Video: why renewables equal death


I provide this video for informational and entertainment purposes only. I have no opinion pro or con on it. 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:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 11, 2014 5:11 pm

Great video, great title. People need to be shocked out of their complacency on this.

October 11, 2014 5:19 pm

About time. THe truth is a powerful weapon.

October 11, 2014 5:20 pm

Bravo. Keep pointing out the truth, the facts.

David, UK
October 11, 2014 5:39 pm

Well done, very good short video. Won’t change any of the watermelons but may educate a few average Joes out there.

October 11, 2014 5:39 pm

Incredible to see selfish super rich scum like Gore and DiCaprio marching to try and keep poor people in their position of poverty.

Reply to  Neville
October 11, 2014 7:17 pm

Elites like Gore and Decaprio keeping poor people in poverty is the way humanity has always been; feudalism, serfdom, tribalism, communism, etc. Not incredible, just normal.
That the impoverished serfs admire the Gores is normal, too.

Reply to  Jim Z
October 11, 2014 9:20 pm

The Enviro-Aristocrats.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Neville
October 11, 2014 10:17 pm

Exactly Neville, then they leave in their SUV’s and private jets. All of this hypocritical soothsayer filgercarb without any evidence of warming caused by Man. Jail ’em.

Reply to  Neville
October 13, 2014 6:26 am

I find it incredible that Di DiCaprio did not hesitate when asked to give a speech on ‘climate change’ in New York. He didn’t think about his multiple villas, private jet flights, multiple cars etc. Ditto for the master hypocrite Gore.
HOMEWORK TIME–Energy-poverty–stud-008.jpg

Michael Cox
October 11, 2014 5:56 pm

Very good, succinct and direct.

Michael Wassil
October 11, 2014 6:04 pm

Those advocating for a return to pre-industrial age energy sources don’t care about third world poor. In fact, the more outspoken ones will readily admit they think the world is overpopulated with human beings and the deaths of a few billion would be a good thing for the planet. Of course, they don’t want to lead by example. It’s only the rest of us who are disposable.

Reply to  Michael Wassil
October 11, 2014 6:21 pm

I’ve inquired of a Progressive acquaintance if he would prefer war or plague for population reduction. Without pause, he said plague. I was trying to evoke a reaction to the absurdity and inhumanity of the question. Nope, he had already thought this through. Then I said YOU FIRST. He, of course, disagreed.

Reply to  RobRoy
October 12, 2014 1:25 pm

A fascist I think, Hitler was of the same mindset!

Reply to  RobRoy
October 14, 2014 12:50 am

A stink weed by any other name will still smell stinky John Law.

The Other Phil
October 11, 2014 6:20 pm


Thai Rogue
October 11, 2014 6:35 pm

Good video. Already they are warning the British people to get used to power cuts in the future:

October 11, 2014 6:40 pm

Speaks for itself – excellent movie.
If any new green movement is looking for a name to call itself, a good one would be Nidhoggr.
In ancient Norse mythology Nidhoggr was the serpent which continually gnawed and chewed at the root of Yggdrasil, the tree of life.
Fossil fuels are the tree of life for actual human society. Those wishing to undermine and degrade humanity by denial of access to energy should perhaps be called the “nid-hogs”. They are rich already and just want to “hog” the riches and easy lifestyle for themselves, while denying it to others.

October 11, 2014 6:46 pm

The efficiency, “greenness” and pollution free existence of competent Hydro Power is being sidestepped by all sides of this “debate.” Two dammed Alaskan valleys could power the entire state and huge parts of Western Canada. Similar results can be achieved via Hydro-Quebec for much of the US northeast. Too many dim bulbs not seeing the real potential here (or in Africa, or in the Himalayas), keeping actual bulbs dim too!!!

Reply to  tomwys1
October 11, 2014 7:21 pm

Gabon, in central Africa, comes to mind since I lived there. They have the capacity to create a lot of hydro; in fact, small dams on any of a number of branch rivers can and, locally, do provide power for specific communities or mines. The problem is, you cannot built a massive hydropower infrastructure with large-scale, efficient dams/powerhouses, because there is no realistic market for the electricity. But the potential is huge. Manganese from COMUF. iron from Belinga, electricity from hydro, and US gauge rail to the Port of Owendo. Looks like a mini-Ruhr at, say, Booue. But who do you sell the steel to?

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  inMAGICn
October 12, 2014 4:58 am

Gabon is not a great example. Its a major regional oil producer and almost half the government’s revenue comes from oil. The Trans Gabonais railroad was an economic disaster. Built using money borrowed from the IMF and world bank it was supposed to run from Belinga in the North to carry iron ore to the coast. However the President decided to build it instead from his home region in the south for political reasons.
This raised the cost 20 fold to over $5 billion and forced the abandonment of the line to the mines at Belinga destroying most of the economic basis for it. As of 2001 just 3 passenger trains a week were run each way and around 3 million tons of freight per annum were carried. The initial planning was based on a shorter, cheaper railway carrying 10 times that level of traffic. The current revenues don’t even cover the operating costs let alone service the capital.
At the beginning of this year the Belinga iron reserves were still not being mined, the latest developments being that the Gabonese government had cancelled the contracts it had signed with the Chinese in 2007 by 2009 and were now trying to convince BHP Billiton to accept the poisoned chalice.

Reply to  inMAGICn
October 12, 2014 12:06 pm

All true Keith. Your critque is spot on. They actually built an unnecessary tunnel where it was not needed because “every railroad needs a tunnel.” The great justification for its route was not just to link Franceville with the coast, but to render obsolete the transport through the Congo the manganese coming from the COMILOG mines (I said COMUF incorrectly in my original post). Bongo never could abide the Congolese government. Pres. Bongo never really intended for the RR to go to the northeast and Belinga.
But they hydro potential still exists. So does the Belinga deposit. BTW, I was actually offered to work on the Trans Gabonais, but I got hit with schisto and malaria and repatriated my sorry rear home for treatment (I also recognized I was becoming “bien cuit”).
I mentioned Booue because they built the marshaling yards there and it would the take-off town for a branch to Belinga. The deposit is high-grade, but the size is limited.
As you know, reserves of Gamba are declining, so Gabon and E. Guinee are squaring off for the potential rich oil fields in the offshore area between the two countries.\
All in all, the country in resource-rich, but it doesn’t translate well for the people there. I could go on and on about the squandering of potential there, and how the government avoids rebellion, but you probably already know.
“Pour moi quoi….”

Reply to  tomwys1
October 13, 2014 7:27 am

The largest hydro project in Africa is being built in Ethiopia. A lot of downstream countries are a little bit worried about that.

Reply to  Patrick
October 13, 2014 3:40 pm

Not a little bit worried: a lot worried. We’re talking about the Nile, here.

Reply to  tomwys1
October 13, 2014 2:54 pm

You can’t be serious ……. we’ve (US) already torn out most of the hydro plants in this country ….. God knows we can’t hurt the fish.

October 11, 2014 6:58 pm

Mark Mills’ talk at the conference was superb. I’d highly recommend him for any audience!
Hopefully, the TPPF will put video of the talks online soon.

george e. smith
October 11, 2014 7:04 pm

Quite a few years back, when Scientific American Magazine, reported on Science matters with not much of a political agenda, they published a special issue that was entirely devoted to world energy and world food production. One article tracked food production versus energy input, for all manner of worldwide societies, from the most primitive or simple, to the most complex.
For example, they followed the food productivity of Arctic ice dwelling communities, who moved from animal skin coated boats (umiaks) and dog sled transport, along with their simple spears and harpoons, that they used to hunt seals and whales, to snow mobiles and jet skis, and rifles to improve their kill ratios. The energy of their fuels and ammunition powder, were included in the energy accounting.
What the study found, was that world wide, the societal food production output was linearly proportional to the energy into the food system, whether it was “gunpowder” or harvester machinery, and fertilizers.
Only two places on earth were found in this study, to be off the food/energy line by any significant amount, and both were off in the higher productivity direction. Those two places were France and New Zealand. Both were the result of unique climate conditions, rather than some state secret. New Zealand’s mild oceanic environment is very conducive to crop growing.
The problem is of course, that both of these countries together don’t really amount to much in the total world food requirement numbers. Their efficiency cannot be exported to the USA, Canada, Russia, let alone India and China, or South America.
This video should be a part of every school curriculum, and be shown at every United Nations conference.
Just today, in the mail, I received my PG&E monthly energy bill, along with a paper wasting bulletin, announcing that I would soon be the beneficiary, of a twice per year “climate credit”, where major energy producers in California, would be extorted by Governor moonbeam’s strong arm tactics, to give me an air pollution (green house gas) mordida, so they could continue their practice of polluting my air with their water vapor, and the same CO2 that I exhale myself.
These people are criminally insane, and we need more wake up messages like this Texas video, to combat these lunatics.
I applaud those who put this informative short message together.

October 11, 2014 7:16 pm

Mostly middle class greens I’ve met have no comprehension of why someone would want to catch and eat an elephant, or cut down a few trees to grow some crops.

October 11, 2014 7:21 pm

Great clip! Amazing how liberals keep harping about the poor. They love them so much they keep creating more.

Reply to  MrX
October 11, 2014 7:24 pm

– got that right – all talk and no do – assuages their guilt and makes them cool –

Bill Parsons
October 11, 2014 7:22 pm

The energy use of an i-phone for an hour-and-a-half-long movie downloaded over the internet is equivalent to that used by your refrigerator? Equals a “pound of coal”? Hmm.
I don’t have an i-phone. Is it worth a pound of coal an hour?

Bair Polaire
Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 11, 2014 11:32 pm

While the energy use of an iPhone is negligible (less than 4 KWh per year), the information infrastructure behind it is estimated to require 100 times that energy per year which is roughly equivalent to the energy use of a refrigerator.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Bair Polaire
October 12, 2014 12:33 am


Mario Lento
Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 12, 2014 12:32 am

@Bill Parsons October 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm:
Think of all the web servers making heat to generate the video streaming… and all the infrastructure required to support the data streams. I don’t say hmmm… you say hmmm because you may not appreciate what energy does.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 12, 2014 7:48 am

Also, do not forget to factor in the inevitable heat loss at every step of the way.
There should be a simple way to calculate the energy consumption needed to keep an iPhone going.
Sum up the energy consumption of all the data farms run by Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. This would represent the baseline of preparation of data for all digital devices.
Determine the percentage of data devices in use, followed by the respective numbers of devices.
Divide the latter into the former and you will have the energy costs of maintaining the ‘cloud’ for each device. Add this to the direct energy consumption of each device.
The reason I’m bringing this up is found here:

Joel O'Bryan
October 11, 2014 7:22 pm

As a 52 yr old Texan living in Arizona, I think I just fell in love with Brooke Rollins.
My ex saw the movie GasLand. She thought it was a must-see for everyone. Fracking for natural gas was so bad as she saw it. I tried to tell her everything substantive in it had been debunked, i.e. cinematic lies. The movie, just like Inconvenient Truth, was a BIG lie for gullible people unable to investigate issues. Of course she got angry. Of course, her becoming more Liberal and me more conservative spelled doom.
And then after last week’s Gwyneth Paltrow sickening fawning over the Liar President, I just couldn’t help but (irrationally) think, “Was there some kind of Liberal virus illness descending on America?” And how did my ex-wife get so infected and deceived?
You Go Brooke!! This world needs so many more of you.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 12, 2014 12:36 am

I feel bad for you. Liberalism is a mental disorder. People like you describe do not have opinions and they need to know that. Their opinions are put into their heads by bumper sticker slogans and misinformation that they cannot bother to check. It’s lazy and herd like mentality of simplistic animals. They do as they are programmed. Anger in place of reason is based on primal instinct and not of intellect.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 12, 2014 1:08 am

morever I must say we are fed up of having Dicaprio and schawzeneger giving lessons

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 12, 2014 1:47 am

It’s a conundrum. They want to feel “good”, but feeling “good” makes them also feel guilty. And then, sorta like a crack addict, they’ll say/believe anything to justify it all.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 12, 2014 8:16 am

“Don’t bother me with reality; what I’m looking for is a good fantasy” is the disease that infects the Left. And they’re willing to control you to get it. That’s what enables the disease.

October 11, 2014 8:07 pm

Something for the average person to understand. Well done. I hope it gets lots of ‘hits’ and sees distribution beyond YouTube.

October 11, 2014 8:07 pm
October 11, 2014 8:09 pm

Eye’s wide shut from the green side. ……
Facts hurt sometimes.
How about a dung grilled burger?
Think about it!

October 11, 2014 8:17 pm

Travaux sur le pétrole (Jean Laigret)
Après avoir multiplié les expérimentations Jean Laigret a pu constater que 100 g de savon donnaient 75 cm3 de pétrole grâce à l’action du bacille Clostridium perfringens[réf. souhaitée]. Selon les matières, les résultats varient un peu, une tonne d’huile fermentée donne 800 litres de pétrole brut et 200 m3 de gaz combustible, 1 tonne de déchets de viande donne 450 litres de pétrole et 140 m3 de gaz combustible, les déchets de poisson fournissent 70 % de leur poids en pétrole, les écorces d’orange et de citron 37 %, et les feuilles mortes 25 %.
On peut y ajouter les boues d’égouts (environ 185 litres de pétrole brut par tonne), auxquelles pourraient s’ajouter les ordures ménagères, les déchets d’abattoirs, sang et animaux malades, plus des algues (l’iode favorisant la fermentation, également utilisées pour en faire de l’algocarburant) et les broussailles (ce qui réduirait de beaucoup les feux qui dévastent chaque été les forêts, incendies souvent très étendus, meurtriers, extrêmement coûteux à traiter, sans compter le rôle que toute cette biomasse brûlée joue sur le taux de carbone).

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Garfy
October 11, 2014 8:29 pm

Work on oil (John Laigret )
After multiplying experiments Jean Laigret was found that 100 g of soap gave 75 cm3 of oil through the action of the bacillus Clostridium perfringens [ref. desired ] . Depending on the subject , the results vary slightly , a ton of fermented oil gives 800 liters of crude oil and 200 m3 of fuel gas , one ton of waste meat gives 450 liters of oil and 140 m3 of fuel gas , waste fish provide 70 % of their weight in oil , orange and lemon peel 37% , and the dead leaves 25%.
Can be added to sewage sludge (about 185 liters of crude oil per ton) , and could include household waste , slaughterhouse waste , blood and diseased animals , more seaweed ( iodine promoting fermentation , also used to make algaefuel) and brush (which would greatly reduce the fires that devastate forests every summer , fires often extensive , murderers, extremely expensive to treat , not to mention the role that all this biomass burned plays on the rate of carbon).

Mario Lento
Reply to  Garfy
October 12, 2014 12:39 am

@ Garfy October 11, 2014 at 8:17 pm
This is america, why are you telling about soap and carbon in French? This trolling post should be eliminated. Off topic and off language.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 12, 2014 1:06 am

sorry, but I thought that the works of Jean Laigret were interesting – and my english is not good enough to translate – if it is off languague it is not off topic

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 12, 2014 1:50 am

Not America here, sorry to disappoint you.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 12, 2014 2:46 am

What’s with dang Americans thinking everything must be in English?! 🙂
Easy enough to get a translation. I am sure Anthony is very pleased to have international readership.
(not in America here, either… It’s Indonesia… This week, at least.,)

Chip Javert
Reply to  Garfy
October 12, 2014 8:53 am

Just a guess, but I’m betting you’ve hit the daily double by poorly communicating a stupid idea.

Reply to  Chip Javert
October 12, 2014 9:12 am

thanks –
I just want to share what I was reading a few minutes ago :

October 11, 2014 8:29 pm
another possibility – but petroleum origin is “abiotic” – so ………….
a well has been re-opened in Alsace

anna v
October 11, 2014 8:53 pm

It is ironic that we are entering a world wide scare for 4000 deaths of the poor by the Ebola virus and ignores the dying from energy poverty of millions currently (due to bad living conditions), and the future huge size of the death toll in the poorest countries.
The sky keeps falling so people can not see the stealthy/wealthy thieves stealing the chickens.

Reply to  anna v
October 12, 2014 6:38 am

Why do these periodic new diseases come from where they come from?

Reply to  anna v
October 12, 2014 8:22 am

And yet the CDC predicts there will be 1,000,000 ebola cases by January, 2015 and from past experience the fatality rate will range from 50% to 90%.
The reason they’re emphasizing it over the ~1.5 billion people who are dying from energy poverty is because ebola could actually infect those in the elite machine that report what’s important. To them, those other 1.5 billion people are mere “bumps in the road”.

george e. smith
Reply to  anna v
October 13, 2014 8:48 pm

Don’t worry, once ebola shows up among the poor in latin America, there will be a rush of carriers through the US southern border, and then with our rapid travel systems here, it will be all over the USA,
The Aids epidemic that has cost millions of lives spread in the US from a single carrier, who was also a traveler.
4,000 deaths from ebola, will look like the good news.
But Obama has it under control; you can’t get it from sitting in a bus; or out on a golf course. Well his people couldn’t even keep a deranged visitor, out of his hallway.

October 11, 2014 9:05 pm

I agree – an honest and fair video, imo. Here are some of my posts on cheap abundant energy [excerpts]:
Seriously, good people: Cheap abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
rgbatduke says: August 25, 2014 at 3:23 am
NOW you can conclude “For this we should destroy our economy?”.
This I agree with. And not just our economy — we are killing the poorest people in the world, disproportionately children, with the deliberate distortion of energy prices brought about by the stridently anti-carbon policy.
Allan says:
On Cheap Energy:
I strongly agree with your last sentence. All societies rich and poor benefit from cheap abundant energy.
The developed world is entirely dependent on inexpensive, efficient energy for its economic and physical survival.

October 11, 2014 10:03 pm

Sent this link to a large number of friends on both sides of the debate, asking them to simply watch it, and post on Facebook or whatever other social media they use. It should hopefully cut through all dissension.

October 11, 2014 11:53 pm

Excellent, have passed it on.

October 12, 2014 1:06 am

But I don’t see anyone trying to install fossil fuel powered ANYTHING in these desperate places either! The poor countries are being used as pawns, even in this video. If “our side” wishes to prove it, then our side should be building coal-burning plants in these poor places, to show how easy and cheap it is! (I’m not even sure if coal is available in Africa!)

Reply to  Bruckner8
October 12, 2014 2:02 am

Lots of Coal in Africa.
The original coal-to-liquids (CTL) complex at Sasolburg, South Africa, starts producing synthetic fuels and chemicals and the first eight drums of creosote – the first Sasol product – are dispatched in March. In August, the Synthol reactor completes its first reaction.

Reply to  Bruckner8
October 12, 2014 2:27 am

The World Bank and its IFC used to support major energy projects in the third world. They may still- I am not up-to-date on their current projects.

lemiere jacques
Reply to  Bruckner8
October 12, 2014 4:04 am

but green want also to impede to say the least installation of coal plants in poor countries..there is a lot of case when green are so happy to provide a household an amount of electricity just enough to light on. coal in pakistan

Reply to  Bruckner8
October 12, 2014 8:27 am

In fact, some eco-freaks are doing just the reverse. Portland, OR recently rejected the construction of a coal terminal that was designed to load ships with western US coal bound for India and other Far East destinations.
And it was all because people in Portland were convinced that coal is just solid CO2, the pariah destroying our climate.
“Brainwashed” isn’t a sufficient term for these people.

Gareth Phillips
October 12, 2014 1:23 am

I must confess I have serious concerns with this video and it’s one sided views. Things are never as clear cut as they make out ( Unless you are hoping to provide the grid systems required for the worlds poor) I work with a charity that provides tools for poverty struck villagers in Equatorial Africa. It enables them to use the various tools to raise themselves out of poverty and change the economic base of the villages. We would like to provide some basic power tools, but most of the villages are far away from power stations and the countries are too poor to build these grids at president. So, we try and help them to utilise other sources of power. People can sneer and say renewables are death, but trust me on this, in some cases amongst the worlds poor, renewables can make the difference between poverty and and economic self sufficiency. A solar system can be set up for fraction of the price it takes to link villages living in remote area, subject to political instability and a lack of resources, to a basic national grid. I really don’t think these marchers are complaining about these situations, and the speakers on the film don’t really seem to understand these situations. What will they suggest next? Stop using these poor animals to provide power and buy fleets of land rovers to replace them?

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 12, 2014 2:19 am

A fair point Gareth but I suggest you are correctly referring to much smaller-scale projects off-grid.
Groups like Light Up the World are “illuminating the lives of remote and underserved communities by using LED technology powered by renewable energy”. I suggest this is good, as far as it goes.
Renewables like wind and solar can make sense off-grid, but rarely on-grid. Wind and solar are typically too intermittent, too diffuse and too costly at this time for on-grid applications. Possible solutions may include a “super-battery”, but we do not have that yet. I suggested years ago that if/when electric cars become commonplace, they may collectively serve as a super-battery.
Best to all, Allan

October 12, 2014 1:24 am

“He may just be a peasant, who’s had nothing much in the way of education, but he’s smart enough to wonder why, when we’ve already chopped down all our forests and have so many things he doesn’t have like abundant food, medicines, children who’re expected to reach adulthood, decent housing and electricity, we want him to continue living in poverty to somehow salve our consciences. He sees things clearly in a way we don’t and will do his best for the ones he loves. We might live on the same planet but we’re living in completely different worlds.”
A stylish fashion meme in the first world, resulting in poverty in the developing world.

Reply to  Pointman
October 12, 2014 10:52 am

A few years ago, a ship I was sailing on [new managers’ superintendent] saw a small skiff adrift in the Atlantic, with, we thought, about half a dozen people on board.
We stopped – eventually we rescued 42 men from this twelve metre by two metre skiff, four hundred miles plus from any land.
They’d looked to go from West Africa to the Canaries, in the EU, but ran out of fuel, so had drifted hundreds of miles in the ocean currents, first south, then south-westerly. For thirteen days.
One of their number died on board – he’d sampled sea water and his own urine, thinking it was ‘like’ water.
Two days later we landed 41 – and the body – at the Cabo Verde Islands.
About eight different nationalities.
The thing that really made me sit up was how practised the Cabo Verde authorities were: apparently they had something like two landings of rescued refugees every three weeks!
I remember the difficulties my then company had trying to land Vietnamese boat people in 1979: it took a personal intervention from Mrs. Thatcher, I was told, to get them landed ashore . . . . .
I have no idea how many such skiffs are not rescued.
The Atlantic is vast.
Their boats are small.
Even a modest swell will hide such boats for fifty per cent of the time.
Their boats have little or no radar echo.
And the standard of look-out on deep sea ships may not be as good as it could be – quite good enough to see and avoid collision with other merchant ships, generally yes – for sure.
But – to see a skiff, with a one foot [300 mm] freeboard, at best, even if filled with dying men?
There are many hundreds of millions of people in Africa, who seek to improve their lot. [Many elsewhere, too, but Africa is probably the worst.]
Some migrate.
Some have taken to piracy in East and West Africa.
Some turn to crime, other than piracy.
Millions are desperate.
And the watermelons of Team I’m OK would have them do not one iota better?

lemiere jacques
October 12, 2014 2:04 am

good video though we can hear two story from green people, the one is” we have to be poorer and let fossile energy down” and the second one “we have to let fossile energy down but we ll not be that poor because of renewable”… and of course we must stop nuclear and big dams because well…; if a sentence begins with of course do i really need to give a reason?
Most of green advocates would not accept to be actually poorer so they are either hypocritical or they are extrememy optimistic about the potential of renewable energy.
The consequence is at the very moment when they will become poorer they will stop being against fossil fuel.

Just Steve
Reply to  lemiere jacques
October 12, 2014 5:59 am

Socialism is never for the Socialist…only for the masses.

October 12, 2014 3:15 am

Sadly, the people we need to convince will just look at this video and say, “Texas, eh? So that’s just the oil industry defending its patch again.”

October 12, 2014 3:20 am

talking heads, boring.

October 12, 2014 4:05 am

Thank you, Texans. I enjoyed Texas and Texans when I lived there.

Richie D
October 12, 2014 4:42 am

@DaveF: Actually, that is exactly what it is. And I’m not one of those who “need[s] convincing.” Consider the source: The Texas Public Policy Foundation is not a credible producer of unbiased information or policy; it is a “think tank” (euphemism for propaganda organ) run by neoconservative apparatchiks. (Take a look at the bios of the executive board, available on Wikipedia.) Presenting this video to anyone of the Green persuasion is simply not going to fly. In fact, it would be counterproductive.
That said, just because the TPPF video is a self-interested defense of (so-called) fossil fuels doesn’t mean it’s not valid. In my opinion, “Climate Change”(TM) is disguised genocide, part of a larger campaign in resource-rich areas like Africa: the fewer the claimants to the resource, the easier and more profitable the extraction. The irony — that “Climate Change”(TM) enlists liberals in service of this quintessentially fascist enterprise — makes it sweeter still for them.

Just Steve
Reply to  Richie D
October 12, 2014 9:41 am

Name someone or some organization that DOESN’T have a bias. Everyone has a worldview, whether one that’s thought out and through or one that was caught somewhat like the measles. To not have a bias is to not have a mind, or to claim not to think.
The problem, specifically from a public policy point of view, is that real world experience and knowledge about a specific topic automatically renders you and your opinion “biased”…while making the opinions of people who just sit around thinking about the topic “expert”.

October 12, 2014 5:22 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Overwrought subject headings are not problems. Letting people die so you can feel good about your “green” street cred is a problem.

October 12, 2014 6:06 am

Partially true and partially bulls**t. I grew up in a very poor country that is building the Grand Renaissance Dam which definitely operates on renewable fuel ie water, and that dam will produce a lot of cheap power.

Reply to  gingoro
October 12, 2014 6:26 am

Hmm, really? How much did your dam cost, US$5B? How much will the environmental impact cost, even without the formal study? On information and belief, a skeptic may be persecuted, even shot. Nothing cheap is worth doing.

October 12, 2014 6:22 am

Well done! Needs exposure.

October 12, 2014 8:18 am

So how many renewable energy systems would the “west” have been able to install in those far away off the grid places for the billions wasted on AGW research?

October 12, 2014 1:17 pm

Salutary lessons which will probably not be learned by our masters, who have absorbed the pseudo science which suits their selfish agenda.
God help the poor!

October 12, 2014 4:27 pm
October 12, 2014 5:51 pm

Other than the drivers, “green”, “renewable” energy technology is neither green nor renewable throughout their life cycle from recovery to manufacturing to operation to reclamation. Also, recycling cannot be a first-order process, since it is degenerative, and must be subordinated to first-order productive processes which establish and sustain a baseline.

October 12, 2014 6:16 pm

Three Months ago, I Posted on something similar to this at the site I contribute to.
In that Post is a very telling chart indicating that most Countries in Africa have less electricity than what we here in the Developed World would have to service a small city with a population of only 40,000 people.
Something we take so utterly for granted is something these people have never had, and in all likelihood, will most probably never have at all, access to constant and reliable electrical power.
The Green Dream is not only that we deprive these Africans of this power, we also must deprive ourselves of it also, the end result being that we go back and live like they do.
I apologise for linking into my own Post on this subject, but just like the video, and the telling graphic, this is something that everybody needs to be shown.

October 13, 2014 5:01 am

Presentations from the TPPF conference can be viewed here:
I highly recommend Mark Mills.

October 13, 2014 6:58 am

Of course, they want to kill millions. More starvation, cancer and disease are good, natural ways to die according to the enviros and the UN. That’s the whole point of biofuels, make corn and all grains more expensive and starve the poor to death. The biofuels program is working, doing exactly what they want.
So, she the lady at the end says that millions will die. “Is that what you want?” addressing those pushing renewables. The answer from the people pushing renewable energy is a resounding, “YES, FOR SURE!”

October 13, 2014 11:25 am

What’s interesting are the numbers for China. Only 8 million without electricity out of a population of how many? So, I have heard that China was building 8 new coal fired electric plants a week for some time. It appears they’ve been pretty successful at that. Now, you’d think, that if renewables were such an awesome idea that, of all nations, China would have the best chance of making that happen – they have the manufacturing capacity, the low cost labor and the centralized command and control that would make installing the infrastructure needed much more straight forward. And yet, and yet, they have chose the path of primarily coal and some nuclear. I wonder why they chose to go that route when wind and solar are so much more efficient and cost effective.
Now I just saw on the news that the Premier of China has just arrived in Russia to meet with Putin. Gee, I wonder what they’ll talk about.
Hey, just a question: that 423 million in China that don’t have clean cooking facilities, are they talking about the fuel used to cook food? Because, you know, you can cook cleanly with natural gas and China’s right next to… Oh wait… Never mind.

Gunga Din
October 13, 2014 1:52 pm

Back when wagon trains crossed the plains on there way to California, they would hang a sheet of some kind below the wagons. People, including the kids, walking alongside of the wagons would toss any buffalo “chips” they came across into the sheets to fuel their fires when they stopped. (You won’t see that in many of the Hollywood westerns.) They had no choice if they they wanted a fire that night. I’m sure they would have preferred to plug into an outlet if they could.
True, buffalo don’t roam the plains anymore but there are lots of cattle ranches and dairy farms now.
The rich in the video could choose to buy the cow chips to satisfy their energy needs. (Though it might be tough to run an iPhone on one.) None of them choose to do so. They use fossil fuel and nuclear at the same time that they rail against them. They can afford to do so. Some can even afford to put up some solar panels and/or windthingees. (I doubt those who have gone that far have cut themselves off from “the grid”.)
The poor in the video don’t burn chips because they choose to. They do so because “energy policy” is actively denying them a choice.

B. B. in central V
October 13, 2014 3:06 pm

Their “unintended” consequences? There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the consequences are, for many pro-green-commie-mantra types, FULLY intended.
Cancer cells are the host’s own cells gone haywire, with messed up DNA maps, parasitic on energy use (both directly and through exhaustion of the immune system), utterly dysfunctional and ultimately causing the host to gradually die.
Modern “progressive” activists are exactly like this, with messed up worldviews, parasitic on energy use (both directly and through exhaustion of monetary means), utterly dysfunctional, and are causing their host, the human race, to gradually die.
Green enviro-nutjobs appear to be, almost without exception, “progressives.”

%d bloggers like this: