"Global Wind Scam Day"

Danish mink farm (Photo: WCN)

Touting the power of wind and “the possibilities to reshape our energy systems, decarbonize our economies and boost job growth,” the Global Wind Day is coordinated worldwide by the European Wind Energy Association, the Global Wind Energy Council, and various national associations.

Solution Wind, a global awareness campaign is also publicizing the wind industry in advance of the COP21 (U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as “Paris 21”) climate negotiations in Paris,  November 30-Decemmber 11, 2015. http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was one of the three documents produced in 1992 at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.  President George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate and U.N. Agenda 21 documents produced at this conference but refused to sign the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity document. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php

Having invested $100 billion in 2014, the wind lobby advertises wind energy as “mainstream and the fastest growing industrial sectors in the world.” Activities to convince the general public that wind energy is harmless include “family outings, wind farm visits and seminars with experts and leading industry figures.”

Their website explains that “In the EU alone, the wind industry installed more than gas and coal combined last year with enough cumulative installed capacity to meet 10.2% of the region's electricity consumption, equivalent to powering 73 million households.” What about the other 90% of electricity needs? http://www.ewea.org/globalwindday/

Mark Duchamp, Chairman of the World Council for Nature has issued a press release in advance of the “wind lobby celebration of Global Wind Day” on June 15, 2015. “Hundreds of events are organized worldwide to convince people that wind farms are useful, cheap, harmless to birds and people, good for property values and great for tourism and the economy,” said Mr. Duchamp.

Calling this celebration a “global wind scam day,” Mr. Duchamp lists many economic problems and health issues associated with wind farms which have been operated on a worldwide scale since the 1980s. They provide unreliable and intermittent electricity at a cost that is “three times more expensive than that generated by conventional power.”

He claims that the wind industry, heavily subsidized in all countries, finances political parties through kickbacks via a subsidy “revolving door.” The wind industry provides and guarantees profits to a new “class of green crony capitalists.” In his view, the wind turbine industry negatively affects the economy of some countries, facilitating the political takeover of “anti-establishment parties” such as “Podemos” (We Can) in Spain. Where have we heard that catch-phrase before?

Making references available to readers, Mr. Duchamp lists the unresolved economic and social issues associated with wind turbines:

-          State and countries who rely on renewable energy become less competitive and poorer

-          Wise investors prefer states where energy is cheaper

-          Higher energy prices and taxation related to “green energy” cause companies to relocate abroad

-          Higher renewable energy costs are subsidized by taxpayers and consumers, thus causing “fuel poverty”

-          Deficits increase when subsidies and other bailouts finance “unprofitable and unreliable wind energy”

-          The unsightly wind turbines alter the landscape, destroy the “view shed” touted by environmentalists in this country, and depreciate the value of “heritage sites”

-          The huge turbine blades chop millions of birds and bats every year, including the majestic golden eagle in the U.S. and perhaps some endangered species

-          Properties located near the turbines lose anywhere “from 10% to 50%” of their value

-          Just because a turbine spins, it does not necessarily produce energy

-          Wind turbines must use electricity generated by “dirty” fossil fuels in order to be properly maintained and to prevent rusting of gears

-          Many turbines have been abandoned or shut down as requested by residents who could not stand the noise even after the community had invested millions in their installation

-          Frequently hit by lightning, turbines catch fire and threaten anyone nearby when the fire cannot be put out or the blades literally spin out of control

-          Residents living in the vicinity of turbines are affected by “shadow flicker” during certain hours of the day and stressed out by the constant thump-thump noise coming from the wind turbine, especially at optimal operating wind speed - “allowed noise limits are frequently exceeded”

-          Residents and animals are negatively affected by infrasound emitted by turbines and exhibit disturbing behavior and serious negative health effects

http://wcfn.org/2015/06/04/global-wind-day-2/

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Duchamp said, wind farm victims are ignored, accused of imagining their real health issues such as insomnia, headaches, nausea, tachycardia, disturbed menstrual cycles, loss of balance, genetic mutations during gestation, and other ailments.

 

The Green Growth Sustainability of Washington, D.C.

The Green Growth Sustainability of U.N. Agenda 21 has finally arrived in our nation’s capital. Mayor Vincent C. Gray announced last week his “Sustainability D.C.” plan to make the District of Columbia “the healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States” by 2032.  
He plans “zero-net buildings that generate at least as much energy as they produce,” reducing the amount of salt spread on the roads, and charging residents per bag of trash pickup. (Washington Post, Mike DeBonis, February 20, 2013)
The environmentalists are dancing with joy at the prospect of reducing the city’s potential impact on the manufactured global warming/climate change they’ve been pushing for decades. Reasonable minds wish that the D.C. Mayor would address instead the high crime and poverty rates, real problems in the District.
The capital will have “250,000 more residents, use 50 percent less energy, emit 50 percent fewer greenhouse gases and produce 15 percent less waste.” D.C. will plant 150,000 trees, citizens will have more rooftop greenery, and CFL bulbs will light miles of bike paths.
Regulations will be lessened to allow residents to build more high-rises in transit corridors, convert basements and over-garage space into living quarters, all with the intention of moving people together as compactly as possible.
Building codes will become more stringent in order to reduce carbon footprint, and a percentage of the city’s electricity will have to come from renewables, as well as demanding more investment in public transit. The idea is that over time, cars should become obsolete, moving everybody into public transportation or bike riding.
Mayor Gray plans to use city funds to finance a nearby wind farm and invest in orchards for local food. Even the liberal Washington Post questions why the mayor is not addressing “the true costs and trade-offs” of the ambitious plan.
The op-ed asks, what is more pressing, “quintupling the number of green jobs, or meeting low greenhouse-emissions targets cheaply and on time?” I say, there is no such thing as a green job; it is a fabrication of the Green Growth, Sustainability schemes of U.N. Agenda 21, the plan to confiscate and redistribute wealth to third world nations. (Washington Post, The Green City, February 24, 2013)
The global warming/climate change is a hoax. Environmentalist fibbers conveniently leave out the role of the sun and solar flares on our planet and of the oceanic currents. Environmentalists are nothing more than opportunists making billions and trillions over carbon swaps, taxes, EPA regulations, and carbon footprint regulations. They are using lower-wrung activists who have been brainwashed to promote the man-made global warming/climate change agenda to the low information voters.
The suspect science of human-caused global warming was highlighted on Douglas Carswell’s blog and mea culpa. “My biggest regret as an MP is that I failed to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act. It was a mistake. I am sorry.” Britain’s Climate Change Act of 2008 has had serious damaging effects on the economy. (Principia Scientific International, February 25, 2013)

Rajenda Pachuri, the United Nation’s chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), acknowledged that temperatures have not risen in the last 17 years. Britain’s Met Office confirmed the data. (www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/11014-nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate)

Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s most prominent and vocal global warming/climate change doomsayer, also acknowledged that “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”(www.columbia.edu/-jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf)

Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser translated a new German study by Professor Heinz Hug. Citing peer reviewed sources, Dr. Hug states, “IPCC assertion that increased greenhouse gas water vapor causes global warming, is wrong.” (http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm)

Dr. Kaiser said, “The reality also is that all the models used by the IPCC and their followers make untenable assumptions, contain internal inconsistencies and totally disregard the physical basis necessary.” (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53345)

Science is exact, it does not work by “consensus” as declared by United Nations or activist environmentalists. “Consensus is a societal or judicial term which has no place in science.”
(Dr. Klaus Kaiser)

In the same article, Dr. Klaus Kaiser gives a very good explanation why the tropospheric CO2 causes a net cooling effect on our planet, not a greenhouse “blanket.”

 “Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth. Yet, on the side of Mars facing the sun, the temperature is about 30 °C like on Earth, but on the opposite (night) side it is well below MINUS-100 °C (approximately MINUS-200 °F). The thick layer of CO2 on Mars does not at all provide a “warm blanket” on its night side – au contraire – all that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere produces a cooling effect through outward radiation of IR energy its molecules.”

Al Gore’s global warming predictions that the sea levels will rise, flood, and swallow islands and lands opening to the ocean are also wrong. Nils-Axel Mörner, sea level expert, has recently criticized main stream media alarmists, including the United Nations IPCC, for claiming that Bangladeshi floods are caused by man-made global warming. Independent scientists have proven that floods in Bangladesh are caused by rain over the Himalayas and cyclones that push water inland. “This has nothing to do with the sea,” said Mörner.

Here we are, transforming our way of life fundamentally, our cities, District of Columbia included, at great expense and pain to all, based on environmental lies, scientific misinterpretation of data, and U.N. Agenda 21’s schemes to redistribute wealth and to control every facet of life. Would it not be easier if the U.N. and its ardent supporters just came in and confiscated our “ill-gotten wealth” (as they indoctrinate our children in schools) overnight instead of stealthily stealing from us in the name of saving the planet?

 

 

 

The Scam of Green

You know the scam of green has hit rock bottom when the Washington Post is criticizing the government’s alternative energy partnerships, grants, and subsidies and Al Gore’s $100 million fortune gained through investments in the climate change hoax. “Al Gore is 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html)

Being the die-hard liberals that they are, the paper cannot help itself in describing Gore’s wealth as “Romneyesque” and Mitt Romney himself as a “private-equity baron.” In the liberal view, it is acceptable to gain wealth, whether honestly or dishonestly if you are a Democrat, however, if you are a Republican, you become a baron, a comparison with negative connotations, harking back to the robber-barons era.

Criticizing modern liberalism and the Democrat Party, the author condemns their green agenda and their dependence on cash from high-tech venture capitalists and lobbyists, questioning their claims that they are supporting “the little guy,” the ordinary Americans who struggle to survive in an almost 16 percent unemployment environment.

The real unemployment figures, if reported correctly and honestly, are much higher than the stated 7.8 percent by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the happy media supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign. The main stream media has not bothered to report that the seventh largest economy on the planet, California, had failed to report its unemployment figures on time last week and was thus not included in the BLS unemployment calculations.

Charles Lane says that it is much harder to describe “liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.” Quoting Andrew Jackson’s words of 1832, the author is indirectly complaining about the injustice of our Government.

I do not recall our founding fathers advocating socialist re-distribution of wealth. Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty: free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to life, liberty, and property. Nobody is entitled to anybody else’s property. It was John Locke who argued that each human being has a natural right to life, liberty, and property and governments must not violate these rights. Yet liberals trumpet that an omnipotent government should be the arbiter and re-distributor of private property and wealth.

Charles Lane makes a valid point that our government does not have a mandate to choose economic winners and losers through green subsidies, grants, or tax breaks for oil and gas. However, in his progressive views, governments must pursue “the legitimate goal of environmentalism.”

I am not sure if there is a legitimate goal of environmentalism or who has mandate to pursue that goal. The majority of Americans believe environmentalism to be counterproductive to our capitalist economy and a threat to private property and our way of life.

Maurice Strong, the founder of the United Nations Environment Programme, exemplifies environmentalism gone berserk: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapses? Isn’t our responsibility to bring that about? Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” (Rio Earth Summit)

Questioning Gore’s “climate crusade” as being based on money and not about saving the planet, the author talks about Fisker, the manufacturer of the hybrid cars, mostly priced above $100,000, the Kharma sport model selling for $117,000. Lane believes the huge financial gain does not hurt Gore’s credibility about climate change, just the solutions he advocates.

It is not in the interest of liberals to let climate change/global warming crusade die. There is too much money, wealth, power, and global control to be gained from pushing this hoax.

The Met Office in the U.K. reported last week that 3,000 temperature readings on land and sea have shown that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in global temperatures. According to the Daily Mail, “the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”

The media reported with great fanfare six months ago figures through the end of 2010 – a very warm year because the data seemed to agree with their agenda. The reporting was disingenuous because it supposedly showed a slight warming trend since 1997. However, 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, erasing the warming trend. I would also argue that environmentalists constantly mix weather and climate, depending on their talking points. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

Everybody understands green energy is expensive and not feasible and cheap on a mass scale for years to come. Our huge economy and transportation need more than just wind mills and solar panels. Our economy needs natural gas, oil, clean coal, nuclear energy, and hydroelectric energy.

The New York Times reported on California’s “net metering” subsidy for solar-panel users. Consumers who can afford to install photovoltaic panels are paid by their utilities for the excess capacity of electricity and to keep them on the grid. The utilities’ costs are passed on to lower income customers. (Washington Post, Charles Lane, October 16, 2012)

Liberals are finally discovering that expensive electricity rates are bad for industry and private customers alike. The $3.4 billion from the 2009 stimulus bill spent on the Smart Grid may be efficient and profitable in energy distribution for utilities but it is very expensive for consumers, invades their privacy, and creates cyber security issues and privacy issues. Germany’s rapid replacement of nuclear power with wind and solar has increased utility rates so much that 200,000 long-term unemployed Germans lost power in 2011 because they could not afford to pay their electric bills. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/energy-turnaround-in-germany-plagued-by-worrying-lack-of-progress-a-860481.html)

Liberals are finally discovering that much higher electricity rates through smart metering are hitting their pockets and it hurts. Progressives are realizing that the Democrat talk about “green jobs” is nothing but a con redefinition of already existing jobs. Furthermore, smart grid and smart meters, with all their negative effects on human health and privacy, are destroying the jobs of the traditional meter readers. Lane calls this unintended consequence “creative destruction” - “what makes capitalism go.” But Economics 101 teaches students that self-interest, greed, the price system, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and the pursuit of profit are the motivators behind capitalism.

Lane disapproves of Gore and his partners’ rent-seeking activities. “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” He laments the fact that the United Mine Workers of America, a former Democrat core constituency, has refused to endorse Obama in 2008 and 2012. Mitt Romney has promised in Ohio that we will use our vast reserves of coal, keep the miners’ jobs, and re-open those coal mines shut down by Obama’s green energy policies.

In the end, the scam of green is affecting Democrat and Republican consumers alike. It just took Democrats four years to realize this obvious fact.