When “insanity” goes mainstream! ….. “Eco-Whackos” should be locked up!

Posted: July 1, 2012 in Uncategorized

In this report one can’t help but ask “who the hell is in charge here”? We hear our “political masters” announce the bright Green Future is “so bright we all have to wear shades”!

We read and listen to mainstream news announce every single word written and spoken by Global Warming idiots no matter who writes it or mouths it!

Leave scientific studies out of the mix and we have our present “eco-whacked out gaggle of not for profit organizations and sleazy investors” all banging on the doors of our tax payer dollar filled vaults with a willing political leadership literally shovelling our money into this bottomless pit of idiocy!

So read on and see how absolutely insane people have become when lauding the merits of renewables adn save the planet BS!

Here’s a little example of such a “nutbar stance”  and “pleading for money” from David Suzuki, before reading on: (notice how he is using a 99 year old to ask for a hand-out!)

Dear friends,

I’m 99 years old and celebrating my 100th Canada Day.

Peter Robinson

I’m proud to ask you to join me in being radically Canadian!

I have been privileged to live through many of our country’s great achievements. We’ve rallied together for women’s rights and to conquer challenges like global epidemics, wars, and the Great Depression. We can change when we need to.

I know we are capable of overcoming today’s environmental challenges, as we have throughout history.

When I was young, the air was choked with thick smoke from dirty coal and sawdust, burned for heat. Today we have different environmental challenges.

We want so much “stuff” and consume it at an alarming pace. We don’t spend as much time outside and seem to forget that the natural world is the source of our well-being. We’re leaving future generations with an awful mess.

This is why I support the David Suzuki Foundation.

I was fortunate enough to hear a young David Suzuki speak, long before he became a respected scientific voice for nature and the environment. At the time, he didn’t see it as his job to convince others they had the power and obligation to care for our planet, and each other. My, how times have changed.

But we can’t be silent or wait for others to act. 

Please stand up with me and the David Suzuki Foundation through a small monthly contribution. We can create a powerful voice together.

Sincerely,


Mrs. Brunette
Vancouver, BC

 

JUNE 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Economists Without Calculators

Be wary of op-eds in the New York Times that tout an “environmental revolution.”

By Robert Bryce

Last week, just before the opening of the U.N.’s Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the New York Timesran an op-ed that decried the rapid rise in carbon dioxide emissions during the two decades since a similar meeting was held in Rio.

The authors of the article — Christian Azar, a professor at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology, and two economists from the Environmental Defense Fund, Thomas Sterner and Gernot Wagner — claimed that the world needs to “kick its addiction to fossil fuels” and that renewable energy provides the road to salvation because “the seeds of an environmental revolution are being sown.”

The authors’ solution was a familiar one: a carbon tax and/or a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Never mind that the failure of the meeting at Rio shows, yet again, that a global carbon tax or emissions cap stands absolutely no chance of being implemented. Further, let’s ignore the claim that we have an “addiction” to hydrocarbons, which remain the cheapest, most abundant, most reliable source of energy for billions of people all over the world.

Instead, let’s consider the issue that Azar, Sterner, and Wagner — along with nearly every other proponent of “green” energy — refuse to consider: scale. A simple bit of math shows that even with the rapid expansion that solar-energy and wind-energy capacity have had in the past few years, those two sources cannot even meet incremental global demand for electricity, much less make a dent in the world’s overall demand for hydrocarbons.

Between 1985 and 2011, global electricity generation increased by about 450 terawatt-hours per year. That’s the equivalent of adding about one Brazil (which used 485 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2010) to the electricity sector every year. And the International Energy Agency expects global electricity use to continue growing by about one Brazil per year through 2035.

How much solar capacity would be needed to produce 450 terawatt-hours? Well, Germany has more installed solar-energy capacity than any other country, with some 25,000 megawatts of installed photovoltaic panels. In 2011, those panels produced 18 terawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s total installed base, and it would have to do so again every year.

That would be an enormous challenge, given that between 2010 and 2011, global wind-energy capacity increased by just 41,000 megawatts. That’s a record increase, and one that advocates of renewable energy are quick to laud. But those same advocates refuse to acknowledge the energy sprawl inherent in wind energy, nor will they admit the growing backlash against the wind industry.

Let’s consider the extent of the energy sprawl if wind energy were to supply that 450 terawatt-hours per year of incremental electricity demand.

The power density of wind energy is roughly two watts per square meter, or about five megawatts per square mile. That means that by the end of 2011, the U.S. had covered a land area of about 9,400 square miles, just slightly smaller than the state of Maryland, with wind turbines. Therefore, to keep up with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy alone, the global wind industry will need to cover a land area of some 35,000 square miles — about the size of Indiana — with wind turbines. And it will have to do so every year from now through 2035.

That metric’s still hard to grasp, so let me put it another way: In order to merely keep up with the growth of global electricity use, the wind industry would have to cover 96 square miles every day with wind turbines. That’s an area about the size of four Manhattans.

Glib economists might suggest that such a feat could be achieved, but that ignores another key question: Where will we put all those turbines?

If you think offshore wind is the answer, the costs will easily be double those on land. But placing more turbines offshore is meeting stiff resistance, and putting them on land isn’t easy either. The backlash against wind energy is global, and it’s growing. Europe alone has more than 500 anti-wind groups. In the U.K., where fights are raging against industrial wind projects in Wales, Scotland, and elsewhere, some 285 anti-wind groups have been formed. In May 2011, the BBC reported that some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be halted.

One of the biggest issues for wind projects is noise. Numerous studies have demonstrated the deleterious health effects caused by the low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by large wind turbines. The Canadian province of Ontario has been Ground Zero for the fight. According to Beth Harrington, a volunteer spokesperson for several Ontario-based environmental groups, about 40 families in Ontario have been forced out of their homes due to wind-turbine noise.

In January the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the province’s biggest farm organization, called for a moratorium on new wind-project developments, saying that the push for wind energy had “become untenable” and that “rural residents’ health and nuisance complaints must be immediately and fairly addressed.” Last July, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal examined the noise issues related to large-scale wind projects and concluded that “the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”

READ MORE HERE:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s