Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: green energy

What Is Promised vs What The Numbers Actually Say

Posted on by

On Monday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Democratic Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s decision to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The article reports:

Democratic Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger’s decision to reenter her state into a controversial green energy program is projected to cost Virginians nearly $1.2 billion over the next two years, due to higher electric bills, despite Spanberger’s claim that the move was about “cost savings” and “lowering bills for families who need help most,” according to state filings.

Spanberger’s Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, had pulled Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2022, calling it a hidden and “regressive” tax that disproportionately impacted lower-income families.

The RGGI, which critics say functions like a carbon tax, forces utility companies in participating states—11 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, all but one with a Democratic governor—to pay states for greenhouse gases they emit. The states are then supposed to reinvest that money into green energy programs, including so-called environmental justice programs that make the homes of lower-income families more energy efficient. That would, the theory goes, eventually lower these families’ electric bills.

Spanberger, who ran as a moderate Democrat in 2024 but since entering the governor’s mansion has pulled the state sharply to the left, quickly rejoined the RGGI.

The article notes:

Dominion Energy, the state’s main electricity provider, calculated RGGI’s shocking $1.2 billion price tag for Virginians based on the number of “allowances” it would be forced to buy to account for the carbon emissions from its power plants, according to the filings it submitted this month with state regulators.

Typically, power companies subject to the RGGI simply pass down the costs to their customers. Dominion said the $1.2 billion allowance cost would be applied to residential bills in the form of a surcharge, increasing the average Virginian household’s electric bill by roughly $13 per month, or 7.5 percent. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission must approve that surcharge before Dominion can implement it.

Green energy programs are generally NOT about green energy. They are generally about funneling money to entitles and friends who make large donations to Democrat candidates.

It Was Always About The Money

Posted on by

On Monday, Just the News posted an article about where a lot of the money designated for ‘green energy’ actually went.

The article reports:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin says he has made several criminal referrals after uncovering a major political enrichment scandal that routed billions in Biden-era green energy grants to Democrat cronies. “It’s about self-dealing,” Zeldin tells Just the News.

Zeldin said he has canceled or stopped about $29 billion in EPA grants – including one for $2 billion to a nonprofit tied to longtime Georgia Democrat election activist and failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams – after unmasking a series of pass-through groups used to route taxpayer monies to the politically connected.

“As you look through all of these pass-through entities, you’re seeing so many connections to former Obama and Biden administration officials and Democratic donors, people who were former Cabinet members, other high-ranking administration officials,” he said during a wide-ranging interview Monday on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

Zeldin said he has referred several of the transactions to the EPA inspector general, the agency’s chief watchdog, and the Justice Department for possible prosecution or further investigation. “Those referrals have been made,” he said.

Zeldin said some of the allegations have their roots in legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, when Congress and the White House were all in Democrat hands. “They included all of this funding in this so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. And then they would work with these different agencies of the Biden administration to get it out to their unqualified friends. The whole thing just feels criminal,” he said. “[…] This is clearly something that falls into the category of blatant waste and abuse.”

The article concludes:

Zeldin said he is confident that when all litigation is complete most of the $29 billion in grants he has flagged and blocked will be returned to the Treasury as savings for taxpayers.

“We’re not taking money from left-wing NGOs to give them to right-wing NGOs,” he said. “This is about getting that money back to the taxpayer. This is about making sure that that money coming through an agency like EPA doesn’t have any amount of waste and abuse, that there’s a zero tolerance for it.”

Always remember the following quote:

In March 2016, I posted an article with the following:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

It’s never been about the environment!

The Law Of Unintended Consequences In Action

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Red State posted an article about an unanticipated waste problem in America.

The article reports:

America has a quickly growing waste problem. I’m talking about how to dispose of or treat the vast, rapidly increasing amount of waste tied to the wind and solar energy, which the federal and various state governments have obsessed over, subsidized, and mandated.

…Many wind turbines and solar panels are nearing the end of their useful life, or have already been replaced early, as new, more efficient panels and more powerful turbines become available. In addition, emergency situations are causing further waste, such as hailstorm damage in Texas in 2024. More recently, damage in Indiana and Illinois, where vast industrial solar facilities were destroyed by storms, including hail and tornadoes, took the facilities offline and created a clean-up problem. Nearby residents and communities have expressed concern about potentially toxic chemicals leaching from the shattered panels.

Recycling solar panels is challenging and expensive. It costs $30 to recycle a solar panel, to recover between $3 and $8 worth of minerals, metal, and glass. By contrast, it costs approximately $1 per panel to ship used panels to a landfill, and slightly more to ship inefficient used panels for reuse in developing countries overseas, shifting the waste problems elsewhere.

Because of the economics, less than one in 10 solar panels is recycled. With millions more panels being installed each year, the problem is growing, as was recently recognized in studies published by the London School of Economics in the Harvard Business Review (HBR).

How can it be considered green energy when it leaves such a mess?

The article concludes:

Closing landfills early because there is no more room in the pit or pile is expensive, requiring communities to find new landfills or other ways to dispose of waste. Setting aside so much space in public landfills is making less sense to local governments.

That has led wind and solar profiteers to a different “solution,” piling up decommissioned turbines and solar panels on open land. Thousands of acres are covered by turbines and panels left to decompose over time, with unknown environmental impact, on land useful for purposes other than wind and solar junkyards. This controversial practice has resulted in an increasing number of state and local governments imposing restrictions on the renewable energy industry’s growing number of unregulated piles of unsightly, chemical-laced waste.

The LSE article and the HBR analysis identify the problem, but their solution, forcing wind and solar companies to take back and recycle all their waste, is economically and politically unrealistic. It doesn’t make recycling cheaper, and the costs borne by the companies will simply be passed onto ratepayers and the public. This will make the energy affordability crisis Americans are rightly incensed about even worse. Making rising power bills even more expensive is not a winning electoral message for politicians, I suspect.

Government subsidies and mandates created the renewable waste problem. The solution is not more expensive, misguided government mandates or subsidies, but ending wind and solar incentives and mandates, which are responsible for the huge waste stream.

As of now, the current state of green energy is not green.

Environmentally Friendly?

Posted on by

On Saturday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about wind turbines. It seems that they are not as environmentally friendly as we have been told.

The article reports:

Just this week, David posted a report to CFACT.org on a hearing in the House of Representatives on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which was designed to protect and preserve our birds.

An important topic was the accidental killing of birds, which David explains is called “incidental taking” by the bureaucrats. As David wryly observes, “It is not incidental to the bird, just to the operation of the facility.”

Are you surprised that the hearing somehow managed to skip, bypass, or outright ignore the massive “incidental taking” of birds and bats by wind turbines?

Not only do wind turbines strike eagles, hawks, birds, and bats out of the sky, once you erect them, many species abandon the area, never to return.

Abundant, affordable electricity is essential to human well-being in a modern society. Wind and solar increase costs, weaken the grid, require 24/7 backup from reliable sources, and impose a far dirtier environmental footprint than their advocates would have you know.

Intermittent wind and solar should not get a pass on environmental rules that are zealously enforced against efficient energy sources.

In the past I have posted articles (here, here, and here) about the fact that wind turbine blades are not biodegradable and are filling up landfills around America. All that was accomplished by the push toward green energy was to boost the economy of China. At some point green energy might make sense, but we need to do a lot of engineering first.

The Other Side Of Green Energy

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article that illustrates the other side of green energy. The push for green energy has always reminded me of the search for a perpetual motion machine–it’s a great idea–it just doesn’t work. The sun does not always shine, there isn’t always wind, and batteries have to store electricity somehow. There is also the matter of what’s involved in the manufacture of electric cars, windmills and solar panels. There is also the matter of safe disposal of green energy items once they wear out.

The article reports:

Texas filed a lawsuit against a wind turbine recycling company, alleging it illegally dumped thousands of turbine blades and parts across the state.

Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Thursday that the state is suing Global Fiberglass Solutions, Inc. and several affiliated entities. According to the lawsuit, the company was contracted by multiple firms to break down and recycle wind turbine components, but instead dumped roughly 3,000 turbine blades — or 487,000 cubic yards of solid waste — at two disposal sites.

“Illegal disposal of wind turbines hurts our land and will never be permitted under my watch,” Paxton said in a statement. “Just because the radical left calls something a ‘green industry’ does not give any company a free pass to harm Texas countryside, break our laws, and leave Texans to deal with the negative impacts.”

Under Texas law, recycling facilities must process at least 75% of the material they receive each year to avoid being classified as waste disposal sites. State officials allege Global Fiberglass Solutions has never met that threshold since beginning operations in 2017.

The article concludes:

Countries across Europe that heavily invested in wind energy are now confronting growing volumes of discarded turbine components. One town in Scotland is struggling with blade waste, while countries such as Germany, Spain, and Italy have been forced to invest in recycling after committing to large-scale wind expansion.

Europe will need to dismantle roughly 14,000 wind turbines by 2030, leaving it with 44,000 to 66,000 tons of unrecyclable blade waste, according to WindEurope.

While the Biden administration strongly promoted wind development, the Trump administration has moved to rein in the heavily subsidized industry. In July, the Department of the Interior announced it would end “preferential treatment” for the wind industry, and in December, it paused leases for five large offshore wind projects, citing national security concerns.

Things that work beautifully in theory don’t always work as well in practice.

There Is A Certain Amount Of Self Interest In This Decision

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article about the sudden change of heart by Bill Gates about climate change. You will have to excuse the amount of cynicism I have relating to this change. There are two major factors involved. One factor is the Trump effect on globalism–those moving toward one-world government are not currently getting the traction they were getting during the Biden administration. Argentina and America have shown that cutting government fat and promoting patriotism is a positive thing. The political left’s attempt to label patriotism as nationalism and paint nationalism as a bad thing is beginning to fail. The other factor is that Bill Gates is working to be a leader in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). Green energy and AI are not compatible–the amount of energy required by AI is enormous. We will need to develop new sources of energy and increase our use of old sources of energy to support AI. Those are the reasons I believe Bill Gates has changed his tune on global warming and green energy.

The New York Post reports:

Suddenly, Bill Gates is admitting that climate change won’t lead to “humanity’s demise” after all.

Now he tells us, after he long joined other climate alarmists in warning of “disaster,” as the West burned trillions on “decarbonizing” and steered economies toward the stone age.

The “doomsday view” that “cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization” is “wrong,” the Microsoft co-founder writes; people will “be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

It should also be noted that in the past when there were periods of global warming, there was more food to feed people and fewer people died from exposure to cold.

The article notes:

Gates still thinks it’s a “serious” problem, but admits “the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals” and “diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”

That’s precisely what moderates, like economist Bjorn Lomborg, and most conservatives have said for years.

The chief goal should be “improving lives” — not trying to end all carbon-fuel use, especially when China is still relentlessly building coal plants.

Like Lomborg, Gates now acknowledges that greater “prosperity” can let mankind cope just fine as the planet warms: “The faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.”

The article concludes:

If Gates wants any credit for belatedly seeing the light, he needs to put maximum effort into getting the left’s climate warriors to wake up, too.

It’s Not Easy Being Green

Posted on by

Theoretically, green energy is a great idea. Wind is free; the sun is free. However, the quest for practical, dependable green energy bears a resemblance to the quest for a perpetual motion machine. In theory, it’s a great idea. It practice, it needs work.

On Monday, The Gateway Pundit reported:

Around the world, the unreliability of the new power-generating technologies and the unwise rush towards ‘net-zero’ goals are leading the countries most invested in these ruinous policies into deep power supply troubles.

After blackouts in Spain, Portugal and parts of France two months ago, now it’s the ultra-liberal kingdom of the Netherlands that is reaping the electricity shortage that they sowed with their woke agenda.

It arose today that the Dutch are now rationing electricity.

The article quotes The U.K. Daily Mail:

“More than 11,900 businesses are stuck in a queue for access to the network, alongside public buildings including hospitals, schools and fire stations.”

The present crisis comes as the Dutch concentrate efforts ‘to cut carbon emissions’.

“After shutting down production at the massive Groningen gas field last year, the Dutch government has pushed a fast transition to electric heating, solar power and battery storage.”

The national grid did not grow to demand, creating widespread bottlenecks, and increasing costs.

“Officials estimate €200 billion will be needed by 2040 to expand grid capacity. Electricity prices are already among the highest in Western Europe, and Dutch households face yearly tariff increases of up to 4.7 percent for at least the next decade.”

The world runs on fossil fuel. It can run very efficiently on fossil fuel. In fact, if you look at what goes into the manufacturing of some of the green energy infrastructure, fossil fuel in many cases has a smaller carbon footprint and does less damage to the environment. However, in an effort to be trendy, many governments have pushed green energy. Now their citizens are paying the price.

Sometimes Americans Are Not The Only Ones Making American Policy

Posted on by

On Sunday, Just the News posted an article about one of the non-profit environmental groups that influences America’s energy policy.

The article reports:

A national-security watchdog group is asking members of Congress to take a closer look at an energy transition advocacy nonprofit that has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). According to State Armor, the watchdog group, nonprofits are coordinating with U.S. climate groups to influence climate policy, advance the interests of the CCP and undermine U.S. national security.

A new report by State Armor argues that the CCP is co-opting the American progressive climate change lobby to advance a transition away from fossil fuels. The alternative technologies being pushed by this lobby, according to the report, create significant economic and geopolitical advantages by undermining U.S. energy dominance and leaving it dependent on Chinese supply chains for its energy production. 

“It creates a dependence on our side and deprives us of a natural strength, which is our energy independence that comes from other resources,” Michael Lucci, CEO of State Armor, told Just the News. State Armor is a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for state solutions to global security threats.

The article concludes:

In a letter to the chairs of House and Senate committees — including Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Oversight Committee and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — Lucci explained that the group was formed to help the U.S. resist Chinese influence and maintain U.S. sovereignty. Lucci outlines the findings of the report and the risks it says Chinese influence poses to the U.S. The letter urges Congress to initiate investigations and provide oversight into what Lucci calls a “grave and ongoing threat to our national security.” 

Lucci said in an interview that the Department of Justice should be investigating The Energy Foundation as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registrations Act. The law would require the foundation to make disclosures of their relationship with China, as well as receipts and disbursements in support of activities in support of China.   

The green energy movement has always been against fossil fuels, even natural gas. Because the American economy is based on fossil fuel, shutting down America’s oil industry would have a negative impact on America’s economy. That would provide an economic advantage to China. We need to be aware that China is continually working against American interests behind the scenes. 

The Fallout From The Iberian Blackout

Posted on by

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the future of energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy. It’s not looking good.

The article reports:

It’s no secret that the Republican’s “Big Beautiful Bill” plans to axe large swaths of mandates and billions of dollars in subsidies directed at achieving a so-called “energy transition.” If that budget axe falls, it will be the proverbial third strike that puts to rest the idea that the U.S., never mind the world, will abandon fossil fuels. The other two strikes already happened.

Strike two came last month with the Great Iberian blackout. Preliminary forensics make clear that over-enthusiastic deployment of unreliable solar and wind power was the fulcrum that put 55 million people in the dark for days. Few politicians will want to risk allowing something like that to happen again, anywhere. And, as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation keeps warning, blackout risks are rising here, and for the same reason. Reliability used to be the core feature of electric grid designs, before the rush to push an energy transition in service of climate goals.

And strike one came a few weeks prior to the Iberian calamity with the release of a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled Energy and AI. That report sought to answer the question about how to reliably meet the surprising jump in power demands expected in the coming decade’s boom in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. Answering that also answers, even if not intentionally, the same question about meeting society’s future demands.

The article concludes:

This doesn’t mean Big Tech or the IEA are backing off climate pledges. Nor does it mean the climate debate is settled. Nor will we see any diminution in transition fervor from the climate-industrial complex. Likely that fervor heats up as the Trump Administration attempts to deliver on its promise to defund the panoply of climate-energy programs marbled throughout federal agencies.

What it does mean is that whatever one believes about the science of the climate, the fact is that mandates and subsidies can’t change the physics of energy systems. Systems that can deliver reliable power at the scales necessary for robust growth remain anchored in precisely the fuels the transitionists want to abandon.

Fossil fuels are not perfect (although natural gas is close), but they have been the backbone of the world’s economy for generations. It is possible that one day green energy can discover the technology to make it as reliable and inexpensive as fossil fuel, but that has not yet happened. The best way to spur on the green energy research is to get the governments out of it and let the inventors and private investors make a profit.

A Good Start With Energy

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

President Donald Trump is fulfilling all of the promises he made during his campaign for the presidency. He is truly a man of his word. Now if we can get the leftist, activist, federal judges appointed by Obama and Biden to act according to their oaths to uphold the law and constitution instead of following their leftist ideology and agenda, the country could be restored as all true Americans desire.

One of President Trump’s most important campaign promises was to stop the destructive implementation of green energy initiatives and mandates.  He has already taken significant steps at the federal level to save our economy from excessively restrictive and costly wind and solar electricity generation which will help with reducing electricity costs. It is now time for the North Carolina General Assembly to step forward and do likewise.

In this regard, there was very good news this past week when the Republican controlled Senate passed Senate Bill 261 that removes the requirement that electrical energy producers in North Carolina (essentially Duke Energy) reduce C02 carbon emissions by 70% by the year 2030. This mandate was originally passed in 2021 and was much debated and ill advised to say the least. A study by the Public Staff of the N.C. Utilities Commission reported that the mandate was impossible for the electrical energy producers in North Carolina to meet, and if the effort to do so was continued that the estimated cost to consumers was estimated to be a whopping 13 billion dollars! As expected, a group of Democrats voted not to remove the mandate in spite of this horrendous cost. For now, the mandate that electrical energy generation in N.C. reach a net zero carbon emissions standard by 2050 was left in place. Let’s hope the General Assembly removes that ridiculous mandate in the near future.

Interestingly, a resolution to remove the C02 emissions standard was passed by a local party precinct last year and may have had an influence on this legislation. Shows that local activism can have an impact.

However, more needs to be done. State tax subsidies are being used to significantly expand solar farms and wind turbine generators here in North Carolina to the financial benefit of specific individuals and corporations. For example, ex-governor Roy Cooper and his brother reportedly built a 1500-acre solar farm near Rocky Mount, of course, aided by tax subsidies paid by the average tax payer. The old saying “follow the money” is appropriate here. Another area of concern is another Cooper initiative, to allow construction of off shore wind farms along the North Carolina coast. By the way, not only do wind turbines kill birds, but off shore windmills can disrupt and kill sea creatures like whales. These green energy scams not only hurt the taxpayers, but they are enriching our adversary China which produces these products. The bottom line is that the General Assembly should take immediate steps to end all North Carolina tax subsidies for wind and solar projects and cancel any and all offshore wind turbine permits.

This first step by the Senate to remove C02 mandates is encouraging and hopefully will be passed in the House of Representatives. A veto by Governor Stein can be expected. Let’s hope that there is one Democrat in the House who will vote to override the expected veto and protect the interests of North Carolina citizens rather than the interests of the green energy profiteers.

Stopping Green Energy 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

The re-election of Donald Trump provides an opportunity to correct the devastating agenda of the green new deal extremists.  Inexpensive and ample supplies of energy are essential to the progress of our economy.  Solar and wind will never produce sufficient reliable energy to fuel a modern society.  Impossible, as the Europeans have found out.

It is very discouraging to realize that many of our elected Republicans believe the man-made climate change hoax and are therefore willing to support things like carbon neutrality.  There is no reliable scientific evidence that man’s consumption of fossil fuels has altered the environment!  The environmental extremists base their scare tactics about manmade global warming on computer models generated by their fellow believers.  The truth is that the earth’s temperature has varied substantially long before there were enough human beings to impact the CO2 levels.  There have been at least eight ice age/warming periods over the earth’s history going back several million years.  We are now in a global warming cycle from the last ice age that occurred over 10,000 years ago.  So the first thing we need to do is to ensure that our lawmakers are not taken in by the climate change extremists.  We also need to stop indoctrinating our children with the man-made climate hoax.

As President Trump has advocated, we need to “drill baby drill” for oil and natural gas, both of which we are fortunate to have an abundant supply.  We also need to return to coal burning plants since we have the technology to ensure that coal is burned efficiently and cleanly;  instead of shipping our coal to China, which is greatly expanding their coal fired plants and doing so with little concern for the environment.  President Trump’s recent announcement of our withdrawal from the globalist so-called Paris Accords which are detrimental to America is a step in the right direction.  Remember, that cheap and abundant energy will enhance our ability to compete with other countries in manufacturing.

All government subsidies and tax incentives for solar, wind and electrical vehicles need to be stopped immediately.  Wind farms off our coast are an environmental hazard that only enriches China.  A recent study conducted by the conservative John Locke Foundation estimates that continued movement towards wind and solar will produce an enormous increase in energy prices in our country.  Not only are wind and solar expensive and produce unreliable energy, but due to their intermittent energy production, extensive battery storage capacity (or more likely backup fossil fuel plants) will still be needed.  Experts have recently predicted that a full implementation of Artificial Intelligence will require a threefold electrical capacity increase nationwide.

The final solution to energy production is nuclear power.  Due to the environmental extremists scare tactics and excessive regulation, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in North Carolina since the Shearon Harris plant near Raleigh was completed in 1987.  This despite the improved safety and ability to produce nuclear power plants of smaller size, which could be located closer to customer demand.  The European Union is planning on increasing their nuclear plants due in large measure to the ineffectiveness of wind and solar.  Currently, France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear reactors.

The bottom line is that we need to do away with the move towards wind and solar and go back to the common sense approach of relying on fossil fuels and nuclear power.  If we do not, we will be unable to maintain our economy and grow for the future.  Our conservative lawmakers need to make this happen.

Conservative Replies to Debate Questions

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

I watched the Vice President candidate’s debate the other night and thought that J.D. Vance did a good job. The following are my answers to some of the critical issues that were raised in the debate.

Climate Change. The climate constantly changes. Always has; always will. The idea that the recent destructive hurricane, Helene, was caused by man-made climate change is pure ignorance and typical of the environmental extremists. Severe hurricanes have occurred as far back as records have been kept–long before man’s burning of fossil fuels could have caused them. The Left continues to spout the idea that man-made climate change is “settled science” when it is not. This allows them to justify ruining our energy production.

Green Energy. The Democrat agenda is to spend more of our taxpayer money on solar and wind projects purchased from China, and importantly, to mandate electric vehicles. Meanwhile, China is building a new coal fired plant about every month and using coal that we ship to them. As Europe has found out, no modern civilization can exist on wind and solar. We need more access to fossil fuels and to start building nuclear plants which the environmental extremists are blocking.

Open Borders. The Democrats want open borders in order to get more voters who will support their socialist agenda. They give illegals free housing, food, cell phones and healthcare and will, if allowed, grant them citizenship so they can vote. They realize that they are losing support from working class Americans, blacks, and Hispanics because of their harmful policies and need to replace these voters. Biden/Harris have had the ability to close the borders just as Donald Trump was able to do. THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS!

Housing Costs. The cost of new homes is up over 30% since Biden/Harris took office. Their reckless government spending caused the highest inflation in 40 years. Soaring fuel prices have increase the production cost and shipping cost of all building materials. Inflation caused a surge in mortgage rates from 3% under Trump to over 7% under Biden/Harris. Their solution–to start another big government program of taking money from working Americans and give it to first time home buyers.

Abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion as a right. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that if an issue is not specified as the responsibility of the federal government then it must be left to the states. That is exactly what the Supreme Court’s ruling against Roe vs Wade rightfully concluded. The Democrats do not want to follow the Constitution–they want a federal law on abortion. Kamala Harris has promised to remove the filibuster rule and pack the court in order to accomplish this objective. They also want to avoid the reality that terminating a child that can live on its own with proper medical care, is not murder.

As in any debate, there are important issues that were not addressed. For example, the increasing crime rates and the destruction of our cities by failing to enforce the law. Anyone want to visit San Francisco? I do not. Recent reports show that due to the Biden/Harris open border policy, 425,000 criminals, 13,000 convicted murderers, and 16,000 sexual assault offenders were released into this country. The Democrats abuse of the law to go after their political opponents should alarm all Americans. No president has ever been indicted while in office or out of office other than President Trump. Yet, they continue to say that he is the threat to democracy when they are the real threat!

Let’s face reality. Harris/Walz are the most radical socialists ever to run for president and vice president. Their policies will make America a weak, failing, socialist country. Choice: big government socialism or traditional American free enterprise and individual freedom. Easy decision actually.

When Green Energy Just Isn’t Green

Posted on by

On Friday, an ABC affiliate in Iowa posted an article about a windmill on a farmer’s property that was struck by lightning. This is the third time the windmill has been struck by lightning in a year and a half. A county ordinance requires that any windmill that is not producing energy must be taken down in a year. The owners of the turbine are responsible for taking the windmill down, but the farmer is responsible for the damage caused by the windmill fire.

The article notes:

While the turbine’s owners have to take care of that, the damage left behind is the responsibility of the land owner.

After the wind turbine’s blade fell to the ground, debris from the turbine coated the surrounding farmland.

“I don’t really know how you ever clean it up, especially since the longer you wait the harder it is to cleanup. And since there’s so much still here I don’t know what we’re gonna do with it,” said Sally Freeman, the farm’s owner.

Freeman is now dealing with her third turbine fire, and she’s learned from experience that cleanup takes forever.

…Previous cleanups left Freeman’s cornfield littered with wires and fiberglass, and the industrial equipment used to remove the last turbine is still taking up space.

All the fiberglass and waste in the field means she can’t use the land, a loss that loss costs a lot of money.

Green energy is not quite ready for prime time. A lot more research and development is needed before green energy becomes a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Getting the government out of the energy sector and letting the free market prevail would help encourage the research and development needed!

The Only Green In Green Energy Is Taxpayers’ Money

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted article about the government’s effort to help the wavering wind industry by recusing wind energy companies from liability when they damage the environment. Would the same waiver be given to any struggling energy industry that involved fossil fuel?

The article reports:

The offshore wind industry has been struggling financially for much of the past year, with companies’ stocks falling in part over uncertainty in the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Inflation, supply chains and interest rates have also been blamed for the industry’s troubles.

Despite the financial uncertainty of the offshore wind industry, the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) is issuing waivers for financial assurances on offshore wind projects, saying they present an unnecessary burden for the industry. The financial assurance requirement protects the public from decommissioning liabilities. If companies can’t afford to remove the wind towers they’re building after their useful life, the public has an assurance that those liabilities will be covered. 

Covered by U.S. taxpayers. What government insanity is this?

The article notes:

In the wake of the Vineyard Wind blade incident, Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison and general manager at Seafreeze, Ltd., a fishing company based in Rhode Island, spoke at a hearing on offshore wind, organized by Reps. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Scott Perry, R-Pa. 

“The truth is that BOEM habitually grants waivers or departure requests for these financial assurances. In fact, every project constructed or under construction in federal waters off New England have received these waivers: Vineyard wind, South Fork Wind farm. Revolution Wind and New England Wind off Massachusetts have also received a waiver,” Lapp testified. 

Lapp was a plaintiff in the recent Supreme Court case that overturned the so-called “Chevron deference.” 

These waivers, Lapp pointed out, stand in stark contrast to the way BOEM treats oil and gas projects. Offshore oil and gas drilling is a much older industry, she said, and so many of the risks are known. But that’s not the case with offshore wind. 

Lapp pointed to the impacts of the Vineyard Wind blade disaster and how it shut down beaches and impacted economies that depend on summer tourism. Despite BOEM claiming that offshore wind technology is proven, she said, the potential for blades to break off and cause such extensive environmental damages was unforeseen.

The crisis, she said, “underscores this lack of foresight and BOEM’s political push for offshore wind, regardless of cost to American taxpayers. If a decommissioning bond is a financial hardship for developers, what of the cost of cleanup liability and damages to local economies, businesses and citizens?”

If a corporation cannot be held liable for the damages it does to the environment and to other industries, why should they be allowed to do business?

When Green Energy Isn’t Green

Posted on by

On Friday, The Minnesota Star Tribune posted an article highlighting one of the problems with wind energy–turbine blades are not biodegradable, and they are big!

The article reports:

GRAND MEADOW, MINN. – Darcy Richardson had big plans for a garden patio enveloped by flowers in her backyard in this little community south of Rochester.

She gave up once the blades arrived.

Trucks dropped off more than 100 fiberglass turbine blades on the empty lot next door in 2020, haphazardly stacked to the edge of Richardson’s property. Almost four years later, the mountain of old wind parts — which is visible on Google Earth — is still there.

Some blades are cracked and stained. Locals say they draw feral cats and foxes and are a safety risk because kids climb on the junk.

They’re also ugly, ruining Richardson’s view, hurting property values and attracting the curiosity of seemingly everyone who drives the highway into town.

“After six months we were like ‘C’mon guys, what’s going on,’” said Richardson, once a master gardener. “After a year we were like ‘Seriously, this sucks.’”

What happened in Grand Meadow is more than merely a local mess. It reflects tensions over the boom of wind energy in southern Minnesota during a shift away from fossil fuels, the problem of recycling green infrastructure, small town political infighting and government and corporate bureaucracy.

The article concludes:

Grand Meadow is looking into whether it can fine TMT. The city asked for help from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, with no luck. Christian is now trying the PUC, where utility regulators plan to weigh in next month after taking public comments on whether the board can or should intervene.

Xcel Energy now owns the wind farm, but the company says it can’t move the blades because it doesn’t own them and described the situation as “isolated.” Xcel is still sensitive to the issue because the blade junk is not exactly building goodwill in a wind-rich area.

Annette Olson co-owns Olson Tree Services, a business adjacent to the blade pile, and said, like several others, she is not opposed to renewable power. But “it’s frustrating when they talk about all the things we need to do to help our environment, but yet they fail to do their part,” she said.

Xcel spokesman Theo Keith said the company is open to including new protections in blade recycling contracts to protect host communities. NextEra declined to comment. Siemens Gamesa said it has a confidential agreement with RiverCap to remove the blades from Grand Meadow.

Donahue, at Canvus, said their lease expires by the end of the year so the blades will be moved soon. But the Richardson family living next to the junk pile, and others, are skeptical.

Darcy Richardson said she sometimes tries to imagine the wind blades as snow piles. The family said they once would have hosted a wedding in the yard, but not anymore. She has a smaller deck close to her house with a small statue of a farmhouse windmill amid black-eyed Susans. It’s the more idyllic vision of renewable energy.

Richardson asked the PUC to consider “what would you do if it was in your backyard?”

Jim had another message: “Don’t mess with my wife’s flowers.”

There are a lot of people who make large political donations making a lot of money from ‘green energy.’ Meanwhile, there are a lot or ordinary people being negatively impacted by promoting ‘green energy’ solutions that have not been completely thought out.

The Free Market Shows Up

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about a recent announcement from General Motors.

The article reports:

General Motors had kind of a biggish announcement this morning, which should anger progressives and the Green grifters.

So, pretty encouraging for normal people hoping to see manufacturing claw their way free of the madness.

General Motors said Tuesday it is again slowing its plans for all-electric vehicles by further delaying a second U.S. electric truck plant and the Buick brand’s first EV.

The six-month delay in retooling the electric truck plant in Michigan, until mid-2026, also means GM will not achieve a prior target of having North American production capacity of 1 million EVs by 2025.

…The changes add new questions about the Detroit automaker’s plans for future battery cell plants other than two current joint venture facilities with LG Energy Solution in North America. GM previously announced plans for four of the multibillion-dollar plants in the U.S. by 2026.

Barra on Tuesday said the company would grow cell production in a “meaningful cadence.”

This is partially the result of basic free market forces and partially the result of looking ahead. If President Trump wins the election in November, federal subsides for consumers buying electric vehicles will end. At that point, sales of electric vehicles will drop significantly. General Motors does not want to be stuck with an inventory it can’t sell. The free market needs to control green energy. The free market will provide incentives for manufacturers to make cars that are truly green. Right now what passes for green energy is NOT green. It includes children working in lithium mines, windmills that break apart and pollute, and windmill blades that have a limited life-span and are not biodegradable. We can do better.

We Need To Rethink Coastal Wind Farms

Posted on by

I am not going to go into details on the number of dead whales found on the East Coast since exploration for wind farms began. I am going to focus on the more basic problems caused by off-shore wind farms. On Saturday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of the problems with the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, LLC (Atlantic Shores) project planned for the New Jersey Coast.

The article reports:

While the Biden administration and other environmental activist groups boast that the Atlantic Shores South project, nearly nine years in the making, is another milestone in the country’s harvesting of green energy, a former U.S. Department of Energy engineer raises alarm bells that not only is this project detrimental to tourism, the ocean’s ecosystem, but it will actually raise energy costs to as high as 80% over the next 20 years.

…“Project 1 and Project 2 are expected to generate up to 2,800 megawatts of electricity, enough to power close to one million homes with clean renewable energy,” according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 

And while Atlantic Shores South says this project will generate $1.9 billion in economic benefits for the Garden State, an analysis by Edward P. O’Donnell with Whitestrand Consulting found that consumers from residents to commercials to industrial all across the state will see a massive hike in their electric bills. 

The article concludes:

As concerning as it is for Stern to see his electric bills go up, he’s worried about how this green energy project will impact marine animals like whales. 

“The underwater noise from all phases of this, the vessel surveys which use noise devices to characterize the seabed, then the noise from when you pile drive the foundations, and then ultimately the operation of these huge structures create a lot of underwater noise,” Stern said. “We’ve looked at it extensively and we believe it’s going to cause great harm to the whales, to the dolphins, particularly the whales that have to migrate to New Jersey to get where they’re going.”

But according to Stern it gets worse as commercial vessel traffic, military, and fishing boats won’t be allowed in the wind complex.

“So they’re going to be squeezed into these narrow corridors,” Stern said. “And it turns out that the corridors that they’re going to be squeezed into also happens to be a migration corridor for the whales. Now you’re creating, not only a hazard to the whales but a hazard to the vessels.” 

In the Bureau of Ocean of Energy Management’s Environmental Review, the agency acknowledged that the Atlantic Shores South would have a major impact on the North Atlantic White Whale, less than 400 remaining in the wild. 

Stern, who organized Save Long Beach Island in an effort to push back on the project, said there’s also a fear with community members that the windmills, a major eye sore just miles away from the coast, will negatively impact tourism. 

The Long Beach Island Chamber of Commerce said in an email that it was against the project, but did not want to make a comment. 

“What are we doing this for?” Stern said. “People come out and say we have to do this for climate change, but even the agency’s documents say it has a negligible impact on climate change because there is a much bigger dynamic going on there with the rest of the world.”

Stern, along with his comrades in Save Long Island Beach are not giving up and said they will be taking this to court. 

“This is an energy boondoggle,” Stern said. “Unfortunately, it’s also a hazardous boondoggle, and I believe the country will regret this.”

It’s time to re-evaluate.

 

Dealing with China  

Posted on by

 Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   harropcrew1@gmail.com

It should be obvious to any clear-thinking American that China is our biggest threat. During the 1930’s there were many American leaders who refused to recognize the threat posed by Nazi Germany. We cannot allow that to happen again. Just like Nazi Germany, China is rapidly building their military capability while we focus on DEI and woke ideology in our armed forces.

What makes the China threat even greater than Nazi Germany is the degree to which our country is increasingly dependent on Chinese products for our existence. A recent report showed that 75 % of items sold on Amazon are manufactured in China. Similarly, at Walmart the figure is 70-80%. What allowed us to defeat Nazi Germany in large part was the industrial manufacturing capacity of our country to not only arm ourselves, but our allies as well. We were rightfully called the Arsenal of Democracy. Now we are not only losing our manufacturing advantage over China, but we are paying for their military expansion by the profits they make on the products they sell to us. We are funding our own potential destruction.

The most glaring example of this absurdity is “Green Energy.” The Biden regime, uses government taxpayer subsidies and mandates to build solar panels and wind mills that we buy from China, and they turn around and take the profits and build coal fired plants that provide them with abundant cheap energy. Some of the morons in our military have proposed electric powered tanks to replace diesel power! Where do we get most lithium batteries? You guessed it: China.

China is expanding its influence around the world. They are funding ports and infrastructure projects in Asia, Africa, and South America. They are taking over the South China Sea by building island bases. They are threatening the Philippines and our other allies in the region. What is the Biden regime’s answer to all this? Silence.

What we should be doing is recognizing we are in a cold war with China and act accordingly. Restore our manufacturing capacity, impose tariffs as needed, and build our defense capability such as the so-called iron dome which would provide a protection against not only missiles from China, but other bad actors, like North Korea and Iran. Peace can only be secured through strength and resolve. No more allowing China to own land anywhere in the United States. Stop the admission of Chinese students and Chinese funding of our colleges and universities. The flood of single Chinese men over our southern border must be reversed, as also, the fentanyl crisis. We need an administration that recognizes the threat and has the courage to act accordingly. The upcoming election will determine whether we will get one.

 

When Green Energy Meets Practicality!

Posted on by

It’s going to be hot in Paris during the summer Olympics. Athletes need to be well-rested to perform at their best. But Paris, in the interest of global warming, cooling, or whatever, will not be air conditioning the Olympic Village. So what is an athlete supposed to do?

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat reported:

The 2024 Paris Olympics are shaping up to be an event filled with athletic prowess and, unsurprisingly, a hefty dose of virtue signaling. The recent announcement that air conditioning will not be provided at the Olympic venues is a prime example. In a bid to flaunt their environmental consciousness, the organizers have decided to rely on “sustainable” cooling methods, leaving teams to fend for themselves in the sweltering Parisian summer. And fend they did! Teams are now bringing their own portable air conditioners, making a mockery of the original intent and highlighting the absurdity of the decision.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has been quite vocal about her commitment to making the 2024 Olympics an exemplar of environmental responsibility. The decision to forgo traditional air conditioning in favor of passive cooling techniques is touted as a major step toward reducing the event’s carbon footprint. According to Hidalgo, “These Games will be the first ones with a positive contribution to the climate” and are committed to “innovative solutions that are carbon neutral”​​.

But let’s be clear: sustainability, as currently promoted, is a nebulous concept that often amounts to nothing more than vapid virtue signaling. It’s an easy catchphrase, with no real objective definition for politicians and organizers who want to appear forward-thinking. The idea that passive cooling could sufficiently counteract the summer heat in Paris is more of a fanciful notion than a feasible plan.

Instead of applauding this so-called innovation, teams are responding with pragmatism. The U.S. teams, for instance, have decided to bring their own portable air conditioning units to ensure their athletes perform at their best. This reaction not only makes sense but also underscores the glaring disconnect between the idealistic aspirations of the organizers and the on-ground realities of hosting a global sporting event.

Common sense has overruled absurdity!

Didn’t Anyone Think This Through?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about the demand for copper that the switch to electric vehicles would create.

The article reports:

A team of University of Michigan researchers recently discovered that the amount of copper needed to keep up with the manufactured demand created by the globalist E.V. agenda is “essentially impossible” to generate. On May 16th, Engineering and Technology published an article by Tanya Weaver which covered the results of the new study:

Copper cannot be mined quickly enough to keep up with current policies requiring the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), according to a University of Michigan study.

…

The study found that renewable energy’s copper needs would outstrip what copper mines can produce at the current rate. Between 2018 and 2050, the world will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition.

To meet the copper needs of electrifying the global vehicle fleet, as many as six new large copper mines must be brought online annually over the next several decades. About 40% of the production from new mines will be required for EV-related grid upgrades.

So what exactly do these numbers look like, in context? Well here’s this, also from Weaver:

[A]n EV requires three to five times more copper than petrol or diesel cars, not to mention the copper required for upgrades to the electricity grid.

‘A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper,’ said Adam Simon, professor of earth and environmental studies at the University of Michigan.

‘We show in the paper that the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce.’

Wow. Wind mill blades that don’t biodegrade filling up our landfills, solar panels made with toxic chemicals, and now not enough copper to be green. Can we please just go back to fossil fuel. It works and can be used in a way to minimize pollution.

This Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

On March 25th, American Experiment posted an article about renewable energy.

The article reports:

Bloomberg recently ran a very interesting interview with Brett Christophers about his new book The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet.

In the interview, Christophers argues there’s a widespread misconception about what’s needed to expand the deployment of renewables and transition away from fossil fuel generation. 

Christophers makes the following argument:

The basic argument is simple, and it’s something that the world doesn’t want to admit: The business of developing and owning and operating solar and wind farms and selling electricity is kind of a lousy business. 

Whether new solar or wind farms get built is ultimately about the expected profitability of those assets. Even though the generating cost aspect has become increasingly beneficial over time that doesn’t necessarily mean that the expected profits are going to be there. 

Generating costs are only part of the costs that a company that owns and controls a solar or wind farm, and sells the electricity, incur. There are also costs associated with delivering that power to where it gets consumed. 

For renewables the delivery costs tend to be higher than they are for conventional power plants because conventional power plants on average tend to be located closer to centers of demand. 

That’s because unlike conventional power plants, renewables like solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land to produce significant amounts of power. 

Unless governments are willing to either assume the burden of renewables development through public ownership…they will have to keep subsidies and tax credits in place indefinitely or else renewables investment will collapse because of the unfavorable economics. 

The article concludes:

The author obviously favors wind and solar and later advocates for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is interesting that he acknowledges there is no economy-wide business case for wind and solar without government support.  

It’s time for our politicians to be honest with Americans about the cost of ‘green energy’ both in dollars and in damage to the environment. The people who advocate for electric cars fail to mention the children mining lithium in Africa or the environmental devastation lithium mining causes. Those who favor offshore wind farms fail to mention the number of whales that have died in the implementation of those wind farms or the number of birds that are killed by either wind farms or solar farms. Let’s do the complete research before we back something that is more damaging than what we originally had.

Following The Science?

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about some recent comments by Representative. Cori Bush, D-Mo, about the causes of recent problems with the American electric grid.

The article reports:

A House Oversight and Accountability subcommittee hearing Tuesday examined threats to the security and reliability of the U.S. electricity grid, which can lead to more blackouts.

While reliability assessments regularly find that increased reliance on wind and solar, increased demand from electrification, an underbuilt electrical delivery network, and rapid retirements of on-demand generators are creating an increased risk of blackouts, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., ranking member of the subcommittee, instead blamed other sources of the problem, namely, white supremacy. She also threw in “climate change” for good measure.

The article notes:

Fallon (Pat Fallon, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs) also talked about threats from cyberattacks by “foreign adversaries” meant to cripple the grid. “It’s critically important for Congress to engage in serious discussions to identify the risks to this reliability and safeguard our grid against threats,” Fallon said.

He said many of these risks are caused by the federal government, including the attempts to get rid of all fossil fuels, which he said are needed for providing consistent power generations. He also pointed to regulations that are increasing demands on the grid, including more electrification of appliances and heat, as well as electric vehicle mandates.

Bush, in her opening statement, argued that the problems of electricity reliability were unrelated to wind and solar. Fossil fuels, Bush said, were the problem, and they were especially harming non-white people.

“Decades of pollution and overuse and over reliance on fossil fuels have disproportionately harmed black and brown communities in St. Louis, and throughout the world,” Bush said.

If we truly want to know what the problem is with our electric grid, we only have to look to Germany and Spain–both countries attempted to build an energy infrastructure based solely on green energy, and both countries discovered that was not possible. The sun does not shine all of the time, and the wind does not blow all of the time. Reliable back-up sources of energy are needed. It is time to take an honest look at natural gas and nuclear energy as the path forward to lowering pollution. It is also time to acknowledge that although America needs to make an effort in the direction of cleaner energy, until China and India stop building coal plants, our efforts are insignificant.

Public Safety vs. Green Energy

Posted on by

On Sunday, The New York Post posted an article about the number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries from e-bikes in the last two months.

The article reports:

FDNY Chief Fire Marshal Daniel Flynn told The Post that fires related to lithium-ion batteries have gone up nearly nine-fold since the pandemic, with more blazes related to the batteries happening in the last two months than in all of 2019.

“It’s the prevalence of these e-devices on our streets, there’s way more of them now than ever before,” Flynn said.

The fire chief attributed the popularity of the e-bikes and scooters to the “gig economy” boom in 2020, which saw people purchase the devices on the cheap-side in droves to do delivery jobs.

He added that the vehicles have also become popular among commuters.

“People bought these devices some three years ago, and now they’re aging,” he said, noting that many don’t know the dangers caused by the wear-and-tear on the batteries’ energy cells.

“We’ve seen people try to fix it or modify it themselves, go to shops from unauthorized vendors or take it on themselves to replace the old batteries,” he added. “We tell people not to go with the cheapest option and seek out the manufacturer directly.”

It’s this improper maintenance and defects from older models that have caused a number of blazes related to lithium-ion batteries to soar, according to the FDNY.

While there were only 30 fires related to the batteries in 2019, the number more than tripled by 2021, with 104 fires reported. That year also saw four fatalities, while no one was reported to have died from the blazes in 2019 or 2020.

Part of the problem is the use of improper replacement batteries:

FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh vowed in February to continue cracking down on businesses that offer to replace individual battery cells from old ones, a fire code violation that creates what she called “Frankenstein batteries.”

“They kill people, they have killed people and they will kill more people if businesses continue to operate in this manner,” Kavanagh said.

But while New York has pushed businesses and consumers to follow new UL standards for the batteries, Flynn noted that there was little the city could do about older units coming in from other states that do not require such regulations.

I think the technology needs some work.

Recognizing The Major Problems In The Environmental Movement

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Stream posted an article by a former environmentalist listing five reasons why he gave up “green policies.”

Here is the list:

Failed Climate Change Predictions

Science is about accurate prediction. If Newton’s theory had failed to predict how apples fall, then it would be useless.

Few scientists have been as bad at this (basic) job as climate scientists. In one of the most comical episodes I’ve ever seen, climate scientists erected signs in Glacier National Park predicting its glaciers would be gone in 2020 — only to be forced to leave the signs after the predictions proved false. For a year, tourists to the park were met with a monument to the legacy of climate science: They stood looking simultaneously at glaciers … and the sign that promised, on the good authority of climate science, that the glaciers were not there.

Where Did the Wild Spaces Go?

Thoreau said of nature: “We need the tonic of wildness.” Thoreau was right about me at least. One of my primary motives for being an environmentalist was that I believed natural wild spaces were good for the soul.

…And that brings us to wind farms. I hate wind farms. They kill birds and destroy forest habitats. The blades are made of materials that fill waste dumps and can’t be recycled. They require lithium batteries that have to be mined with methods that create the very kinds of problems the “clean energy” movement is supposed to solve.

Politics Over Facts

Speaking of facts: The relationship between science and politics only works when the causal arrow between them goes from scientific facts to politics.

Bullying Over Debate

One of the clear signs that a movement is rotten is when it resorts to silencing its opponents rather than debating them. The modern “green” movement contains the worst set of bullies I’ve ever seen; indeed, they serve as primary fodder for my forthcoming book called Liberal Bullies.

Lack of a Cost/Benefit Analysis

Even at the height of my pro-environmentalist sentiment, I wasn’t opposed to all oil drilling. I know we need energy; I use it every day. I just wanted moderation that purposefully preserved a significant amount of wild nature. Well, across the board, the green movement increasingly just bludgeons us with simple-minded ideas that ignore the obvious costs of their policies.

Keep in mind that list comes from someone who at one time supported the green energy movement. It’s time for the rest of the supporters of the movement to wake up.

 

Many Europeans See The Threat

Posted on by

Farmers in Europe are fighting the restrictions that the World Economic Forum are attempting to impose of them in the  name of climate change. The protests have now spread to France.

Breitbart reported Monday:

Kicking off the “Siege of Paris” on Monday, thousands of farmers took to their tractors in a coordinated attempt to block off entrances to the French capital in protest against globalist green policies they say are destroying their ability to stay in business.

In an escalation of the latest example of popular uprisings that have come to define President Macron’s tenure in office, farmers descended in their tractors to shut down major highways leading into Paris on Monday following a week of similar protests throughout the country.

According to the Le Figaro newspaper, farmers successfully enacted blockades on eight major highways, with tractors lined up for tens of kilometres around the ring road surrounding Paris. In total 16 highways and 30 administrative departments around the city were impacted by the demonstrations on Monday, while separate farmer uprisings continued in at least 40 other locations throughout the country.

Requiring farmers to kill their cattle and the farm in certain ways limits our food supply. A hungry populace is easier to control–if you don’t agree with what the government is doing, they will decrease your food allowance.

The article also notes:

In addition to targeting Paris, at least 80 tractors enacted a blockade of the A7 highway and elsewhere outside Lyon, where local farmers have also spoken of a “siege” of the city.

“A siege normally lasts a long time, we are not specialists in blocking but we will maintain it for as long as it takes,” said the head of the regional branch of the FNSEA union Michel Joux. “There is palpable tension and exceptional motivation.”

Critical roads leading into Marseille, including the A7 and A55 motorways were subject to “snail operations” local officials said, adding that the A50 is “currently at a complete standstill”.

The battle between agriculture and green agenda proponents is set to become a key issue in the upcoming European Union Parliament elections in June, with farmers and rural communities rising up in France, Germany, Poland, Romania and previously in the Netherlands over green regulations, which they claim have become too much to handle on top of the rising cost of fuel and inflation.

Green energy has never been about keeping the planet clean–it has always been about control.