According to the King of England, to “go green” will cost more financially, … a lot more.
We do know individual graduates of the WEF’s forum of “Young Global Leaders” penetrate governments around the world because Klaus Schwab has openly bragged about it. The agenda of these WEF penetrators (spell check penetraitors) is to replace coal fired power stations that produce cheap reliable electricity 24 hours a day with “green energy” that is unreliable, generally unavailable during times of high demand which will cost “trillions, not billions” to facilitate.
The apparent objective is to save the planet from Global Warming which has now been upgraded to Global Boiling.
According to Google under “What are 3 things already happening because of global warming?”
“Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming …”.
That sounds absolutely catastrophic … … … … … … Not.
The people who drive these agendas from these foreign alphabet gangs are generally so poorly informed and educated on these matters that it is difficult not be embarrassed about their lack of knowledge, and yet, … … they are the ones who have penetrated the cabinets of the western democracies and push the agenda that will be a very expensive exercise for entire planet.
These people and their cohorts continually demonstrate that they have no functional knowledge, Ref example: https://www.facebook.com/reel/813548303745445 ,but they do have an agenda.
The King says it will cost more to “go green”, that is “trillions, not billions” of dollars more. Since a trillion is a thousand times more than a billion, it is understandable that people in poorer countries will have trouble meeting those cost increases. Even here in Australia, if a quarterly electricity bill increased a thousand-fold, say from $300 a quarter to $3000 a quarter, some people may have trouble being able to find the funds. The average Australian could not afford that. Four of them per year is $12000 and the reality is that $400 quarterly bills (2024) are closer to reality which would translate to $16000 per year.
Switching to renewable energy which costs more will not “permanently drive down power bills and keep them lower”.
It would be so much easier if the pants people are wearing when misleading others on energy prices caught on fire. Liar, liar pants on fire.
But they don’t and the confusion continues.
If atmospheric carbon falls below 0.02% plants die.
Carbon is essential for life on earth.
Almost everything we have been told needs to be questioned.
If this transition to “go green” is going to cost “trillions, not billions” of dollars, can we follow the money to see who is involved in this expensive but noble endeavour?
Who benefits? or WHO benefits.
NEWS comes from the North, East, West and South, but let’s look up for a gander into the skies above us.
The picture of the clouds in the following photo is one of several hundred I have collected from our location over the last two decades.
If you are not sure what you are looking at, research cymatics.
Anthropogenic climate change is anthropogenic weather manipulation.
Weather manipulation has been going on since at least the 1950’s with companies being paid by governments and farmers to manipulate the weather.
Have a looky at “Operation Popeye”, from the Vietnam war operating 1967 – 1972.
This weather manipulation, or geoengineering, was the weaponisation of the weather and is not new technology. The capacity to modify the weather is well understood and used not only in war but for commercial purposes. Changing the climate, that is, anthropogenic weather modification, is alive and well on planet earth and monitored by a host of UN alphabet gangs like the (WMO) World Meteorological Organization and (UNEP) United Nations Environment Programme.
The UN’s UNEP has 17 SDGs monitored and directed by UNSD including the WHO with recommendations and statistical support from the IPCC and the WMO.
Did that sentence make sense to anybody?
They are some of the UN’s alphabet gang members, paid for by the taxpayers of 193 countries.
The Unite nations has the United Nation’s Environment Programme which has 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
SDG7 (Sustainable Development Goal 7) is to “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all,” and the recommendation is to “go green” which will cost “trillions, not billions”.
According to Google August 2024, the least expensive electricity on the planet can be purchased in Iran which is produced mainly from natural gas (81%) and oil (14%) at a retail cost of $0.002/kWh. (USD)
Not green but cheap.
The most expensive electricity on the planet can be purchased in Denmark which is produced mainly from wind turbines (57%) and bioenergy (21%) at a retail cost of $0.54/kWh (USD)
Not cheap but green.
A kWh clean green electricity in Denmark costs 27000 (twenty-seven thousand) times more that kWh of electricity in Iran.
Destinations in the Pacific have retail electricity costs in the order of four times that amount. Yep … … “green energy”.
Cost per kWh worldwide Ref: https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Vanuatu/electricity_prices/
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), “is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities.”
“The IPCC informs governments about the state of knowledge of climate change,”
Since geoengineering is “climate change caused by human activities,” shouldn’t that be stopped by an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Unfortunately, methinks that those involved in Climate Engineering, resulting in human modified weather will not be “dobbing themselves in and, … guess what, “The IPCC does not conduct its own original research.” Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Should any damage occur to innocent victims due to commercial (financial) geoengineering programs, who should do the research for any compensation?
A channel 7 report from June 2016 advised, “Residence in Southern Tasmania are demanding to know why cloud seeding was conducted over the Derwent River catchment the day before the worst floods in 40 years. Cloud seeding is a technique used to increase rain. Hydro Tasmania has confirmed it flew a cloud seeding flight despite the weather warnings. Farmers believe the technique could have made the flooding worse. the premier said a formal enquiry will be held into the effects and handling of the floods if necessary.”
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1140945233306872
ABC News advises “In light of the unfortunate death of one person, and with grave fears for two people still missing, there is likely to be at least a coronial inquest.”
“Hydro Tasmania funded an independent assessment concluding that: “Analysis of data from a cloud seeding flight undertaken on 5 June 2016 shows the operation had no measurable impact on rainfall on that day.”
I wonder why Hydro Tasmania would cloud seed if such activity has “no measurable impact on rainfall”. Cloud seeding resulted in Vietnam’s “Operation Popeye” was so successful for the “Allies” that they it continued engaging in the practice until the end of the war/(police action).
Get your FREE copy of “Savvy Up and Save” here >>>LEARN MORE>>>
Moreton Bay residents can access weekly tips from John on Community Radio 101.5 FM Friday Mornings at 10:10am
John Lynn