"More trees do not make for a cooler planet, according to a new study in the US. One environmental scientist argues that deforestation is not always harmful for the planet. Christopher A. Williams, a professor at Clark University's Graduate School of Geography (Worcester, Massachusetts), says that instead of warming up the Earth, deforestation can actually cool it down."
"A 2016 study found that 73 percent of carbon credits provided little or no environmental gain, as they supported projects that would have happened anyway. That figure rose to 85 percent of projects under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism.”
"Badly designed donation programs are turning into 21st-century papal indulgences."
"If a private jet emits roughly eight times as much per passenger as a 747, the most reliable way to reduce its impact is to leave it on the tarmac."
"As organizations proliferate, the risks of double counting and outright fraud grow."
"It is time that the brand of environmentalism that travels under the cloak of global warming apocalypse drops its halo. Environmentalism, the brand, Global Warming the banner, is pure politics. GW partisans are as hard and as cynical and as manipulative as the most corroded politicians. GW is not about what it says it’s about. It is hardball against the world that most of us appreciate. It is a sly hard-nosed anti-Western ideology wrapped up in a camouflage coat of “we love Nature.” It cares nothing about the working class. It cares less about the most poverty ridden nations of the world, or their people. It has been exhaling its failed and failing predictions, howling its dire warnings, and harassing everyone from school children to government officials for the near 30 years since the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The global warming movement has absorbed into its furious alarmist narrative almost every major news outlet. It has become politically correct dogma for all progressives." ...
"Reliable power saves lives. Reliable power comes with proven technology. Reliable power comes with resources we already have. Paradoxically it is only because countries such as Canada and the U.S. are so prosperous, so accustomed to simply pushing buttons or throwing a switch to get what we want or need that we think we can afford to toy, to alter, or completely displace the systems that have brought us to where we are. Prosperity is, in this context, a dangerous state. It makes us careless. It also takes away the consciousness that the systems built over the generations, and the energy resources that have enabled that prosperity should not, and cannot, be written off and dismissed as “a danger to the planet.” That amounts to a toxic level of nothing more than virtue-signalling."
'A massive high-level influence operation promoting the Gates 'the world is coming to an end' theme with a slew of billionaires backing the operation'
Gates is running vast enterprises in many sectors of the economy. He has even invested in a company that is trying to produce lab-made "breast" milk. He is now the owner of more farmland than anyone else in the United States:
When such an investor attempts to sway governments to move the entire world, through regulation, in a direction that will benefit him that is a different story. It appears we are at the "different story" stage when it comes to Bill Gates.
“Under a ‘climate lockdown,’ governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling,” writes Mariana Mazzucato, a professor at the Economics of Innovation and Public Value Center at University College London, in a paper titled “Avoiding a Climate Lockdown.” The title of her paper is very misleading. She believes climate lockdowns will be necessary unless we "overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently."
Gov Sisolak has a $13 billion plan to build solar farms to reduce Nevada carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This plan is supposed to prevent a Nevada climate disaster. The plan, if it is actually executed, will be a disaster, damaging the reliability of the electric grid and laying waste to square miles of desert. The plan will have no detectable effect on world climate or Nevada climate because Nevada’s emissions of CO2 are microscopic compared to the rapidly increasing emissions in Asia. Yet the governor has recruited a “team” of Ph.D.’s and government experts to create and support his plan. These experts must know in their heart that the plan is useless and will accomplish absolutely nothing beyond rewarding the governor’s political supporters. These experts know that if they tell the truth about the governor’s plan they will be fired or otherwise marginalized (canceled).
How easy is it for politicians to recruit scientific advisors to endorse even the most obviously defective plans!
Nuclear scored the highest grade of an A, followed by natural gas and coal with C’s. Solar was the only renewable energy source to score higher than an F with a grade of a D, while hydro and wind scored F’s.
Texas gets electricity from six sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro and wind...Some natural gas pipelines froze, contributing to the blackout. However: "Remarkably, natural gas still generated electricity at 38 percent of its total capacity throughout the energy emergency – providing on average over 65 percent of all electricity generation through Monday and Tuesday – despite roughly 30 GW being inoperable due to frozen pipelines holding up fuel."
It was the “green” energy sources that failed to show up for work: "The three worst-performing generating assets, on the other hand, belonged exclusively to renewable energy sources: solar, hydro, and wind. Had Texas been even more reliant on these energy sources, as renewable energy advocates around the country desire, the energy crisis in Texas would have been even worse."
Solar was irrelevant, and wind virtually irrelevant. - "You can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis." As such, you can rightfully label wind energy as the most unreliable energy source during the Texas energy crisis. While it may not have been the primary cause of the power outages, it certainly wouldn’t have done Texas any good to have more wind capacity on the system. In fact, more wind capacity would have only made things worse.
Analysis: Social Cost of Carbon is a “Transparent and Obvious Fraud” - —Francis Menton in 2016: “The ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ can fairly be described as the mother of all government cost-benefit analyses..."In reality, it is a completely dishonest scam that wildly exaggerates costs and ignores benefits in order to justify vast seizures of power unto the government....“
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "Clearly, the social cost of carbon is negative on so many fronts. Perhaps we should be paid for emitting it. It is responsible for up to 70% of increased food crop production (I guess they didn’t factor that in). It is greening the land and presumably the oceans. It is perhaps involved in slightly increasing global temperature above the frigid Pleistocene Epoch the Earth has been locked in for 2.6 million years, although there is no proof of this. It makes all plants more efficient in their use of water. It makes greenhouse production of food 30-60% higher than at ambient levels."