Archive for the ‘UK’ Category

No Oil Shortage – IEA Report

November 13, 2008

Editor: In 2006 the IEA stated that peak oil in 5 to 7 years. Nov. 2008 the same IEA says “there is enough of it to supply the world for more than 40 years at current rates of consumption”.

This is the same agency that pushed for bio-fuels and now says oops – bad idea. Burning food a bad idea?  Depopulation.

Another bright idea close the fossil fuel plants and try and run energy systems with wind. Duh!

When are we going to start looking after the interests of our own countries and forget about the UN.

The UN hates democracy – they love power. What do they want? New World Order, an end to democracy and the ruination of the industrialized world. The present financial crisis was planned just like the one in 1929. Look at the bail-out for what it is-robbery.

Peak oil was a scam and so is global warming as is wind energy. They create the crisis and then offer the solution. One scam after the other – slowly moving to a New World Order. They are making their final push right now. Are you ready to give up what’s left of your democracy?

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

.

‘Energy Update’, November 2006 from the IEA

“The world is on a course that will lead it ‘from crisis to crisis’ unless governments act immediately to save energy and invest in nuclear and biofuels, the International Energy Agency warned on Tuesday. In an apocalyptic forecast, Claude Mandil, the agency’s executive director, said that our current path ‘may mean skyrocketing prices or more frequent blackouts; can mean more supply disruptions, more meteorological catastrophes – or all these at the same time’. The IEA said that the oilfields on which Europe and the US had come to depend to reduce their reliance on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would peak in the next five to seven years. These include those in Russia, the US, Mexico and Norway.

Source

Energy body warns on oil prices

By Sarah Mukherjee
BBC News

Oil pump (file image)

The IEA says increased exploration costs will force oil prices higher

One of the world’s leading authorities on energy supply says the era of cheap oil is over and prices could soon be back up to $100 a barrel.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook for 2008, says prices could soar as high as $200 a barrel by 2030.

The immediate risk to supply, it says, is not one of a lack of global resources.

Instead, it points to a lack of investment where it is needed.

Rising costs

The world, the report’s authors conclude, is not running out of oil just yet – indeed, there is enough of it to supply the world for more than 40 years at current rates of consumption.

Source

Advertisements

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam – A Lesson for Canada and the USA

October 26, 2008

Editor: The most important things people need to understand are

  1. The wind industry backed by govt. is a scam. (truth hurts)
  2. Our govt has handed the decision making for our power generation over to the e8 (internationalization of energy) a UN based agency.
  3. Any country that gives up it’s electrical system, has  given up it’s sovereignty. Electricity supply and cost are the most important part of any economy. Once control of the electrical system has been lost (or given away) the ability to make real economic decisions has been lost.
  4. You have now accepted rule by unelected officials.
  5. End of sovereignty.
  6. This is about a lot more than wind energy. It’s about the loss of your freedoms and your nation state.

The time has come for every thinking citizen to join in the fight against the wind industry and  treasonous govt. policy, that has been put in place to undermine both our democracy and sovereignty.

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam

Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party’s manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government’s wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.

In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry’s chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: “We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes.”

This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing “capacity” with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government’s own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their “capacity”.

In other words, far from producing those “3 gigawatts”, the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed – again on official figures – an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing “enough to power more than 1.5 million homes”, it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.

Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O’Brien, energy minister, went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us all in our electricity bills.

Mr O’Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even further into make-believe by saying that he was “assessing plans” to build a further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, “enough electricity for every home in the country”.

Mr O’Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world. Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures, would be anything up to £100 billion – the price of 37 nuclear power stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity – while the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to our electricity bills.

Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?

What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020. What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper, grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast running out, if it hasn’t done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such infantile deceits.

By Christopher Booker

Telegraph

26 October 2008

You might ask – If the wind industry is such a scam why isn’t the media saying anything?

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

The Green Agenda

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

September 1, 2008

Editor

E.ON, based in Duesseldorf, Germany, is one of the world’s leading energy companies
They should know – they build wind farms. Germany is in the process of building over 20 new coal plants.

Source: Energy Digital

Wind energy is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines are built to meet EU renewable energy targets, they could be relied on to provide only seven percent of the country’s peak winter electricity demand, according to a leading power company E.On.

E.On has argued that so little wind blows during the coldest days of winter that 92 percent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations.

Full story at Source: Energy Digital

The Green Agenda

July 21, 2008

From the Green Agenda

Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer
well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical
nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time
.

Club of Rome


When
I searched for links between these men, who keep appearing in nearly
every area of global environmental politics, I discovered that they
were all members of the Club of Rome. Now extraordinary claims, like
a global conspiracy, demand extraordinary proof. But this conspiracy
is hidden in
plain
sight
.
They make very little attempt to hide their real agenda. On this
website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let
the reader reach their own conclusions.

So, what exactly is
the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR
describes itself as “a group of world
citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity
.

It consists of current and former Heads of State, high-level
politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists,
economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded
two sibling organizations, the
Club
of Budapest

and the
Club
of Madrid
.
The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their
agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All
three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold
joint
meetings
and
conferences.
As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear
that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also
established a network of 28
National
Associations
.

Some
Current Members of the Club of Rome triad:

Al
Gore

– former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner,
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner, lead the
US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change
conference, largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Javier
Solana

– Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High
Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice
Strong

former Head of the UN Environment
Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of
the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth
Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth
Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail
Gorbachev

CoR
executive
member
,
former President of the Soviet
Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev
Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder
(with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid,
co-author (with Strong)
of the Earth Charter.

Diego
Hidalgo

– CoR executive
member
, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of
Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign
Relations.

Ervin
Laszlo

– founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club
of Budapest, founder
and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Hassan
bin Talal


President of the CoR, President of the Arab
Thought Forum, founder of the
World
Future Council
,
recently named as the United Nations ‘
Champion
of the Earth
‘.

Sir
Crispin Tickell

– former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations
and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the
‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate
Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi
Annan

– former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel
Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier
Perez de Cuellar

former Secretary General of the
United Nations. .


Robert
Muller

former Assistant Secretary General of the United
Nations,
founder and Chancellor of the
UN
University of Peace.

David
Rockefeller

CoR
executive
member
,
former Chairman of Chase
Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive
member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United
Nations stands.

Stephen
Schneider

– Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change.
Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents
of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC
reports.

Bill
Clinton

– former President of the United States,
founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy
Carter

– former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate.

Bill
Gates

– found
er of Microsoft, philanthropist

Other
current influential members:
(these
can be found on the
Club
of Rome
, Club
of Budapest
,

Club
of Madrid

and/or
CoR
National Association

membership
pages)

Ted
Turner
– American media mogul, philanthropist, founder of
CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major
donor to the UN

Tony Blair – former Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New
Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and
activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Timothy
Wirth
– President of the
United
Nations Foundation

Henry
Kissinger
– former US Secretary of State
Barbara Marx
Hubbard
– President of the
Foundation
for Conscious Evolution

Betty
Williams
– Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne
Williamson
– New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert
Thurman
– assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall
– Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan
Carlos I
– King of Spain
Prince Philippe of
Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia
– Queen of Spain
Karan Singh – Chairman of the
Temple
of Understanding

Daisaku
Ikeda
– founder of the
Soka
Gakkai cult

Eduard
Shevardnadze
– former Soviet foreign minister and President
of Georgia

Richard von Weizsacker – former
President of Germany
Martin LeesCoR
Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace

Ernesto
Zedillo
– Director of
The
Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global
Marshall Plan

Vaclav
Havel
– former President of the Czech Republic
Hans
Kung
– Founder of the
Global
Ethic Foundation

Ruud
Lubbers
United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights

Jerome Binde – Director of
Foresight, UNESCO
Federico MayorDirector
General of UNESCO

Tapio Kanninen Director
of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad
Osterwalder
– Under-Secretary-General of the United
Nations
Peter Johnston – Director
General of European Commission

Thomas Homer-Dixon
Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Emeka
Anyaoku
former Commonwealth
Secretary General, current President of the
WWF
Wangari
Maathai
– Nobel Peace Prize Laureate,
founder of the
Green
Belt Movement

and
many more….

Visit The Green Agenda

'100 months to save the planet'

July 20, 2008

This is from the BBC. It is meant to scare you. It’s not based on sound science – just more blatant BULL.After you have read this I want you to read The Green Agenda, so you will understand the meaning of this article.

‘100 months to save the planet’


AP)

The group says the plans will be good for the environment and our pockets


A “Green New Deal” is needed to solve current problems of climate change, energy and finance, a report argues.

According to the Green New Deal Group, humanity only has 100 months to prevent dangerous global warming.

Its proposals include major investment in renewable energy and the creation of thousands of new “green collar” jobs.

The name is taken from President Franklin D Roosevelt’s “New Deal”,
launched 75 years ago to bring the US out of the Great Depression.

The new grouping says rising greenhouse gas emissions, combined
with escalating food and energy costs, mean the globe is facing one of
its biggest crises since the 1930s.

Its members include former Friends of the Earth UK director
Tony Juniper, Green MEP Caroline Lucas and Andrew Simms, policy
director of the New Economics Foundation (nef).

In an article for the BBC News website’s Green Room series, Mr
Simms warns that the combination of the current credit crunch, rising
energy prices and accelerating emissions are “conspiring to create the
perfect storm”.

full article BBC

The truth behind the green movement The Green Agenda


Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.