Greens live in a state of constant denial


Greens “leader”, Christine Milne – more than just a
little confused – she’s living in a state of constant denial.


With the race on to kill the Renewable Energy Target stone dead – Australia’s so-called “Greens” are working overtime to save it and their wind industry clients.

The Greens have become a fully paid up front for the wind industry – struggling Danish fan maker, Vestas has poured $millions into Green coffers and is relying on them to save what’s left of the wind industry’s skin. Vestas made no secret of the fact that it was out to team up with the Greens and to put them all on its payroll (see this story). Although, it seems that the Greens must have misheard their employer’s call to “Act on Facts” and instead decided to Act like Fascists (see our post here).

In recent weeks, the calls coming from Christine Milne & Co to save the RET have become hysterical as they finally realise that their alliance with Labor is over – and that a bunch of arch-conservative Senators will take their seats in the Federal Parliament come July – ergo, the Greens will cease to have any further relevance to Australian politics.

But Green delusions are not a purely Australian phenomenon – oh no, it’s a disease that’s covered the globe. Here’s energy market guru, Robert Bryce explaining how Greens have come to occupy an alternate dimension.

The Real Climate ‘Deniers’ Are the Greens
Wall Street Journal
Robert Bryce
February 2 2014

While renewables subsidies have punished Europe, shale gas has cut U.S. emissions.

For years, greens and many on the political left have insisted that widespread adoption of renewable energy will create jobs and stimulate the economy. An example: In September 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama claimed at a speech in Golden, Colo., that his planned investments in “green” energy would create “five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”

It was all bunk.

Proof came last month when both the European Union and the German government announced separately that they were both rolling back aggressive subsidies and mandates for renewable energy. The reason: staggering costs. Spain has racked up some $35 billion in debt — known as the “tariff deficit” — thanks to excessive renewable-energy subsidies. In Germany, renewable-energy subsidies are now costing German consumers and industry about $32 billion a year. The costs have become so onerous that on Jan. 21 Germany’s economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel told energy conference attendees in Berlin that his country is risking “dramatic deindustrialization” if it doesn’t reduce energy costs.

In December, the Center for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank, reported that European steelmakers are paying twice as much for electricity and four times as much for natural gas as their U.S. competitors. In Denmark, that wonderland for wind-energy enthusiasts, residential electricity now costs about 41 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than three times the U.S. average rate.

Europe’s decision to slow down on renewables suggests that the term “climate denier” needs an overhaul. For the past decade or so, this has been the label for anyone who questions climate change models or the forecasts derived from them. But the lesson from Europe is that the environmentalists who have been relentlessly hawking renewables are the real deniers.

They have denied the costs that renewable energy mandates impose on the European economy. They’ve denied the environmental benefits of increased natural gas use in the U.S. And they continue to deny the difficulty of addressing carbon-dioxide emissions on a global scale.

In December 2012, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, co-wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he claimed that Germany’s solar-energy efforts should be copied by the U.S. because a “transition to renewable power could create millions of domestic jobs” and take a “substantial bite” out of America’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

If Mr. Kennedy wants to continue cutting those emissions, he should be encouraging the development of shale gas. In 2013, thanks largely to the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale formations, U.S. natural-gas production averaged 70 billion cubic feet a day, a record, and a 41% increase over 2005 levels. Lower-cost gas is reducing the domestic use of coal, which is cutting emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that natural-gas-fired power plants emit about half as much carbon dioxide as comparable coal-fired ones.

Thanks to the shale revolution, the U.S. is also reducing emissions faster, at far lower cost, than the EU. Between 2005 and 2012, U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions fell by 10.9%, according to the widely cited “BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013.” During the same period the EU’s emissions fell by 9.9%, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Nevertheless, Mr. Kennedy denounced natural gas at a visit to Franklin and Marshall College last October, calling it “a catastrophe.” Bill McKibben, the founder of the environmental organization who has advocated enormous reductions in global hydrocarbon use, has made similar declarations. In a Jan. 21 op-ed in Politico that he wrote with Chesapeake Climate Action Network’s Mike Tidwell, he said natural gas “needs to stay in the ground” and that it is “just coal by another name.” Mr. McKibben’s energy prescription? U.S. states should “double and triple their wind and solar mandates.” He too believes the U.S. should follow Germany’s lead.

Mr. McKibben is denying the facts. Even though Germany has spent more than $100 billion subsidizing renewables since 2000, the country’s coal use is rising, as are its carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the BP Statistical Review. And Germany’s coal use may continue to grow as the country turns away from nuclear power. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Germany shut down eight of its nuclear reactors, and it plans to retire the rest by 2022. According to an October report from energy publisher Platts, some 7,300 megawatts of new coal plants will be brought online by next year.

It’s not just Germany. Global coal consumption jumped by about 55% over the past decade as demand for electricity has soared. That consumption is boosting global carbon-dioxide emissions, which have increased by 32% over that period, according to the BP Statistical Review. Relatively small reductions in carbon emissions in Europe or the U.S. won’t make a significant difference amid such rapid growth. Since 2005, China alone has increased its carbon-dioxide emissions by about 3.6 billion tons, or about four times the amount Germany emitted in 2012.

The reality is simple: The U.S. is the world leader in carbon policy. It has cut carbon-dioxide emissions more effectively than the EU while generating an economic boom from the shale revolution. In October 2013, Purdue University energy economist Wallace Tyner estimated that between 2008 and 2035 the shale revolution will add an average of $473 billion a year to the U.S. economy — or about 3% of current GDP. Using more natural gas in the U.S. sets an example for the rest of the world for economic growth, energy production and carbon dioxide.

But don’t bother trying to convince Messrs. Kennedy and McKibben and their allies. They would rather stay in climate denial.

Mr. Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This piece is excerpted from his forthcoming report for the institute on America’s energy advantages.
Wall Street Journal

Wind power generation, of course, has nothing to do with the climate (whether it’s getting hotter, or not). Assuming – as we do for simplicity – that human generated CO2 emissions may cause increases in atmospheric temperatures (and assuming that to be always and everywhere a “bad” thing) then the question turns to how best to abate (ie avoid) or reduce CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost.

That – not insignificant consideration – pretty much rules out wind power – as Oxford Don, Dieter Helm put it: “wind power is staggeringly expensive” and “among the most expensive ways of marginally reducing carbon emissions known to man”.

Wind power – because it’s delivered at crazy, random intervals –  has to have 100% of its capacity backed up 100% of the time – Sunday’s post making that FACT crystal clear.

The first line of that back up comes from spinning reserve held by gas/coal thermal plants that continue to burn fuel at the same rate while the generator is disengaged and steam is vented to the atmosphere (leading to a enormous amounts of wasted heat energy). To accommodate the crazy intermittency of wind power, coal fired generators in Victoria alone are burning millions of additional tonnes of coal each year without producing a single spark. But that idle capacity has to be there because if it wasn’t the grid would simply collapse (see our post here).

But questions about where our power comes from, how much it costs and whether CO2 emissions are – in fact – increasing as a result of the intrusion of wind power into a system designed to operate on-demand – are all Earthly considerations. Fine and dandy for switched-on gents like Robert Bryce – but completely lost on Martians like Christine Milne & Co.


Robert Bryce – an occupant of planet Earth.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Jackie Rovenksy says:

    There is a lot of talk by those who push the human cause of climate change, but talk is cheap unlike the method they push to solve the problem.
    It’s time to stop yapping and to start working towards what we all want – a clean environment for now and the future. This cannot be achieved by using a defunct industry, it needs a holistic approach and deciding on a number of ways we can create electrical energy in a clean, safe and economic manner because it’s needed in all aspects of modern life and we need to work on ways we can reduce our use of it.
    We also need to consider other ways in which we can work towards cleaning the air we have, and how we can look after our environment in ways which are safe, simple and acceptable to all. We need to work on methods of environment sustainability that people from all nations can use, we need to stop passing our environmentally damaging industries to countries who are not as environmentally efficient as ourselves, and we need to encourage those countries to follow standards we expect of ourselves.
    Let’s hope the past years have been a learning curve, a time to remember if it sounds too good to be true it probably is, a time to remember checking, testing and research saves time, money and the environment.
    Talk is cheap and does nothing. Actions don’t need to be expensive, but can always produce something.

  2. Christine Milne is a DUMB leader of a DUMBER party called the Greens – which is going very brown very fast, as they no idea what life is all about.


  1. […] We’ve covered some of his recent writings on US energy policy and the wind power fraud (see our posts here and here and here). […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: