Climate change good intentions are causing grave harm.
How many birds should we slaughter in the name of saving the planet?
Only 40% of Obama’s electric cars are on the road. None meet the 150-mile-per gallon standard he promised.
Governments fund solar capacity in countries that receive little sun and install wind turbines in nations that get little wind. $100 billion has been squandered while green activists applauded.
Green energy lobbyists pretending to be eco prize winners have signed a climate change declaration. Its real purpose is to secure more green energy funding. Part 2 of 4
Why are we not one-tenth as concerned about real children dying needlessly right now as we are about hypothetical future climate change?
Government-mandated wind project meetings are supposed to be about two-way communication. But no questions from the public are allowed, and the notice period is ridiculously short.
Rather than bringing pine logs to the poor, 21st-century energy policies do the exact opposite. More children now shiver in the cold.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sacrifices today’s birds in the name of fighting tomorrow’s climate change. Not only does it provide cover for the wind industry, it cashes its cheques.
Supplying electricity to a typical family for 12 hours requires the pedal power of 80 elite cyclists. The same amount of electricity can be purchased from the grid for under $5.
Politicians, having blindly parroted environmentalist rhetoric about green jobs, look increasingly foolish.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
According to the vocal minority known as the World Wildlife Fund, governments shouldn’t be placating vocal minorities.
A new essay in the peer-reviewed literature searches for the secret formula by which to manipulate public opinion.
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
Speaking of all that clean, green German energy.
Everywhere it has been tried, green energy is costly, unreliable & financially unsustainable over the long term. Here’s a reading list for those still in doubt.
Civilized debate appears to be an endangered species.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
According to Canada’s most prominent environmentalist, the mining of gold, silver, copper and other minerals poses an unacceptable risk to the planet’s atmosphere.
Mining the iron ore needed to build wind farms entails ripping mountains and valleys “to shreds.”
We all care about the environment. But now we’re going to foolish extremes. And real people are getting hurt.
Windmills and solar panels sound wonderful. Except that the UK wind isn’t blowing and the German sun isn’t shining.
The only place wind energy is free and easy is in the minds of green activists.
Green energy is expensive energy. In Europe, prices are rising and unintended consequences have followed.
According to the editors of a prestigious magazine, Obama should pull a fast one. Even though he barely mentioned climate change on the campaign trail, they think it should now be his foremost concern.
How plans to run an entire Australian town on solar energy failed miserably.
The current United Nations response to environmental concerns is doing more harm than good.
How can claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is objective be taken seriously when one of its authors has been arrested at an anti-coal protest?
Write an essay that pokes holes in a green myth, submit it by June 30th, and you could be $13,000 US dollars richer.
A report by the Auditor General of a Canadian province highlights the dark side of green energy.
A now-bankrupt solar energy company flushed half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the toilet – after President Obama said it was a poster child of the new green economy.
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report once again relies on research conducted by Greenpeace. Once again, Greenpeace personnel are serving as IPCC lead authors.
A new 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas – even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal. This suggests the IPCC’s top priority isn’t emissions reduction after all.
The IPCC has released a 26-page summary of a new report 3 weeks ahead of the 1,000-page full document. This is an example of how the IPCC manipulates media coverage. Journalists can’t compare the summary to the real thing.
Portugal’s economy is a mess. Might that have something to with its enthusiastic embrace of expensive, inefficient renewable energy?
The person in charge of green energy projects for a group of Los Angeles community colleges wanted to cut down trees and obliterate playing fields so that $1 billion could be spent on alternative energy installations. Power currently costs these colleges less than $8 million a year.
A + B = C
A: Certain companies produce wind and solar power.
B: The rest of us pay inflated prices for this power.
C: Politicians point to the above as proof that they’re green.
Activist scientist James Hansen says the “experts agree” that meeting our current energy needs is possible via efficiency measures & carbon-free sources. But lots of experts don’t agree. Does he make a habit of pretending those with contrary opinions don’t exist?