport that are secondarily affected by weather and climate issues.
· Departments of Education who directed unbalanced teaching of only the ‘official’ science as Justice Burton UK court ruled.
· Politicians who saw an opportunity to “be green.”
· Politicians who saw an opportunity for more taxation.
· Businesses that saw an opportunity for a profitable business guaranteed by government policy and funding.
· Individuals who saw a career or business opportunity.
· Environmental groups who supported the political objectives of blaming humans for the world’s ills.
· Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Maurice Strong reconstituted the term coined by the UN in 1945 for the Rio 1992 conference. It purportedly gave voice to organizations not part of a government or conventional for-profit businesses. At Conference of the Parties (COP) climate meetings, they constitute at least half of the attendees.
· Most of the media who actively supported the AGW hypothesis.
· National science academies persuaded by the British Royal Society to support the IPCC position.
There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.
The Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) scheduled for Paris is clearly facing failure, which is pushing IPCC defenders, such as the twenty making the RICO request, to extremes. Their comparison of scientists trying to perform proper science to organized crime leaders is beyond outrageous. It is especially egregious because the people making the charges are guilty of scientific malfeasance. While not necessarily criminal, it is worse in the damage it has and will do to everyone. The monster they created using incorrect science became the justification for imposing destructive, expensive, and completely unnecessary policies on the world. These policies will do far more damage to the poor and the environment they claim to protect. As it was anonymously said,
If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
Story of a Victim of the Corrupt Wind Industry, and it’s Complicit Gov’t Supporters…
Too Close – A Falmout Wind Turbine Victim’s Story
Bourne, Massachusetts citizens TOO CLOSE to the Plymouth gigantic wind turbines had best cue in on the present happenings. Once the machines are constructed it is an expensive multiyear battle to bring them down.
“Compliance” with the MASS DEP sound ordinance is A HUGE JOKE which is on YOU the neighbor of these STRESS GENERATING machines.
The ordinance in place utilizing the A weighted db scale is there solely to further wind renewables in this State.
NO ONE is looking out for the innocent abutter neighbors.
If you live within a full mile of these proposed Plymouth turbines chances are very good that your peace and tranquility and enjoyment of your home and property will plummet.
I would not have to say a thing. I could simply let fate bring the detrimental consequences of these too close mega turbines to your homes.
Forgive me, but I am only attempting to warn you of what happened to “we neighbors” now the “victims” of Falmouth’s wind project.
We have been fighting our Town at great expense for going on six years to regain the properties and homes that we rightfully own but can no longer enjoy because of Falmouth’s municipal wind turbines.
BE UP FRONT. Do not allow this project to take root. Those TOO CLOSE families will certainly suffer the consequences. Under a mile? Think NOW. Not after the machines are in place.
I KNOW from my first hand experience of living 1500-1600 feet from two 1.65MWatt wind turbines. I believe some of your residents will be closer to even bigger generators. Their lives will be compromised. The bigger the turbine the more noise it makes. Do not let them fool you. Your quality of life and that of your family is what you should focus on. Quality of life matters–for ALL of us.
Sincerely,
Barry Funfar
Falmouth Massachusetts
Good News for Ontario!!!
TSP shuts Ontario tower plant
18/09/2015
Chinese wind tower manufacturer TSP Canada Towers has closed its doors in Ontario.
TSP invested C$25m in a 450,000-square-foot facility in Thorold in the Niagara Region, which opened in June 2012.
The plant employed about 120 people, Thorold chief administrative officer Frank Fabiano told reNEWS. “It’s a tremendous loss for the community,” he said.
The company was a joint venture between Shanghai Taisheng Wind Power Equipment and British Columbia-based Top Renergy however the partnership dissolved about six months ago, said Fabiano. The most recent production run ended at the turn of the year and the staff have now been let go.
TSP has established its own team to look at options for restructuring the business. It is not known if the factory will reopen.
“Management hasn’t closed any door nor have they committed to anything,” said Fabiano. TSP could not be reached for comment.
The company was attracted to Ontario by the province’s Green Energy Act and feed-in tariff program. Wind projects were required to meet up to 50% domestic content, prompting several international manufacturers to establish plants and build local supply chains.
However several countries challenged the buy-local requirements and the World Trade Organization ruled they violated global trade rules. Ontario scrapped the requirement in 2013.
The province has scaled back its clean energy ambitions and replaced the FiT with a competitive large renewable procurement program.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 