No Deal: New ‘Green’ Deal Means Return to the Impoverished Dark Ages

There’s something amusing about watching well-fed, first world teenagers hit the streets to rail about fossil fuels, just before mummy collects them in a stonking V8 Land Cruiser, whisking them away to their perfectly air-conditioned homes, jampacked with every electronic gadget, imaginable.

The louder and more earnest their demands for an end to the use of fossil fuels, the sillier they sound.

In the US, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Green-left’s favourite flibbertigibbet. Her New Green Deal – with its promise of 100% wind and solar delivering power for all, for free and for all time – should have been dismissed as fairytale nonsense, long ago. However, there are plenty of pixie dream girls and boys happy to suck it up, like there’s no tomorrow.

While Greta the Fretter, AOC & Co determine to hold their breath until we all stop driving cars, catching planes and enjoying hot showers and cold beer, Paul Driessen takes a look at what would happen if ever their New Green Deal got off the ground.

No Plan B for Planet A
Watts Up With That?
Paul Driessen
25 November 2019

Environmentalists and Green New Deal proponents like to say we must take care of the Earth, because “There is no Planet B.” Above all, they insist, we must eliminate fossil fuels, which they say are causing climate change worse than the all-natural ice ages, Medieval Warm Period or anything else in history.

Their Plan A is simple: No fossil fuels. Keep them in the ground. More than a few Democrat presidential aspirants have said they would begin implementing that diktat their very first day in the White House.

Their Plan B is more complex: Replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, biofuel and battery power – their supposedly renewable, sustainable alternatives to oil, gas and coal. Apparently by waving a magic wand.

We don’t have a Planet B. And they don’t really have a Plan B. They just assume and expect that this monumental transformation will simply happen. Wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies represent the natural evolution toward previously unimaginable energy sources – and they will become more efficient over time. Trust us, they say.

Ask them for details, and their responses range from evasive to delusional, disingenuous – and outrage that you would dare ask. The truth is, they don’t have a clue. They’ve never really thought about it. It’s never occurred to them that these technologies require raw materials that have to be dug out of the ground, which means mining, which they vigorously oppose (except by dictators in faraway countries).

They’re lawyers, lawmakers, enforcers. But most have never been in a mine, oilfield or factory, probably not even on a farm. They think dinner comes from a grocery store, electricity from a wall socket, and they can just pass laws requiring that the new energy materialize as needed. And it will happen Presto!

It’s similar to the way they handle climate change. Their models, reports and headlines bear little or no resemblance to the real world outside our windows – on temperatureshurricanestornadoes, sea levels, crops or polar bears. But the crisis is real, the science is settled, and anyone who disagrees is a denier.

So for the moment, Let’s not challenge their climate or fossil fuel ideologies. Let’s just ask: How exactly are you going to make this happen? How will you ensure that your Plan A won’t destroy our economy, jobs and living standards? And your Plan B won’t devastate the only planet we’ve got? I’ll say it again:

  1. Abundant, reliable, affordable, mostly fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of our modern, prosperous, functioning, safe, healthy, fully employed America. Upend that, and you upend people’s lives, destroy their jobs, send their living standards on a downward spiral.
  2. Wind and sunshine may be renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the lands, habitats, wildlife, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines and laborers required or impacted to harness this intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not.
  3. The supposed cure they say we must adopt is far worse than the climate disease they claim we have.

Using wind power to replace the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours that Americans consumed in 2018, coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and gasoline for vehicles – while generating enough extra electricity every windy day to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days – would require some 14 million 1.8-MW wind turbines.

Those turbines would sprawl across three-fourths of the Lower 48 US states – and require 15 billion tons of steel, concrete and other raw materials. They would wipe out eagles, hawks, bats and other species.

Go offshore instead, and we’d need a couple million truly monstrous 10-MW turbines, standing in water 20-100 feet deep or on huge platforms in deeper water, up and down our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Not as many of the beasts, but each one a lot bigger – requiring vastly more materials per turbine.

A Category 4 hurricane going up the Atlantic seaboard would wipe out a lot of them – leaving much of the country without power for months or years, until wrecks got removed and new turbines installed.

Using solar to generate just the 3.9 billion MWh would require completely blanketing an area the size of New Jersey with sunbeam-tracking Nellis Air Force Base panels – if the Sun were shining at high-noon summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365. (That doesn’t include the extra power demands listed for wind.)

Solar uses toxic chemicals during manufacturing and in the panels: lead, cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide and many others. They could leach out into soils and waters during thunderstorms, hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and when panels are dismantled and hauled off to landfills or recycling centers. Recycling panels and wind turbines presents major challenges.

Using batteries to back up sufficient power to supply U.S. electricity needs for just seven straight windless days would require more than 1 billion half-ton Tesla-style batteries. That means still more raw materials, hazardous chemicals and toxic metals.

Bringing electricity from those facilities, and connecting a nationwide GND grid, would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines – onshore and underwater – and even more raw materials.

Providing those materials would result in the biggest expansion in mining the United States and world have ever seen: removing hundreds of billions of tons of overburden, and processing tens of billions of tons of ore – mostly using fossil fuels. Where we get those materials is also a major problem.

If we continue to ban mining under modern laws and regulations here in America, those materials will continue to be extracted in places like Inner Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, largely under Chinese control – under labor, wage, health, safety, environmental and reclamation standards that no Western nation tolerates today. There’ll be serious pollution, toxics, habitat losses and dead wildlife.

Even worse, just to mine cobalt for today’s cell phone, computer, Tesla and other battery requirements, over 40,000 Congolese children and their parents work at slave wages, risk cave-ins, and get covered constantly in toxic and radioactive mud , dust, water and air. Many die. The mine sites in Congo and Mongolia have become vast toxic wastelands. The ore processing facilities are just as horrific.

Meeting GND demands would multiply these horrors many times over. Will Green New Dealers require that all these metals and minerals be responsibly and sustainably sourced, at fair wages, with no child labor – as they do for T-shirts and coffee? Will they now permit exploration and mining in the USA?

Meeting basic ecological and human rights standards would send GND energy prices soaring. It would multiply cell phone, laptop, Tesla and GND costs five times over. But how long can Green New Dealers remain clueless and indifferent about these abuses?

Up to now, this has all been out of sight, out of mind, in someone else’s backyard, in some squalid far-off country, with other people and their kids doing the dirty, dangerous work of providing essential raw materials. That lets AOC, Senator Warren, Al Gore, Michael Mann, Greenpeace and other “climate crisis-renewable energy” profiteers preen about climate justice, sustainability and saving Planet Earth.

They refuse to discuss the bogus hockey stick temperature graph; the ways Mann & Co. manipulated and hid data, and deleted incriminating emails; their inability to separate human influences from the powerful natural forces that have caused climate changes throughout history; or the absurd notion that the 0.01% of Earth’s atmosphere that is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use over the past 50 years is somehow responsible for every extreme weather event today. But they won’t be able to ignore this fraud forever.

Meanwhile, we sure are going to be discussing the massive resource demands, ecological harm and human rights abuses that the climate alarm industry would impose in the name of protecting the Earth and stabilizing its perpetually unstable climate. We won’t let them dodge those issues in 2020.
Watts Up with That?

Where wind turbines come from …

About stopthesethings

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

Comments

  1. Amidst the current climate hysteria, I think it’s time for a reality check Australia. Coal exports are a fact of life. It is a very simple equation. ‘Supply and demand.’ Why are we sitting on our hands as this valuable commodity departs our shores? Clearly there are other countries who know a good thing when they see it. Ask yourself. Where is the train in the video below going? Why are we depriving ourselves of this reliable baseload form of energy generation? All that is missing domestically is a brand spanking new technology HELE coal power station to utilise it. New lower emission baseload energy sources will no doubt happen in due course. But in the meantime, we should not deprive ourselves of cheap and reliable electricity.

    If individual communities want to go off grid, go ahead. Knock yourselves out. I would suggest Byron Bay might be a possible first candidate. But for the rest of us, we need coal, nuclear, gas and hydro so that we can turn on the light switch without giving it a second thought.

  2. Jackie Rovensky says:

    True scientific evidence is something we are at a loss to find these days in the public media. Far too many are spouting so called scientific research as truth rather than someones thought bubble.
    If people dug a bit deeper they would find discussion/debate between true scientific professionals at all levels of science. Unfortunately there are few people in the easily accessible media who are capable of sifting through these discussions/debates to find the core truth.
    Maybe there is no ‘truth’ maybe there is simply a moving/flowing platform of research results which take you to many places and lots of ‘truths’.
    Scientific research has probably never been so important and at the same time so fraught with indecision and personal aggrandizement.
    Yes there are those who work hard for the sake of the task, to find answers to difficult questions and who do not seek self promotion for the sake of it, but are more than happy to share their knowledge with other interested parties.
    Unfortunately they can appear to be few in number.
    Some commentators even mix hard true scientific research up with sociological and other non scientific research.
    This only clouds the results of true science, because it is easier to explain to the masses and much of the media grabs it with both hands to present to those who find it easier to read a newspaper or listen to TV/Radio’s ‘translation’ that sounds like and is more often than not worthless drivel which hides the wordy waffle, used to hide the inadequacies of such ‘ research papers’ prepared by those who have ulterior personal motives or are too up-themselves to know the damage they are doing.
    True science research papers are of course far more complex to understand than a lot of the ‘fake’ science ones, especially if you are not trained in the specific field of research. This is when like me you either go to the conclusion of the paper and if that’s still not helpful seek out someone who can undertake an adequate ‘translation/account’ of it for you.
    I am no scientist, but I can read and I can in a minimal way understand some of the research with respect to Industrial Turbines and I can look at maps, graphs and other things to see/read/hear what is happening.
    I can then use my limited brain capacity to workout that there is no way these Turbines are able to achieve what they are represented as achieving.
    I can understand that the cost from mining required materials, transporting them, manufacturing them, creating turbines, transporting them, installing them and all the steps taken to make it possible to construct and operate and install them which includes massive earth movements and great amounts of cement and steal – all having to be prepared from mined and manufactured materials.
    Then there’s towers and cabling and electrical connections to transport the power to the grid to be then sent on to the end user and it’s ALL very costly financially and to the environment.
    I can then see these turbines being man-made will require a great deal of maintenance and after a short lifespan a replacement. These processes are of course only a small number of those required in the construction, operation, distribution etc related to not only one but 100’s of these Industrial Machine plants.
    I am also able to empathize with those who are adversely affected by the noise/sound emitted from these Turbines. I do that by speaking with those who are suffering and understanding noise from man-made machinery is far more intrusive to the human sensory system than those sounds nature produces.
    I also know if those noise/sounds are intrusive to us then they must have an adverse effect on animals/birds etc as their sensory systems are in many cases far more delicate than our own.
    How is then there are those who are probably more educated and capable of clear thought than me are so willing to ignore what is blatantly obvious – these turbines are not only extremely financially expensive they are also extremely expensive to humanity and the environment and all that lives in it.
    How can these pseudo scientists and media commentators be so stupid, how can they be so manipulative and believed by so many – is it purely a matter of fear being driven by media, or is it some human trait that it is easier to believe in something horrible – that the world as we know it is coming to an end, or is it a symptom of the manipulative mind games and indoctrination being played out by money hungry wanner be world dominating maniacs.
    Whatever it is it has and will continue to do an immense amount of harm to our world and our future if it isn’t stopped now and if we don’t protect our children from domination by these doomsayers.
    The truth is out there all it needs is more people to shout it from the rooftops and stand firm against the media onslaught and bring about a change of direction and a world our children can dream of and see a future for themselves in.

  3. Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.

  4. C. Paul Barreira says:

    I may have mentioned it here already but we should bear in mind the short-lived but catastrophic Xhosa Cattle Killing movement of 1856–57. The parallels are remarkable even as the scale of the climate change scam is vastly, almost unimaginably, greater.

    For Australians the situation is further complicated by our increasingly disastrous system of education (primary, secondary and tertiary or post-secondary) as PISA comparisons showed recently. Add to that the collapse of any notion of the person (as distinct from the individual), in changes to abortion law that signify the tolerance, if not commendation, of child sacrifice. Euthanasia will eat yet further into the civilisation into which we (if over forty years of age) were born into.

    On a more cheerful note, sort of: AOC may be eligible to stand as President or Vice-President of the United States in 2024. She would be thirty-five years of age at the date of inauguration. AOC v. Nikki Haley, anyone?

  5. The social media propaganda of the doomsday movement, along with passionate proclamations of the worlds demise, has successfully elevated environmentalism into a new religion. Shying away from substance with the use of microscopic data points to justify their gloomy predictions, and their inability to counter the extensive factual data from the “deniers” is eroding the credibility of their guessing about the annihilation of life as we currently know it. Time to stop grasping for words to rebrand the dismal outlook and start showing the world the facts that are the basis of those dire projections for humanity. https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/09/cop-25-climate-alarmists-wage-a-war-of-words-but-wheres-the-beef/

  6. AOC will not be able to continue once enough people in the U.S. understand the ‘Academic Industrial Complex’ that her supporters have been brainwashed by. Please watch this interview.

    ‘Burning Down the Academic Industrial Complex & the Need for REAL Science’

  7. Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

  8. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: