Energy High Treason: The ‘Environmental’ Groups Sabotaging Reliable & Affordable Power Supplies

Outfits like the Sierra Club ought to be charged with High Treason, for trying to destroy reliable and affordable power supplies – supplies critical to peace, prosperity and the survival of Western civilisation.

As to defence, in a high-tech world of internet surveillance, satellite reconnaissance and remotely controlled drones, try protecting the Realm without electricity available around-the-clock.

Over the last 20 years, so-called ‘green’ groups have given up on saving the environment and have directed their hate towards reliable and affordable power.

Openly committed to the destruction of power sources generated with fossil fuel and fervently dedicated to resisting the CO2 emissions-free nuclear power that ought to placate their doom and gloom forecasts about the climate, it’s as if these characters are intent on destroying their own societies, from within.

With the hapless Joe Biden in the White House, and Bernie Sanders and his Squad intent on directing energy policy (as well as their peculiar woke agenda), America’s enviable energy independence is under serious threat.

Just why outfits like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace – among hundreds of other putative environmental champions – are so keen on wrecking the environment by plastering the landscape with millions of solar panels and spearing tens of thousands of these things across America’s rural heartland and mountain wilderness remains a mystery. Until it’s understood that their delusional love of wind and solar and rabid hatred of nuclear is always and everywhere about money; lots and lots of money.

In the article below, Katabella Roberts and Joshua Philipp pick up the scent and start following the money.

Billion-Dollar Network Is Playing Politics in America’s Energy Sector, Driving up Costs: Ken Braun
The Epoch Times
Katabella Roberts and Joshua Philipp
23 December 2021

Environmental groups and advocates are spending billions of dollars every year playing politics with America’s energy sector while simultaneously driving up energy costs for Americans, according to Ken Braun, the senior investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center.

President Joe Biden has issued a series of executive orders since taking office in an effort to tackle the climate crisis, slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent by 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2050.

Biden says his “whole-of-government” approach to climate change “creates well-paying jobs, grows industries, and makes the country more economically competitive.”

While many have championed the president’s ambitious push toward green energy, he has also faced criticism from those working in the oil and gas industry, among others.

In an interview with EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Braun said that numerous companies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and more, are pumping a combined billion dollars a year into promoting so-called green energy, in line with the president’s push, and move away from nuclear energy.

However, such companies are failing to recognize those renewable energies, which are weather-dependent, are not always reliable, and can also be costly.

“Most of the environmental movement, upwards of more than 1,000 organizations are spending over a billion dollars per year, pretending to be environmental stewards who oppose nuclear energy and promote these wind and solar fantasies that are land hogs and really destructive to our environment, in order to create energy that really isn’t going to get the job done for us,” Braun said.

“You intuitively know that these things don’t work, when the sun’s not shining, which happens in most places between eight and 14 hours a day. And the winds not blowing, and we don’t really have the battery storage to hold this power,” Braun said. “So if you really are concerned about reducing our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is the only way that you’re going to accomplish it in a reliable, non-weather reliant way.”

Braun noted that such environmental companies are greatly exaggerating the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy and that they fail to talk about the risks that come from using renewable energy sources.

The senior researcher said studies have shown that nuclear energy is 351 times safer per megawatt-hour created than coal, 263 times safer than oil, and 40 times safer than natural gas, which he said means it is is “basically right down there with wind and solar, as far as its risk to people” goes.

“There are risks in wind turbines and solar panels that we don’t talk about, such as the predatory birds that just get chewed up by these windmills,” he said. “And the industry has pretty much declared it a trade secret. We can’t know how many of these things we’re killing. I would argue one bald eagle’s life is not worth an entire wind farm for what the wind farm gives us, versus how just glorious these birds are and should be protected. … But that’s the kind of environmentalist I am.”

“All of these organizations and some of a couple of those that I mentioned have 100 plus million dollar budgets. Most of the big ones you hear about are pretending to be environmentalists and hypocritically arguing against nuclear energy. … But they’re driving up energy costs on the rest of us by doing that. And so, they are distorting the market and they aren’t even accomplishing their goals,” Braun said.

“That’s major, that’s a billion dollars distorting our energy choices just making our problems worse and not doing anything to reduce carbon emissions, which is what all this billion dollars is supposed to be spent for,” he added.

“If our argument is that we are trying to reduce carbon emissions—if that’s important to you, as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund … and all these environmental groups that are saying that this is their number one priority—if it’s really your number one priority, then you should be going to a crash nuclear program and saying all these subsidies that you’ve been telling to throw at wind and solar, you should be putting it into nuclear power. But that’s not the argument they make.”
The Epoch Times

About stopthesethings

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

Comments

  1. Environmentalists estimate an all-electric American energy economy would have 1,700 GWe demand. The minimum storage necessary for firm power is 400-3000 watt-hours per watt of average demand, depending upon location and the mix of solar and wind. Look in Tesla’s catalogue for prices and lifetimes. Do the simple arithmetic: AT LEAST FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR FOR BATTERIES ALONE! http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Worse.html.

    In “Apocalypse Never,” Michael Shellenberger documents that oil, gas, and coal companies pay environmental groups to oppose nuclear power. Who’d a thunk it?

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 )

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: