Archive for the ‘Conservative energy policy’ Category

Big Green Environmentalism

January 21, 2008

 Editor:
In order to understand wind farms and the renewable energy push, you must understand the environmental movement. You need to educate yourself in order to be in a better position to fight your govt. and the wind industry. 

“On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America”.

The money and guidance flowing from the foundations to Big Green is but a fraction of the support elite circles muster on behalf of environmentalism. In addition to the pro-green foundations there are currently over 1,000 commercial corporations affiliated with either the “World Business Council for Sustainable Development” or the “Business Environment Leadership Council”; including about 100 of the world’s largest multinationals. These corporations now give money to environmental activists, lobby governments for specific, self-serving environmental regulations, and incorporate “green” messaging into their advertising and memoranda. As well, governments throughout the English-speaking world and Western Europe, since 1970, have established a myriad of state Environmental Ministries which, via their stringent imposition of regulatory green tape onto industry, have engendered a caste of professional environmentalists. These Eco-Ministries also quietly lavish funds upon environmental activist groups in sums comparable to the collective contributions of the major Green foundations. Then there are the great immeasurables. Immeasurable contributions such as the incalculable amount of free and slanted publicity given to eco-issues by the mass media or the equally priceless support environmentalism has received by virtue of changes to public education curricula, over the last 4 decades, which converted “Ecologism” and “Malthusianism” from obscure 19th century reactionary ideologies into mainstream courses with their own faculties and textbooks. Hence the foundations are but one pillar of support for environmentalism along side high schools, universities, certain industrial corporations, and the mass media.

I view the population control movement and the environmental movement as one indistinguishable whole, founded and funded by the same people and possessing mutually reinforcing and overlapping rhetoric and goals.

Conclusion

On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America. They have decreed development be slowed to a crawl and enlisted a vast ‘army of the night’ to implement this command. Here in the trenches we never engage the Kennedys, the Trudeaus or the Windsors. No, down here we get to argue with kids with daisy-counting diplomas from community colleges in their hands and grant applications to the Ford Foundation in their hip pockets; and good luck trying to change the minds of people like this. If not for environmentalist suppression of economic activity North America would be experiencing a tremendous and sustained boom that would reduce unemployment to a smidgeon of its current rate. The responsibility for all of the under-employment, all of the want of opportunity, the lack of housing, the scarcity of public funds, the poverty, the hardship, hard times and heartache people are experiencing shall be layeth upon the well-guarded doorsteps of Big Green. We smolder, we seethe and we type on.

Read entire article –ecofascism.com

Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
 
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.

INCREASE POVERTY

For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Electricity planning must be given back to the engineers

January 19, 2007

The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

 

 

September  4, 2006 by Alan Shaw, Aylsham, Norwich. in The Herald

Thomas McLaughlin (August 31) has summarised perfectly the total loss of plot by both the government and the UK environmental movement generally. The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

In introducing the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland two years ago Professor Maxwell Irvine commented: “Energy is an emotive subject and too important to become a party political issue.” It was a perceptive warning.

But it has long since been made a party political issue by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and their fellow travellers. Politicians of every hue have adopted energy as a vote-catching issue without a trace of the complex engineering understanding necessary to formulate sound judgments.
Thomas McLaughlin is absolutely correct in equating the present-day environmental movement with the Cambridge spy ring. To the UK electricity supply industry, it is the present-day equivalent of the Spanish Civil War’s Third Column. British politicians must wake up, shake themselves free and pass such matters back to the objective professional engineers who alone understand the economic and technical issues.