A Father and Daughter Discussion
|
Agenda 21
Intelligent people Know the Climate Agenda is an Unaffordable Waste of Time and Resources!
Owen Paterson To Call For Suspension Of UK Climate Change Act
Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. –Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013
It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation. The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas. —Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014
The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t. –Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
EU leaders face difficult negotiations to agree a package of climate change targets for 2030 at an end-of-October summit, with coal-reliant Poland leading objections, sources said on Friday. “The European Council will agree on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework for the European Union,” said the draft prepared for the bloc’s 28 member state leaders. But the question of “burden sharing” is central to actually closing a deal, a European source said, with sharp differences between those dependent on fossil fuels, such as Poland, compared with France and Britain which favour nuclear, and Germany which is looking towards renewables. Poland’s new prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, said earlier this month that her coal-reliant country would not rule out vetoing the high carbon cuts. —AFP, 10 October 2014
Forget QE, surely the precipitous oil price decline in the last couple of weeks will finally give the down-trodden European economy the big boost it needs. After three years of prices north of $100 a barrel, surely a big cut in Europe’s energy bill will provide a stimulus effect that Mario Draghi could only dream of? I’m afraid not. Why? Europe is overwhelmed by taxation, subsidy, over-capacity and green incentivisation plans that have conspired to make hydrocarbons a dirty and expensive source of energy. –Steve Sedgwick, City A.M., 7 October 2014
Canadian Nuclear Association claims wind energy isn’t green
By John Miner, The London Free Press
Monday, October 13, 2014 9:59:46 EDT AM
Samsung’s South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road.
I’m green and you’re not.
The battle to be embraced as the best environmental choice for Ontario’s electricity supply is getting down and dirty.
Fed up with the wind farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada’s nuclear industry has launched a public relations assault against wind.
“Wind power isn’t as clean as its supporters have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power,” said Dr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an email to The Free Press.
The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consulting an engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy.
Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe,.
Their 91- page report released last week concludes that wind energy over the life time of an installation produces slightly less green house gas than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants.
But Hatch says it is an entirely different picture when wind energy’s reliance on other generating sources is considered.
The engineering firm calculates wind turbines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of the times when the wind isn’t blowing.
When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less green house gases, the Hatch study concludes.
Its analysis is for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more – 385 grams per kilowatt hour.
“We wanted a real-world, apples to apples comparison of how nuclear, wind and natural gas power plants generate greenhouse gases while producing electricity,” Barrett said.
The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its multi-billion dollar investment in Southwestern Ontario wind farms on the basis it is providing green energy.
But it is a position that resonates with Ontario’s anti-wind farm movement.
“We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental benefit promises made for it, because it needs fossil-fuel backup.,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.
On the other side of the debate, the Canadian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study.
It said there is no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other potential electricity suppliers the results are different.
“Realistic, alternative scenarios see wind energy partnered with hydroelectric power, varying mixes of emerging renewable energy sources like solar energy, and the use of energy storage and demand side management.
“Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to consider a broad range of equally or more plausible scenarios for the evolution of Canada’s electricity grid.
CanWea also argues wind energy is cheaper than new nuclear, is cost competitive with new hydroelectric development and is not subjuect to the commodity and carbon price risks facing natural gas.
“We are confident that no potential source of new electricity generation in Canada better addresses these multiple objectives than wind energy,” CanWea said in a statement.
As for the natural gas industry, it points out that it is much better for the environment than burning coal or oil for power.
“It can substantially reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint and is the ideal complement to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar for power generation,” says the Ontario Natural Gas Alliance.
Canadian Nuclear Association arguments against wind power
- a wind turbine usually produces only 20 percent of its potential power. If a turbine can physically produce up to one megawatt (MW) of electricity, then it typically turns in one-fifth of that, or 200 kilowatts (kW).
- because we don’t have big-enough batteries yet to store electricity from wind turbines, the power company needs to get the other 800 kW from somewhere else, like a gas plant.
- in Ontario, power demand is highest during the day, and in the summer. But the wind blows mostly at night, and in the winter and spring. By its nature, wind power finds itself out of step with power demand
How Ontario’s electricity was produced by fuel type
2013
Nuclear: 59.2%
Hydro: 23.4%
Gas: 11.1%
Wind: 3.4%
Coal: 2.1%
Other: 0.8%
Oct. 13, 2014 at 8 a.m.
Nuclear: 65.8%
Hydro: 24.6%
Wind: 5.9%
Gas: 2.7%
Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace, Tells the Truth About The Climate SCAM!
This is an Awesome video! Check it out! You will understand the truth about the climate, is not scary at all!!!
World-wide Energy Poverty Worsens, as Governments Enforce Unaffordable Energy Policies
Video: why renewables equal death
Videographer Paul Budline writes:
First, pardon the overwrought subject heading. But I would like as many people as possible to see a 5-minute piece that I just finished. It focuses on the unintended consequences of marchers demanding an end to fossil fuels.It’s obviously shot on a shoestring and relies heavily on stock footage, but it’s an important topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSugIzPGa5I
Obama’s Heavy-handed Regulatory Policies, Will Mean the Destruction of the American Economy!!
Paul Driessen on political developments and the highjacking of the American government
Well lets just be a little old fashioned and assume that the American Experiment in Government was designed by wise men who had studied the human reality and decided to form a union based on the best of principles of self government.
Then imagine that intrusive ideologies arose that would corrupt and then destroy those best of principles.
Paul Driessen speaks to some of those concerns.
President Obama and many Democrats have excoriated companies for utilizing “tax inversions” to repatriate stockpiles of cash from overseas bank accounts, thereby avoiding the 35% US corporate tax rate and providing new funds for plants and equipment, innovation, hiring and keeping workers, and tapping new markets. Calling this “unpatriotic” and “immoral” is just another false, distracting, divisive community agitator tactic.
What America really needs right now is regulatory patriotism – and Executive Branch morality, citizenship, and fealty to our Constitution and laws. What we’re stuck with is a destructive, unpatriotic regulatory onslaught. The bare tip of the iceberg is that confiscatory 35% corporate tax rate, which is embedded in a Tax Code that is 74,000 pages and 33 million words long – 42 times more words than in the King James Bible.
As President Obama said recently, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” He’s absolutely right. Will American voters remember that when they head to the polls in November?
Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.
Best regards,
Paul
We need some regulatory patriotism!
President Obama condemns tax inversions, but pillages America with his regulatory agenda
“My policies are on the ballot, every single one of them,” he reminded voters on October 2.
Paul Driessen
It’s no mystery why American companies have stockpiled over $2 trillion of overseas earnings in foreign bank accounts. If they bring it to the United States, the IRS would grab 35% of it. That’s the US corporate tax rate – the highest in the developed world, double the average in EU nations.
Medtronic found a creative way to repatriate its cash, allowing it to bring money to the USA subject to just a 12.5% tax. The company acquired Covidien, another, smaller medical device firm in Ireland and will establish its formal headquarters in Dublin, thereby slashing its tax rate by two-thirds, and leaving it with far more cash for plants and equipment, innovation, hiring and keeping workers, and tapping new markets.
Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, healthcare and other companies have concluded or are pursuing similar “tax inversion” strategies. The actions have outraged the White House, “progressive” activists and many Democrats in Congress – except when President Obama’s BFF Warren Buffett engineered Burger King’s acquisition of Canada’s Tim Horton café and bakery chain.
The President says the practice is “unpatriotic” and “immoral,” calls the companies “corporate deserters,” and says businesses must start acting like “good corporate citizens.” Congressional Democrats have issued similar denunciations and want inversions prohibited or punished. They’re barking up the wrong tree.
The proper solution is comprehensive tax reform. However, Republicans want to address both corporate and individual tax issues, Democrats insist that only corporate taxes on the table, and Mr. Obama is typically not inclined to do the hard work of forging bipartisan compromises. Instead, he wants his IRS and Treasury Department to review “a broad range of authorities for possible administrative actions” and ways to “meaningfully reduce the tax benefits after inversions take place,” as one Treasury official put it.
Companies, workers and investors are bracing for the coming executive fiats. The diktats epitomize a huge problem that neither Congress nor the courts have been willing to address, but which continues to drag our nation’s economy and employment into the abyss: an out-of-control federal bureaucracy that is determined to control virtually every aspect of our business and personal lives – at great cost, for few benefits, and with little or no accountability for mistakes or even deliberate harm.
Of course we need taxes, laws and regulations, to set norms and guidelines, safeguard society, punish miscreants and pay for essential government programs. No one contests that. The question is, How much?
What we need right now is regulatory patriotism – and Executive Branch morality, citizenship, and fealty to our Constitution and laws. The federal behemoth today is destructive, and unpatriotic.
* The confiscatory 35% corporate tax rate is embedded in a Tax Code that’s 74,000 pages long, counting important cases and interpretations. It totals some 33 million words (compared to 788,280 in the King James Bible) and is loaded with crony corporatist provisions and complex, indecipherable language.
* A 906-page, 418,779-word (un)Affordable Care Act that has already metastasized into more than 10,000 pages of complex, often contradictory regulations, with more interpretations and clarifications to come.
* The 2,300-page Dodd-Frank law has already spawned over 14,000 pages of banking and financial rules.
* Over 175,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations are coupled with more than 1.4 million pages of tiny-type Federal Register proposed and final rules published just since 1993, at the rate of over 71,000 pages per year. Doctors, patients, insurers, businesses large and small – much less average citizens – cannot possibly read, comprehend or follow this onslaught.
* At least 4,450 federal crimes are embedded in those laws and regulations (with some 500 new crimes added per decade) – often for minor infractions like failing to complete or file precisely correct paperwork for selling orchids or importing wood for guitars. Neither inability to understand complex edicts, lack of knowledge that they could possibly exist, nor absence of intent to violate them is a defense, and the “crime” can bring military swat teams through doors, and land “violators” in prison for months or years.
* Production Tax Credits and other sweetheart “green” energy subsidies and grants total some $40 billion a year – for ethanol producers and folks like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Mr. Tom Kiernan, who is both CEO of the American Wind Energy Association and treasurer of the League of Conservation Voters, which gives millions to mostly Democratic candidates to perpetuate the arrangements.
* American businesses and families must pay $1.9 trillion per year to comply with these mountains of regulations. That’s one-eighth of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product; it’s almost all the corporate money now held overseas: $5,937 a year for every American citizen – and far more than the $1.6 trillion in direct economic losses that re-insurer Munich Re blames on weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2011.
* $353 billion of these regulatory costs are inflicted by the Environmental Protection Agency alone, say Competitive Enterprise Institute experts who prepared the $1.9 trillion regulatory costs analysis for 2013.
Even worse, these criminal complexities and costs are being imposed by increasingly ideological, left-of-center, anti-business “public servants” who target conservatives and are intent on advancing President Obama’s agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the United States. They are determined to redistribute wealth, pit economic and ethnic groups against each other, close down coal-fired power plants, ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocketing,” and stop drilling, mining, ranching, fracking and pipelines.
Poll after poll finds Americans focused on jobs and the economy, and on ISIL, terrorism and Ebola. Not so our federal government. Secretary of State John Kerry says climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” posing “greater long-term consequences” than terrorism or Ebola. For EPA the biggest issues are global warming, “environmental justice” and “sustainable development.”
How is the US economy responding to these policies? Median household income is down $2,000 since Obama took office, while costs of living continue to rise. Despite the subsidies, electricity prices have soared 14-33% in states with the most wind power. Some 45 million Americans now live below the poverty line – a 50% increase over the 30 million in poverty on inauguration day 2009.
While the official unemployment rate is now under 6% for the first time in six years, University of Maryland economist Peter Morici puts the real jobless rate at closer to 20% – which includes the millions who have given up looking for work, those who want to work full-time but must settle for part-time, and students enrolled in graduate school because their employment prospects are so bleak.
The labor force participation rate now stands at 62.7 percent, the lowest level in 36 years, with over 92 million adults not working. Over the past six years, one million more Americans have dropped out of the labor force than have found a job.
Indeed, a hallmark of the Obama recovery is its unique ability to convert three full-time jobs with benefits into four part-time positions with no benefits – and then say unemployment is declining.
It’s hardly surprising that dozens of senators and congressmen who voted with Mr. Obama 90-99% of the time now want to be seen as “moderate independents” – and do not want to be seen with the President.
But as President Obama told Northwestern University students October 2, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”
He’s absolutely right. So are his economic and employment records. Time will tell how many people remember that when they vote November 4.
_________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Time to End the Global Warming Scam….Before it Ruins the World’s Economies!
Global warming: Can Owen Paterson save us from an unimaginable energy disaster?
There is no way of meeting the Climate Change Act’s targets, except by closing down Britain’s entire economy
Owen Paterson visits the Northmoor Pumping Station in Moorland Photo: Getty Images
Mr Paterson will, for the first time, reveal clearly just what we have now been committed to under the two Lib Dem ministers, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, who, since 2010, have presided over our energy and climate change policy. Most of this is hidden away in policy documents so obscure that few non-insiders have any idea of where we are heading. But Paterson will explain, first, what is really now being planned, and, second, why it cannot conceivably work. He will then set out what hard-headed technical experts believe to be the only practical policy that could save us from an almost unimaginable national disaster.
1. The reality of our existing policy
Key to all our present energy policy is the fact that Britain is now, uniquely in the world, legally committed under Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act to cutting our CO₂ emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050. When this Act – which Mr Paterson wants repealed – passed almost unanimously through Parliament in 2008, not one politician tried to explain how in practice such a target might be achieved. But since then, the officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) have been trying to devise ways in which it might be possible, within 36 years, to eliminate those four-fifths of all the CO₂ emissions on which any modern economy depends.
Their declared aim, at an estimated cost of £1.1 trillion, is the almost complete “decarbonisation” of our economy. Astonishingly, this means that, before 2030, the Government plans to eliminate almost all use of the fossil fuels we currently use to generate 70 per cent of our electricity, to cook and heat our homes and workplaces, and to power virtually all our transport. They want all our existing coal- and gas-fired power stations to close.
Out will go petrol-driven vehicles, along with all gas-powered cooking and central heating. These are to be replaced by such a massive switch to electricity for heating and powering our vehicles that it will require a doubling of our electricity needs. Much of this is to come from “renewables”, such as wind turbines; most of the rest from new nuclear power stations – although, after 2030, new gas- and coal-fired power stations will again be allowed, on condition that all the CO₂ they emit is buried in holes in the ground (what is called “carbon capture and storage”, or CCS).
2. Why the policy cannot work
Mr Paterson will then show how any hope of achieving those Decc targets hidden away in a mass of opaque documents is, in practical terms, just pure make-believe. The EU would have us provide 60GW of electricity from wind turbines, which, thanks to the wind’s intermittency, would require a total capacity of 180GW. We would thus have to spend £360 billion on some 90,000 giant wind turbines, 85,000 more than we have at present, covering an area the size of Scotland.
To meet our 2050 target would require building 2,500 new windmills every year for 36 years, a rate eight times greater than we have managed in the past decade.
Because wind is so unreliable, the Government hopes instead to keep the lights on by adding 1.5GW of power every year until 2050 from huge, new “zero carbon” nuclear power stations. But we can already see what a pipe dream this is, from the only plant so far given approval, at Hinkley Point in Somerset. This is not expected to begin generating its 3.2GW until 2023, at a cost now estimated to have soared sixfold, to a staggering £24 billion.
Equally wishful thinking is Decc’s belief that by 2030 we might have “carbon capture and storage”. Even if this can ever be made to work on a commercial scale, its costs could treble the price of their electricity. As for providing electric replacements for two thirds of the 36 million vehicles on Britain’s roads, last year’s uptake was just 10,000. At this rate, we might get there in 20,000 years’ time.
In other words, there is not a chance of meeting any of Decc’s targets, except by closing down virtually our entire economy. So, as Mr Paterson will ask on Wednesday, is there any way in which such an incredible disaster can be averted?
3. Paterson’s ‘Plan B’
Having consulted a range of practical experts, Paterson will end by suggesting a revolutionary new energy policy, based only on proven technologies. This might not meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act, but at least it could achieve a dramatic cut in our CO₂ emissions (for what that is worth) – and, unlike Decc’s policy, his “Plan B” could guarantee to keep our lights on, our buildings heated, and our now almost wholly computer-dependent economy still functioning.
The first leg of his new policy would be to tackle what has long been one of the real scandals of the way we use energy, by wasting colossal amounts of heat from power generation. This could be used to warm most of the buildings in the country by what is known as “combined heat and power” (CHP). Official figures from the US government show just how dramatically gas-fired CHP compares with the inefficiencies of wind and solar power. At well over twice their efficiency, a CHP system can generate more than twice as much electricity as wind, and, furthermore, produces large quantities of heat, at significantly less cost – while actually saving 50 per cent more in CO₂ emissions. And if ever we can emulate the “shale revolution” that has recently cut US gas prices by two-thirds, the costs of CHP would be even lower.
The second proposal is that, instead of relying for nuclear power only on hugely expensive plants such as Hinkley Point, using obsolete reactor designs, we should look to hundreds of mini-reactors. These would be similar to those that have been used safely for decades to power ships (Rolls-Royce has been running one for 50 years next to Derby football ground). These could thus be installed much nearer to population centres, both to generate electricity and to power CHP district heating schemes.
The third leg, the only one Decc is currently looking at, is to use the latest computer technology to provide what is called “demand management”. This uses sophisticated techniques to reduce electricity demand so drastically that we could actually reduce our capacity by 40 per cent, without anyone noticing.
The stark alternatives, Mr Paterson will conclude, are that either we continue down the present course, which cannot begin to achieve any of its desired goals – or we can adopt an entirely new strategy, which could actually allow us to survive as an industrial nation.
In his lecture on Wednesday, he will be the first politician to kick off a properly realistic debate on Britain’s energy future. It could not be more desperately overdue.
Why People who Support Wind Farms are Either Deluded, Criminals, or Insane!!!
James Delingpole: Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane
October 10, 2014 by
Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane.
Which One Are You, Vince Cable?
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
8 October 2014
Opposing wind farms is “irrational”, claimed Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable at his party conference yesterday.
Actually, no. Here are some reasons why anyone who doesn’t oppose wind farms is most probably either deluded, criminal or insane.
1. Wind turbines kill bats on an industrial scale – nearly 30 million a year in the US alone, according to some estimates. This is somewhat ironic since most of those pushing for more wind are ardent greenies, who presumably understand that the reason bats are such a heavily protected species is that their breeding cycle is so slow and their life cycle so long – making them especially vulnerable when a breeding pair is killed.
2. Wind turbines kill birds on an industrial scale. Between 110 and 330 birds per turbine per year, according to the Spanish conservation charity SEO/Birdlife – though other research puts the mortality rate as high as 895. In the US, they have killed tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, they threaten the Egyptian and Griffon vulture. In Australia, they have driven the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle close to extinction. Yet bizarrely wind farms are supported by bird charities including the RSPB, because their ideological commitment to “clean energy” trumps the interests of birds, apparently.
3. Wind turbines produce Low Frequency Noise and infrasound, which can cause those who live nearby a range of health problems including insomnia, raised cortisol levels, headaches, panic attacks, tachycardia, nausea, mood swings, palpitations, depression. The corrupt wind industry has known about this for years – with the complicity of certain tame acousticians – contrived to cover up the problem, recognising that if ever the word gets into the public domain the lawsuits are going to be immense.
4. Wind turbines have terrible impacts on animals besides birds and bats. They have caused stillbirth and deformations in livestock; they can turn healthy, responsive dogs into nervous wrecks. In Denmark they caused the premature births of 1600 mink at a fur farm. In Canada they caused the closure of an emu farm popular with tourists, because the turbines made the docile birds (which cost $3,000 a pair) aggressive.
5. Wind turbines kill jobs. According to research by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Carlos university in Madrid, they destroy 2.2 jobs in the real economy for every Potemkin job (“green job”) created by government malinvestment. Separate research suggests that the damage in the UK may be even higher: 3.7 real jobs lost for every fake green one created.
6. Wind turbines are like a reverse Robin Hood, lining the pockets of the rent-seeking rich – such as Prime Minister David Cameron’s father-in-law,Sir Reginald Sheffield, Bt, who makes a £1000 a day just for sitting on his arse while the eight turbines on his Leicestershire estate turn idly in the breeze – at the expense of the ordinary energy user. If this were free market capitalism, fine. But it’s not: it’s the exact opposite – crony capitalism in which economic favours are handed out not by the market but by government fiat. This is the kind of state-endorsed social injustice of which bloody revolutions are made.
7. Wind turbines – as any rural community which has tried fighting the heavily-rigged planning system will know – are disruptive, divisive and unjust. They turn neighbour against neighbour. They force country folk who really would have preferred to do other things with their lives to expend vast quantities of money, time and energy trying desperately to preserve the character and charm of their neighbourhood by fighting wind projects with all their might. Often – that rigged planning system – they fail. So one local person gets rich, earning perhaps £30,000 a year per turbine on his land. But everyone else suffers in the form of blighted views, reduced property values, noise disturbance etc.
8. Wind turbines are economically pointless. Because the “energy” they produce is unreliable, unpredictable and intermittent (sometimes the wind blows; sometimes it doesn’t; sometimes it blows so hard that the turbines have to be switched off) it has no genuine market value. Electricity users want electricity as and when they need it, not when the wind deigns to blow. That’s why it has to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer – because without bribes no developer would risk the capital outlay on something so unproductive. And it’s why wind energy has constantly to be backed up by more conventional power like coal, gas and oil. One 25 hectare fracking site and one medium sized fossil fuel power station can produce the same amount of energy as ALL the wind turbines in Britain.
9. Wind farms are partly responsible for the thousands of people who die every year of fuel poverty. (Plus, of course, all those people who’ve been fatally injured in turbine fires, air crashes, or by flying blades – for full details see here.) This is because, being so disproportionately expensive – between roughly twice and three times the cost of conventional fossil fuel power, depending on whether we’re talking onshore or offshore wind – and being, by government order, a compulsory part of our “energy mix”, they drive up energy to artificially high levels. The carbon saving benefits of wind farms are largely imaginary; the effects on “global warming” marginal to illusory; but the people who actually die each year, unable to afford their rising fuel bills, are very, very real.
10. Wind farms are a blot on the landscape. They just are. And don’t give me any of that “Well I think they’re rather handsome actually” crap. Your warped personal aesthetics ought not to be anyone’s problem but your own.
Breitbart.com
Not a bad start there, James. STT is sure our followers can easily tack a few more to your solid little list.
Climate Fraud Exposed…..AGAIN!! These Fools Are Not Giving up Easily!
EPA Defrauding The Public About Alaskan Glaciers
The EPA has these images on their web site – claiming to show how global warming is causing the Muir Glacier to disappear.
What they forgot to mention is that most of the retreat pictured above occurred between 1941 and 1950.
This August 1950 photo documents the significant changes that occurred during the 9 years between photographs A and B. Muir Glacier has retreated more than 2 miles, exposing Muir Inlet, and thinned 340 feet or more.
And of course this retreat had been going on for centuries
For nearly two centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating. In places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost.
USGS Multimedia Gallery: Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Monument 1941
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?]
No Funding Should be Given to Any Organization, that Supports Agenda 21
WWF ACCUSED OF FUNDING ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS SQUADS THAT ‘BEAT AND KILL’ CAMEROON TRIBES
A leading human rights charity has alleged that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is causing the displacement of traditional tribal people by funding squads who “beat and kill” natives for living in newly established “conservation zones” designated to protect wildlife.
The accusations made by Survival International relate to the displacement of the Baki Pygmie people in Cameroon, whose ancestral lands have now been designated “protected areas” to defend wildlife from poachers. Although the Baki have coexisted with the forest and it’s wildlife for “countless generations”, government poaching squads have treated the tribesmen harshly over the past decade, and the WWF stands accused of complicity in the abuse of their human rights.
The United Nations requires the WWF to prevent or mitigate “adverse human rights impacts directly linked to its operations”, but as Breitbart London was told by a Survival spokesman: “the facts suggest the WWF just haven’t put measures into place to prevent these abuses”.
According to Survival, the squads, which put the rights of animals above the rights of ancient tribes, wouldn’t be able to operate without the extensive funding and administrative assistance provided by the WWF to the Cameroonian government. As we were told: “the WWF has known about this for ten years or more”, and have until recently failed to act.
A Baka man told Survival, “The forest used to be for the Baka but not anymore. We would walk in the forest according to the seasons but now we’re afraid. How can they forbid us from going into the forest? We don’t know how to live otherwise. They beat us, kill us and force us to flee to Congo.”
Survival also told Breitbart London: “Many Baka have now asked us to publicise their plight as widely as possible, and to tell WWF’s supporters so that they can take action”
Both parties are now participating in a Human Rights Commission inquiry, but this has only come after months of the WWF dragging their feet, say Survival. A press release by the WWF claimed they were “disturbed” by the claims and had been offering assistance since March, but the Survival spokesman told us: “the investigation WWF suggested to us was entirely biased… there was no intention to publish the results.”
“The WWF has claimed Survival has to initiate this enquiry, but that isn’t true. They could have done it themselves at any time over the past ten years – it’s shocking”.
For the duration of the inquiry, which is being chaired by WWF funding recipient the Cameroon government, the wildlife charity will continue to pay for the squads which have caused the controversy. Meanwhile therefore, the purportedly illegal eviction of the tribal people from their homelands in the name of “conservation” will continue unabated.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 
