By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.
On July 4, 2019, I published the article “THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM”.
There was a reason why this article was published on July 4. My article begins:
Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why climate extremists refuse to debate the science?
IT IS BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SCIENCE – IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTREME LEFT.
Some people may think this was statement was inaccurate, or that I was being unfair. However, one week after my article was published, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, fully verified my statement. He said, as written in the article below:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said… … “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.
Following is another excerpt from my July 4 article that demonstrates how utterly impractical the Green New Deal is – the Green New Deal is energy and economic lunacy – it cannot work:
“4. Humanity needs modern energy to survive – to grow and transport our food and provide shelter, warmth and ~everything we need to live. Wind and solar power are too intermittent and too diffuse to be practical or effective. Green energy schemes have been costly failures.
Fully ~85% of global primary energy is from fossil fuels – oil, coal and natural gas. The remaining ~15% is almost all nuclear and hydro. Green energy has increased from above 1% to less than 2%, despite many trillions of dollars in wasted subsidies. The 85% fossil fuels component is essentially unchanged in past decades, and is unlikely to significantly change in future decades.
The fatal flaw of grid-connected green energy is that it is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily due to intermittency – the wind does not blow all the time, and the Sun shines only part of the day. Intermittent grid-connected green energy requires almost 100% backup (‘spinning reserve’) from conventional energy sources. Intermittent wind and solar electrical generation schemes typically do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions – all they do is increase energy costs and reduce grid reliability.
Claims that grid-scale energy storage will solve the intermittency problem have proven false to date. The only proven grid-scale ‘super-battery’ is pumped storage, and suitable sites are rare – Alberta is bigger than many countries, and has no sites suitable for grid-scale pumped storage systems.”
In addition to green energy’s fatal flaw of intermittency, there is also the second fatal flaw of diffusivity. The land area of the wind farms required to provide 100% of Great Britain’s energy demand would comprise about 10% of the country’s total land area – it’s explained at 1:58 in this video:
In the USA, this 10% would total about 300,000 square miles, or all of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, and more land and much more money would be required to provide back-up power for when the wind does not blow.
Then there is the incredible cost. According to the article below, “The Green New Deal in its entirety could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade.” That would more than quintuple (5x) the USA’s national debt – to solve an imaginary “global warming / climate crisis” that does not even exist in reality.
All over the world, countries that once had a future have fallen into dictatorship, poverty and misery. It is notable that of the ~167 large countries in the world, most are totalitarian states, and all but “the chosen few” citizens of these countries suffer under brutal leftist dictatorships.
Now the last great democracies, the hope of the world, are under attack by leftist extremists.
Radical greens have used wildly exaggerated scary stories of runaway global warming and climate change to stampede the gullible, in order to achieve their political objectives.
The absolute lunacy of the Green New Deal and its delusional acolytes is now clear – global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense was never about the climate – it was always a false narrative, a smokescreen for the totalitarian objectives of the extreme left. Once the left controls our energy supply, they control everything in our society – it will be “One Man, One Vote, Once!” – the end of freedom.
_________________________________
OCASIO-CORTEZ’S CHIEF OF STAFF ADMITS WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE by Peter Hasson, July 11, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/11/saikat-chakrabarti-green-new-deal/
Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change, her top aide admitted.
Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday.
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.
Ocasio-Cortez’s press office didn’t immediately return an inquiry regarding whether Chakrabarti’s admission would undermine the congresswoman’s Green New Deal advocacy.
The Green New Deal calls for a number of hard left proposals, including getting the U.S. entirely off of fossil fuels within 10 years, providing universal health care, basic income programs and job guarantees.
The proposal also calls for “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”
Transitioning to “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” within 10 years — just one of the Green New Deal’s expensive proposals — could cost more than $5 trillion, according to one estimate.
The Green New Deal in its entirety could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to another estimate.
The Green New Deal was, almost word for word, lifted from the Canadian Socialist Party
They try to destroy Capitalism, democracy and our freedom. https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
So, not only was it idiotic, but it was plagiarized?
Figures. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Listen to Naomi Klein in this recent video. Is she also involved with Leap Manifesto?
Wadda Marron! I just left some sanity moments on her Insanity Youtube Speech!
Sadly, it is not the Climate they want to control… it is YOU they want to Control!
In Canada, Trudeau has failed, failure must not be rewarded, Canada must Vote Smarter and Justin must be made Single Use in October!
Yeah, the drama teacher turned out to be not as sharp as his lawyer father. Surprise, surprise.
Jody Wilson-Raybould should go for the party leadership. But I don’t think she’s the sort of meat puppet they want.
Allan
I think posted elsewhere on WUWT is the report from a former head of the Metropolitan police service anti terrorist unit which exposes Extinction Rebellion (XR) as a subversive, extreme left wing political movement.
It hides behind the issue of climate change to enact radical political change in the UK, specifically, but elsewhere as well.
They are happy to consider violent insurrection and causing death to achieve their objectives.
The report, whilst fairly repetitive, is thorough, compiled by an entirely sober, objective, experienced, former very senior UK police officer (he only retired in 2016) who considers it important enough to release his investigations into this tentacled organisation.
And I think the important thing to take away from the report is not the threat a few thousand activists across the world represent, but the evolving nature of their campaign. They have gone through a number of failed iterations, growing each time, and if XR are another failure, they will evolve into yet another extreme left wing organisation hiding behind, if not climate change next time, then something else.
I will add that this report is distributed through ‘Policy Exchange’ which is a respected political think take with which our government consults.
The study is available to freely download. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/extremism-rebellion/
It represents what climate change truly represents; the raid on Democratic freedom to say and do, largely, as one wants with ones life, by the left.
keep it up mate. I always look forward to your post’s.
Thank you HotScot my friend – you can contact me through my website.
XR – or to use their original title “Bolsheviks”, who naively believed Marx’s 1848 revolutionary fairy story that the industrial revolution in Britain created a state of class warfare by the capitalist ‘burgeoisie’ that was oppressing the ‘proletariat’, without presenting a shred of evidence for that claim, just a stream of emotional waffle. Sound familiar? Try reading Marx’s Communist Manifesto, replacing the word ‘proletariat’ with ‘climatariat’!
That’s it: Bolsheviks. The green new deal is a manifesto for a command economy.
Reducing the amount of energy available, then commanding who gets energy and how much.
Who would make the decisions? The commissars.
Sadly the democrats are drinking the Bolshevik water & turning red…
Was Enron a Bolshevik organization? Anyone seeking the concentration of control that creates individual helplessness can take advantage.
same methods, slight difference in goals; Enron sought to manipulate the public in order to steal a pile of money; the Greens seek to manipulate the public in order to steal a bunch of power. Of the two, I think the ones who want to steal money are the lest destructive, because at least once they’ve got their pile of gold they go away.
I can’t see the difference between wanting to accumulate gold for the power it brings, and wanting power to accumulate gold. The goal is to be rich and powerful.
The U.S. and Canada have little or no actual gold left, so something isn’t working.
The BBC interviewed one of the authors, and have now apologised because the breached their editorial rules. Search for donnachadh McCarthy on Facebook, he’s based in London. The relevant post is the first one on his timeline. I find it ironic that they consider the BBC as right wing and the policy exchange one of the most evil political organisations in Britain.
I found this on YouTube https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=adAaWY3h0uc&t=1s, and it made me think that XR could be considered an extremist organisation under the governments PREVENT strategy ( this was before the above report was published). Another concern is Population Matters as they too seem to be targeting young children.
If the far-left vermin try to force us into socialist servitude, they will have to bring guns to the party because the rest of us will “refuse to comply”, against all hazard with Civil War II.
Sam – the ones who will be enforcing socialist programs will be the U.S. military – which itself is a socialist entity based on the fact that we all pay taxes to fund it, and it exists to protect us all equally under the law. So if you think you and your ilk are going to take up arms and fight the U.S. military, I personally think that’s delusional. I think it’s more likely that you will welcome their help in the same way people in developing countries suffering from drought, famine, floods etc welcome their help — and some of that help may take the form of new socialist programs that we all pay into in order to “buy insurance” in case of a various climate-driven events.
Sam – the ones who will be enforcing socialist programs will be the U.S. military – which itself is a socialist entity based on the fact that we all pay taxes to fund it, and it exists to protect us all equally under the law. So if you think you and your ilk are going to take up arms and fight the U.S. military, I personally think that’s delusional. I think it’s more likely that you will welcome their help in the same way people in developing countries suffering from drought, famine, floods etc welcome their help — and some of that help may take the form of new socialist programs that we all pay into in order to “buy insurance” in case of various climate-driven events.
The problem we have is the objective of those who sit behind Western Governments. They set up the most significant Think Tanks & NGO’s (RIIA CFR Tri-Lateral Commissin Bilderberg Atlantic Council UN World Bank IMF etc etc) & mostly choose our leaders for us giving them huge control & influence over policy particularly foreign policy. This is demonstrated by the willingness to go to war against Middle East countries at the drop of a hat without so much as real evidence or the consent of the people.
Their ultimate “objective” is World Government…that means either a peacfull merger with the Communist Bloc or war! A peacefull merger requires a number of strategies, firstly a common enemy (Climate Emergency) to get the consent of the people, secondly a political standardisation process hence all the wars across the planet to install “Democracy” thirdly wealth redistribution hence austerity, engineered economic crises & Carbon Taxes/Trading. It’s a very big picture & difficult for the average person to conceive unless you’ve carried out a lot of research.
Net zero energy.
Good report Allan, and right on the money. I sometimes wonder if our friends sponsoring the Green New Deal give a thought about our friends, the birds and bats, who are chopped up and cooked in this process? No, of course not, because, like you said, it’s not about the energy it’s about control.
I wonder what it will take to see the folly of all this nonsense about Green Energy? I suppose the lights must cease and society likely needs to descend into the Dark Ages to get people to come to their senses.
After viewing the ditch digger that lasted 2 hours and now requires an eight hour charge by a diesel generator, so much for zero emissions and the reliability of battery power.
Nevertheless, I always enjoy Allan’s posts. Keep’em coming. Cheers!
“I wonder what it will take to see the folly of all this nonsense about Green Energy? I suppose the lights must cease and society likely needs to descend into the Dark Ages to get people to come to their senses.”
Let’s hope that the entire society doesn’t descend into the Dark Ages. I think what we are really talking about here is the Western Democracies. The rest of the world is going a different directin when it comes to CO2 production.
Fortunately, the Western Democracies have several test projects such as Germany, the UK, South Australia, California and the hope is they will, in their efforts to wean themselves off fossil fuels, go bankrupt first and show the rest of the us what NOT to do.
In other words, we have several crash-test dummies we will be able to examine for viability. Or lack thereof. The “lack thereof” is looking more and more likely. The crash-test dummies are digging their hole deeper and one of these days the results will be in, and I don’t think that day is far off.
I think it is a little too late to be “hoping” much about anything …… simply because the “beliefs” that are driving/pushing the “social/cultural pendulum” has pushed it too far off-center to the “left” to ever swing back without our society descending into the anarchy of a “power-grab” by opposing forces.
As long as the populace condones “selective enforcement” of criminal acts ……. and condemns an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” punishment of lawbreakers, ….. the situation will continue to worsen.
Averting one’s eyes and mind to a dastardly problem ……. will not solve it.
About a week ago it came home to roost, in the hometown of Race-to-the-Fringes DeBlasio and Cuomo; a 74-block blackout in NYC when some cable or other popped caused panic, outrage, shock and awe, and a five-hour lack of that great evil, air conditioning. Live without power for FIVE hours? BEYOND HUMAN ENDURANCE, for the whiny snowflakes inhabiting the blue-as-a-bruise city built on swamps. I mean, like, no place to charge their PHOoooones!
(Tee-Hee!)
Communism, [national] socialism, fascism… it’s about central, single, monopoly formation, and the elite and corporations love it. It’s about redistributive change, scientific prophecy, and democratic suppression.
“How-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing” is also a lie. Marxism is not economics, it is literal war against the innocent.
“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” – Mao Tse-Tung
“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” – Mao Tse-Tung
Mao killed about 80 million of his own people, the mainland Chinese. How were they the enemy?
Stalin killed about 50 million Russians, Ukrainians, and others – also his own people.
National Socialist Hitler killed another 50 million, but some of them actually were his enemies.
What the left does not seem to understand is this:
WHEN POWER IS SO TIGHTLY CONCENTRATED, IT ALWAYS ENDS UP IN THE HANDS OF A VICIOUS PSYCHOPATH AND HIS SYCOPHANTS.
And no, this time it will NOT be different.
You’re assuming that the Left “doesn’t understand”. I’m not sure you’re right. They are working on Niemöller’s Hypothesis (“first they came for …) or what might be called salami tactics.
There is no way that the US or Western Europe is ripe for revolution but by stepping carefully — “ the long march through the institutions” is part of the process — the atmosphere (“climate”? – joke!) can be created which should lead to another famous quote, Mencken’s “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
And once that “one man, one vote, one time” election is out of the way they are the legitimate government and we become the criminals because they, legitimately, say so.
Newminster wrote:
“You’re assuming that the Left “doesn’t understand”. I’m not sure you’re right.”
You are assuming what I am assuming – and you are wrong.
For the record, I initiated the recent article that spoke of “the long march through the institutions”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare
The left is comprised of leaders and followers. The leaders understand their objectives, strategies and tactics – their followers, not so much.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/#comment-2734450
No one is claiming that Marxists are intelligent – they clearly are not. The leftist leadership are sociopaths who seize any notion that will disrupt peaceful society, create poverty and chaos and thus give them total control. Their minions will follow anything that moves and sounds good – they are the lower ~third of human intellect – people who are too stupid to vote – but they do.
“Mao killed about 80 million of his own people, the mainland Chinese. How were they the enemy?”
They were the enemy of Mao’s ambitions. That’s all it took for Mao to feel it necessary to kill those innocent people. You get in a psychopath’s way, then you have to go, by any means necessary.
Tom Abbott wrote:
“You get in a psychopath’s way, then you have to go, by any means necessary.”
Yes Tom, that reality is abundantly clear.
The 20th Century was a disaster for humanity, with over 200 million innocent people killed, most by their own governments.
Can we as a global society not learn from our grievous errors?
Do we really have to do this all again?
The “Progressives”, aka neo-Marxists, say “Yes – but this time it will be different!” – No, it won’t!
Regards, Allan
There is no better example of conservative extremism, than socialist governments led by a conservative, who wants to maintain status quo by murdering anyone who demands change (ie progressives).
This is how conservatives maintain what they want, not by democracy, but by undermining socialism(ie the want for equality amoungst all), by ensuring all who remain reject change. By washing all who remain to expect what they have as normal and unchanging.
Spot on. Socialism isn’t a “economic system.” It is a rationalization for absolutist rule.
Both the GND and Agenda 21 are nothing more than attempts to convert Democratic Capitalistic countries to Marxism. The UN is the primary purveyor of converting those countries to a One World Government and it’s time we/the West wake up to that fact and do something about it. They will lie, cheat, and steal to justify their planned revolution and have no qualms about it. AGW is their most audacious plan and it’s off to a good start for them. However they are reaching the crossroads of saving the planet but destroying the people and it’s being recognized by everyone. We’re worried about the false science in AGW and they could care less as long as we swallow the pill.
Thank you Allan MacRae. People need to learn more about the “Leap Manifesto’ as well.
Ontario’s energy costs have “soared” also.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontarios-soaring-electricity-costs-result-of-poor-government-policies/
I’d be curious to see the much reproduced electricity cost graph above redone to show average electricity cost vs percentage of hydro, or vs population density, or to see elecricity cost change over time vs percentage of renewables.
Or add Canada to the graph. Or show 10 provinces vs renewabkes. Or split the U.S. up to compare individual states.
I wonder if the interpretation has cauae and effect reversed – for some countries with minimal fossil fuel or hydro resources, maybe they’re getting into more solar PV because of high generation costs, not the other way around as stated above.
Our electricity cost per kw is 5 cents generation plus 20 cents delivery charge. We hardly notice the generation cost portion. The potential per kw savings from rooftop solar PV here are 25 cents, but utility scale or wind can’t possibly save us more than 5 cents / 20%, even at free.
Here’s a list of signatories for Leap Manifesto:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/whos-on-board/
If you look at the long list of causes, you can see that intersectionality has built the list of people signing on.
Any similarity to the “Mein Kampf” is unintended. That one was a different kind of socialism.
Old news. At least he, Chakrabarti, admitted to being a watermelon.
There are so many idiots worldwide believing that there is a climate to fight against and help these bastards in that “causa”, incredible !!
Talk about dispatchable – at the Carters dam in Georgia, Georgia Power could call the control room at the dam and say “give me 300 megawatts” and it would be on line in about 5 minutes. The longest delay was the fisherman’s warning horn because people fished in the waterway below the main dam and they had to get out of the way when the generators came on. At late night, 2 of the 4 units at the dam were dual generate/pumping units and they would pump at night when the demand was light. There was a holding lake below the dam.
I worked for several months at the Carters control room in the mid-1970s putting in a supervisory control system and I got to learn a good deal about how things worked.
Thank you Dan for writing:
“There was a holding lake below the dam.”
That “holding lake below the dam” is the required component for “pumped storage hydroelectricity” or PSH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Alberta is a large province in area, larger than France and much larger than re-united Germany. We have NO sites suitable for PSH in Alberta – our hydro generation typically consists of a river below the hydro dam – there is no significant volume of water available below the dam to pump back uphill for a pumped storage scheme.
There are only a few suitable sites in the world for pumped storage schemes and many of these have already been utilized – and PSH is the only practical, grid-scale form of “super-battery” at this time.
I have heard so-called “energy experts” blithely claim that they would solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar energy with “storage”. To date, that solution is akin to saying “we will solve the shortage of horses by importing unicorns”.
They could be thinking of Storage of Natural Gas. Or they’re bad at math.
Randy – they are referring to storage of electricity in a “super-battery”.
I have to admit I haven’t read the Green New Deal Manifesto or whatever, but I did read the whole blog post and I’m still not clear on which ‘they’ you are referring to, or what kind of ‘Super Battery’ they imagine might someday exist, so it’s more likely that ‘they’ are very bad at math.
I think it’s probable that very large batteries will someday be built, perhaps for nuclear load following, or emergency backup.
The higher energy density of new solid state lithium cells at 400 wh/ kg looks promising for longer range electric vehicles – or much improved cordless tools and cordless lawn and garden equipment, and longer gadget run times.
No chemical battery cell comes close to the compactness of energy stored in petroleum, wherever oxygen is available.
Some of us have known for years that the global warming / climate change scam is not about climate. Unfortunately a lot of thieves, corrupt politicians and dangerous ideologues have hooked their wagon to the global warming scam, once they figured out how it could benefit them. The whole thing was started by the corrupt and evil UN and is now a runaway train.
The History of the Global Warming Scare
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm
Global Warming for Global Governance
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm
United Nations and Anthropogenic Global Warming = Wealth Redistribution
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UN_AGWscam.htm
Thanks for the links Rob, though many of us can see the direction of travel, but few of us have the chapter and verse detail your links provide.
The resistance by the establishment to Britain’s decision to leave the EU is clearly explained, by their realisation, such a decision taken by the people of the UK, is against the desire of the globalists to remove Nation State as a political construct.
The EU is founded on removing Nation Statehood from its members and openly says so. To achieve UN control of world affairs, the EU acts as an essential step, a path finder, collecting some of the worlds most influential Nations into a collective that then abandons Nationhood. This process will be repeated in different geographic areas across the Globe under the careful collectivisation development, by the UN.
The EU has removed virtually all of the individual’s rights contained in Magna Carta via the ECJ (European Courts of Justice). Only the American Constitution now stands as a working document supporting the rights the individual has, over the state’s constant demand for authority over them.
It should come as no surprise, it was the USA that funded the memorial to Magna Carta at Runnymede, here in the UK.
We are ever grateful for the wisdom shown by the founding fathers of the USA, their clearheaded vision regarding the unacceptable overreach of government is needed now, more than ever 200+ years on.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever.”
–statement by the character O’Brien in George Orwell’s 1984
That about sums up the green new deal.
Jim
The picture is totally accurate !
+42 !
If push comes to shove, we could go nuclear. The nuclear leaders appear to be the Russians. link
We need California to attempt to go 100% renewable. They say they can buy solar PV electricity at prices that are competitive with some fossil fuel technologies. OK. Their numbers say they should be able to do it. When they fail miserably, they can investigate nuclear. Come on California. If you believe you can save the Earth by eliminating CO2, you’ve got to do it.
California currently imports 30% of the power used in the state. The state tracks this and all the data can be downloaded. California’s peak PV production occurs from Noon through 2:00 PM. This creates a large surplus of power in the grid. California power companies must pay neighboring grids to take this extra power. Unfortunately, peak power usage is in the evening, when PV production is zero in the winter months or close to zero in the summer months. This is when power must be imported from neighboring grids to keep the lights on in California.
This is not a future scenario. This is the situation today.
Is the surplus / shortage communicated to the market in variable electricity rates?
‘Cause if it were, you’d expect behaviour to change, to take advantage of free power – peak oversupply would be a good time for everything from storing cold by freezing saltwater, to storing process heat in molten salt, to charging anything that holds electricity. And flogging the rest to neighbors cheap.
I’m for adding rooftop PV to save money, but not for subsidy. And as for storage, sure, if it makes economic sense, otherwise it’s better to dump it. But no subsidies.
Economics of farming work the same for electricity or carrots or zuchini. Unpredictable harvest but with control of the market lets one profit by selling most of a crop in one market at a high price, even while dumping some at a loss in another.
The other fallacy is that the storage system will be replenished with “Surplus” electricity. This is ludicrous beyond belief and common sense. look at the Duck Curve en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve. PV will only be unable to “Charge up” the storage system if there is twice as much power being generated as being used. This means that at least 30 to 50 percent MORE PV systems and Wind Farms will be needed with this “extra capacity” used just to charge up for the night time or low wind periods.
The Reason Pumped Storage has worked for utilities is that they pump the water back into the reservoir at NIGHT when not only is the use the lowest the value/cost of the electricity is the lowest. Utilities put the cheapest generators on line FIRST and the most expensive generators last. The utility I worked for had generators that cost over $0.50 per KWH to operate several times the cost of pumped storage. During heatwaves the cost of buying electricity from another utility has exceeded $2,000 for a few hours supply. Using PS saved the customers millions.
I know of no PS system in the USA that was designed for more than that needed over night. Also they are not designed to power the entire utility load. To supply several days of power means the reservoir will have to be four times as large. and several times that if the utility is “100%” renewable.
It is worse than that! The problem of renewables is not simply diurnal, but also seasonal. PV power in the winter is approximately 30% of summer production. Winter is the season when power usage is the highest. A power storage system for renewables (PV) would need to store the excess summer production to be used not just at night, but also during the winter. The scale of such a system would be planetary.
Natural Gas micro cogeneration can help with some of that. Generating electricity while providing hot water makes sense economically if the capital cost is low enough, and it works all year. They’re all the rage in Japan.
The system can provide some electricity in an outage, or be programmed to run during peak electricity demand.
And the gas grid usually has a lot of storage but limited capacity, so stored hot water can be made ‘off-peak’ from heating demand.
Even though the Renewable promoting GreenSlime claims solar and wind energy costs are competitive with natural gas, that never addresses the back-up generation needed for every KW of renewable power running the grid at a given moment due to intermittency discussed above by Allan.
So the “cheaper” feature of wind and solar actually turns into much higher electricity costs. And that is also not an an accident but also a “feature.” In this fossil fuel/renewable energy electricity grid hybird, everyone in electricity game gets to make more more, and the ones who have to pay for it all is the middle class. Just like hybrid automobiles cost more than their fully ICE counterparts. You’re paying for the virtue signaling, because a full life-cycle cost usually demonstrates the ICE car is the better long-term value than it’s hybrid twin.
Thus the Renewable energy scams are nothing but an artifice to siphon money out of the large middle class in Western democracies. But along the way the renewable energy GreenSlime has gotten in bed with the socialist GreenBlob, each with very different ideas of whatthe climate change scam is all about.
So as I see it, there are really two Big Factions within the “Green Movement”
– The Green Blob of hard-core environmentalist, the socialists come Marxists.
– The Green Slime of renewable energy hustlers who are in the game for the money solar and wind scams promise by remaking the electricity markets, and fleecing the middle class into working poverty.
Sometimes it is hard to see these two distinctions, but they are there. Sometimes even the same entity can find itself from an outside observer to be both.
There is a very large third group in the ‘green movement’ and they are the sheep who have been brainwashed by both these two main pillars of watermelons and the ‘green slime’, including the poor kids who are being brainwashed into this and think an anomalous weather event is now proof of global warming/climate change not realizing that extreme weather events are always part of the norm and create the average they think should be the norm. It should be this group that is probably the easiest to be brought back to sanity, especially once they see their living costs exploding through the roof by these shameless power hucksters who are peddling all this crap for nefarious reasons. We need to target these people to become skeptics and question everything that is being done in the name of climate.
Funny you say “brainwash” because the real reason is the air we breathe, because IT does keep us alive, and to protect our air is to protect our life (our health) …so we don’t spend our time in sickness, disease and death, and or mostly mourning the early passing of loved ones caught up in ill health POLLUTION causes. So simple some forget/overlook/ ignore / deny and or want to complicate, yet our health (true prosperity) has everything to do with breathing clean air.
I completely agree Jude that we all want clean air to breath. For the most part in the 1st World here in the West, our air is fairly clean due to rigorous emission standards compete with catalytic exhaust systems etc, although perhaps in 12 lane traffic in rush hour somewhere, that is less than ideal. But you are confusing general air pollution with ‘carbon’ and CO2 which are two separate things, although I suspect your rebuttal would be that it is primarily the ICE engines burning carbon fossil fuels that create the air pollution. Most fossil fuelled electricity generation is far enough from populated centres and dispersed through tall smokestacks, so that it isn’t usually the cause of localized air pollution.
We don’t really suffer the anywhere the same degree of raw air pollution like Mexico City, Manila or Shanghai and and 1001 other 3rd world locations. CO2 is not air pollution, since it is a trace, odourless, invisible atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth. ‘Carbon’ pollution is a metaphor for real air pollution, which can be mostly arrested technologically. There is still carbon monoxide so don’t lock yourself in the garage with the engine running though. But CO isn’t the big issue with air pollution in an open area, more it is the particulate pollution that we have learnt to minimize with technology. The problem is that most of the 3rd world still has old ICE engines spewing out air pollution exhaust.
To do that, you have to reverse “The Long March Through The Institutions” achieved by the Marxists. They now control the propaganda broadcasters such as the BBC and many others world wide.
That correction of unjust influence, will take generations, just as it took generations to put in place.
The good news is, those of us who know what is actually going on, sleep easier at night than those who think Man Made Global Warming is a real thing.
Admittedly a very small positive.
Lets start with the easy bit, Withdraw from the UN. Beside it been a useless body at stopping the numerous small wars, it is via the likes of the IPCC a very dangerous body.
Of course the politicians love it, its just a super sized soapbox.
At the least close down the IPCC.
Only the USA can do this, stop paying them any money.
MJE VK5ELL
I agree, the U.N. is an ideal that will never work because people who go into politics are so corrupt. The United States should mostly withdraw, just sit on the councils, and provide real law and guidance through another mechanism – one made up of only Western style democracies that share our values.
As for science, governments are incapable of providing their own scientific studies as the EPA has demonstrated. What started as a fairly effective agency has devolved into a complete corrupt anti-science liberal catastrophe. NASA is right behind… (I used to love NASA s they could get hard things done, now they are more worried about diversity then science)
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of bureaucrats, politicians, Gov employees, and academics more than the word defunding.
And remember, Michael, that at the Yalta conference after WW2 between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to carve up Europe, to Churchill’s great dismay and anger Roosevelt negotiated away a lot to Stalin in return for his agreement to set up the UN, which Roosevelt believed would prevent future wars. Stalin played him like a fish, as IMO the Russians have been doing to the West through the UN ever since. The IPCC and its tentacles are fully a creature of the UN, quite likely with the full support of the Russians since the fall of the USSR. This is grand-scale geopolitics, not a sideshow. (Ex-VK2Z..)
Let’s not stoop to using the Alarmist trick of weaponising the single cause fallacy. Saying this entire issue is just about socialist trying to takeover the World is just as silly as saying that CO2 is the control knob of the global Climate.
Clearly things are way more complex than this. Climate change is clearly a bandwagon issue with every man and his dog jumping aboard for their own personal gain. Given the money to be made there’s likely way more Capitalists trying to cash in. Given the urgency of this issue we would be better off trying to divide and conquer.
Very good points, George.
No doubt, all the socialists jump on board the UN CAGW bandwagon in order to further their socialists goals, but there is also no doubt there are many other reasons for people to get aboard besides socialism, such as personal career advancement, money, fame, and fear. The average person gets onboard because they don’t know any better and they don’t know any better because they are being deliberately lied to about CAGW.
I would agree that it does seem that the leadership of the UN is defintely focused on socialist/authoritarian goals, and on governing the Earth, and is using CAGW as a vehicle to those ends.
The CAGW Hoax was always about replacing small decentralized governments with free-market economies, and replacing them with huge centralized totalitarian governments which control every aspect of their economies and people through: massive taxes, regulations, rules, mandates, public-work projects, rationing, quotas, subsidies, licensing, massive bureaucracies, huge welfare programs, government price fixing, massive national debts, etc.
There is now overwhelming evidence that CO2’s climate sensitivity is minuscule (0.6C~1.2C/CO2 doubling), which not only isn’t a problem, higher CO2 levels: increase crop yields, reduces desertification, makes plants more drought resistant, increases global greening, lengthens growing seasons, makes winters less severe, increases arable land in Northern latitudes, reduces winter heating costs, etc…
The disparities and duration between CAGW’s hilarious catastrophic climate predictions vs. reality already exceed the criteria necessary for official hypothetical disconfirmation.
As the earth cools from 30-year ocean cool cycles and a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum event, the CAGW hoax will become an even bigger joke than it already is.
Leftists don’t seem to appreciate the huge blowback they’re about to receive once voters realize their Leftist governments have wasted $trillions on the biggest and most expensive scam in human history…
I collected more statements about it NOT being about climate here:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/green-new-deal.html
thanks
JK
Politicians control what happens.
Voters elect the politicians.
Media controls the voters.
Therefore Media controls what happens.
Who controls the media ?
The principles of free markets and competition also apply to the markets of news, information, and ideas. This is why attempts to silence dissent in media are so dangerous.
Who controls the media?
That is a very good question george1st:)
I am sure that our national news papers are very socialist run news sheets here in New Zealand.
Our TV news screens very biased news from CNN and the BBC and both main channels are loathe to screen any thing from Fox News or Aljazeera although both channels are available .
I would say that in most situations an editorial committee check what is to be printed and what news is to be screened .
I first became very skeptical about global warming as it was first called after meeting John Maunder a New Zealander and a member of the WMO who attended the first and second climate conference in Villach and Rio de Janeiro .
John was a meteorologist and had taught in universities around the world .
John maintained and quite rightly that the doubling of CO2 will warm the earth by less than one degree Celsius.
I became convinced that the global warming scare was a scam when farmed livestock were targeted and at the Kyoto conference methane from livestock was introduced as an emission and adopted.
Here are my reasons and I would welcome any scientific based criticism.
All other green house gas emissions are sourced from coal ,oil and gas ,or from limestone which are all extracted from below the earths surface where the have been for millions of years.
Methane from farmed livestock are in an entirely different category as all the methane emitted comes from fodder that has absorbed C02 and as the methane has a half life in the atmosphere of around 8.5 years and is then broken down into CO2 and water vapour and the cycle continues .
But here are the facts .
The difference between methane sinks and emissions have been calculated from 13 TG 19 TG 20 TG and up to 52 TG .
TG = million tones .
These cannot all be right so I would think that 52 TG is an outlier.
We now look at the energy sector and the methane emissions range from 75 TG to 110 TG.
Now most of these methane emissions are fugitive emissions that escape during coal mining and oil and gas extraction .
If these industries reduced there emissions by better control they could soon bring their emissions down to below the difference of the sinks and emissions and methane levels would stabilize or even fall I would point out that methane levels plateaued between 1998 and 2008 .
Few new coal mines were being developed around the world and coal extraction was in decline from about 1990 to 2000 but something stopped methane from rising for close on ten years .
Don’t blame the cows .
.Fix fugitive emissions from coal mines and oil and gas extraction and pipelines and methane levels in the atmosphere will stabilize.
I am certain that activists pushed for methane from livestock to be included in the Kyoto Accord and it has never been assessed scientifically .
It was pushed by the UN and no one will stand up to them as after 10 years the same molecules are then counted twice as the CO2 is absorbed in plants and eaten by livestock .
No other emissions are counted twice.
Graham
Try getting rid of the 200 million cows in India. No way, they are holy cows.
Compared with them the 95, 25 and 10 million cows in the US, Australia and UK respectively are negligible.
Anyway, as Gwan says, the amount of methane from livestock has reached a dynamic equilibrium with emissions balanced by breakdown.
Are these mostly draft animals? If so, wouldn’t Indian cows eating grass and doing useful work be better than American cows laying around eating corn and getting fat?
You are actually doing environmentalists a favour by associating them with the Far Left. The climate campaign is drive mainly by a climate industrial complex. This consists of several hundred large corporations engaged in wind power, electric vehicle manufacture, solar power, bio-fuels and the like. Behind them, and pervading the larger movement, are the landed interests of states and regions which being, petroleum importers, seek energy independence through a petroleum phaseout. A survey of the controlling minds of the companies, philanthropies, and parties involved will not expose any leftists; but rather many wealthy well-connected families.
Red-baiting this movement is not simply barking up the wrong tree. It gives the movement street creds and a working class veneer it doesn’t deserve. For more visit http://www.ecofascism.com
Some people get hung up on the nomenclature (Marxist, Fascist, Socialist, etc etc) and try to label extreme leftists as extreme rightists and so on. I wrote the following in 2012 and 2017, to help clear up the confusion.
Forgetting the labels for a minute, I support much LESS government interference in our lives. I hate our hugely bloated, incredibly incompetent governments. I’d vote for the first person who says “Hey! I’ll do a whole lot LESS for you!”
Regards, Allan 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/25/al-gore-bilks-people-at-christmas-asking-for-climate-crisis-money/#comment-2243505
[except]
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” – Groucho Marx
When I was at McGill in the 1960’s, there were over a dozen different Marxist parties. We categorized them into two groups: the angry, violent Groucho Marxists with their ugly, greasy-haired women, and the Harpo Marxists, with their “peace and love” mantras and their beautiful flaxen-haired women.
MARXISM MADE SIMPLE!
The Groucho Marxists are the leaders – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.
The Harpo Marxists are the followers – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”.
George Carlin said: “You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
One can easily identify many members of these two groups in the global warming debate – and none of them are ”climate skeptics”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/#comment-1067214
[excerpt}
In North America, we too have our share of CAGW scoundrels and imbeciles – an ignorant stew of Harpo and Groucho Marxists who are convinced that if all industry were shut down and everyone worked for the government, the economy would perk along just fine. These leftist ideologues appeal to that idiot 30% of humanity who are somehow convinced they are much more intelligent than the rest of us, despite their lack of any technical or economic competence.
From time to time, these ideologues gain power and proceed to wreak havoc upon their economies – witness the Canadian Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, or the Ontario Liberals under Doltan McGuinty. Out of neighbourly courtesy, I will not comment on USA politics.
Because of the boom in cheap natural gas from shale, and similar apparent success in shale oil, North America is again enjoying abundant cheap energy. The question is, will we use this incredible competitive advantage to rebuild our economies and our manufacturing sectors, now increasingly outsourced to China, or will be squander this opportunity in a quagmire of regulatory incompetence and pseudo-environmental obstructionism?
Stay tuned.
Politics and sports, ……. two peas in the same pod.
People of different races, nationalities, religions, incomes, education, etc., etc., will fuss, fight, praise, applaud, agree, badmouth, cripple, kill, etc., etc., when engaged in political discussions/encounters with others, ….. but will, …… for the most part, …. forget about politics and how it directly affects their lives when said “politics” is not in season.
Likewise, people of different races, nationalities, religions, incomes, education, etc., etc., will fuss, fight, praise, applaud, agree, badmouth, cripple, kill, etc., etc., when engaged in sports discussions/encounters with others, ….. but will, …… for the most part, …. forget about sports because they do not directly affect their lives when said “sports” are not in season.
Is one uneducated, ignorant and utterly stupid because they supported the wrong sports team?
Or are they only uneducated, ignorant and utterly stupid if they supported the wrong politician/political party?
So perhaps the only actual problem is network television and the advertising that enables it?
Almost 4 decades ago I attended a few lectures by someone running for the Senate as an Independent. He said that the threat isn’t whether a government is left or right but rather is it totalitarian.
The US Constitution wasn’t ratified until The Bill of Rights was included. The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the newly formed Government and prevent it from violating the principle it was founded upon.
“wealthy well-connected families”
Capitalist billionaires: the 0.000001%, not only own and control the world’s capital but have used the media (which they, yes thats right, own) to convince the uninformed that they don’t. These one thousand odd capitalist billionaires are not leftists neither are they environmentalists, they are just “wealthy well-connected families” with way too much power. The only way to curtail their psychopathy is by democratic, government regulation.
Ironically Allan, with his “I support much LESS government interference in our lives”, is unwittingly doing their bidding.
Loydo,
You are not often right, but you are wrong again.
Nice try at deflection Loydo.
You are alleging that the sponsors of the Green New Deal, that is AOC, Bernie Saunders and all their uber-left fellow-travelers in the Democratic Party etc (aka Lenin’s “useful idiots”) are really pawns of the ultra-wealthy.
I think there is evidence that subsequent generations of the ultra-wealthy often end up being socialist imbeciles, who spend their inherited wealth on far-left causes like global warming alarmism, world government and so on.
However, history tells us that these totalitarian adventures end badly – with hundreds of millions of dead, destroyed economies and broken societies.
Extreme leftists Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed about 200 million people in the 20th Century, and lesser leftist dictators like Pol Pot and other Tin Pots killed many millions more. Were these psychopaths all pawns of the very rich, or were they marching to their own inner vision of a society of serfs, with themselves as the supreme leader?
When too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few, a psychopath typically seizes power and kills or imprisons everyone who opposes his madness. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the other great killers of the 20th Century all fit this description.
Leftists like you think “it will be different this time” – it won’t.
The war against fossil fuels is really a war against the young. It will be truly a hellish world for generations yet unborn should the greens/socialists succeed. Yet it is presented as hope for the future and many ignorant, indoctrinated, and inexperienced, youth are enlisted in a cause which will destroy their future. It really is disgustingly cynical and evil on the part of western elites.
We should probably stop trying to assume motive. We each view the world through our own experiences, ideologies, etc. While it is true that some people are scheming or that some of the time people lie about their motives, most of the time what appears like a hidden agenda is just their worldview forcing the “solutions” into a specific direction. Its not that many pushing climate action are secretly pushing communism. They just have a worldview that makes government control the primary “solution”. And when you only have a hammer, you tend to treat every problem like a nail
I disagree in that it is certainly true that the “useful idiots ” don’t know what is going on behind the scenes but the evil being put forward by powerful forces is too great not to assume motive, particularly when these people have admitted the truth behind their actions- numerous examples are available for your perusal. Okay, don’t assume motive, but please please speak out against this fools errand loudly and repeatedly!
I tell my children that we have failed them by letting this AGW scare fester so long, albeit aided by powerful forces. When the media turns on the people we are indeed in dangerous times. I feel compelled to speak out at every turn against the fraud that is being perpetrated on mankind by a number of powerful influences as noted above. We only need follow the money and corrupt politicians to see what is happening behind the scenes. It is truly frightening to me how many times the truth behind the movement has been admitted, yet it still has legs. If we don’t speak up we are condemning our children to a fate worse than George Orwell imagined!
+100 spot on.
Those who refuse to challenge and refuse to speak out, are the ones who have accepted defeat. They imagine silence and submission is easier, than the future insanity ahead of them.
They could not be more wrong.
The “out of line renewables” chart has incorrect summary text. It should say 20c / kW of capacity, not 0.02c.
Chakrabarti is not the only one seeking to kill capitalism. Christiana Figueres, who was formerly the head of the UN Framework Agreement on climate change said in Feb 2015: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”.
Keith – here are a few more names, and there are many more at http://www.green-agenda.com/
___________________
For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives. When radical green extremists take power, it will be ‘One Man, One Vote, Once’ – the end of democracy.
To understand radical green objectives, see http://www.green-agenda.com/, excerpted below:
• “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
• “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
• “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
• “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
• “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
• “One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
• “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
• “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
• “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival or millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA
• “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth
9. Conclusion
Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. Banning DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice blinded and killed tens of millions of children.
Green energy and CO2 abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.
The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to their resulting environmental damage and human suffering… … and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.
Full article at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
It’s funny to me how any time someone has anti-capatalist ideals, they are immediately labelled as Marxist, or compared to historical failings of obviously flawed communists and socialists. As if socialism will always = totalitarianism and brutal fascist dictatorships.
But strangely I agree. Socialism will always be currupted into totalitarian rule, or dictatorships by one or a few who wish to capatilise on the ability to easily lie and dupe the masses through such a system. That’s just part of human nature. The ability to take advantage of a situation or another person, if we can, is normal human behaviour.
The only difference is that an uncorrupted, ideal socialist(if such a thing exists) defeats this selfish nature within themselves, whilst those who don’t become the next dictator, capatilising on the ideals of others for their own gain.
Some of us had no delusions of what was sought by AOC’s New Green Deal as it was merely a continuation of what Barack Obama had already stated with regards to supposed “climate change”. His words and intent were, “…under my system of a cap and trade program, electricity rates (energy prices overall) would necessarily skyrocket…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
I had no delusions when I heard that. I fully understood this had nothing to do with climate change or any such proclaimed nonsense. This was always about bringing down Western civilization, all capitalist nations as we know them, and transforming them into what these extreme leftists wanted. Anyone who claimed differently was either a naive but useful idiot, or was an evil scumbag seeking to destroy all the benefits caused by having free market trade based capitalist societies and nations.
Famous economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman wrote an incredible book titled “Free To Choose” then created a 10 part video series by the same name which aired on PBS discussing the virtues of free market trade and capitalism in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4&list=PL0364ACCE6C7E9D8E In this video series and in his book, Friedman discusses how no other economic system brought as much prosperity (and potential for prosperity) to the average person than free market trade and capitalism.
This assault on free market trade, capitalism and Western civilization as we know it is not something new to those of use who have taken the time to educate ourselves. Heck, even political correctness, also known as cultural Marxism to those of us who know, is nothing but another one of many attempts to destroy Western civilization as we know it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrx6xU_bwxM
So those of you like the author of this piece, Allan MacRae, who are new to the concept of the radical left attempting to destroy Western civilization as we know it, welcome to the club. It’s just a shame it has taken you this long to finally recognize what has been going on for quite a while, all done in the name of various leftists attempts at accomplishing the very same goal.
KS wrote:
“So those of you like the author of this piece, Allan MacRae, who are new to the concept of the radical left attempting to destroy Western civilization as we know it, welcome to the club. It’s just a shame it has taken you this long to finally recognize what has been going on for quite a while, all done in the name of various leftists attempts at accomplishing the very same goal.”
KS – Your above statement is false. I’m not “new to the concept”. I’ve understood this issue for many decades. I’ve done major business on six continents and seen a much harder side of life than almost everyone I’ve met. I’ve travelled to Honecker’s East Germany and Fidel Castro’s Cuba, and ran a multi-billion dollar enterprise in the FSU.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/26/world-mourns-mass-murderer-and-climate-warrior-fidel-castro/#comment-1912198
From my post written circa 2000-2005:
[excerpt]
I’ve also been to Cuba, and it is a cesspool of poverty and degradation (Trudeau boys, please take note).
What is truly interesting is that there are still apologists for Castro and Cuba here in Canada, even as Fidel himself has recently admitted that Cuba is a failed state.
They are probably the same “useful idiots” who said that Communist East Germany was a good model for Canada to emulate. I seem to recall several former [Canadian] NDP leaders who tried to sell us that line of BS (the names Broadbent and Lewis come to mind).
I travelled to East Germany, going through the Berlin Wall at Checkpoint Charlie in 1989, shortly before the Wall fell. East Germany was a cesspool too. While not as materially poor as Castro’s Cuba, it was an even more vicious police state where neighbour spied upon neighbour, and nobody felt safe from the Stasi secret police. Those who tried to escape were shot, and often allowed to bleed to death in “no-man’s land” between the many barbed-wire fences that formed “the Wall”.
Epilogue
The last person to be shot and killed while trying to cross the border from East to West Germany was Chris Gueffroy on February 6, 1989. He was 20 years old. Rest in peace, kid.
Well I for one am glad to have you as a friend in our fight against those who seek to destroy all the good free market trade and capitalism has brought us. Please forgive my improperly placed assumptions.
All OK KS.
Best, Allan
Epilogue:
It is difficult to see the human degradation and despair that results from very corrupt, incompetent typically leftist governments.
You meet really nice people, work with them for a while, and then leave them in the hands of a vicious dictatorship, where they and their children have no hope for a better future.
This post shows that scientific arguments against them are useless, as it’s not about science.
True, this is all about politics, and which way people are “rusted” to their particular side. “science be damned, I think this”. That is politics for ya.
citizens of the UK, Germany, indeed much of Europe look at this green new deal and see we’ve had pretty much all the elements of it for years now, with very little effect, if any, except more convenient public transport and less CO2.
I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Even the Chinese have high speed rail.
Griff – you are wrong – again!
Intermittent wind and solar power generation schemes are so inefficient that they do NOT even significantly reduce CO2 emissions – all they do is increase costs.
The electric grid is complex, and there are a lot of complicating factors, and it depends on the percentage of solar and/ or wind. Low percentages aren’t a problem, higher percentages do present challenges.
These technologies can reduce co2 emissions and fuel use over their lifetimes. Even where there is a lot of hydro, they can free up generation and reservoir capacity. They don’t free up any capital, of course.
Like any technology, they aren’t a solution to every problem, everywhere. Unless you hate and fear nuclear, and then make up imaginary, practical, economical and safe storage technology that hasn’t yet reached the discovery scale.
Randy – if you have very little wind energy in the grid, it might actually reduce CO2 emissions – a little. But then – who cares – when wind power is so small as to be insignificant.
Bit if you have lots of wind energy in the grid, it will increase CO2 emissions, unless you have ample backup hydro power.
We are told that co2 presently are 0.041 percent of the atmosphere.
Can anybody tell me, how much of this insignificant trace gas is due to human activities ?
No. Noone can, scientifically… As science requires consensus. Whilst there is a claim that 0.013 is all human, there is also a claim that 0.0001% is human. You do your own research.
There is a search engine called ‘Google’, in case your question was not retorical.
The science on whether increased co2 much matters seems to be unclear – a red barn roof wouldn’t absorb much more heat from the sun if it had 4 coats of paint than it did after the first 2 coats, and 4 more coats would have no effect. There is not much doubt that human activity is increasing it, but it might not matter much.
I have no idea what your worried about. Conservatives are in charge, and will remain that way… No matter how many cities and towns claim a climate emergency it will amount to nothing, the global economy will always prevail… Money is “God” Maybe some localities will feel some pain, but globally we are on track to maintain status quo.
Voicing out against some “green” movement when you could be managing some offshore, multi billion company is surely a waste of time and millions of dollars.
I agrree, IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN, BUT FOR CAPITALISM
Tommy wrote:
“IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN, BUT FOR CAPITALISM”
Sure it was Tommy – and AOC and Bernie Sanders are NOT leftists, correct?
As the catastrophic global warming scam becomes fully exposed as the world’s greatest-ever fraud, this Is the left’s latest BIG LIE – “It wasn’t our idea – it was the capitalists!”
Only the dumbest of the dumb will believe this lie – but there are lots of them out there.
Watermelons – says it all.
When you start building giant fans on some of the best farmland in the country, as they’ve done where I live, you’re literally telling the world that your ideology is more important than your food supply. The stupid, it burns.
MORE VERIFICATION OF THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE RADICAL GREENS:
PROMINENT ENVIRONMENTALIST PROPOSES A CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP BECAUSE DEMOCRACY IS JUST NOT WILLING TO DO HIS POLICIES.
By Bjørn Lomborg
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10156188900228968:0
The gall of this argument is staggering. It is even more staggering that the Swedish newspaper bringing this large interview today does not clearly mark the viewpoint as extreme and unreasonable. Instead, they seriously have their political analyst muse about whether a climate dictatorship is really necessary, and ending with a conclusion of ‘yeah, possibly.’
The claim comes from Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School. His main claim to fame is as co-author of the 1972 Limits to Growth book, which scared a generation to believe we would run out of all resources and kill humanity with suffocating air pollution. Time magazine headlined their 1972 story on the book: “The Worst Is Yet to Be?” and it began: “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop. London’s offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields: there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants. Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and “progress.””
Of course, their scare scenarios were almost entirely wrong. You can read more in my Foreign Affairs article and my short summary in Project Syndicate below.
Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)
Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.
Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay.
Of course, most smart people would be against paying lots for achieving little or nothing. If anything, this suggests that democracy works just fine.
BUT RANDERS INSTEAD TAKES THIS UNWILLINGNESS TO SPEND FORTUNES ON LITTLE BENEFITS AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ENDING DEMOCRACY. ‘IF PEOPLE DON’T WANT MY PREFERRED SOLUTION, THEN PEOPLE ARE STUPID, SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE THEIR FATE, AND WE SHOULD INSTALL A CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP INSTEAD.’ THE ARGUMENT LITERALLY SEEMS TO BE: IF I CAN’T HAVE MY WAY IN A DEMOCRACY, I WANT MY WAY WITH A DICTATORSHIP.
That is hardly a good argument. It is also phenomenally expensive: Look at the costs to achieve the sort of climate policies that Randers and many others are advocating. If the EU fulfils its promise of cutting emissions by 80% in 2050 (which is the most ambitious climate policy in the world today), the average of the best peer-reviewed models show that the cost would run to at least $3 trillion per year, and more likely double that – meaning $6,000 for each EU citizen per year. Of course, few will vote for that.
Moreover, asking for a dictatorship neglects one of the main reasons for democracy: *how do you ensure that the dictator does what is good for you?* Throughout history, many have asked for dictatorships, but when they got it, it turned out that the dictator didn’t do what they hoped – and then how do you change your leader?
Look at China, which unfortunately is held up by many environmentalists as a green ideal. It gets 86% of its total primary energy demand from fossil fuels (International Energy Agency data, latest from 2014, extrapolated to 2017). How is that ultra-green? It gets just 12% from renewables (the last 2% from nuclear). Even in 2040 with all its Paris goals fulfilled, the IEA estimate that China will get 16% of its total energy from renewables (and most of this will still be hydro and biomass, with just 4.2% from wind and solar PV). How is this seen as ultra-green? Remember, China got a higher share of its total energy from renewables (mostly because it was incredibly poor) *every year of the last century* than it will in 2040.
But the most depressing fact is that instead of focusing on these incredibly ineffective policies that will cost a fortune but do little to fix climate, there are many other ways that would do much more good.
First, we should increase spending on green R&D – if we can innovate the price of future green and reliable energy down below fossil fuels, everyone will switch.
Second, we should focus on cheap and effective adaptation, which in the long run will avoid most of the extra damages of climate impacts at very low costs.
Third, we should recognize that the main vulnerability for climate is poverty: if you’re poor, you will much harder hit by climate change (and, of course, hit harder by pretty much every other challenge, as well). Thus, if we lift people out of poverty, we will likely help them much more against future damages from climate –- and help them much, much more period. It is not surprising, that when the UN asked almost 10 million people around the world what they wanted us to focus on, they asked for education, health, and nutrition. And placed climate at the very bottom of their list of priorities.
Increasing green R&D, adaptation and much more focus on poverty alleviation is something that most people would vote for. It is efficient, morally good and much, much cheaper.
And (although I can’t believe I really have to point it out)
we could keep our democracy.
________________________
I like your points , particularly the one regarding the benefits of relieving poverty
Chakrabarti is a fool because the economy will be overhauled by just doing nothing about the climate crisis. It’s going to fuck things up so badly, every state will become indefinitely dependent on the federal government and it will destroy the global economy. This is also why climate deniers who see it has a socialist conspiracy are fools. Had they listened to scientists decades ago, this whole economic shift could’ve been avoided, but they all got duped by the merchants of doubt that were hired by the fossil fuel industry. Now it’s too late. The economic system is going to change if we do everything to mitigate the crisis, and it’s going to change if we wait until the (****) hits the fan. The period of having a choice has passed, and all those fossil fuel executives will be dead while their progeny live in a world of water wars, ecologic collapse, and climate refugees exacerbating political tensions around the world — maybe even WW3
[Edited for language. mod]
Correction, junk science deniers.
Linda, you can make up own “facts” but we will all have to live with reality. Don’t worry, socialism isn’t so bad.
Then move to Venezuela, Tom.
Junk scientists:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ” IPCC climate researcher Phil Jones
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4203
Real scientists:
“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. […] I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the [deep state], is biasing science toward what the [deep state] wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today.” – Geologist and Astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt on the UN IPCC report
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/18/apollo-astronaut-scientist-rejects-ipcc-climate-report/
“An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.” – Professor Richard Lindzen
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/09/prof-richard-lindzen-demolishes-the-climate-change-scare/
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate forecaster, Weather Action: “None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.”
Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem: “There’s no evidence that links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London: “The IPCC, like any U.N. body, is political. The final conclusions are politically-driven.”
Prof. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT: “And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree…. People have decided you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda.”
Narrator: “This is a story of censorship and intimidation…”
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist: “We’ve just been told lies, that’s what it comes down to….The whole thing stinks. I’ve seen and heard that spitting fury at anybody who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way…The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I’m a heretic. The makers of this program are all heretics.”
Prof. John Christy. Lead Author, IPCC:
“I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate; well I am one scientist and there are many who simply think that is not true.”
Prof. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris:
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. it’s not science – it’s propaganda….This claim, that the IPCC is the world’s top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists….Those people who are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists”
Prof. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, THE most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA:
“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
Prof. Patrick Michaels: Dept of Enviromental Sciences, University of Virgina
“The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London:
“It’s become a great industry in itself. And if the whole global warming ferago collapsed, there would be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.”
James Shikwati, Economist & Author:
“One clear thing that emerges from all environmental debate is the point that somebody keen to kill the African Dream, and the African Dream is to develop.”
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate forecaster, Weather Action: “None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.”
Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem: “There’s no evidence that links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London: “The IPCC, like any U.N. body, is political. The final conclusions are politically-driven.”
Prof. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT: “And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree…. People have decided you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda.”
Narrator: “This is a story of censorship and intimidation…”
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist: “We’ve just been told lies, that’s what it comes down to….The whole thing stinks. I’ve seen and heard that spitting fury at anybody who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way…The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I’m a heretic. The makers of this program are all heretics.”
Prof. John Christy. Lead Author, IPCC:
“I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate; well I am one scientist and there are many who simply think that is not true.”
Prof. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris:
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. it’s not science – it’s propaganda….This claim, that the IPCC is the world’s top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists….Those people who are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists”
Prof. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, THE most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA:
“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
Prof. Patrick Michaels: Dept of Enviromental Sciences, University of Virgina
“The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London:
“It’s become a great industry in itself. And if the whole global warming ferago collapsed, there would be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.”
James Shikwati, Economist & Author:
“One clear thing that emerges from all environmental debate is the point that somebody keen to kill the African Dream, and the African Dream is to develop.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
The Great Global Warming Swindle.. quotes from the first 8 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjGPxZUm52A
NASA climate scientist John Casey: Global Warming is the Greatest Fraud Perpetrated Upon Humanity
“One cannot go to the mainstream media and find the truth – it’s simply not there. What you will find is lies, deceptions, smoke and mirrors all in an attempt to foist an Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development program throughout the world….This is now a major global effort for a new form of one world order.”
“The scientists across the U.S. and across the world who know the truth about the climate cannot and will not tell you the truth, for a lot of reasons, some of which you already know. Power, money, political influence, fear – all of these factor in.”
“Al Gore and company, and the United Nations especially, and all the sustainable development people out of the U.N. and now ensconced in our government structure here in the U.S. believe that what comes out of our tailpipe controls our climate.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Physicist Hal Lewis’ Resignation From The American Physical Society
Excerpt of Physicist Hal Lewis’ resignation letter from the American Physical Society: “For reasons that will soon become clear, my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.”
Tom Hall is trying to stampede the sheep again.
More honesty like this, please?
Allan, Thanks for the reply and the link. I’ll check it out.
Another of my favourite idiot quotes was from Connie Hedegaard, who at the time was the EU Commissioner for climate: Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
How deranged is that? Do something about a theory even if its wrong.
Thank you Keith,
Re this quote:
Another of my favourite idiot quotes was from Connie Hedegaard, who at the time was the EU Commissioner for climate: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
To which, as an energy expert, I would have to answer Ms Hedegaard “Not just NO, but HELL NO!” She could not be more wrong.
Green energy has been a huge costly failure, a disaster at all levels, and a colossal waste of tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been put to better use – to mitigate some of the REAL problems of humanity – not fictitious ones.
Properly allocated, these squandered funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.
Absolutely agree Allen.
There is no consensus that hundreds of years of science can prove or disprove what the climate will do in the future, we are purely a pawn in gods will.
Thank you for taking our side in a war against the immoral, baby murdering leftys, who want nothing but to further their own God hating agenda. Gods peace be to you good sir.
Y’all sound like you know what your talking about… It takes people who have the wisdom of 60-80 years to truly understand what us real Americans want. Y’all should be praised for being the vioce of us true red white blu american stand for.
More leftist extremist nonsense: ‘To fight climate change, we need a dictatorship’.
CLIMATE CHANGE DEMOCRACY DENIERS STRIKE AGAIN
July 22, 2019 By Steven Hayward In Climate, Democracy, Leftism
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/climate-change-democracy-deniers-strike-again.php
[excerpt]
As I’ve been pointing out for more than a decade, the most ominous contradiction of the environmental left these days is the way in which they champion the rights of nature while going along with the rest of the left in denying human nature, let alone the natural rights of humans—which is the central premise of democratic self-government. The result, as I have been warning, is the increasingly open anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian stance of the climatistas.
For example, back in 2009 I noted the work of an Australian philosopher who wrote that “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it.” (And there are more such statements at the link.)
This week Foreign Policy offers the straightforward headline: “Democracy Is the Planet’s Greatest Enemy.”
…
Socialist /communists buy people with their own money and carbon taxes are their Trojan horse .
They know they are destroying the middle class so why not buy the poorest of them with a carbon tax credit .
A little tuque every few months just to buy their vote .
That is exactly what British Columbia is doing … well that in addition to lying through their teeth about how effective carbon taxes are .
Deregulated energy prices largely negate the effects of carbon taxes a a stick . The university socialist that promote the scam know full well t energy demand is inelastic unless prices are raised so high as to get
politicians fired .
But perhaps the biggest fraud is the implication that a reduction in fossil fuel use allows humans to control the earths temperature . A massive lie by people that know better and to the unfortunate massive incidents of fuel poverty deaths . But maybe isn’t that the point .
Socialist /communists buy people with their own money and carbon taxes are their Trojan horse .
They know they are destroying the middle class so why not buy the poorest of them with a carbon tax credit .
A little tuque every few months just to buy their vote .
That is exactly what British Columbia is doing … well that in addition to lying through their teeth about how effective carbon taxes are .
Deregulated energy prices largely negate the effects of carbon taxes a a stick . The university socialist that promote the scam know full well t energy demand is inelastic unless prices are raised so high as to get
politicians fired .
But perhaps the biggest fraud is the implication that a reduction in fossil fuel use allows humans to control the earths temperature . A massive lie by people that know better and to the unfortunate massive incidents of fuel poverty deaths . But maybe isn’t that the point . Population control and a hollowed out middle class .
Isn’t the biggest joke you pay tens of thousands so your kids can go to brain wash school ?