Transforming the world’s energy system is a vast undertaking. Of colossal proportions.
Germany has spent a ton of money. The result? Its previously robust electricity grid is now broken.
How many birds should we slaughter in the name of saving the planet?
In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
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.
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.
People who think we should live in harmony with nature usually forget to mention poisonous plants.
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.
Greenpeace recently dismissed the Canadian Senate as a 19th century institution. But it aggressively promotes wind power – a 12th century technology. While it accuses the Senate of being undemocratic, Greenpeace itself scored only 42% when evaluated from an accountability perspective.
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.
Wind power companies would never be allowed to set up shop in the first place – and could not remain in business – if they were penalized in the same manner as oil companies for the bird deaths they cause.
Invited to speak to journalism students, here are a few ideas I’ll try to communicate: First, large increases in heating bills are the result of green energy policies. Second, these policies are the result of our belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful. Third, that belief is the result of reports written by the IPCC. Fourth, much of what we’ve been told about the IPCC and how it works is not true.
Oil companies get fined $7,000 per bird for inadvertently harming wildlife. Yet society ignores the predictable massacre of thousands of birds by wind farms. Are we protecting wildlife – or harassing oil companies?