+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    26,741
    Thanked 46,722 times in 9,530 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: AGENDA 21
    Alexandra Bruce of Forbidden Knowledge writes about Rosa Koire's work re Agenda 21
    October 12, 20191
    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/beh...k%3A+Agenda+21
    "It’s funny how so many topics once deemed to be “Tinfoil Hat conspiracy theories” keep getting proven to be worthy of serious attention. Agenda 21, the United Nations’ 1992 plan for Sustainable Development is an example.

    Rosa Koire has been doing an excellent job of raising awareness about Agenda 21 for many years. She describes how it is being rolled-out – never by name. This is carefully avoided. Hence, we’re propagandized about Climate Change and the Green New Deal. She says Agenda 21 programs can be identified by their so-called “communitarian” ethos that is imposed from without by NGOs, circumventing the will of communities and the individuals within.

    Agenda 21 has been getting pushed hard lately in the agitprop of Greta Thunberg and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Among its unrealistic goals, the Green New Deal aims to restructure the entire global energy economy within 10 years by completely “transitioning” the US out of fossil fuels and nuclear energy and into renewables, like wind and solar power.

    What none of its proponents will admit is that this plan requires genocide. As shown by the collapse of Rome and demonstrated repeatedly by successive societies, the halving of energy consumption leads directly to the collapse of human populations.

    As a Bay Area forensic commercial real estate appraiser and expert witness, Rosa Koire observed how property owners in Northern California have been barred from using their own properties, thus making these cheap when the Government wants to acquire them for Eminent Domain.

    While investigating this, Koire ran into Agenda 21 – or as she calls it, “The biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” and how this global plan aims to break down economies and to depopulate areas considered to be rural or suburban, concentrating populations into larger cities.

    “This is the plan. It’s the loss of our industry, our agriculture, our food independence. Ultimately, it’s the loss of our sovereignty, as a free nation…It’s social engineering…it’s the acceptance of what I call the ‘new poverty’.”

    Over two million people in California were left without power this week and several hundred thousand remain without power during a preventive blackout by PG&E lasting several days. The energy company’s promise to make a massive outage like this the new normal will likely drive many people away from the rural areas and thus fulfill the plan of Agenda 21."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (19th October 2019), Bill Ryan (19th October 2019), East Sun (13th October 2019), Hervé (13th October 2019), Ol' Roy (29th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Valerie Villars (28th October 2019)

  3. Link to Post #42
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,853
    Thanked 94,599 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    The man who invented ‘climate change’

    by Robert
    October 18, 2019
    “It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
    – Don Brown
    Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

    In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

    In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

    And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

    Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

    The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

    To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

    Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:
    “In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”
    Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

    Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...te-change.html

    Thanks to Don Brown for this link
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (19th October 2019), Bill Ryan (19th October 2019), Ol' Roy (29th October 2019), onawah (19th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019)

  5. Link to Post #43
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,853
    Thanked 94,599 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Is it climate socialism – or eco-fascism?

    by Robert
    October 27, 2019
    Robert Kennedy Jr., Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and others even want climate and energy dissenters prosecuted and jailed.”
    – Paul Driessen
    _______________
    “Claims that we face an imminent, existential, manmade climate cataclysm – but can prevent it by replacing fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery power – seem to grow more frenzied, desperate and absurd by the week, writes Paul Driessen.

    “The examples noted here at least are more rational than climate change making sharks right-handed or causing bridges to collapse. But they are all being used to justify a multi-trillion-dollar Green New Deal that activists proclaim is Earth-saving climate socialism.”

    “In reality, they are demanding intolerant, totalitarian eco-fascism: an economic and political system that uses environmental fear mongering to justify dictating what businesses can make, do, sell and say – while controlling citizens’ thoughts, speech and access to information. Failure to understand and combat this could put our future in serious jeopardy.”
    ________________

    Is it climate socialism – or eco-fascism?

    By Paul Driessen

    Green New Deal climate alarm socialism is really intolerant, totalitarian eco-fascism

    Green New Dealers have convinced themselves that our planet faces an imminent, existential, manmade climate cataclysm – that can be prevented solely and simply by government edicts replacing fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery energy. They achieve this state of absolute certainty largely by propagating constant scare stories, while ignoring and suppressing contradictory evidence and viewpoints.

    They deliberately and deceptively talk about “carbon pollution.” Carbon is soot – what our cars, factories and power plants now emit in very small quantities. The honest, accurate term is carbon dioxide: the colorless, odorless, invisible gas that we exhale and plants need to grow, by using the tiny but growing 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere that is CO2 to grow faster, better and with greater resistance to droughts.

    They are climate change deniers, who say Earth’s climate is stable and can be kept stable by controlling minor factors (human carbon dioxide and methane emissions) and ignoring water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) and fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, clouds, oceanic circulation, volcanoes, planetary orbits and other powerful natural forces that have brought climate changes throughout history.

    They insist that even another half-degree increase in planetary temperatures since Earth emerged from the Little Ice Age (1350-1850) would be cataclysmic. That’s absurd. They also rely on computer models that project rapidly soaring temperatures – but already claim average global temperatures should be 0.9 degrees F higher than they actually are, according to satellite and weather balloon measurements.

    Climate Crisis True Believers say tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming more frequent and intense. In reality, from 1950-1984, the US averaged 55 violent (F4 to F5) tornadoes every year; but over the next 33 years (1985-2018) only 35 per year. And in 2018, for the first time in recorded history, not one F4-F5 tornado touched down anywhere in the United States. (Is this due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels?)

    Similarly, from 1920 through 2005, fifty-two Category 3 to 5 hurricanes made US landfall (1.6/year on average). And then, from October 2005 until August 2017 – a record twelve years – not one Category 3 to 5 ’cane struck the US mainland. Harvey and Irma ended that hurricane drought in 2017, but were hardly unprecedented in their intensity or rainfall. (Was that drought due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels?)

    The Washington Post reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up … and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” That was in 1922, and explorers wrote about Arctic ice cycles long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.” As to continental USA weather, a commentator said “Snows are less frequent and less deep, and the rivers scarcely ever [freeze over] now.” That was Thomas Jefferson, in 1799. The 1970s manmade global cooling scare was replaced by today’s warming crisis.

    After rising some 400 feet since the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, oceans are rising at 7 to 10 inches per century. That’s a minimal threat to coastal communities, some of which are more seriously threatened by land subsidence – including Chesapeake Bay lands (Maryland), Hampton Roads (Virginia), Houston and Miami. There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise in more than a century.

    Seawaters cannot become “more acidic.” They are slightly alkaline. They may be getting slightly less alkaline, depending on where and when pH levels are measured. But they are not becoming acidic.

    Coral bleaching can result from pollution but is mostly natural, caused by coral animals ejecting their symbiotic zooxanthellae single-celled dinoflagellates, when seawaters become warmer or colder. Corals replace them with new species better adapted to the new temperatures – and then recover their former color and glory, as they have in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Hawaii’s reefs and elsewhere. Corals also grow as seas rise, just as they have since the last Pleistocene Ice Age, creating today’s splendid reefs.

    Polar bears are at their highest population levels in memory: as many as 31,000 of them. They’ve survived multiple ice ages, interglacial periods and warming episodes. They are hardly endangered.

    We face no climate crisis, no unprecedented warming, climate or extreme weather threat – manmade or natural. Equally important, proposals to replace fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery power would be far more ecologically destructive than their climate crisis – and would severely harm food supplies, nutrition, jobs, living standards, health and life spans, in rich and poor countries alike.

    For the United States alone, replacing 100% of US gasoline and petrochemical feed stocks with ethanol would require some 700 million acres of biotech corn. That’s four times the land area of Texas turned into biofuel corn plantations – or soy/canola farms for biodiesel – leaving little land for food and wildlife.

    Let’s suppose we’re going to use wind power to replace: the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours of electricity that Americans consumed in 2018, coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and gasoline-powered vehicles. We’ll also use wind turbines to generate enough extra electricity, every windy day, to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days.

    We’ll also account for electricity loss along lengthy transmission lines, and every time we charge and discharge batteries. As we erect turbines in steadily lower quality wind locations, instead of generating full nameplate power maybe 33% of the year, on average, they will do so only 16% of the year.

    Instead of the 58,000 we have now, the United States would need some 14 million 400-foot-tall turbines, each one capable of generating 1.8 megawatts at full capacity, when the wind is blowing at the proper speed. Each turbine would need about 120 acres of open space and access roads, as at BP’s 50,000-acre Fowler Ridge wind energy factory in Indiana. That would total 1.7 billion acres – ten times the area of Texas … or most of the Lower 48 United States! Plus thousands of miles of new transmission lines!

    Their bird-butchering blades would wipe out raptors, other birds and bats across much of America. Would Extinction Rebellion go apoplectic? or not give a spotted owl hoot, since wind turbines are “eco-friendly”?

    Manufacturing those wind turbines would require something on the order of 15 billion tons of steel, copper, rare earth metals, concrete, petroleum-based composites, gravel and other raw materials. Extracting them would require a hundredfold increase in global mining: removing hundreds of billions of tons of earth and rock overburden, and crushing and processing tens of billions of tons of ore.

    Imagine the cumulative land use, eminent domain, property rights, environmental and wildlife impacts.

    Using batteries to replace coal and gas-fired backup power plants for intermittent, weather-dependent wind facilities would require some one billion 100-kilowatt-hour, 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based Tesla battery packs – and still more mining and raw materials. And that doesn’t include extra battery storage for the cars, trucks and buses that Green New Dealers want to replace with electric vehicles.

    Climate Crisis True Believers proudly proclaim themselves environmental socialists, while obstinately ignoring and suppressing these climate and energy realities. They certainly promote a political-economic system under which central government controls the means of production, while limiting private property rights or replacing them with communal ownership. That’s classic socialism.

    Eco-fascism
    But what they really want is eco-fascism: an even more extreme and intolerant system under which an authoritarian national or international government does not own businesses and industries outright, but dictates what they can make, do, sell and say – while redistributing wealth and property, employing laws, intimidation, and Antifa-style violence to control people’s thinking, speech and access to information.

    Along with Google, Face Book, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, universities and the “mainstream” media – they try to censor, marginalize, ostracize, disinvite, shadow-ban, electronic book burn, and algorithm-eradicate differing, alternative, contrarian evidence, analyses and viewpoints on energy and climate.

    They got Dr. Peter Ridd fired for exposing fabrications about the Great Barrier Reef’s demise – and Dr. Susan Crockford cashiered for daring to challenge bogus claims about polar bears. Robert Kennedy Jr., Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and others even want climate and energy dissenters prosecuted and jailed.

    We must keep speaking truth to power – to ensure that our future is not compromised by climate lies.
    Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many books, reports and articles on energy, climate and environmental issues.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (28th October 2019), Jayke (5th November 2019), Valerie Villars (28th October 2019)

  7. Link to Post #44
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,398
    Thanks
    14,876
    Thanked 6,344 times in 1,253 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Click image for larger version

Name:	A4C75456-A45F-40F8-95B6-E8F080733D91.jpeg
Views:	6
Size:	157.4 KB
ID:	41751


    This alleged policy leak is a give-away

    Effectively the leaders of extinction rebellion are telling their foot soldiers to prepare for conditions of such chaos that their citizen assemblies will be able to run things

    They expect chaos.

    What would create it?

    Greta has given us a clue when she talks about wanting to see the line of co2 emissions dipping within a year, and when she describes eternal economic growth as a myth. They are preparing to attack the actual economic process itself.

    Let’s say you drastically curtail air travel or hike fuel prices. Social cohesion and stability generally break down very quickly when these systems are altered too quickly

    If you are a panicked youth without a grasp of the sensitivity and vulnerability of our economic support systems you might cause huge damage for little gain

    That is why any push back against this new fascism needs to be based on utilising the market to find tech solutions ASAP , but also a more socialistic holistic strategic approach.

    Even if we think that the climate will cool soon, it might be better to comply with some of their demands to avoid more militancy. Even peaceful
    Protesters can bring a modern economy to a halt if they are determined
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Hervé (28th October 2019), Joe (4th November 2019)

  9. Link to Post #45
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,853
    Thanked 94,599 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    A repost from (here):

    Could there be another reason for electricity shutdowns in California?

    Richard Trzupek The Epoch Times
    Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:00 UTC


    Wind turbines in California © David McNew/Getty Images

    According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shut down substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

    Citing high wind speeds they described as "historic," the utility claims that if they didn't turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to their infrastructure could start more wildfires in the area.

    Perhaps that's true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E's transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

    Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there's much about this story that doesn't smell right — and it's disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

    Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: "A PG&E meteorologist said it's 'likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,' which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire."

    Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There's a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break the grid can still function.

    So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure is not the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E's heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don't have the power to send when an "historic" weather event occurs?

    Wind Speed Limits
    The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations. With solar power the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One does not generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

    The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 mph wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the "cut-in speed." To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the "cut-out speed," and it's about 55 mph for most modern wind turbines.

    It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there's a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

    The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which in turn allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there's a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That's the cut-out speed.

    Now consider how California's power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources — fossil fuels and nuclear — in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

    By 2018, the state's renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That's a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it would not be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn't stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn't have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines.
    About the Author:
    Richard Trzupek is a chemist and environmental consultant as well as an analyst at The Heartland Institute. He is also the author of Regulators Gone Wild: How the EPA Is Ruining American Industry.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Jayke (5th November 2019), Joe (4th November 2019), Sammy (4th November 2019), Valerie Villars (4th November 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts