Green energy fraud

[Firestarter]

I’ve earlier posted on how with the help of the World Wildlife Fund, rainforest is destroyed to make room for palm oil plantations which threaten the habitat of the orang-utan in Indonesia: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1191#p69098


The palm oil demand has been rising very fast since the 1980s.


To add injury to insult, palm oil has also been promoted as green “renewable energy”, which of course will cause even more rainforests to be destroyed.
While the European Union has threatened to phase out palm oil as biofuel by 2030, cynically continuing to subsidise this until then, the Brexitted UK seems set to buy palm oil biofuel at discount prices...

According to the following palm oil energy is even more damaging in terms of CO2 emissions than those “terrible” fossil fuels...

The use of palm oil for biodiesel increased five-fold following the introduction of the target to source 10% of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020. Scientific evidence shows that burning biofuels, including palm oil, can actually release more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels.

https://www.orangutans-sos.org/no-palm- ... -campaign/
(http://archive.is/DkSEL)


Major consumer brands like Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, and the Hershey Company have been buying palm oil from an illegal plantation inside the protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve in Indonesia’s Aceh province.
Rawa Singkil holds the highest density of critically endangered orang-utans in the world...

This “illegal” palm fruit is sold by brokers to processing mills just outside the protected reserve.
The palm oil is then sold to global traders, the Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) and Indonesia’s Musim Mas Group. These companies then sell the (illegally produced) palm oil, directly or indirectly, to the household consumer brands mentioned above.

Major banks, including Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, ABN Amro Bank from the Netherlands and Singapore’s OCBC, continue to finance the GAR: https://chinadialogue.net/en/food/11597 ... n-enclave/
(http://archive.is/N2smX)


How wonderful is that? We have to be terrified of global warming and then “renewable” energy must be used that is more expensive and doesn’t even lower carbon dioxide emission and...
destroys nature!

The following “scientific” paper was published earlier this year, but can only be read after payment...
Jose Rehbein et al. – Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas (2020): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /gcb.15067

The conclusion of the paper is that 2,206 of the 12,600 “renewable energy” facilities (sun, wind and hydro) are in important biodiversity areas, where they damage nature...
According to lead author José Rehbein:

Energy facilities and the infrastructure around them such as roads and increased human activity can be incredibly damaging to the natural environment. Many of these developments, when not well planned for, are not compatible with biodiversity conservation.

The majority of these 2,206 “renewable energy” facilities in important biodiversity areas, are now located in western Europe and developed nations elsewhere.
The new 922 “renewable energy” facilities are planned in important biodiversity areas in Asia and Africa, which hold much of the world’s biodiversity: https://ibed.uva.nl/content/news/2020/0 ... areas.html
(http://archive.is/XR7f8)


Not only palm oil plantations in Indonesia threaten the habitat of endangered orang-utans.
The Batang Toru hydropower project in North Sumatra, threatens the only habitat of the critically endangered Tapanuli orang-utan (of which there are only 800 left in the world).

India plans 175 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2022. This will require some 12.5 million hectares of land (an area the size of Austria). This could threaten more than 10,000 square kilometres of forest and 2,500 sq km of important bird habitats by building wind farms.
India’s Rajasthan desert region will be a major area for wind and solar power expansion. It is right here where the last viable population of one of the world’s most threatened birds, the Great Indian Bustard, is surviving: https://www.eco-business.com/news/solar ... sia-india/
(http://web.archive.org/web/202004041109 ... sia-india/)

[Firestarter]

There are some climate “models” that get lots of publicity and others that are completely ignored by our wonderful media.

In 2018, some “scientists” concluded that a high amount of wind power causes global warming!
If hypothetically speaking (not possible in reality) the USA would let all its electricity demands be generated by wind power, it would warm the United States by 0.24 ˚C.
That is higher compared to “decarbonising” the USA’s electricity sector this century, which would cause the US to warm “only” 0.1 ˚C.

The model used based the warming effect of wind power on the theory that wind turbines generate electricity by slowing down wind and altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere”.
This effect causes warming of the atmosphere.

According to John Dabiri of Stanford this type of modelling is very poor and that a “more realistic” simulation found “little temperature change near the surface”: http://archive.is/Af15G


We can argue about models all we want, but the following is no hypothesis, and happening as we speak...

About 85% of turbine components can be recycled or reused, but most of the tens of thousands of fibreglass blades (some as long as a football field) have nowhere to go but landfills.
In the US alone, some 8,000 fibreglass blades have to be disposed of in the next 4 years. Europe even has to get rid of 3,800 annually through at least 2022.

And because the wind energy is booming business, it’s only getting worse!
According to Bob Cappadona, “The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever”.

See the Casper Regional Landfill in Casper, Wyoming, where 870 blades are buried “forever”.


In the European Union, some blades are burned but this doesn’t generate much energy and the burning fibreglass emits pollutants.
Some say that waste from some other energy sources is even more polluting than the relatively “clean” wind turbine blades.

Michael Bratvold responded to the adverse publicity:

The backlash was instant and uninformed. Critics said they thought wind turbines were supposed to be good for the environment and how can it be sustainable if it ends up in a landfill?

http://archive.is/olTU8

[Firestarter]

One of the most interesting climate calamity activists is banker Mark Carney.
The Canadian Carney was Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to March 2020.

Carney started his career at Goldman Sachs before he joined the Bank of Canada, where he (also) was Governor since 2007.
It was at about this time that Carney joined the Rockefeller Foundation’s Group of 30.
Carney also became a board member of the World Economic Forum.

Carney was a participant at the 2011 and 2012 Bilderberg conferences.
Before being selected to lead the Bank of England, he was Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements' Committee on the Global Financial System from July 2010 until January 2012.

Carney will continue his career pushing the environmental agenda in combination with the corona lockdown.
In January 2020, Queen Elizabeth II chose Carney as finance advisor for the UK presidency of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference (that has since been postponed to November 2021).

In March 2020, Carney was selected as United Nations special envoy for climate action and finance.
Carney will lead the “Canadian Pandemic Recovery Plan” task force to make British colony ready for “renewable, green” energy in the midst of the COVID-19 “pandemic”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney


Following are some excerpts from the best article I found on this Mark Carney.

New plans to overthrow market-driven investment systems are a constant feature of today’s global financial scene. The recent appointment of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance signals a renewed international effort to turn the world’s energy investors into pawns of state climate activists and agitators for market-distorting policies.
(...)
British energy commentator John Constable suggests it is Carney and other green energy advocates who lack a realistic plan. Global energy use over the past 30 years suggests fossil fuels have been expanding as stable and risk-free investments while renewables have failed to gain ground.
(...)
In a November report on that country’s energy transition to a greener and more sustainable regime, McKinsey & Company essentially concluded that Germany’s two-decade orchestrated green energy revolution has been a disastrous failure. The results have been dismal. Germany will fail to meet its greenhouse targets by a wide margin, the country’s power grid is in trouble, electricity may have to be imported, and electricity prices are 45 per cent higher than in other European countries.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/teren ... rgy-crisis
(https://archive.is/PKPsA)


The following graph from the International Energy Agency shows that most of the growth in global energy consumption is accounted for by growth in fossil fuel energy. Despite the massive amounts of taxpayer’s money pumped into “green” energy.
From 1990 to 2014, “green energy” increased from 13% to (only) 14% of total energy consumption.



Mark Carney has promised that COVID-19 will move the global energy transition “more to centre-stage” for investors.
Government bail-outs for carbon-emitting will increasingly carry a “quid pro quo” to demand that the firms will join the path to “net zero carbon emissions”: https://www.energyvoice.com/coronavirus ... tre-stage/

[Firestarter]

I’ve earlier written in this thread about wind energy that generates so little energy (compared to the energy needed to build and dismantle them and the financial costs) that they are no real alternative to “conventional” energy...
I’ve also posted in this thread that because of the batteries, electric cars are even more polluting than diesel cars.


Even our wonderful media admit that it’s a problem that wind and solar energy (only) generates enough energy at peak moments, while at other moments it doesn’t generate enough electricity.
Now the “solution” for this minor technicality is to start gigantic battery parks, which according to Bloomberg has already made the costs for solar and wind power generated electricity drop by 9% “in the last six months” (to $44/MWh for wind and $50/MWh for solar energy).

https://thenextavenue.com/2020/04/29/ba ... rgy-costs/

For some reason they forgot to compare the price to “conventional” energy. They also “forgot” to take into account the enormous environmental “costs” of these highly toxic batteries, let alone the massive amounts of energy needed to produce them!
They forgot the environmental results of the space these “parks” consume, where forests could grow.
They even forgot to take the financial “costs” to produce these battery parks into account...

But please don’t think for yourself, or you’ll see the environmental, green energy agenda for the fraud it is.


There is another problem with these battery parks, where the electricity is stored in lithium-ion batteries. Lithium batteries have a habit of “spontaneous” ignition. Of course producing more pollution and greenhouse gasses!
See an example of such an explosion in South Korea.


There have been so many lithium-ion battery fires in South Korea that in 2019 the government stopped installing more battery parks.

In the USA there have been some concerns over battery parks since April 2019 when an explosion at Arizona Public Service’s McMicken battery facility near Phoenix sent several fire-fighters to the hospital. Arizona regulators subsequently learned that a fire in 2014 also destroyed APS’s Mt. Elden battery storage system.

There have been more explosions of wind power storage batteries, for example at a power station located near Brussels, Belgium: https://stopthesethings.com/2020/03/01/ ... d-on-fire/
(http://web.archive.org/web/202004131154 ... d-on-fire/)


Of course mining for lithium and cobalt (also needed for these very polluting batteries) is associated with human rights violations (like child labour in the Congo) and pollution.
Like for example in China (where Lithium is mined): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosliv ... scale.html


Australia, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, dominate more than 80% of world lithium production.
Congo is the top producer of cobalt.

Another minor technicality is that because of the high demand and prices, “direct-shipping ore” from mining sites to China has become common practice.

Because raw material is sent out before it is concentrated, more mass has to be shipped, which “means that your energy consumption for transportation is much higher -- roughly three times higher”.
This of course results in these batteries needing even more energy to be produced. Thankfully our wonderful media forgot to connect these dots, or maybe, possibly even the environmental crazies will lose faith in “green energy”: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... -what-cost
(https://archive.is/OYuwO)

[Firestarter]

No worries for the eugenics psychos that rule the world. They have found that the herd has “a powerful tendency to conform” and can be easily “nudged” into changing their behaviour by government announcements.
The report that exposed this by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) was accidentally (really?) published by the British government before being hastily taken down.
BIT was part of the British government's effort to use “totalitarian” and “unethical” methods to scare the population into confirming to the draconian lockdown that has caused a "pandemic".

The paper noted:

Government statements, actions and laws powerfully shape perceptions of normative and acceptable behaviour. For instance, even with public criticism being high, many still perceived government approval as the yardstick for safe behaviour during COVID-19 ‘we’re allowed to do this now [so must be safe]…’.
This reveals, for many, a deep set reverence for legitimate government authority, regardless of one’s personal political views.

.
They conclude that similar scare tactics used to force people into accepting the brutal COVID lockdown can be used to make them adopt to the green, climate change agenda: https://summit.news/2021/10/22/deleted- ... o-conform/


To create the batteries for these "clean" electric cars that cause more pollution than "dirty" fossil fuel cars, much lithium is needed.
Mining lithium causes pollution, destruction of nature and human rights violations...

Lithium extraction requires huge amounts of water, approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne. Much of the world’s lithium resources are in the very dry Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, lithium and other mining activities consume 65% of the region’s water, causing groundwater depletion and environmental degradation. Locals are forced to leave their homes.

Toxic chemicals from the mines are stored in tailing sites that also cause environmental disasters and death when there's a leakage.
In May 2016, dead fish, cows and yaks were found in the Tibet’s Liqi River, contaminated by a toxic chemical leak from the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine run by Chinese company BYD.

In Serbia there have been some protests against the litium mining activities in the Jadar Valley by the Queen Elizabeth controlled Rio Tinto.
The lithium mine threatens land and livelihoods for more than 15,000 farmers in Loznica and Krupanj, and also the health of Loznica, Šabac and Valjevo. People that refuse to sell their land face being evicted to make way for Rio Tinto's polluting mine: https://corporatewatch.org/serbia-rio-t ... ar-valley/

[Firestarter]

Post moved to "new" thread on Elon Musk and technocracy: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... f=7&t=2631

Keywords: "corrupt Andrew Cuomo, Buffalo Billion, Tesla, SolarCity, Rive cousins, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Jeff Skoll, Solutions Project, Rabobank, Billy Parish, Naomi Klein"

[Firestarter]

Post moved to "new" thread on Elon Musk and technocracy: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... f=7&t=2631

Keywords: "fire risk Tesla solar panels, Steven Henkes, Cristina Balan, COVID vaccines, dating Grimes"

[Firestarter]

Obviously it's not enough to inflate the prices of fuel, and destroy food production, as there is still the risk that some of these horrible conspiracy theorists will expose that the green energy is a complete fraud that destroys more of nature and causes more global warming than dirty fossil fuels.
So the answer is more censorship by big tech...

A couple of years ago, Facebook started using fact debunking checkers to ridicule "alternative" stories that criticise the apocalyptic global warming models.
Now guided by the "build back better" Biden administration, climate-change censorship phase 2 is in full motion.

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy wants them to censor content on the costs of the green energy madness.
McCarthy now wants to shut down debate over climate “solutions”:

Now it’s not so much denying the problem.
What the industry is now doing is seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not.

.
Bizarrely McCarthy claims that “dark money” is used to “fool” the public about “the benefits of clean energy”, so “We need the tech companies to really jump in” to prevent these "extremists" to expose the costs of green energy: https://archive.ph/KjcNF


WEF chairman Klaus Schwab was also a Bilderberg steering committee member. He became a Bilderberg steering committee member in 1971, at about the same time he started the European Management Forum (that has since evolved into the World Economic Forum).

My conclusion is that the WEF is effectively a subisidiary of the Dutch royals controlled Bilderberg Group (implementing the depoulation green agenda as we speak): https://thebigsmoke.com.au/2017/06/14/k ... visionary/


You may have heard about all of these conspiracy theories that the Bilderberg Group is really the shadow world government that rules the world.
One of the interesting conspiracy theories is that the oil shock of 1973, and following inflation and worldwide economic collapse, was orchestrated by Bilderberg. They DID indeed discuss a coming oil shock at Bilderberg that year...

In this 1974 video, Prince Bernhard (then still the chairman of the Bilderberg Group and WWF) burst out in laughter on how they were quite the "prophets", predicting the oil shock.
At 3:25 in the following video, Bernhard laughs out loud about Bilderberg "predicting" the oil shock (unfortunately in French).
https://youtu.be/kyO-OzyX91E

I've previously posted about this (staged?) event...
.

In May 1973, the Bilderberg Group met at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, the secluded island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family. At his meeting of 84 high ranking members of international crime, Walter Levy outlined a ‘scenario’ for a drastic increase in OPEC petroleum revenues. He projected an OPEC Middle East oil revenue rise.
See 2 excerpts from the confidential protocol of the 1973 meeting of the Bilderberg group in Sweden. There was discussion about the danger that “inadequate control of the financial resources of the oil producing countries could completely disorganize and undermine the world monetary system”.
The second excerpt speaks of “huge increases of imports from the Middle East. The cost of these imports would rise tremendously”.


The purpose was not to prevent the oil price shock, but plan it in a process that US Secretary of State Kissinger later called “recycling the petrodollar flows”. Since 1945, world oil had been priced in dollars. A sudden sharp increase in the price of oil, therefore meant an equal increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil.

Bilderberg policy used a global oil embargo, to create a 400% increase in world oil prices. On 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, igniting the Yom Kippur War.
The events surrounding the outbreak of the October War were secretly orchestrated by Washington and London, using the powerful secret diplomatic channels developed by Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. US intelligence reports, including intercepted communications from Arab officials confirming the build-up for war, were suppressed by Kissinger.
Washington didn’t permit Germany to remain neutral in the Middle East conflict, but hypocritical Britain clearly stated its neutrality, so avoided the Arab oil embargo.

On October 16, the Arab OPEC declared an embargo on all oil sales to the US and the Netherlands for its support for Israel and raised the oil price from $3.01 to $5.11 per barrel (+70%). Following a meeting in Teheran on 1 January 1974, a second price increase of more than 100% brought OPEC benchmark oil prices to $11.65. Henry Kissinger secretly put up to the Shah of Iran to arrange this.
President Nixon was kept busy with the “Watergate affair”, leaving Henry Kissinger as de facto president. When in 1974 the Nixon White House sent a senior official to the US Treasury in order to devise a strategy to force OPEC into lowering the oil price, he was bluntly turned away.
In August 1971, Nixon had established a secret accord with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) that was finalised in February 1975. Under the terms of the agreement, a sizeable part of the huge rise in Saudi oil revenue would be invested in financing the US government deficits.
In 1974, 70% of the additional OPEC oil revenue, $57 billion, at least 60% went directly to financial institutions in the US and Britain.

The most severe impact of the oil crisis in the US was felt in New York City. New York was forced to slash spending for roadways, bridges, hospitals and schools in order to service their bank debt, and to lay off tens of thousands of city workers.
Bankruptcies and unemployment across Europe rose to alarming levels. As Germany’s imported oil costs increased by 17 billion Deutschmarks in 1974. By June 1974 the oil crisis had resulted in the collapse of Germany’s Herstatt-Bank and a crisis in the Deutschmark as a result. It resulted in a million unemployed Germans.
In May 1974, Willy Brandt offered his resignation to Federal President Heinemann, who then appointed Helmut Schmidt as chancellor.

In 1973, India had a positive balance of trade. But in 1974, India had total foreign exchange reserves of $629 million which couldn’t pay for the annual oil import bill of 1,241 million.
In 1974, Sudan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and most countries in Africa and Latin America faced gaping deficits in their balance of payments.
In 1974, developing countries had a total trade deficit of $35 billion, 4 times as large as in 1973 (precisely in proportion to the oil price increase). In the early 1970s, the account deficit of all developing countries was (only) some $6 billion per year.

The major New York and London banks, and the Seven Sisters oil multinationals benefitted. In 1974, Exxon overtook General Motors as the largest US corporation in gross revenues. Her “sisters”, including Mobil, Texaco, Chevron and Gulf, were not far behind.
Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds, Midland Bank all enjoyed the windfall profits of the oil crisis.
In a strange twist, the American David Mulford became director and principal investment adviser of the SAMA, the largest OPEC oil producer.
Basically the post-war Bretton Woods gold exchange system was replaced by the highly unstable petroleum-based dollar exchange system, the “petrodollar standard”.

The year 1975 witnessed the first major decline in world trade since the end of the war in 1945, a drop of 6%.
While industrial countries had experienced a slow recovery from the initial oil shock, the developing economies deteriorated even further in 1975. In 1976, the account deficit of all developing countries rose to $42 billion. Private US and European banks were glad to lend to these countries.
Foreign debts of the developing countries expanded some five-fold, from $130 billion in 1973, before the first oil shock, to some $550 billion by 1981, and to over $612 billion by 1982, according to the IMF.

https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5522#p5522


If I tell "good citizens" that simulation exercises are really plans to implement the Great Reset they look at me funny.
There are however genuine plans that are implemented as we speak...

Is it just a coincidence that 4 months after the UK Government released the "Absolute Zero" report, the Coronavirus Act was implemented with a lockdown that comes pretty close to the goals of the report, calling for severely restricting travelling to reduce emissions?!?
The 2019 "Absolute Zero" report was cooked up by Oxford University and Imperial College London. It ellaborated how zero emissions by 2050 supposedly could be achieved. This includes stopping to develop petrol/diesel vehicles, which has already been abolished by 2030 in the UK (with similar plans in the EU). Furtermore all UK airports - except Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast - must close vefore 2029, with all remaining airports to close before 2049 (I guess this won't include private plans or the military).


In March 2022, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published the report "A 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use" with a similar objective:

In the face of the emerging global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the IEA’s 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use proposes 10 actions that can be taken to reduce oil demand with immediate impact – and provides recommendations for how those actions can help pave the way to putting oil demand onto a more sustainable path in the longer term.

.
This sounds an awful lot like a “climate” version of Covid-19 lockdowns, doesn’t it? If you still don't believe we're being lied to by our Government and mainstream media, take a look at the following example.
In June 2022, in the UK the price of crude oil per barrel is $120.67, and the average price per litre of petrol is £1.85; but in June 2008, the price of crude oil per barrel was $187.04 (50% higher), and the price per litre of petrol was £1.04 (50% lower): https://expose-news.com/2022/06/14/cost ... eat-reset/


Even before Al Gore became Vice President there were already climate change disaster stories.

[Firestarter]

The following essay argues that geoengineering, weather manipulation by the army, could be behind the recent extreme weather around the globe...

In the late 1960s, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the CIA authorised the top secret geoengineering Operation PopEye.
US forces sprayed silver iodide and lead iodide into seasonal monsoon storm clouds to turn the North Vietnamese supply roads into impassable mud sinks, to keep the Ho Chi Minh trails blocked. This was already made public in 1972.

In June 1996, the US Air Force reported “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, “to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future”.
The report noted that “weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale”.
The report described orchestrating extreme weather, like we've seen recently...

After the 2015 Paris Agreement, professor Peter Wadhams with other leading global warming scientists called for geoengineering to “solve” the climate crisis:

Our backs are against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are small and the risks of implementation are great.

http://williamengdahl.com/gr16January2023.php


Of course eco-fascist Al Gore is a lunatic, but I think he is much better at hiding this than his insane speech at the WEF in Davos, including (currently?!?) boiling oceans, atmospheric rivers, and rain bombs. That sounds scary, but I haven't seen any of these.
It could be to cover-up the previous essay on geoengineering, or the recent stories on his partner in climate crime, Maurice Strong: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 456#p81456


Gore at one point in his speech starts speaking so loud, it's almost yelling...

We’re still putting 162 million tons [of greenhouse gas] into it every single day and the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the earth.

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs, and sucking the moisture out of the land, and creating the droughts, and melting the ice and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees!

He goes on to explain (yell) that climate change will cause a number of refugees "to reach 1 billion in this century" that will end our "self-governance".

Starting at 5 minutes Al Gore raises his voice for his rant.
https://youtu.be/4-br-n9xTOc
https://www.foxnews.com/media/al-gore-g ... eats-davos


I guess that most people don't know that there is an actual UN plan for replacement migration to hide (the success of) the depopulation agenda: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... f=7&t=1149


We get told that we should "transition" from dirty fossil fuels to clean electricity-powered appliances. But in reality generating this electricity is just as "dirty". On top of that the batteries in electric devices make them more polluting than "dirty" fossil fuels.

There is another problems with these batteries... they cause fires. For example recently in a Manhattan building in New York, caused by a lithium-ion battery in an electric bike or scooter. More than 100 fires were caused by e-bikes in 2021: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/05/us/m ... index.html

[Firestarter]

A 2018 study found that the intended results of installing huge solar farms in deserts, such as in the Sahara, are environmental crises, including altering the climate and causing global warming!
Solar panels are only 15% to 20% efficient, with the rest of the sunlight returned to the surrounding environment as heat, "affecting the climate".
.

The model revealed that when the size of the solar farm reaches 20% of the total area of the Sahara, it triggers a feedback loop. Heat emitted by the darker solar panels (compared to the highly reflective desert soil) creates a steep temperature difference between the land and the surrounding oceans that ultimately lowers surface air pressure and causes moist air to rise and condense into raindrops. With more monsoon rainfall, plants grow and the desert reflects less of the sun's energy, since vegetation absorbs light better than sand and soil. With more plants present, more water is evaporated, creating a more humid environment that causes vegetation to spread.
…

Covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5°C according to our model. At 50% coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5°C. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world's average temperature by 0.16°C for 20% coverage, and 0.39°C for 50% coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform though – the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.

.


So the solar panels cause (or increase) global warming, which is then used as an argument to install more solar panels (sort of like a “feedback loop”): https://theconversation.com/solar-panel ... why-153992
(https://archive.is/asCMM)


The following looks like it’s based on the study from the previous article, concluding that solar panels will exacerbate weather extremes, produce heat in summer and cooling in winter…

Solar panels are at best about 20% efficient. They convert 0% of the UV light that hits them. None of the visible spectrum and only some of the IR spectrum. At the same time as they are absorbing light they are absorbing heat from the sun. This absorbed heat is radiated into the adjacent atmosphere. It should be obvious what happens next.
When air is warmed it rises. Even small differences in ordinary land surfaces are capable of creating powerful forces of weather like thunderstorms and tornadoes. These weather phenomena are initiated and reinforced by land features as they are blown downwind. It is all too obvious to me what will happen with the heat generated by an entire solar farm. Solar farms will become thunderstorm and tornado incubators and magnets.

Solar panels are dark and they emit energy to the space above them when they are not being radiated. This is known as black-body radiation. Satellites flying in space use this phenomenon to cool internal components. If they didn't do this they would fry themselves.
So solar farms not only produce more heat in summer than the original land that they were installed on, but they also produce more cooling in winter, thus exacerbating weather extremes.

https://archive.is/xaBBJ

--------------------------------

The only way wind farms “work” is through government subsidies. Sometimes stories emerge that this is completely corrupt…

In the UK, wind turbine companies have inflated the expected amount of electricity generated, at times that the transmission network could be overloaded.
In 2022 alone, wind farms were paid £227 million to NOT produce electricity, paid for by the consumers: https://archive.ph/XpgBh


Clean energy sounds sooo much better than energy generated by dirty fossil fuels.
At a clean energy publicity stunt in Michigan, one journalist asked the trick question "what’s charging the batteries?" for electric cars (whose batteries makes them more polluting than diesel cars).

J. Peter Lark from the Lansing Board of Water & Ligh, explained what generated the "clean" electricity: “Right, it would be charging off the power grid which is about 95 percent coal”.
It is known that most electric cars in the USA are powered by electricity that is generated by "dirty" coal. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia in British colony Canada, where much of the electricity is generated by burning coal, electric cars produce much more carbon pollution than gas-powered cars.

Where electricity is generated through coal burning, electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than fossil-fuelled cars because of the pollution caused by generating the electricity, according to a December 2014 study: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-02-07- ... -coal.html