+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

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

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member Hym's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2011
    Location
    Eastern Pacific
    Posts
    525
    Thanks
    7,222
    Thanked 3,124 times in 502 posts

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

    Time to put another log in the fireplace....

    I'm wondering if both of the folks with EHSensitivites considered locating the inverters farther away from the living spaces they have and if that would make a difference. I know it is not common to do so, but sometimes self-reliance needs to be met with a measure of research and looking for options to find a healthy medium.

    I would not consider adding any solar or other electrical equipment in my residence without investing in the tools to measure each current produced. Those common practices of building with renewable energy resources often do not consider measuring the human body and EM fields in the process. I see this lack of investigation as negligent and short sided, resulting in some unforeseen but probable health consequences. We should incorporate such practices in building with renewable resources, maybe adding those measurements as code requiremen.

    I've yet to afford the devices recommended to me by Dr.Samuel Milham for measuring the EM fields produced by anything, but will surely have some fun researching it all when I do buy them. His book "Dirty Electricity" should be a primer for anyone exposing themselves to anything with an EM field, thus most everyone.

    Here is a little on Dr.Milham, who is an MD with an MPH, a Masters Degree in Public Health:

    "Dr. Samuel Milham is a physician-epidemiologist specializing in public health. He has more than one hundred scientific publications, many dealing with the health effects of electricity. In 1997, Dr. Milham was awarded the Ramazzini prize for his pioneering work in describing the occupational cancer risks of electromagnetic fields."

    I highly recommend his book "Dirty Electricity" as a way to begin your introduction to health as it relates to the intrusion and inclusion of EMFs in our lives. When I asked Dr. Milham about the safety of electrical vehicles in relation to our bodies he said that those he tested were very "dirty", meaning very unhealthy for anyone to drive in such an EM field. Does anyone trust that any of the electrical and hybrid car makers would reveal the truth to the public, or that they have done the applicable discovery relative to our health?
    Last edited by Hym; 14th February 2019 at 02:26.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hym For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th May 2019), Hervé (14th February 2019), Jayke (27th May 2019), Krist (27th May 2019), latte (9th April 2019), Tree Of Life (14th February 2019)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member Tree Of Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th November 2018
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 108 times in 16 posts

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

    Quote Posted by TrumanCash (here)
    I went to an Electro Hypersensitivity Meeting (EHS) this weekend and listened to two people who became so hypersensitive to EMF that they had to move out to the country and live off the grid. These two people had never met before this weekend but had similar stories to tell.

    They both had put up solar panels to furnish their electric needs and found that the electricity was too "dirty" to use because of the inverters.

    Want some low tech "green" energy?--How about putting another log on the fire? (But just make sure the log isn't "green".)
    Yes!!
    This is 100% correct!

    Although I was warned about the extra costs of long DC wire runs from my panels to my large 24V inverter, I decided to invest the extra $ and place my inverter, battery array, charge controller, etc. in a special utility room at the far end of my home, isolated from my living quarters for the very reason you mention above.

    I had already experimented with some smaller units, and disliked the 'hum' constantly produced when they are powered up, and could definitely sense the electrical field when the battery charger inside the inverter was connected to my generator. In the utility room, they don't bother me at all!

    Sometimes you have to ignore the consultants and use common sense.

    My solar panels are also located 150' away from my house, and the long DC run of copper wire is buried deep in the ground in conduit.

    I have adjusted my power usage down to an average of .5 Kwh per day, so most of the time, my inverter is on 'idle', and only becomes active when an appliance or light is turned on. Every room in my house has at least one window, so natural lighting is my mainstay.

    One more thing... here in north Idaho, birch wood is sometimes used for firewood, and is burned green. In fact, it must be split when green, or the task becomes almost impossible when cured dry! Lol!

    Cheers!

    TOL

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Tree Of Life For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th May 2019), Hervé (14th February 2019), Hym (15th February 2019), Jayke (27th May 2019), Krist (27th May 2019), latte (9th April 2019), TrumanCash (14th February 2019)

  5. Link to Post #23
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    Beware Agenda 21 And Its Green New Deal: Plundering The World Under The Guise of 'Sustainable Development'

    Geraldine Perry Dissident Voice
    Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00 UTC


    Word to the Wise: Beware the Green New Deal!

    Beware Agenda 21 and its Green New Deal!

    Seemingly overnight, the Green New Deal has arrived. Given the sorry state of our environment, what possible objections could there be? In this case, plenty - and they all trace back to the Green New Deal's deeply complex and surreptitious ties to UN Agenda 21.

    Those who claim that Agenda 21 amounts to little more than a right-wing rant or is somehow anti-Semitic are at best seriously misinformed. Those who buy into the carefully crafted jargon of Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Redevelopment and the Green New Deal are similarly misinformed and need to know that the environmental movement has in fact been highjacked by the Agenda 21 plan.

    First, Some Background
    Journalist Thomas L. Friedman is sometimes credited with being the original source for the term "Green New Deal" because in two 2007 articles, in the New York Times and The New York Times Magazine, Friedman connected FDR's "New Deal" to a new "green" economy, suggesting that this might provide an economic stimulus program that could address economic inequality and climate change at the same time. Almost prophetically, Friedman also argued in earlier writings that an "iron fist inside a velvet glove" would be needed to maintain the coming new world order.

    The same year the Friedman articles came out, the Green New Deal Group was formed. By July of 2008 this group came out with its Green New Deal Report which was originally published by the New Economics Foundation. A few months later, in October of 2008, Adam Steiner, who was Executive Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNEP), unveiled the Global Green New Deal Initiative, the objective of which was to rescue the failing global economy by creating jobs in "green" industries, "funded" of course by the big banks.

    Then, following the example set by the European Greens in 2006, the United States Green Party adopted a Green New Deal platform in 2010. To its everlasting credit, the U.S. Green Party has also placed monetary reform as one of its core planks, ending the banking system's privilege of creating the nation's money (as credit or debt) and returning the monetary privilege to the government where it belongs, without which reform no other reforms are possible. Other political parties would do well to adopt this most important objective, since this is the true heart of "populism" historically. However, the vast bulk of the Green Party's Green New Deal platform bears a marked (and troubling) resemblance to the Green New Deal as set out through the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program.

    Most recently, a twenty-nine-year-old freshman Congresswoman from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has overnight managed to not only make national headlines but garner the full attention of Congress, a feat never before accomplished by one so young and so soon in office. It was her promotion of the Green New Deal that seems to have garnered her such sudden fame. But the so-called legislation she has been promoting is in reality a "draft text" that calls for a proposed addendum for House Rules: it changes the rules and creates a new process for the allocation of power, all while echoing almost verbatim United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. As a recent article in Technocracy News says, with a complete version of AOC's "bill" included: "Its scope and mandate for legislative authority amounts to a radical grant of power to Washington over Americans' lives, homes, businesses, travel, banking, and more." Dr. Naomi Wolf confirms by going over the document point by point.

    The Green New Deal is in fact a part of a global sustainable development program that was officially rolled out at the "Earth Summit" held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Out of that summit came Agenda 21 Earth Summit: The United Nations Program of Action from Rio, a 354-page document that can be purchased at online book retailers or downloaded in pdf format from the UN website.


    Agenda 21 has been updated to include Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and its offshoot the Global Green New Deal, which is a program that was commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program, or UNEP for short, mentioned above. A map and outline of "partners" reveals just how deeply embedded in global thinking this program has become. Effectively, Agenda 21 provides the template while Agenda 2030 gives the goals for achieving "sustainable development".

    Inasmuch as Sustainable Goal 13 is about Climate Action, it is worth noting that in 2009 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) set up an unelected international climate regime with authority to dictate land use, relocate "human settlements" and directly intervene in the financial, economic, health care, education, tax and environmental affairs of all nations signing the treaty. One must wonder why upwards of $100 billion has been spent on promotion of the current global warming model yet next to no discussion is devoted to natural forcing agents such as solar and cosmic radiation, volcanoes, clouds, water vapor, and grand solar minimums - even though these have been well-documented in the scientific literature to have significant impact on climate. Nor have funds been committed to disseminating information about military weather warfare or other long-standing geoengineering projects and their effect on climate. Yet at least five geoengineering Solar Radiation advocates co-authored the section covering contrails in the 2007 IPCC report.

    As uncovered by prominent activist Rosa Koire, Sustainable Development was originally created and defined by the United Nations in 1987. President George Herbert Walker Bush, along with leaders from 178 other nations, signed the "Action Plan" unveiled at Rio in 1992.

    This plan is anchored by the political philosophy of Communitarianism, which effectively establishes a new legal system used by regional and local governments affiliated with the emerging global government, circumventing national law via a program of "balancing." Implemented by a relatively small self-appointed group of decision-makers and influencers who achieve "consensus" among themselves rather than through the public voting process, this philosophy holds that the individual's rights are a threat to the global community. In practice, the consistent rallying cry "for the greater good" is defined any way that suits those in power.


    Within six months of his election in 1992, former President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852, thus creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development, or PCSD. This Council ran for six years, 1993-1999. Its members included Cabinet Secretaries for Transportation, Agriculture, Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, Energy, Interior, and Defense. CEO's of various businesses, such as Enron, Pacific Gas & Electric, BP Amoco, Dow Chemical and others were also included, as were environmental organizations, including the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, among others.

    To further facilitate the transition, Clinton awarded the American Planning Association a multi-million dollar grant to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in the U.S. Completed in 2002, this blueprint is entitled Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. As Koire tells us, this guidebook is being used in every university, college and government planning office in the nation. And as part of the Common Core program for the younger set, former Vice President Al Gore helped write Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children's Edition of Agenda 21.

    In 2012 "H Concurrent Resolution 353" was discussed by the U.S. Congress. A short, 8-minute video clip shows various members, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rising in support of H CON Res 353, which "expressed the sense of the Congress that the U.S. should take a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Rio Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to install Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic and foreign policy."

    As Koire relates, the clear goal of these initiatives was, and is, to change public policy to bring it into alignment with the Agenda 21 plan.

    Implementation and Implications
    Agenda 21 is a global plan that is to be implemented locally via "soft law". Despite the fact that this agenda would have far-reaching material impact on each and every one of us, the U.S. citizenry has not been given the opportunity to study or vote on any of the various facets of Agenda 21. Moreover, the vast majority, out of deep concern for the planet, are effectively neutralized by the jargon, buzz words and slogans with purposely obscure definitions, all of which are dreamt up by the best PR firms money can buy. Perhaps even worse, as Rosa Koire, who has experienced negative ramifications in her Santa Rosa community, writes in Behind the Green Mask:
    The irony is that UN Agenda 21 mandates 'more' citizen involvement but does it by creating so many boards, commissions, regional agencies, non-profits, meetings and programs that it is impossible to stay on top of what is happening. We're too burned out to fight more than one issue at a time. So we become, necessarily, more fragmented, less of a neighborhood, exhausted and isolated because we can't keep up. The so-called citizen involvement is dictated by phony neighborhood groups with paid lobbyists and facilitators running them. The boards and commissions are chosen based on 'team players' or shills selected to push through an end game by running over the few actual unconnected citizens. These groups are the 'prescreening groups' for candidates for public office. THEY are the ones who get donations at election time. It's doubtful that anyone will get on the ballot who doesn't play ball.
    There were 17 official sustainable development goals (or SDGs) for the new 2030 Agenda that was universally adopted by nations around the world at the United Nations plenary meeting in New York on September 25, 2015. These SDGs do not replace Agenda 21. The 2030 Agenda clearly states, "We reaffirm all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities."



    A short article, titled 'Agenda 2030 Translator: How to Read the UN's New Sustainable Development Goals', unveils some of the actual consequences of the Agenda. To start you off, Goal 1 as stated: End Poverty in all its forms everywhere. Goal 1 as translated: Centralized banks, IMF, World Bank, Fed to control all finances. Goal 2 as stated: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Goal 2 as translated: GMOs. And so on.

    Another article titled simply Agenda 21 shows how, big 'S', Sustainable Development will affect the farmer:
    If you own livestock and they can drink from a creek, then they want you to permanently fence off your own land to prevent any upset of potential fish habitat... Agenda 21 focuses on the goal of eliminating meat consumption and using pastures to grow wheat, corn and soy for human consumption. To get us to comply, we're told in endless propaganda campaigns that meat is dangerous and the vegan lifestyle is the only healthy alternative... "Grazing livestock" is listed as "unsustainable" in the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report. In the same document, agriculture and private property are listed as "unsustainable." All the private property and water rights infringements we have been seeing come directly out of the Sustainable Development programs. They come in a wide variety of names to throw people off, such as Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management, Smart Growth, and so forth.

    The local government implementation of Agenda 21 was prepared by ICLEI (which stands for International Council for Local Environment Initiatives) for the Earth Council's Rio+5 Forum held April 13-19, 1997, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; for the 5th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; and for the UN General Assembly's 'Earth Summit+5' Special Session. Out of this came The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, put out by ICLEI and the United Nations.

    Resilient Cities are part of ICLEI. According to its website the organization was founded in 2010 by ICLEI (now known as Local Governments for Sustainability), the affiliated World Mayors Council on Climate Change and the similarly affiliated City of Bonn, Germany. Resilient Cities is billed as the first forum on cities and adaptation to climate change. In 2012 Resilient Cities was renamed the Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaptation.

    Smart Growth, Smart Cities and 5G
    Smart Growth and Smart Cities are also part of the 'sustainability' plan as evidenced by their lofty-sounding goals, which somehow fail to look at 'new' energy or even non-industrial hemp as a soil-rebuilding, environment-friendly way to provide a sizable portion of the nation's energy needs; which fail to understand the crucial importance of restoring carbon-rich humus to the soil via holistic livestock management and other forms of regenerative agriculture; which somehow rely on the big banks and a flotilla of 'investors' rather than doing the obvious by reforming the nation's monetary system; and which, as Koire and others correctly assert, can only lead to totalitarianism in the end.

    The explosive, worldwide rollout of 5G networks "makes Smart Cities a reality," despite recognized and significant associated health risks. By September of 2018, thanks to an FCC ruling and carrier lobbying, twenty states, seemingly under cover of night, had already passed legislation to strip their cities of the power to regulate 5G rollouts. The FCC ruling in particular has sparked considerable push-back, because not only will the FCC's move force taxpayers to subsidize industry access to publicly-owned infrastructure but, as chief information officer for New York City Samir Saini declared:
    "the FCC is threatening the public's right to control public property, and dozens of cities, states, and towns from New York City to Lincoln, Nebraska, to Anchorage, Alaska, are ready to defend that right on behalf of our residents and taxpayers."

    The FCC

    On top of all this we now find that the "tsunami" of data collection enabled by 5G could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025. As most know, wind and solar (both of which also have significant environmental and land use problems) just won't cut it, and especially so with 5G.

    An Endless Web of Carefully-Branded Commissions, Boards, Agencies and Programs
    Other groups and organizations tied to Agenda 21 continue to proliferate. These organizations include those that formulate 'Climate Action Plans' now being adopted by local communities worldwide. The Center for Climate Solutions is one such organization and the California-based Institute for local Government is another. You can google your state, city or county plus "Climate Action Plan and Resilient Plan" to learn more about how this is taking place in your own community. You can bet that none of them include alternative forms of 'new' energy (including soil building non-industrial hemp) or regenerative (carbon-sequestering) agriculture, which can only be properly practiced by small producers.

    A sample of Agenda 21 plans tailored for North American cities: [see here for a sample of the cities on board]

    An offshoot of the Regional Planning Association is America 2050, whose focus is on planning for the emergence of mega-regions, or high density urban areas, along with infrastructure development, with the aim of "shaping the infrastructure investment plan" and "providing leadership on a broad range of transportation, sustainability, and economic-development issues impacting America's growth in the 21st century." FEMA feeds into the development of mega-regions through its Hazard Mitigation Program, by which it, as well as the HUD, provides grants to assist - at taxpayer expense - state and local communities with the purchase of properties located in high fire risk, high flood risk, high erosion risk, high mudslide risk areas.

    'Redevelopment' is another important and mis-leading buzzword, as it in truth represents an "unknown government" which, among other things, uses eminent domain for private gain, not 'the greater good', despite claims to the contrary. As Koire writes in Behind the Green Mask:
    A little 40-page book titled Redevelopment: The Unknown Government put out by the California Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform lays out the ugly truth with charts, cartoons and hard data... Supported by powerful lobbyist groups fronting bond-brokers, lawyers, and debt consultants, the trend of designating more and more redevelopment areas is also supported by government agency staff members and private businesses that profit from redevelopment. Diverting property taxes to these bloodsuckers is big business: by 2006 redevelopment agencies statewide (in California) had amassed $81 billion in bonded indebtedness, a figure that is doubling every 10 years. And don't think that this is only in California - it's in nearly every city and county in the United States. Because the agencies can sell bonded debt without voter approval (unlike school boards) and the city's general fund is responsible for any over-extended debt, these are cash cows for bond brokerage firms.
    Other organizations tasked with promoting 'sustainable development' and its corollary the 'Green New Deal' include the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development or OECD, and the World Resources Institute.


    Hillary Clinton Addresses a meeting of the World Resources Institute

    Food Production and Food Choice
    The World Resources Institute recently published Creating a Sustainable Food Future, which was produced "in partnership with the World Bank, UN Environment (UNEP), UN Development Programme and the French agricultural research agencies CIRAD and INRA." On its publication announcement page, it asks whether we will be able to produce enough food sustainably to feed the estimated 10 billion people that will exist on the planet by 2050.

    As explained in fair detail in my book Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy, the answer is a resounding yes! Contrary to Agenda 21 fears, we will be able to sustainably feed, conservatively, 20 to 30 billion people worldwide if we change the way we do agriculture, which MUST include holistically managed livestock. In so doing we will dramatically reduce the amount of land now devoted to industrial agricultural systems and the amount of pollution generated by such systems - all while putting carbon back in the soil where it is needed to sustain life on this planet.

    At first glance the above-mentioned World Resources report also seems to agree, as indicated by this 2018 headline in a San Francisco Chronicle article titled 'New Report Urges Drastic Changes in Food Production and Consumption'. The article goes on to summarize the report's version of 'sustainability':
    The core recommendations of the 96-page report line up with many of the innovations that are already happening, sometimes at a small scale, at many Bay Area farms, food companies and tech startups. That includes the development of plant-based meat substitutes, companies and local governments that focus on reducing food waste, and farms that are making changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... The report calls on governments to fund research and development and to provide "flexible regulations" for new technology such as plant-based meat substitutes and innovations in plant breeding like genetic editing... Individuals should make changes to their diets, too, the authors say, especially in wealthy countries like the United States where the majority of animal-based foods are eaten ... A lot of the technological advances the report urges are happening in the Bay Area. The region has become a global hub for the creation of plant-based meat substitutions, including those made by Impossible Foods of Redwood City... A new batch of companies is developing lab-grown or "cultured" meat that will be made of chicken, beef or fish tissue from cells but won't require raising or killing animals.

    Not fit for animal, much less human, consumption


    Green Grabbing, The Best Way to Save Nature Is to Sell It
    The 1992 Rio Earth Summit spawned a series of world summits on sustainable development sponsored by the UN. In 2012 the 20th anniversary of the Rio summit was dubbed Rio + 20. Its focus was the Green Economy with the specific purpose of ushering in global economic growth by putting market values on environmental services and environmentally-friendly production and consumption. This plan led to the term 'green grabbing', which refers to the appropriation of land and resources - purportedly for environmental ends. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that, as this article in Bloomberg suggests, Wall Street Is More Than Willing to Fund the Green New Deal.

    Some illustrative excerpts which were taken from a 2012 article titled 'Green Grabbing Our Future at Rio + 20', appeared in my book Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy. The article was originally posted on the Food First website, and was written by Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First. Some excerpts:
    The Rio process itself has been steadily privatized under the weight of 20 years of neoliberal globalization. As the global contradictions between economy and environment have intensified, nature itself is becoming a source of profit... What was once a state-oriented, regulatory framework has morphed into a market-based, corporate initiative.

    The corporate trend to privatize and commercialize ecosystem services and resources in the name of environmental protection is known as "green grabbing" as these schemes can result in local communities losing resource rights... It is the favored approach of the big conservation organizations like World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International (CI) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), who have thus guaranteed their place at the Rio+20 negotiating table alongside neoliberal governments and powerful multinational business interests.

    The Green Economy concept that determines the content of all submissions [for the Zero draft report] was itself created by a group led by Pavan Sukhdev, a former senior banker from Deutsche Bank and head of UNEP's Green Economy Initiative. This is a reflection of a long trend in partnering between the CBD, big environmental organizations and corporate representatives i.e. the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, the International Chamber of Commerce, CI, WWF, IUCN etc.

    The dubious justification for bringing nature to Wall Street - where credits and shares of ecosystem services, biodiversity derivatives, avoided emissions and even wildlife species banking can be chopped up, repackaged and resold along with debt, mortgages, hedge funds and the like - is that the best way to save nature is to sell it. In doing so, we are told, we will grow the economy and this in turn will benefit the poor, thus ending poverty and hunger."
    Summing It Up



    In practical terms, Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally through ICLEI (and other bodies and organs) using "soft law". The following excerpts from an article titled 'UN's Agenda 21 Targets Your Mayor' provide a useful example of how local implementation occurs:
    From June 1 through 5, 2005, the city of San Francisco was the site of an international conference called "World Environment Day." But the agenda of this conference was much bigger than just another hippy dance in the park. This meeting of the global elite had a specific target and an agenda with teeth. The goal was the full implementation of the UN's Agenda 21 policy called Sustainable Development, a ruling principle for top-down control of every aspect of our lives - from food, to health care, to community development, and beyond. This time, the target audience is our nation's mayors. The UN's new tactic, on full display at this conference, is to ignore federal and state governments and go straight to the roots of American society. Think globally - act locally.

    Here's a quick look at a few of the 21 agenda actions called for. Under the topic of energy, action item number one calls for mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of "renewable" energy by 10% within seven years. Renewable energy includes solar and wind power.

    Not stated in the UN documents is the fact that in order to meet the goal, a community would have to reserve thousands of acres of land to set up expensive solar panels or even more land for wind mills. Consider that it takes a current 50-megawatt gas-fired generating plant about 2-5 acres of land to produce its power. Yet to create that same amount of power through the use of solar panels would require at least 1,000 acres. Using wind mills to generate 50 megawatts would require over 4,000 acres of land, while chopping up birds and creating a deafening roar. The cost of such "alternative" energy to the community would be vastly prohibitive. Yet, such unworkable ideas are the environmentally-correct orders of the day that the mayors are being urged to follow."
    Rosa Koire, mentioned earlier, sums up the end game on her website Democrats Against Agenda 21:
    The problem that almost no one sees is that UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world. Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is about Inventory and Control!
    Beware Agenda 21 and its Green New Deal!
    About the author
    Geraldine Perry is the co-author of The Two Faces of Money and author of Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy: The New Trifecta. Read other articles by Geraldine, or visit Geraldine's website.

    Related:
    "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 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (19th May 2019), Bill Ryan (27th May 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (21st May 2019), Hym (20th May 2019), Jayke (27th May 2019), Krist (27th May 2019), latte (9th April 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019), seko (2nd June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #24
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    ...

    ... Common Core sense...


    "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.

  8. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (19th May 2019), Bill Ryan (27th May 2019), Blacklight43 (19th May 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (21st May 2019), Deux Corbeaux (5th June 2019), Ernie Nemeth (19th May 2019), Hym (20th May 2019), Jayke (27th May 2019), Krist (27th May 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019), Satori (2nd June 2019), seko (2nd June 2019)

  9. Link to Post #25
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    $13 million solar plant shut down in Medicine Hat after it couldn't meet energy demands

    Cosmin Dzsurdzsa The Post Millenial
    Mon, 27 May 2019 09:35 UTC



    (Alberta, Canada) - A solar power plant intended on testing the feasibility of solar energy was shut down after the cost to maintain the facility didn't justify the plant's energy output.

    The plant which was poised to add one megawatt of additional power to the city's energy capacity often didn't meet its intended goal. Maintenance during the summer and winter months ended up being too costly for the long term.

    According to city Councillor Phil Turnbull the low price of natural gas and the high upkeep was the reason behind the city's decision to terminate the project.
    "I think people sometimes look at what we did and say, 'What a waste of money.' But it wouldn't have been a waste if it had been successful in taking it to the next step," claimed Turnbull.
    The plant operated for approximately five years and was created using federal, provincial and municipal funding.


    Related:
    "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 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (2nd June 2019), Bill Ryan (27th May 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (27th May 2019), Hym (2nd June 2019), Krist (27th May 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019), Satori (2nd June 2019), seko (2nd June 2019)

  11. Link to Post #26
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    We shouldn't be surprised renewables make energy expensive since that's always been the Greens' goal

    Michael Shellenberger Forbes
    Tue, 28 May 2019 11:35 UTC



    Germany's Ska Keller of the European Green Party, May 15, 2019.

    The Green Party's success in last weekend's European elections will likely result in demands to expand and extend decades-old subsidies to renewables.

    Like a lot of people, I used to think that subsidies to promote the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind would be a one-time thing.

    Once a solar or wind farm was built, I thought, it would produce electricity forever, without further subsidy, because sunlight and wind are free.

    Renewables would thus allow a "sustainable" and even "circular" economy without waste or mining because everything would be recycled.

    But it turns out that only nuclear can produce sufficient clean energy to power a circular economy.

    That's partly because nuclear plants have seen their efficiency increase dramatically. Nuclear plants used to operate for just 50% of the year. Now, thanks to greater experience in operations and maintenance, they operate 93% of the year.

    Nuclear plants were expected to run for 40 years, but thanks to greater experience, they're expected to run for 80. And simple changes to equipment allowed the amount of power produced by existing nuclear plants in the US to increase the equivalent of adding eight full-sized reactors.

    By contrast, the output of solar panels declines one percent every year, for inherently physical reasons, and they as well as wind turbines are replaced roughly every two decades.

    As for circularity, solar panels and wind turbines are rarely recycled because the energy and labor required to do so are much more expensive than just buying raw materials.

    As a result, the vast majority of solar panels and wind turbines are either sent to landfills or join the global electronic waste stream where they are dumped on poor communities in developing nations.

    And that's just at the level of the solar and wind equipment. At a societal level, the value of energy from solar and wind declines the more of it we add to the electrical grid.

    The underlying reason is physical. Solar and wind produce too much energy when we don't need it and not enough when we do.

    In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity.

    Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

    In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California's electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables.

    In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state's electricity.

    And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States.

    The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high.

    Two weeks ago, Der Spiegel reported that Germany spent $36 billion per year on renewables over the last five years, and yet only increased the share of electricity from solar and wind by 10 percentage points.

    It's been a similar story in the US. "All in all," wrote the University of Chicago economists, "consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy."

    Some renewable energy advocates protest that more evidence is needed to prove that it is renewables and not some hidden factor that is making electricity expensive.

    But there is a growing consensus among economists and independent analysts that solar and wind are indeed making electricity more expensive for two reasons: they are unreliable, thus requiring 100% back-up, and energy-dilute, thus requiring extensive land, transmission lines, and mining.

    After The Los Angeles Times failed to plainly connect the dots between California's simultaneous rise in electricity prices and renewables, a leading economist with the University of California pointed out the obvious.
    "The story of how California's electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one," James Bushnell wrote, but "the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation."
    Renewables Are For Degrowth
    We shouldn't be surprised that renewables are making energy expensive. For as long as Greens have been advocating renewables they have viewed their high cost as a feature, not a bug.

    Environmentalists have for decades argued that energy is too cheap and must be made more expensive in order to protect the environment.

    Greens viewed energy as the source of humankind's destruction of the natural world and sought to restrict energy supplies in order to slow and eventually reverse the destruction.

    Indeed, the reason environmentalists turned against nuclear energy in the 1960s was that it was cheap and effectively infinite.

    In the early 1970s, the Sierra Club's Executive Director advocated scaring the public about nuclear to increase regulations to make it more expensive. And that's what his organization, and many others, proceeded to do over the next four decades.

    But Greens got the relationship between energy and the environment backward.

    As people consume higher levels of energy the overall environmental impact is overwhelmingly positive, not negative. As we consume greater amounts of energy we can live in cities, stop using wood as fuel, and afford to have fewer children.

    And as humans use more energy for agriculture in the form of tractors and fertilizers, we are able to grow more food on less land, allowing marginal lands to return to grasslands, forests, and wildlife.

    Over time, rising electricity consumption, such as for high-speed trains in population-dense places like Europe and Asia, drives the transition from fossil fuels to zero-emissions nuclear.

    Engineers and other critics of renewables often assume Greens are simply misinformed. Many if not most of them are. I certainly was.

    Few university environmental studies students today, for example, ever learn of the mostly positive relationship between rising energy consumption and environmental protection.

    Fewer learn that the energy density of the fuel, whether wood, coal, sunlight, wind or uranium, determine energy's environmental impact.

    Because sunlight is energy-dilute, solar panels are the most extractive of all energy resources, requiring 17 times the resources as nuclear while returning just 2% the energy invested.

    But the ideologically-driven leadership of European Greens and American environmentalists knows renewables make energy expensive and view raising energy prices as a high priority.

    In 1994, then-Vice President Al Gore pushed an energy tax as a central plank in the Clinton administration's environmental agenda, which later evolved into a complicated and corrupt "cap and trade" proposal. Such taxes hurt the poor the most and were wildly unpopular.

    As energy taxes failed politically, environmentalists in the US and Greens in Europe focused instead on subsidizing or mandating renewables.

    At bottom, renewables make electricity expensive by returning so little energy relative to the energy invested. For instance, solar panels with storage deliver just 1.6 times as much energy as is invested as compared to the 75 times more energy delivered with nuclear.

    Greens and environmentalists also seek to make food, another form of energy, more expensive. They do so by making agriculture more labor-intensive, land-intensive, and resource-intensive.

    Moving to organics, as Greens demand, and away from synthetic fertilizer to manure, would require doubling the amount of land required for agriculture. Currently, humans use a whopping 38% of the ice-free surface of the earth for agriculture.

    Moving to organics would thus decimate the 15% of the ice-free surface of the Earth that humans have to date protected for wildlife conservation, and destroy much beyond that, too.

    Making farming more labor-intensive would take humankind back toward an agrarian economy where far more people work in farming, and everybody is much poorer.

    Unlike the original New Deal, a Green New Deal would thus result in what Greens call "de-growth," not growth.

    The idea of de-growth came out of efforts by Malthusian Greens in the 1960s and 70s to persuade developing nations to cede control of their natural resources to Earth scientists under the auspices of the United Nations.

    Originally the Green Party in Britain advocated "deindustrialization, a return to living in small peasant communities, the sterilization of women and an end to all immigration."

    It was only in the last decade that Greens started insisting that the renewables transition would "create jobs" as part of a Green New Deal.

    What they rarely mention is that the jobs are usually low-paying and low-skill, like spreading low-yield solar and wind collectors across landscapes, or collecting and spreading manure at organic farms.

    Circling Down

    There is a perfect fit between the abstract physical theories, economic predictions, and real-world effects of renewables.

    It was predictable that energy-dilute renewable fuels like sunlight and wind would require far more land than either fossil fuels or nuclear, and they do.

    It was predictable that renewables with such a low return-on-energy-invested would fail to produce enough energy to make recycling worthwhile, and they have.

    And it was predictable that such unreliable technologies would make energy so expensive, and they did.

    Consider that while our high-energy economy can produce solar panels and wind turbines, a low-energy economy cannot.

    Imagine solar panels powering the mining, trucks, and factories needed to manufacture solar panels. There would hardly be any energy left over for society's other needs.

    In that sense, the renewables-powered economy is circular, but not in a way that produces abundant energy for infinite recycling.

    Rather, renewables-powered economies are circular in the sense of spiraling downward, as in a drain, or like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left.
    Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment."
    Related:
    "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.

  12. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (2nd June 2019), Bill Ryan (17th June 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Bob (7th June 2019), Constance (2nd June 2019), Deux Corbeaux (2nd June 2019), Hym (2nd June 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019), Satori (2nd June 2019), seko (2nd June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,673 times in 9,343 posts

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

    I can't help but wonder if the costs of cleaning up nuclear plants when they misfunction or melt down, or the cost of mercury and lead and other toxins in the air from burning oil and gas (which the corporations don't pay for, but taxpayers do) when the math was being done.
    Not to mention the costs to those (basically everyone) whose health suffers from the toxins, whose land and water are polluted by them, the costs to the environment in general which are pretty much immeasurable.
    Propaganda comes in all shapes and sizes, and from lots of different sources, left or right or in between.
    The only real solutions lie in devices that the globalists are not allowing to be made public enough to be invested in.
    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    In that sense, the renewables-powered economy is circular, but not in a way that produces abundant energy for infinite recycling.

    Rather, renewables-powered economies are circular in the sense of spiraling downward, as in a drain, or like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left.

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

    avid (2nd June 2019), Bill Ryan (17th June 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (2nd June 2019), Hervé (2nd June 2019), Hym (2nd June 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019)

  15. Link to Post #28
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    I can't help but wonder if the costs of cleaning up nuclear plants when they misfunction or melt down, or the cost of mercury and lead and other toxins in the air from burning oil and gas (which the corporations don't pay for, but taxpayers do) when the math was being done.
    [...]
    Right, that's because I think the figures are considered only in terms of "energy" costs; not in terms of pollution and environmental disasters. But that's not the real problem...

    The real problem stems from those guys -always the same - who'll cut any and every corner possible to make and/or increase a profit along with eliminating any competition, whether they are producing conventional or "green" energy; see:

    The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan


    Related:
    Brown's Gas
    My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop (also at: https://operationdisclosure.blogspot...ive-order.html )

    Last edited by Hervé; 2nd June 2019 at 13:10.
    "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.

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

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (2nd June 2019), Bill Ryan (17th June 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), onawah (2nd June 2019), peterpam (2nd June 2019)

  17. Link to Post #29
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    The total costs involved in wind energy are colossal

    June 6, 2019 by Robert
    What about decommissioning of 20-year-old turbines and disposal? What do you do with millions of tons of rusted steel blades … melt them down? What with? … Fossil-fuel energy?
    ________________


    The total costs involved in wind energy are colossal

    By Interested reader in Australia

    How science works: Someone claims to know something and everyone else’s job is to put them on the spot by interrogating every part of their claim.

    I don’t have the full facts at hand to falsify Benjamin Napier’s graphic (below), but I have found information at: http://www.aweo.org/faq.html, which I think is helpful in evaluating his claims.



    To begin with, the claim that the steel in a 2MW wind turbine masses 260 tons is supported independently. The Danish-built 1.8MW Vestas V90, for example – nacelle, blades, and tower – weighs 267 tons. (Actually, the 2MW Gamesa G87 from Spain requires 334 tons of steel!)

    So, immediately, we have at least partial corroboration of Mr Napier’s graphic. Only partial, but a good start. And it implies the rest of the graphic may also be based on facts.

    The foundations of these massive structures need to be considered as well. The reference site I’ve provided says: “The base of the steel tower is anchored in a platform of more than a thousand tons of concrete and steel rebar, 30 to 50 feet across and anywhere from 6 to 30 feet deep. Pylons may be driven down farther to help anchor the platform.”

    The materials for this have to be mined, processed and transported to the site also. And since hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) are used in every part of that process, we have to include that cost in the overall bill for each wind turbine.

    And there are other big costs which most people never stop to consider:-
    1) First of all, new roads have to be built, or existing ones need to be extensively “upgraded.” It requires more than an old dirt logging track to get a 150-ft blade, a 70-ton nacelle, or the huge crane needed to put it all together, up a mountain. The road needs to be wide, straight, and very strong.

    2) Expensive land clearing (an environmental issue in itself) is another issue – the 1.8MW Vestas V90 needs 111 unobstructed acres around it for best performance.

    3) Miles of security fencing are required – access to the area around the turbines must be strictly limited because of physical danger.

    4) A facility may also require a new substation or two, as well as new transmission lines. In some cases, the new power lines could be hundreds of miles long.

    5) Neodymium, a rare-earth element, is used in every wind turbine. On average, 1 ton of the metal is needed for every 1MW of wind turbine electricity output. The current price of pure neodymium oxide is around $US100,000 per ton and rising. Its mining and refining are heavily dependent on coal-fired power – mainly in the Chinese region called Baotou, where the-thirds of the world’s rare-earth elements are produced at hideous environmental cost. (Look it up.)

    6) Fossil-fuel power stations provide base-load power. Wind turbines do not. So back-up fossil-fuel power stations must be kept ticking over for the frequent occasions on which wind (and solar) fail to deliver.

    The wild swings in wind-turbine output mean the spinning base-load plants, kept constantly at the ready, must be brought in and out of production. These plants therefore continue to burn their fossil fuel. And the continual fluctuations of wind power add enormously to the cost and inefficiency of that burning.

    7) Two more problems, usually overlooked by wind farm advocates, involve the high cost of wind turbine maintenance – especially the offshore units, which are subject to swift degradation in the salty marine environment – and the cost of the decommissioning of wind farms at the end of their 20-year lifespan.
    It’s difficult to get figures for maintenance, since the wind farm lobbyists are reluctant to publish that information. But the fact that many of the larger turbines have helicopter landing pads on their nacelles gives us some idea of the problem and the expense involved.

    Decommissioning of 20-year-old turbines is a burgeoning problem in Germany, which was among the first countries to embrace wind-power. Over 7000 of their units are due for dismantling next year at a cost of €30,000 each. Offshore units will cost vastly more to dismantle, since their towers must be detached from the sea floor and all components brought ashore for disposal.

    And what of the disposal costs themselves?

    What do you do with millions of tons of rusted steel blades … melt them down? What with? … Fossil-fuel energy?

    What about the cost of disposing of millions of gallons of high-pressure gear oil used in the gearboxes? What about the cost of recycling expensive rare-earth metals from the electrical systems?

    What about the cost of building and erecting the new or reconditioned turbines?
    And the above is not necessarily an exhaustive list.

    The total costs involved in the wind energy experiment are colossal and are mostly kept low-key by vested interests.

    The price of the electricity produced MUST include the amortisation of ALL these costs over the complete life of the wind farms to obtain a fair comparison.

    If we include all these costs honestly, it seems more than likely that Benjamin Napier’s graphic is entirely plausible.


    (Graphic also at Windmill Feasibility)
    "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.

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

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (17th June 2019), Bill Ryan (17th June 2019), BMJ (7th June 2019), Bob (7th June 2019), Constance (8th June 2019), Hym (7th June 2019), Krist (7th June 2019), ulli (17th June 2019), Valerie Villars (7th June 2019)

  19. Link to Post #30
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

    June 16, 2019 by Robert
    Biden’s plan “smells of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas.”

    “(It) would inflict enormous economic, environmental and societal pain on most of the nation, for no climate benefits.”
    – Paul Driessen
    ________________

    “Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently announced his “Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice,” writes Paul Driessen. “My analysis gives his plan a failing grade. Not only would it cost many times the “$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that he uses to entice voters: in dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards, fewer freedoms and huge environmental from his make-believe clean, green, renewable, sustainable wind, solar and battery “replacement” energy.”

    “Exactly how many turbines, panels and batteries would we need? On how many millions of acres? Made from how many billions of tons of metals and concrete? Extracted from how many trillions of tons of ore? In the USA or overseas, in someone else’s backyard? Under what child labor and environmental standards? Even worse, all these Green New Deal plans smell of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas. And what “justice” will he bring anyone?”

    “Perhaps Mr. Biden can address all these issues – at his next town hall meeting or press conference. Perhaps folks who read my articles would like to ask him a few questions like these.”

    ________________


    Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

    Tallying its huge impacts on our energy, industries, living standards and personal freedoms

    Paul Driessen

    Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently announced his “Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice.” While it might be viewed as a Green New Deal Lite, the plan would inflict enormous economic, environmental and societal pain on most of the nation, for no climate benefits.

    First, as I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere, Mr. Biden’s “climate emergency” exists in computer models and alarmist reports, but not in the Real World windows. Tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, melting ice and rising seas are no more frequent or severe than humanity has experienced many times before.

    Before we destroy our energy and economic system, we need to see solid, irrefutable proof that we face an actual climate crisis – and be able to debate and cross examine those who make such claims. So far, instead of a debate, climate crisis skeptics just get vilified and threatened with prosecution.

    Second, anytime you hear the term “environmental justice,” you know someone is trying to create a new category of victims, sow more discord along racial and economic lines, and punish someone new in the name of “justice.” While we still have pockets of pollution, America’s cars, air and water have been cleaned up dramatically since 1970. Moreover, the best way to prevent, survive and recover from any disaster is to have the energy, wealth and technologies that fossil fuels continue to make possible.

    Third, there’s nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about wind, solar or battery power. Those technologies require enormous amounts of land, concrete, steel and other raw materials – and many of their most critical materials are extracted and processed using child labor and near-slave wages for adults, with few or no workplace safety rules, and with horrific impacts on land, air and water quality.

    Fourth, the Biden plan would cost many times the “$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that his talking points use to entice voters: dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards and fewer freedoms.

    The former VP would rejoin the Paris climate treaty; reverse many Trump corporate tax cuts; seek or impose multiple mandates, “enforcement mechanisms” and “legally binding” emission reductions; and at some point demand cap-and-trade schemes and/or taxes on what he likes to call “carbon emissions.”

    That term is intended to suggest dirty soot coming out of smoke stacks. The actual emissions are carbon dioxide, the life-giving gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow and produce oxygen. The more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, the better and faster crop, forest and grassland plants grow.

    Mr. Biden would also impose tariffs on “carbon-intensive” goods imported from countries that “fail to meet their climate obligations.” That will quickly affect just about everything we eat, drink, drive, do and use – because his plan would soon make it difficult for America to grow or produce much of anything … and China, India and other rapidly developing countries are not about to reduce their fossil fuel use.

    Every Biden Plan provision would increase the cost of living and of doing business. The folks he hobnobs with – who will write, implement and enforce these rules … and bankroll his election campaign – won’t much notice or mind the soaring prices. But middle and blue-collar classes certainly will.

    Other components of the Biden Green New Deal multiply those impacts and costs.


    * His ultimate goal is to rapidly replace America’s fossil fuels with industrial wind and solar facilities – to provide electricity for factories, hospitals, homes, offices, data centers, vehicles and countless other uses.

    Modern industrialized societies simply cannot function on expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity. As Germany, Britain, Spain, Australia and other countries have shown, that kind of energy eliminates 3-4 times more jobs than it creates – especially in factories and assembly lines, which cannot operate with repeated electricity interruptions … and cannot compete with foreign companies that get affordable 24/7/365 coal-based electricity and pay their workers far less than $15, $25 or $45 per hour.

    * “Rigorous new fuel economy standards” would speed the rate at which 100% of all cars and light trucks become electric.

    This program would be supported by “more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030,” to augment private charging stations in homes and neighborhoods – paid or subsidized by taxpayers. It would also require upgrading home and neighborhood electrical systems to provide far more power for rapid vehicle charging, and longer hours of peak demand. Another trillion dollars?

    Extending mileage for (much more expensive) electric vehicles would mean lighter, smaller cars … and thus thousands of additional deaths and millions of additional serious injuries. Dollar costs would soar. But how do we quantify the cost of injury and death tolls?

    * Federal tax and environmental laws, subsidies and other incentives would be used to persuade counties and communities to “to battle climate change” by altering their zoning and other regulations “to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit.”

    This would significantly impact suburban living and property values. And packing more people into more apartment buildings would likely mean diseases spread more rapidly and to more people.

    * Other federal programs would provide subsidies and incentives for home and business owners to reduce “the carbon footprint” of US buildings 50% by 2035. battery disposal?

    This could involve retrofitting them for improved energy efficiency and/or replacing gas furnaces with electric heat or heat pumps – or just tearing down and replacing entire buildings. More trillions of dollars.

    * The Biden plan would also ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.

    This would lock up vast quantities of valuable, vitally needed fuel. It would replace tens of billions of dollars of annual federal and state government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenue with tens of billions in subsidies for pseudo-renewable energy. It would eliminate millions of jobs in the petroleum and petrochemical industries, in numerous companies that rely on those industries, and in countless sectors of local and state economies that depend on all that public land energy activity and revenue.

    * Finally, a new transcontinental high-speed (electricity-powered) rail system would connect the coasts – or at least a couple of cities on each coast – for a few trillion dollars and with a lot of eminent domain.

    This is California’s costly “bullet train to nowhere” on steroids. It would bypass numerous towns and cities, marginalizing many of them and destroying trillions of dollars in property values – especially if his rail system is intended to replace or significantly reduce air travel and long distance driving.

    The cumulative electricity demand for all these Biden Green New Deal programs would be at least double what the United States currently generates. It would mean wind turbines and solar panels on scales that few can even imagine … especially as they are installed in less and less windy and sunny areas. And if all this power is to be backed up by batteries – since coal and gas-fired backup power generators would be eliminated – we would need billions of batteries … and thus even more land and raw materials.

    Exactly how many turbines, panels and batteries? On how many millions of acres? Made from how many billions of tons of metals and concrete? Extracted from how many trillions of tons of ore? In the USA or overseas, in someone else’s backyard? Under what child labor and environmental standards?

    After banning oil and gas permitting, would Mr. Biden open other federal lands to exploration, mining and processing for the rare earth and other materials these massive “renewable” energy systems will require? That would certainly create new industries and jobs. Or will America just have to be 100% dependent on Chinese and other foreign suppliers for all these technologies?

    All of this smells of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas.

    Perhaps Mr. Biden can address all these issues – at his next town hall meeting or press conference. Indeed, the time to discuss these issues is NOW. Before we get snow-jobbed and railroaded into actions we will sorely regret. Or maybe those of us who realize how insane all of this is will just have to opt out — and establish Biden-free zones and climate sanctuary states where none of his policies and restrictions apply.

    Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.
    "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.

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

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), avid (17th June 2019), Bill Ryan (17th June 2019), ulli (17th June 2019)

  21. Link to Post #31
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,060
    Thanks
    56,615
    Thanked 88,979 times in 14,756 posts

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

    The Green New Deal has its roots in the genocidal goals of the Club of Rome and 1001 Trust

    Matthew Ehret The Duran
    Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:50 UTC


    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pitches her Road to the Green New Deal Tour in the final event at Howard University in Washington, Monday, May 13, 2019. © Associated Press/Cliff Owen

    The world is being told to consume a poison pill known as the Green New Deal and President Trump has taken a stand against it.

    During a May 14 speech, President Trump won even more animosity from the left for having attacked the Green New Deal by comparing it to the fraud of Russia-Gate. Speaking to a crowd of energy workers in Hackberry Louisiana, the President said: "The green New Deal is a hoax like the one I just went through. I'm not sure, it might be an even bigger one, and mine was pretty big". If the green New Deal were made law, Trump warned that every blue collar worker in attendance would be destroyed: "everybody in this room gets fired if the plan is ever implemented."

    Was Trump embodying the "pollution-loving capitalist who hates nature" which the left has painted him or is there something more insidious which underlies the Green New Deal which the President hit upon? To answer that we will have to first quickly review what the Green New Deal IS, then where it came from and then finally what its architects have stated they wish to accomplish with its implementation. From there, we can assess if the president's words were hyperbole or truth.

    What is it?
    As the name implies, the Green New Deal is a sweeping policy agenda which takes its name from the original New Deal of 1932 enacted under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt. The New Deal was originally a program for bank reform, and mass infrastructure building in order to heal America from the deep wounds caused by 4 years of Great Depression. While the Green New Deal of 2019 proposes to dramatically overhaul the rules of finance and infrastructure planning, its similarities to the original end there.

    Roosevelt's New Deal was driven by projects which increased the productive powers of labor of the nation as a whole by investments into hydroelectric projects, transportation corridors, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and thousands of other infrastructure projects. The Green New Deal on the other hand seeks to lower American productive powers of labor and living standards by investments into zero growth green infrastructure. Of course if that were explicitly stated, no one would drink the Kool-Aid.

    As presidents Putin and Trump have both emphasized at various times not only has it never been proven that human-made CO2 drives climate variations, but it has also come to light that since 1998, the warming trend dominant since 1977 has been on an strange "pause". While CO2 output steadly rose from 1938-1977, it was accompanied by a total cooling causing scientists in 1977 to sound the alarm that we were on the verge of an ice age. This fact reflects the embarrassing reality that CO2 tends to follow climate variations rather than precede them, indicating that this greenhouse gas is actually being effected by the warming of the earth most likely driven by space-based causes as Putin has referred repeatedly. Even more surprising to some, recently published NASA studies have shown that the world's biomass has increased by 10% in recent years due in large measure to the industrial growth policies of China and India. Plants have, after all, been observed to grow much better when fed by increased levels of carbon dioxide.

    Where did it come from?

    Sir Julian Huxley © Godfrey Argent/National Portrait Gallery

    So how could so many respectable scientists, journals and politicians have possibly assumed a fallacy to be so true that an overhaul of the entire global society is being proposed? This obviously didn't arise over night, but the current pressure to transform our entire world to the undisputed "reality" of man-made global warming finds its true origins in the Malthusian revival of 1968-1972.

    In this short interval of time, a vacuum left by the assassinations of pro-development leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy was filled by establishment hacks and cowards. These tools ushered in a paradigm shift towards "conservationism" and rejected the industrial growth ethic that defined western civilization up until that point.

    This Malthusian Revival answered the challenge put forth by Eugenics Society president and UNESCO founder Julian Huxley who wrote in 1946:
    "Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
    Of course, just one year after the world had come to realize the horrors of Nazi eugenics, Huxley and his associates among the Anglo-American elite who financed Hitler had a big job to clean up the image of eugenics and re-package it under another name.

    The Club of Rome and 1001 Trust

    In 1968, an organization was formed known as the Club of Rome led by two misanthropes named Aurelio Peccei and Sir Alexander King. The organization quickly set up branches across the Anglo-Saxon world with members ranging from select ideologues from the political, business, and scientific community who all agreed that society's best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship. Sir Alexander wrote:
    "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."

    Prince Bernhard - Cofounder of the Bilderberg Club, 1001 Club

    In order to finance this paradigm shift, the 1001 Trust was founded in 1970 by Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands. Bernhardt (card carrying Nazi and founder of the Bilderberger Group in 1954) had worked alongside his close misanthropic associates Prince Philip Mountbatten, and Sir Julian Huxley to create the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) just a few years earlier. The plan was simple: each of the 1001 founding members simply put $10,000 into the trust which was then directed towards the green paradigm shift. Other prominent 1001 Club members included international royalty, billionaires, and technocratic sociopaths who wanted nothing more than to manage this promised Brave New World as "alphas". Many of these figures were also members of the Club of Rome, including Canada's Maurice Strong, who later became Vice President of the WWF under Prince Philip's presidency. Strong had replaced another WWF Vice President by the name of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Bloomfield was another 1001 Club member whom New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered to be at the heart of the Montreal-based assassination of the anti-Malthusian President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

    The document which became the bible and blueprint of this new anti-humanist movement that birthed today's Green New Deal agenda was titled Limits to Growth (1972) and today holds the record as the most widely read book on ecology, having sold 30 million copies published into 32 languages. A recent article celebrating the book's 40 year anniversary stated
    "[I]t helped launch modern environmental computer modeling and began our current globally focused environmental debate. After Limits [To Growth], environmentalists, scientists and policy-makers increasingly thought of ecological problems in planetary terms and as dynamically interconnected... It is worth revisiting Limits today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric climate change to a mass audience."
    The book itself was the culmination of a two year study undertaken by a team of MIT statisticians under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today, these young MIT professors were merely cardboard cut-outs selected to deflect from the higher social engineers managing the show from the top.


    Club of Rome founders Alexander King (L) and Aurelio Peccei (R) were both unapologetic Malthusians.

    The MIT study itself was not even begun in the USA, but rather in Montebellow Quebec in 1971, when Club of Rome-backer Pierre Trudeau allocated tax payer money to begin the project. A network of Rhodes Scholars and Privy Councillors centered around Alexander King, Maurice Strong, Maurice Lamontagne (founder of Environment Canada), Michael Pitfield (Privy Council Clerk and founder of Canada's CSIS) and Governor General Roland Michener, among others, had presided over that meeting. When the Canadian funds had served their role, the project continued to receive its funding from the Volkswagen Foundation, whose Nazi-supporting past should have made some of the MIT statisticians uncomfortable.

    Malthusianism in Brief
    These Club of Rome/WWF/1001 Club members dubbed themselves "neo-Malthusians" referring to the ideology popularized by the British Empire's Thomas Malthus. Malthus' 1799 Essay on the Principle of Population pessimistically noticed that human population grows geometrically while food production grows arithmetically leading invariably to a crisis point of over-population. This crisis point creates a mathematical foundation for the concept that later came to be dubbed "carrying capacity" by the authors of Limits to Growth. Of course rather than permit those human cattle from developing their minds in order to make more discoveries and inventions which would offset this crisis point, Malthus (and his heirs later) knew that the British Empire which employed him could never exist were that creative power unleashed.

    Instead, Malthus coldly advocated the elimination of the "unfit to make way for the more fit." Not adept at the subtleties of modern 21st century newspeak, Malthus went so far as to propose that even children perish:
    "All children who are born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons... therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality"
    By re-packaging Malthus' assumptions into a more complex computing system, these neo-Malthusians wanted to create a shame-based movement of willful self-annihilation among an entire generation of baby boomers.

    Of course if you assume that technological progress has ended, then it will certainly appear that a closed system of fixed limited resources can only be managed by a technocratic elite choosing who gets diminishing returns as the world settles into some imaginary "mathematical equilibrium" of sustainability. Fortunately for humanity, reality rarely conforms to the pessimistic ideals of racists and imperialists.

    The Chaining of Prometheus

    © Matthew Ehret-Kump

    A long time London trained asset and close collaborator of Canada's Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Maurice Lamontagne was Club of Rome member, and former President of the Privy Council. Of all Club of Rome members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth's greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:
    "Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature's potential as a provider of resources and habitable space... But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man's creativeness?"
    Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:
    "How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man's inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate... In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature"
    Thus creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne! "Bad" technology in Lamontagne's formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity's material growth (ie: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which lead to the reduction of man's powers to exist, then technology can be defined as a "good" thing" according to this twisted logic.


    Dr. Omond Solandt © Ted Dinsmore/Toronto Star via Getty Images

    This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Mountbatten (Prince Philip's pedophiliac mentor) during WWII and headed the Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Solandt sophistically said: "There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind." What defines "the welfare of mankind" in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.

    In preparation for the "post-industrial order" that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, that at least included a modicum of regulation of the monetarist speculators, Lamontagne prescribed that the "new wisdom" no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more "practical" engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of "science" itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his Report:
    "The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences... to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery."
    In Defense of Prometheus

    Professor Ronald F. Hayes, Dalhousie University, Faculty of Science

    One leading Canadian scientist took an early stand against this Club of Rome-driven transformation. Ronald Hayes, professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University and Canadian Civil Servant wrote his 1973 book The Chaining of Prometheus: The Evolution of a Power Structure for Canadian Science, where he identified Lamontagne as a minion of the god Zeus as portrayed in Aeschylus' famous drama Prometheus Bound. The ancient Greek drama told the story of the demi-god Prometheus who was punished for 10 thousand years for the defiant act of teaching humanity how to use the Fire which Zeus had monopolized for himself.

    Attacking the call to deconstruct the entire 1938-1971 science funding structure and rebuild it under a new technocratic regime, Professor Hayes said that the main problem with the Lamontagne approach was called the Egyptian Syndrome:
    "[I]f only we could destroy all that the Israelis have built up and reduce Palestine to a desert everyone would be equal and we could start to build a better world for the Arabs. Thus Lamontagne wants to destroy the National Research Council, the body that has nurtured and launched much of the government research and got the graduate programs going in our universities. It is a fault of the Trudeau administration which Lamontagne echoes."
    Hayes attacked the newly-formed powers of the Treasury Board which were now given exceptional control of science policy under a new scientific dictatorship when he said
    "[T]he most subtle exercise of power, which obviates the necessity of close control, is infiltration by reliable people - the creation of a ruling elite...These Englishmen became known the world over as the rulers of the British Empire... With somewhat similar aims, the Public Service Commission is grooming future Canadian government managers to follow the general policies and precepts of the Treasury Board."
    There Are No Limits To Growth
    Ten years after the publication of the Limits to Growth, American presidential candidate and founder of the Fusion Energy Foundation Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) responded to the neo-Malthusian movement in more forceful terms than Dr. Hayes. Writing his 1982 "There are no Limits to Growth" as an early publication of the Club of Life, LaRouche wrote:
    "It is not the growth of industry which destroys the world's forests. In most cases, the cause is a lack of industrial output, a lack of good industrial management of the ecosphere. Over the past fifteen years, the greatest single cause for destruction of the world's "ecology" has been the toleration of the policies demanded by the so called "ecologists," the so-called "neo-Malthusians" of the Club of Rome, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), of the World Wildlife Fund, the Aspen Institute, the Ford Foundation, the 'Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Sierra Club, and so forth and so on. We are not putting enough industrially-produced energy, in the form of water management, chemicals, and so forth, into the farming of the Earth's biosphere. At the same time, we are using biomass for fuel and other "traditional" uses, in cases we should be using nuclear-generated energy supplies, and using modern, industrially produced materials in place of timber for housing and so forth"
    Describing the extraordinary influence which the Limits to Growth had on consolidating the neo-Malthusian revival as a dominant factor in western policy circles, LaRouche identified the core fallacies which are only now being properly challenged by the efforts of President Trump in America. LaRouche stated:
    "The study itself [Limits to Growth] was most conspicuously fraudulent on two leading counts. First, in attempting to prove that industrial society was using up its remaining natural resources very rapidly, Meadows and Forrester greatly understated the known quantities of such resources. Second, more important, Meadows and Forrester projected the rate of consumption of natural resources by using systems of simultaneous linear equations. The very use of such linear equations for a computer "model" of that sort, builds into the computer projections the assumption that absolutely no technological progress is occurring in society. In fact, technological progress, including fundamental redefinitions of what "natural resources" means, has been the outstanding feature of European civilization for five hundred years. The Limits to Growth depended upon the assumption that such technological progress had come to a sudden, absolute stop."
    Entropic or Anti-Entropic
    Just like Thomas Malthus centuries earlier, the neo-Malthusians had to deny the existence of technological progress (and its origins in human creative reason) as the means by which humanity's carrying capacity is changed according to discoveries and inventions. This fact of humanity's relationship with the universe absolutely defines our existence as a species above all other creatures of the biosphere. As the "carrying capacities" of other species are defined by the environment and genetic characteristics, humans uniquely can transcend those conditions willfully on the condition that we are given access to the best cultural and educational heritage of the past with the inspiration and curiosity to carry that heritage to ever higher limits without ever expecting to reach a "mathematical equilibrium" or "entropic heat death" as so many statisticians from the Limits to Growth school pessimistically presume.

    In opposition to this school, LaRouche's discoveries in the science of physical economy (made during a period of 1952-1956) were premised on the opposing concept that mankind's ability to leap from lower to higher forms of energy consumption (ie: wood burning, to coal to oil to nuclear fission to fusion etc.) allows for the upward transformation of humanity's physical economic potential without limits. Creative leaps into the unknown drive new discoveries of principles which allow for humanity's potential relative population density to increase with increased standards of living, life expectancies and cognitive potential in ways that no other animal (which the Malthusians wish us to presume we are) can achieve. This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.

    The BRI and the REAL New Deal
    I hope that this report has demonstrated that the Green New Deal is nothing other than a new form of eugenics masquerading as a socially conscious reform of the system. The fact is that not only is this Green New Deal NOT green (as a world covered by solar panels would increase desertification of the earth through heating), but has no connection to the true New Deal. The effects of a program that seeks to reduce global CO2 emissions to "acceptable levels" in accord with the will of today's British Empire would bring nothing more than chaos, famine and depopulation to humanity.

    Luckily, today's world carries nearly 8 billion souls and (barring a few stubborn oligarchs and technocrats) - all of whom have minds that could be willfully perfected and deployed to make great discoveries in science and the arts. The world in which these people live is increasingly being shaped by a REAL New Deal under the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative which now has more than 160 countries on board and is the size of 20 Marshall Plans. This initiative requires a return to an ethic founded upon a love of mankind and belief in scientific and technological progress. This spirit was expressed beautifully by President Xi Jinping who said on May 15 at the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations:
    "For a civilization to endure, efforts must be made to keep it alive and build on its heritage from one generation to the next. More importantly, a civilization needs to adapt itself to the changing times and break new ground. The history of world civilizations tells us that every civilization needs to advance with the times and take in the best of its age in order to develop itself. We need to come up with new ideas to add impetus and inspiration to the development of our civilizations. With these efforts, we will deliver achievements for our civilizations to transcend time and space and have a lasting appeal. To spur people's innovation and creativity, the best way is to come into contact with different civilizations, see the strengths of others and draw upon them."
    The fact that such figures as Presidents Xi Jinping and Putin have created an alliance based upon long term planning, great infrastructure projects to uplift the conditions of life of everyone and frontier technological progress indicates that the "great green game" created in the wake of the assassinations of anti-Malthusian leaders in the 1960s is finally coming to an end. America's slow self-mutilation has finally a chance to heal with the first anti-Malthusian President elected since the days of the well-intentioned (though often dim-witted) Ronald Reagan over 35 years ago.

    While Reagan did not have a Russia-China power alliance to cooperate with during the Cold War, President Trump does. The offer for America to join the Belt and Road and new strategic operating system of cooperation is on the table and awaiting an answer. How Trump will respond remains to be seen.
    Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

    Related:
    "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.

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

    A Voice from the Mountains (Yesterday), Bill Ryan (Yesterday), justntime2learn (Yesterday)

  23. Link to Post #32
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th September 2014
    Location
    Appalachia
    Posts
    2,551
    Thanks
    9,947
    Thanked 13,078 times in 2,355 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Builder (here)
    Should we not take that direction just because the first technical iterations are not perfect yet?
    And you will be perfectly okay with potentially killing many people if rolling blackouts result in medical facilities losing electricity, old people losing air conditioning during the hottest parts of summer, heating during winter...?

    Just like floods and fires, catastrophic power outages also kill people. That's a fact.

    On the other hand, you have the belief that a global climate disaster is impending, and this from the same people like Al Gore who predicted that the ice caps would all be melted by 2010. Failed prediction after failed prediction, and all it is, is fearmongering in a bid to impose carbon credits and globalize industry.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

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