PS 90: How the story of Climate Change impacts Stroat.)

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 90:

30-Nov-2015

(PS 90: How the story of Climate Change impacts Stroat.)

The 2015 Paris Climate Change Warmist Scam – Designed To Rip YOU Off!

WARMIST PARIS MEETING 2015 001

& just how this fantastic global scam is impacting our society – justy look at what is happening to Stroat directly and the reasons behind the imposition of a wind farm in the Severn Estuary by stealth:

IPCC SCAM 001

To read more on this subject see CLICK HERE

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

Advertisements

PS 89: Wind Power Sends Power Prices Skyward, Risks Total Grid Collapse

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

.

PS – 89:

24-Nov-2015

(PS 89: Wind Power Sends Power Prices Skyward,
Risks Total Grid Collapse & Fails to Cut CO2 Emissions.)

Britain Laments: Wind Power Sends Power Prices Skyward, Risks Total Grid Collapse & Fails to Cut CO2 Emissions

report-card

****

In a ‘don’t say we didn’t warn you’ piece, Matt Ridley nails down precisley why THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level. Over to Matt.

Wind power makes electricity expensive and unreliable without cutting emissions
Rational Optimist
Matt Ridley
13 November 2015

By preventing investment in gas, the dash for wind has done real harm

My Times article on wind power is below. An astonishingly poor attack on the article was made in The Guardian by Mark Lynas.

He failed to address all the main points I made: he failed to challenge the argument that wind power has not cut emissions, failed to challenge the argument that wind power has raised the cost of electricity, he failed to challenge my argument that wind speeds are correlated across Europe. And he made a hash of attempting to criticise my argument that wind has made the system less reliable.

The gist of his case was that the recent short-term emergency that gave rise to price spikes was caused by coal-fired power station outages. But the point was that these coincided with a windless day. In a system of coal and gas, the weather would not matter, but in a system dependent on wind, then coal outages on a windless day cause problems. Surely this was not too difficult to understand, Mark? Note that Germany had a windless day too.

Mark Lynas then took to twitter boasting in troll-fashion that he had debunked my article where he was joined by the usual green cheerleaders. They have shot themselves in the foot, I am afraid.

I remain astonished at the fervour with which greens like Mark defend wind power at all costs, despite growing evidence that it does real environmental harm, rewards the rich at the expense of the poor and does not cut carbon dioxide emissions significantly if at all. It might even make them worse, as I argue here. If they really are worried about emissions, why do greens love wind? It isn’t helping.

Anyway, here’s the article.

Suppose that a government policy had caused shortages of bread, so the price of a loaf had shot up and was spiking even higher on certain days.

Suppose that the high price of bread was causing massive job losses. Suppose that the policy was justified on the grounds that the bread was now coming from farmers whose practices were better for the environment, but it turned out they were probably worse for the environment instead. There would be a rethink, right?

For bread, read electricity. The government needs to rethink its electricity policy. Last week’s emergency was a harbinger of worse to come: because the wind was not blowing on a mild autumn day, the National Grid had to call for some large electricity consumers to switch off, and in addition offered to pay up to £2,500 a megawatt-hour — 40 times the normal price — for generators capable of stepping into the breach at short notice.

Among other lessons, this teaches us that letting Liberal Democrats run the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for five years was an expensive mistake. What puzzles me is how little the current government seems to realise it must make a U-turn or get the blame itself.

The coalition promised secure, affordable and low-carbon power, but instead gave us unreliable, expensive and high-carbon power. What is worse, this outcome was “wholly predictable but wholly unanticipated by policymakers”, in the words of Rupert Darwall of the Centre for Policy Studies, speaking to a House of Lords committee (on which I sit) earlier this year.

Mr Darwall’s argument is that wind farms, which cost a lot to build and maintain but pay nothing for fuel, can sell electricity for very low prices when the wind’s blowing. Being intermittent, this power therefore destroys incentives to invest in highly efficient “combined-cycle” gas turbines (CCGTs).

If, when the wind blows, a new gas plant has to switch off, then the return on investment in gas is negative. Combined-cycle plants are sophisticated machines and don’t like being switched on and off. Therefore the gradual replacement of coal-fired power by much more efficient gas-fired power has stalled as a direct result of the wind-power boom.

To solve this problem, the government came up with a “capacity mechanism”, a fancy name for subsidising fossil fuels. But this further impost on the hard-pressed bill payers (likely to exceed £1.3 billion by 2020), instead of bringing forward new gas turbines, last year went mostly to keep old coal-fired stations going.

The next auction, due in December, has brought a rash of bids from diesel generators. This is madness: wind power has made the country more reliant on dirty, high-carbon coal and diesel. (I declare my usual interest in coal, but note that coal has probably benefited from the policy I am criticising.)

Meanwhile, the old coal stations that have not attracted a subsidy are closing because of the coalition’s unilateral carbon tax (sorry, “floor price”).

Eggborough, for instance, tried to switch to subsidised biomass, better known as wood — a fuel that emits even more carbon dioxide than coal per unit of energy — but was refused and so is closing. Thus, when the wind drops, we are plunged into crisis.

Wind’s advocates have long argued that cables to Europe would help on windless days because we could suck in power from Germany when the wind’s blowing there but not here.

Yet last week, as we were debating this very issue in the Lords, I checked and wind was generating about 1 per cent of our electricity, and even less of Germany’s. Studies by the Renewable Energy Foundation published as long ago as 2008 have shown that wind speeds are well correlated across Europe most of the time. Was anyone listening?

Prices charged to electricity consumers have been rising because of the high cost of subsidies for wind power, especially offshore wind. The DECC’s numbers show that small businesses will be paying 77 per cent more per unit for electricity by 2020 than they would be if we were not subsidising renewables.

The cost of the subsidies is on track to hit roughly £10 billion a year in 2020 and that’s before paying for the fleet of diesel generators being subsidised under the capacity mechanism and extra grid infrastructure costs.

What are we getting for that money? A less reliable electricity system, a big increase in cost, lost jobs in the aluminium and steel industries and no discernible cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

If that last claim seems far fetched, consider the following calculation. According to the wind industry, a 2-megawatt onshore wind turbine could cut emissions by about 1,800 tonnes a year in average conditions, offshore a bit more.

With about 13 gigawatts of wind now in service, that would mean the total wind fleet can displace at most 15 million tonnes, or 2 per cent of our 700 million tonnes of total annual emissions.

But, since the effect of the wind boom (solar production, by the way, is an irrelevance lost in the decimal points) has been to deter new gas and prolong the life of inefficient coal, and since it wastes power to get a fossil-fuelled power station up to speed when the wind drops, and since expensive wind power has driven energy-intensive industries abroad to more carbon-intensive countries, the actual emissions savings achieved by wind are lower and probably negative.

We would have been far better off buying new gas or “clean-coal” capacity instead: replacing coal with gas more than halves emissions.

After Wednesday’s near emergency, ministers must surely realise that we cannot rely on the weather to produce the right amount of electricity, and gas is far cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the DECC’s dirty diesel solution. As for nuclear power, Hinkley C was supposed to help with the supply crunch, but it will only come on stream in the mid-2020s, and at a gigantic cost.

The poor and the elderly are hardest hit by high electricity bills. What Chris Huhne and Ed Davey have done to our electricity supply, following the lead of Tony Blair’s foolish 2007 decision to accept a European Union target for renewables, is bonkers.

It has cost wealth, jobs, landscapes, wildlife, security of supply: and all for nothing in terms of emissions savings. It is no comfort to know that some of us have been predicting this for years.
Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 84: Subsidies for renewables “least effective” for the environment: economist

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 84:

22-Nov-2015
(PS 84:Subsidies for renewables “least effective” for the environment: economist)

Subsidies for renewables “least effective” for the environment: economist

The Montreal Economics Institute, a non-partisan non-profit organization engaged in education and research, has published a document in advance of the Paris climate change talks, entitled A Practical Guide to the Economics of Climate Change.

In it, the authors discuss various measures that might be considered. Of particular note is Chapter 2 Governmental measures and their effectiveness and the discussion of Feed In Tariff subsidies for “renewable” sources of power. Here is an excerpt:

These subsidies are among the most expensive, and
therefore the least efficient, ways of reducing GHG
emissions. In particular, they have significant economic
and social consequences. By raising the costs of electricity
for the consumers who finance them, these
subsidies generate energy poverty among the most vulnerable
households. They also hurt the competitiveness
of companies that see their rates go up. The European
experience is telling. Several countries have had to
shrink the subsidies they give out to producers of renewable
energy.

In an interview on November 13 with journalist Rob Snow at radio CFRA, co-author Youri Chassin named Ontario as an example of how FIT subsidies don’t work, and actually cause hardship for citizens. If you do a cost-benefit analysis, Chassin said, you will see, they are the least efficient way to go. (Listen to the interview here, in the first half hour.)

This is in line with what Wind Concerns Ontario has been saying: Ontario NEVER did a cost-benefit analysis for its renewables program, particularly wind (it sure won’t do one now) and, whatever your goals are for the environment, wind power is not the way to achieve them.

To view the original of this article & links CLICK HERE

Practical Guide to the Economics of Climate Change: The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath Montreal Economic Institute CHAPTER 2 Governmental Measures and Their Effectiveness CLICK HERE

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 85: the Economics of Climate Change: The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 85:

22-Nov-2015
(PS 85: the Economics of Climate Change:
The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath)

November 12, 2015

Practical Guide to the Economics of Climate Change: The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath

Research Paper explaining the most relevant economic facts and overarching principles that should guide our climate change policy choices

The Paris Conference that opens on November 30, 2015, is drawing plenty of attention to the fight against climate change, an issue that blends political rhetoric, economic logic and climate science. The aim of this Research Paper is to make key climate change concepts easier to understand as well as to put the mechanisms discussed here in a Canadian context and to base public policy choices on the most relevant facts.

Highlights (pdf)
Introduction (pdf)
Chapter 1 – Climate Change in 20 Questions and Answers (pdf)/(web)
Chapter 2 – Governmental Measures and Their Effectiveness (pdf)
Chapter 3 – The Innovations That Are Revolutionizing Our Energy Consumption (pdf)
Chapter 4 – Adapting to Climate Change (pdf)
Conclusion – For a Balanced and Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Climate Change (pdf)
Annex – Uncertainty in the Determination of Public Policies to Fight Climate Change (pdf)

Media release:Fighting climate change with methods that are realistic and effective

Links of interest

La Conférence de Paris pour les nuls (et les moins nuls)(The MEI’s Journal de Montréalblog, November 5, 2015)Du Protocole de Kyoto à la Conférence de Paris : Les émissions canadiennes de GES en hausse de 24 % (The MEI’s Journal de Montréal blog, November 10, 2015)

Conférence de Paris sur le climat – Sept choses que vous devriez savoir (La Presse, November 16, 2015)

Fight climate change efficiently (National Post, November 17, 2015)

Quel est le lien entre la chute du mur de Berlin et le Protocole de Kyoto? (The MEI’s Journal de Montréal blog, November 20, 2015)

Interview (in French) with Youri Chassin (Radio-Canada cet après-midi, Radio-Canada, November 12, 2015)Interview (in French) with Youri Chassin (Bonjour la Côte, Radio-Canada, November 13, 2015) Interview (in French) with Youri Chassin (Mario Dumont, LCN news network, November 12, 2015)Interview (in French) with Youri Chassin (Argent maintenant, ARGENT business news network, November 12, 2015)

To view the original source of this PS & for the links to the full document CLICK HERE

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 83: It seems Alvington & Aylburton’s ‘effected community’ have been as soundly betrayed as Stroat …!

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 83:

22-Nov-2015
(PS 83: It seems Alvington & Aylburton’s ‘effected community’ have been as soundly betrayed by its elected representatives as have those in Stroat to date …)

 

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

for open distribution

22-Nov-2015

 

Hi,

 

It seems Alvington & Aylburton’s ‘effected community’ have been as soundly betrayed by its elected representatives as have those in Stroat to date, as the growing Wind Farm is constructed in the Severn Estuary – a Wind Farm which largely fails in the aim to produce viable energy from renewable sources as not only are these monstrous industrial edifices grossly inefficient and thus require massive tax payer subsidies to enrich their owners, but the carbon footprint of their construction is massive at over at over 240 tonnes of CO2 & utilising over 220 tonnes of coal in their construction but also they cause huge environmental damage.

 

Many turbines will never pay back the huge cost in CO2 emissions that their construction causes – it is estimated between 12 & 15 years (the average lifespan of these monstrosities) on optimum output may just about even out the CO2 output/damage.

 

Then not only do they tend to slaughter birds, particularly migratory birds, for which the Severn Estuary is a gathering point but also many other species of birds and bats, but in environmental terms who will clear up the mess and pay for the damage done when we are left with the 480 m3 concrete plinth containing 45 tonnes of rebar – and what will be the CO2 output, not to mention cost, of  the work to undo the mess created and transporting it away and dumping it where?

 

Clearly this is NOT a clean energy project and it will indubitably damage the environment, the amenities and the society at a huge cost to the tax payers – just who benefits and how from these wind turbines other than the owners – the legitimised bribes (claimed as benefits) are clearly funded by & with money extorted from the community and tax payers under dishonest false pretences.

 

The lies about ‘Community Benefit’ are no more than legitimised bribes using our own money – which shows just how corrupt Government and politicians can be, in their efforts to establish a Carbon Credit global reserve currency to hide the collapse of the current fiduciary system due to their long term mismanagement and buying votes to stay in over paid sinecures, with money they did not have available to spend on indulgences, funding populist campaigns with other peoples’ borrowed money to buy their own popularity!

 

These huge turbines are not only grossly inefficient as power producers but are also obscenely environmentally damaging and as you know don’t pay without enforced taxation to fund and subsidise the self serving wealthy owners, who seem indifferent to the damage they are doing to our country and its peoples just to line their own pockets.

 

. Wind turbine is a money-spinner

Friday, 20 November 2015 in

THE blades to a controversial community wind turbine – which was passed after a year-long appeal – has been installed in Alvington.

The turbine, in Court Lane, is the second project by The Resilience Centre to come into operation following the erection at Great Dunkilns Farm in St Briavels in 2013. A third application at Severndale Farm in Tidenham was passed in August.

The turbines are expected to generate at least £3.5million over the next 25 years for local causes, and are part of a drive for clean energy projects with environmental, social and economic benefits.

Sue Clarke, at the Woolaston-based centre, said: “This is the third application that has been approved by the council in four years, which we are delighted about.

“We predict that the Alvington Court and Severndale Farm turbines over 25 years could each give £1.5million to the community while St Briavels can give £500,000.

“The turbine at St Briavels has already raised more than £25,000 for local causes.”

The application was passed last August despite public concern it would pose a ‘noise and visual’intrusion.

The application was submitted to the council in October 2012, nine months later it was refused by planning officers who claimed there were possible ‘heritage concerns’.

The applicants appealed the decision and last August it was passed.

Mrs Clarke said: “Although the project was opposed by some of the parish residents, it is well-supported by many people.”

The energy generated is sold onto the national grid with any profits given back to the community.

Mrs Clarke added: “Resilient Energy Alvington Court Renewables has been formed as a co-operative society known as a Community Benefit Company which includes the landowner, the Resilience Centre and ethical investors – more than half from Gloucestershire. Investors do so on the understanding they will both receive returns and be providing for the community.”

To view the original article CLICK HERE

 

I wonder what the ‘Effected Community’ were told & their views
Not to mention the distraction factor increasing fatalities on the A48:

ALVINGTON TURBINE 006 22-Nov-2015

A view down the High St. (A48) in Aylburton!

 

It is also worth noting that this odious excrecence on the landscape, so close to homes, is situated well below the A48, unlike the plans for Stroat where the final result will tower above the A48 by at least 320 feet – almost 100 meters!

 

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 86: Fight climate change efficiently.

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 86:

22-Nov-2015
(PS 86: Fight climate change efficiently.)

November 17, 2015

Fight climate change efficiently

National Post, p. FP09

Two weeks before the opening of the UN’s Paris Conference, not a day goes by without some new study trumpeting the end of the world. Yet contrary to what many seem to believe, the mainstream of scientific opinion, as represented by the IPCC itself, is not an alarmist position. Climate change is important, according to this august body, but catastrophe is not lying in wait for us around the next corner.

We might therefore want to think twice before bankrupting ourselves in our efforts to reduce its impacts.

Richard Tol, professor at the University of Sussex and a lead contributor to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, works on measuring the costs and benefits of climate change over the long term. His conclusion, which is in agreement with the recent studies addressing this question, is that the net effects of 1°C to 2°C of warming would probably be positive.

This is due in part to the fact that a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the water requirements of plants, thereby allowing for faster growth and increased crop yields. Another benefit is reduced heating costs in the winter. And even more important are reduced cold-related health problems, which entail 17 times more deaths than heat-related health problems.

Warming in excess of 2°C, though, will probably have negative net effects according to the IPCC, including a non-zero chance of climate-related catastrophe. This can justify some measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is what the Paris Conference is all about. What it cannot do is justify any and all such measures, whatever the cost. Yet there are plenty of those around.

Subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles, for instance, as Quebec has been doing to the tune of thousands of dollars per car, is a very expensive (and therefore inefficient) way of reducing GHG emissions. Norway is the country at the forefront of the electrification of transportation, with around 75,000 electric vehicles on the road. But each tonne of GHGs avoided in this way costs $6,925 in various subsidies—not including the GHGs emitted during the manufacture of the battery. This is compared to a cost of $10.39 for one tonne of GHGs on the European carbon market.

Renewable energy subsidies are also among the most expensive ways of reducing GHG emissions, with significant economic and social consequences, as Ontarians are discovering. By raising the costs of electricity for the consumers who finance them, these subsidies generate energy poverty among the most vulnerable households. They also hurt the competitiveness of companies that see their rates go up. The European experience is telling, as several countries have had to rethink the subsidies they give out to producers of renewable energy.

The addition of biofuels like ethanol to gasoline is mandated by federal regulation in Canada. Its production is very harmful, however, both economically and environmentally, and it does not provide any notable benefits in terms of reducing GHG emissions. And because a significant amount of it is made from cultivated grains, it leads to price increases for basic foodstuffs on global markets, entailing negative financial and human consequences for the poorest populations.

These policies survive because in the current climate change frenzy, it would be politically incorrect to abolish them. Yet if we are to have a sane discussion about what is worth doing, we need to consider the very different relative costs of different mitigation efforts.

We also need to be realistic about what benefits these efforts will bring. It should not be assumed, for starters, that fighting climate change will stop all undesirable weather phenomena. For example, according to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, studies on extreme hurricane winds in the United States and the Caribbean, on tornados in the United States, and on storm winds in Europe have failed to establish a link with anthropogenic climate change.

In any case, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are not the only factors that determine the severity of their impacts. In fact, that severity is inversely related to a society’s level of economic development. This is why, from 1970 to 2008, over 95% of deaths related to natural disasters were in developing countries.

Thankfully, since the 1920s, the world has gotten a lot richer, and the global mortality rate from extreme weather events has fallen by 98%. Clearly, human vulnerability is less due to climate than to economic conditions. The economic growth that raises living standards allows us to better adapt to climate change.

Life expectancy has also risen substantially over the past century. Indeed, the overall health of the human population has improved, many previously fatal diseases are now treated more effectively or have been eradicated, and infant mortality has fallen sharply. These notable changes reflect reductions in hunger, malnutrition and poverty, thanks to a widespread improvement in economic living conditions.

Renowned author Indur M. Goklany, who worked at the IPCC and contributed to its First Assessment Report among other things, shows that these tremendous developments are closely linked to the living standards made possible by the use of fossil fuels and by the impressive technological progress of the past century.

As they seek to avert future catastrophes related to excessive global warming, the nations of the world should avoid the kinds of policies that reduce living standards and lead to immediate catastrophes.

Youri Chassin is Economist and Research Director at the Montreal Economic Institute. The views reflected in this op-ed are his own.

To see the original of this op-ed CLICK HERE

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 82: To SEARCH The Data & RESEARCH SOURCES to confirm the facts provided.

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 82:

16-Nov-2015
(PS 82: To SEARCH The Data & RESEARCH SOURCES to confirm the facts provided.)

Research links

http://stopthesethings.com/uk/ The Truth About Wind Turbines (UK)

Views of Scotland Library

Scottish Wind Assessment Project, new research and collations of existing studies

APPEC Research Database

Alliance for Meredith (N.Y.) research links

“Wind turbine accident data,” compiled by Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, Scotland

“Specifications of common industrial wind turbines,” compiled by Industrial Wind Energy Opposition (AWEO) [330-480 feet total height, 1.5-2 acres vertical sweep area, 150-200 mph tip speed]

“Areas of industrial wind facilities,” compiled by Industrial Wind Energy Opposition (AWEO) [average approx. 50 acres per megawatt of rated capacity, i.e., 200 acres per megawatt of typical output]

Impact on birds, Mark Duchamp, Spain and Scotland

Impact on human health, Nina Pierpont, N.Y.

https://www.wind-watch.org National Wind Watch

Real-time wind production in various regions

U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

U.S. Electric Utility Data, annual and monthly production reports to Dept. of Energy

Electric Quarterly Reports, transaction reports to U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change

Danish Energy Agency

International Energy Agency

What the industry is up to …

U.S. Dept. of Energy, wind capacity by state, annually from 1999

U.S. Geological Survey, map of wind turbines in the U.S., with specifications

Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. obstruction evaluations

DSIRE, database of state, local, utility, and federal incentives for renewable energy and efficiency in the U.S.

National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, joint industry/government policies in the U.S.

U.S. Dept. of Energy, wind resource maps

Canadian Wind Energy Association, projects in Canada

British Wind Energy Association, projects in the U.K.

Wind projects in the U.K., including those proposed and in development

Danish Energy Agency, Registry of wind turbines in Denmark

Global Wind Energy Council, global statistics

IEA Wind, annual reports

The Windpower, worldwide database of wind turbines and arrays

winston-churchill-quotes

HERE ARE SOME DETAILED LINKS & EXAMPLES which endorse our stance against Wind Turbines as a viable source of alternative power and the fraud which claims they are ‘Green’!

Economics:

Wind Power Subsidies & Increasing Power Prices

Australia’s Large-Scale RET Debacle

The Wind Industry as a monumental ‘Ponzi’ scheme

Intermittent & Unreliable Wind Power

Noise, Sleep & Health Impacts

Wind Industry Lies, Corruption & Deceit (or just another day at the office)

Communities Fighting Back

Plummeting Property Values

Environmental Harm

Turbine Dangers: Bushfires, Exploding Turbines, Flying Blades & Risks for Aircraft

REAL (ie “On-Demand”) Renewable Alternatives

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/