Here are some example of how not to save the environment. We often hear "special groups" pushing for projects that would "save" the environment. Here's some information to make you see the big picture.
While you read this, remind yourself that for every dollar spent, 80% of it is spent on fossil fuels. Why you ask? For every dollar we consume, we need energy in one form or another to produce it. Calculating where the energy is coming from we come to the conclusion that around 80% or more comes for oil, gas, coal.
The Danish government plans to clear forests and destroy unique nature for the benefit of industry. Source
The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place. A test centre for the development of offshore windmills is planned to take up 30 km2 of land in the Thy region, near Østerild. This deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emission, the equivalent of the CO2 emission of 100,000 people per year.
The windmills, which are 250 meters tall, are planned to be along a 6 km linear south/north stretch. This will prevent birds in the international Ramsar-area, Vejlerne, which is situated to the east of the test centre, from flying west to the EU-habitat area Vullum Sø and to Thy National Park just south of Hanstholm.
I often demonstrated that windmills are not the way to go for a good energy policy and surely not to save the environment. Other examples
Spain is still suffering for the "green" energy policies imposed by "special groups" that pushes those "renewable" energy sources. Complete report
A leaked internal document from the Spanish government shows the catastrophic effect of the "green" policies on energy cost and the economy.
The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute.
The numbers in the long run are even scarier. The government itself says that the alternative energies sector will receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years. Just an example: The owners of solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority are subsidies charged to the consumer. The conclusion is that with the economy at the point of bankruptcy, it is not possible to keep injecting money in such a costly sector. And the government seems to realize this now.
Follow the money
Joanne Nova documented extensively the link between those "green" policies and the greed of some people wanting to make a money on the environmental fears artificially created for that purpose.Some example from JoNova
The smell of moneyWho would have thought? Goldman Sachs has been working hard to save the environment for years. Generation Investment Management (GIM) was founded by Al Gore, and a few friends, which included David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman). They are the fifth largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Then in 2006, when the CCX needed some extra funding, who should step up to buy 10% of the company – Goldman Sachs.
CLIMATE MONEY
The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
$30 Billion makes for Monopolistic Science
- A trial without a defense is a sham
- Business without competition is a monopoly
- Science without debate is propaganda
The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a community service project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt an Error” approach.
Messages
