Renewable corruption

Revolving door politics in the UK

Walney offshore windfarm, Off Barrow in Furness, Cumbria

“…the chairman of Forewind, the consortium behind the North Sea project, was Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), until it was thought appropriate that he should resign when he became chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, set up to give the Government “independent” advice on its energy policy. But he was replaced as Forewind’s chairman by Charles Hendry, who had just stepped down in turn from being Ed Davey’s colleague as Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. All very cosy. But at least it means that some of those £900 million a year we pay in subsidies will be going to a good British home.”
Christopher Booker, The Telegraph.

Note: £900 million yearly in subsidies to a single offshore project!

Read more:

Dirty financing in the US

“the windfarms’ raison d’être is that they are being used to finance political parties. In a nutshell, windfarm-related interests finance election campaigns, and in return politicians vote huge subsidies.”
Mark Duchamp, president of the World Council for Nature.

Read more:


Europe’s economic suicide

Is bureaucracy killing the European Union?

From Roger Helmer’s blog

EU Energy Policy is Industrial Suicide

Posted on January 21, 2015

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was introduced in 2005 as a “Cap & Trade” scheme to reduce emissions. The theory was that the right to emit CO2 would be traded, and therefore permits would go where they were most economically useful. The price of the units would send a “signal” to the market, which would promote energy conservation and new low-carbon technologies.

It was anticipated that the price would start out around €25 a ton (a level at which very “dirty” fossil fuels like lignite would start to be squeezed out), and progress over the years to €75, which would virtually exclude all fossil fuels.

The ETS was hailed as “a market system” that would allocate a scarce resource – the right to emit CO2 — in an efficient way. In fact, for almost all of that time the price has languished below €10. It has failed to give the market signals intended. But it has created a huge administrative burden on industry, and spawned a new (and totally non-productive) business in “carbon trading”, in which many people have made a lot of money without benefitting the economy in any way.

Recognising the effective failure of the grand scheme, the EU introduced a sticking-plaster response – “back-loading”. This removed some 900 million “allowances” from the current auction round for permits, but the effect on pricing was negligible. Some member-states became so frustrated with this failure that they introduced country-specific measures (undercutting the pretence of a Single Market). One such measure was George Osborne’s “Carbon Floor Price”, introduced in April 2013, a measure which directly impacted the competitive position of UK industry against continental competitors.

Recognising the on-going failure of the ETS programme, the EU institutions are now debating yet another sticking-plaster solution: the “Market Stability Reserve”, or MSR. Under the Commission’s proposal, starting from 2021, with the fourth ETS trading period, 12% of the allowances in circulation would be placed in a reserve if the number of allowances in circulation two years earlier exceeds 833 million.

No one seems to recognise the irony of a “market mechanism” which requires constant regulatory intervention to achieve the price levels originally envisaged. Markets set their own prices autonomously – that’s what a market is. We now have the worst of all possible worlds – the cost of operating a market, but a price being set by repeated regulatory intervention. It’s not a real market at all. It’s simply the most expensive and cumbersome method yet invented to impose a tax.

The MSR has been the subject of heated debate in the parliament, and the battle lines are drawn. The left and the greens are keen to impose the MSR as soon as possible, and want to bring it forward to 2017. Those who understand Europe’s competitive position in the world (and that includes UKIP) don’t want it at all.

On the industry side, a similar split is emerging. Energy suppliers want the MSR, as the only mechanism available to enable them to achieve the emissions targets the EU has set out. And they are confident that they can pass on the higher costs – forgetting that many of their most energy-intensive customers will move – indeed are already moving – out of the EU altogether to escape the suicidal energy policies which Brussels is imposing.

Intensive energy users, on the other hand, are in despair. Already clinging on by their finger-tips in the face of global competition, they fear that this is the coup-de-grace. In the past week I have met with the aluminium, steel and petroleum refining industries. They all tell the same story: EU production in decline, plants closing, jobs lost, imports rising. We are exporting production and jobs and investment, outside the EU altogether. And emissions. Often this activity goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, leading to higher emissions. In steel, imports can represent twice the emissions per ton compared to EU production. In petroleum refining, it’s plus 35%.

Aluminium has lost 42,000 jobs since 2007 (while imports rise). Steel 80,000. Petroleum refining 10,000 direct jobs, and an estimated 40,000 indirect. Chemicals, glass and cement can tell similar stories. This is what former Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani called “an industrial massacre in Europe”.

Yesterday I attended another debate on MSR (and intervened robustly). I told them that if their MSR project failed, as previous sticking plaster solutions have done, then we should be back in the same debate again in five years’ time But if it “succeeded”, that meant higher energy prices in Europe (the steel industry reckons energy prices up 40% by 2020). More job losses. More plant closures. More industry and investment moving out of the EU. The deindustrialisation of Europe. And quite possibly, higher emissions. That’s a very strange kind of “success”.

The word “mad” is hardly strong enough. This is economic and industrial suicide. And the EU institutions are determined to press ahead with it.

Roger Helmer, MEP


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.

Aussies don’t take it lying down


Which people are leading the fight against useless, expensive, destructive wind turbines?
– Australians!

Those of us fighting the wind farm scam around the world pay tribute to the courageaous people who, from Down Under, are threatening that evil industry.

In the latest article on their epic fight, we found the following to be of interest:

“Another resident on Blowholes Road, who did not want to be identified, said residents had been pro-wind energy before the project was constructed, but now realised there were alarming side effects.

“He said as well as health concerns, property values had plummeted to the point where some were almost unsaleable.”

And also this, which is something to look forward to:

“Six people took part in acoustic testing for eight weeks in June and July related to the Pacific Hydro wind facility at Cape Bridgewater.

“Acoustics expert Steven Cooper is expected to present his final report on February 9 in Portland, with Senator John Madigan also likely to attend.”

some houses on Blowholes Road, where turbines tower over the popular coastal spot, have been vacated.


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.

The Corrupt Coalition

Silencing the science and concerned citizens

Democrat's fascism

Attempts to gag dissenting voices are rampant in XXIst century democracies. Here is what one could read in the press this week: “Free speech is the right to express a point of view … Disinformation, however, is the intentional use of untruths in an attempt to misinform and confuse” (in reference to a billboard challenging the anthropogenic global warming theory).

The libertycide who spoke these words is John Bennett, National program director of the Sierra Club, one of the many NGOs that moved from ecology to radical politics (source: The National Post – see below). The Sierra Club obviously think that THEY know the truth, and that anyone disagreeing with them in public is practicing “disinformation”.
Pol Pot and Idi Amin reasoned in a similar way.

Then, reports the Canadian broadsheet, the Sierra Club executive asked his troops, his “green shirts” so to speak, to try and gag Friends of Science, the Canadian association which rented the billboard. The media at large, which kowtow to the Corrupt Coalition *, call “deniers” and refuse to interview those climate scientists who think that the sun, not CO2, is the main driver of climate – hence the idea of the billboards.

* The Corrupt Coalition regroups crony capitalists and misguided politicians, and the scientists, professionals and NGOs they fund with our money.

Read more: The National Post

Green fascism is also flexing its muscles
at COP 20, the Lima climate conference:

Green fascism

“[The UN said] in a press release that the UN climate treaty “will be adopted” at the Paris summit late next year. It was not immediately clear how the UN could know the outcome in advance.”

“The brutal communist dictatorship in Beijing … appears to be on board with the plot. In a piece about the ongoing summit in Lima, Communist Party USA mouthpiece People’s World also touted the “climate” schemes of its comrades ruling over mainland China. The tyrants in Beijing recently signed a “climate agreement” with Obama that the administration does not intend to even consult Congress about.”

Read more: The New American


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.

Agenda 21 and Delphi enslavement

Eye-opening videos from resistant
Rosa Koire,
Executive Director of the Post-sustainability Institute


Video #1 –> Agenda 21, a not-so-soft dictatorship


Video #2 –> the Delphi technique of voluntary enslavement (7:10)
Communitarianism vs LibertyTruthJustice


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.

What global warming?


World’s sea ice is back to 1979 levels 2014 10  Global sea ice

Click on graph to enlarge


When scientists are lying in order to keep their jobs, the way to stay informed, not disinformed, is to look at the data (above).

When the data is tampered with (remember Climategate and the “hide the decline” (of temperatures) scandal?) the way to proceed is to evaluate the severity of winter with your own senses, and to take your own notes.

Resist the lies!


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.