Part’s 1 and 2 of this article shone a light on the issues with the guided move towards so called “sustainable renewable energy” including solar and wind turbines.
The amount of earth moving, raw material transportation and processing to produce these final products cannot be done with the energy that they are ultimately purported to produce. That is, the energy required for the production and transportation of these products primarily comes from coal and oil which these products are allegedly destined to replace.
There are so many environmental factors that need to be considered for a full analysis which is beyond the scope of this article, however on close observation, the promotion of these technologies appears to be “found wanting” from a practical, financial, and ecological perspective. Cutting down 16,000,000 trees to construct an environmental catastrophe that doesn’t deliver anywhere near the electrical product that is claimed, only to benefit the few, at the expense of the majority. Robbing a bank, more metaphorical now as we fall deeper into the clutches of the digital currency mafiosi, would achieve the same result without the environmental carnage both in production and well into the future as the toxic chemicals, such as bisphenol leeching into the landscape. Perhaps the exchange of funds can happen behind closed doors in an environment as defined by Mussolini without the public theatre, unless there is a further purpose for the program.
I am assuming that the reader is ofay with the first two parts of this paper. An understanding of information listed previously is required for congruency.
Even with only a simple surface observation, the opportunistic and parasitic characteristics of those involved in the perpetuation of these false narratives including that wind and solar can replace the stability of the electricity grid is blatantly evident, but even more concerning is that it becomes very difficult to argue against what appears to be malevolent intentions by the large multinational corporations and various governments bodies disguised as public servants. ie. that is, servants of the public. Can you say that in a fascist controlled country?
Why would servants of the public continue to increase incentives for people to fit solar panels to their homes when there is already an oversupply of electrical energy during daylight hours that they will eventually result in those, persuaded to participate, having to pay to discard?
Why would servants of the public continue to increase incentives for multinational corporations, to tree fell vast amounts of land, import manufactured materials containing toxic materials with known short life expectancies and a functional coefficient, well known in the industry, to be in the order of less than 25% of the mainstream narrative? Why are they still considered to be commercially viable?
With offshore corporations benefiting from government decisions that are clearly impractical, Mussolini’s’ term fascism appears to be a possible explanation. But doesn’t that only happen in other countries?
I’m sure that’s what the people of those other countries thought before they wised up. Not everyone is an August Landmesser and its infinitely much easier, and a lot safer in a fascist environment, to do what Jordan Peterson suggests is most safe and simply be a “zebra” who just blends in.
It is increasingly difficult to separate science from politics, especially with all the fact checkers now employed to stop any viewpoint other than the promoted mainstream narrative. I suggest “Fact Checking” and banning information can easily be seen as modern book burning cleverly disguised and wrapped up in a patriotic flag.
Refocusing our attention on what is referred to as renewable or alternative energy, to maintain accuracy, we need to refer to these technologies as they really are and note that all energy is renewable, including oil.
I will just touch briefly on this as it is not the focus, but a pattern of intentional misinformation, favouring the products of corporations, may be clearly seen to the August Landmessers’ throughput history.
Not everyone has the same perspective, nor does everyone have the capacity to examine every complexity. https://fb.watch/mc3__3_5j6/?mibextid=Nif5oz
Fear and scarcity are great marketing strategies. Conversely, the truth rarely is.
With this in mind, let’s do a quick focus on oil.
According to Google “The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)”, current August 2023.
Well, THEY were wrong back in 1973 when half of the world’s oil reserves were supposed to have been consumed. For those of us who are old enough to remember, the terminology “Peak Oil”, it seemed to be on the news every night.
Scarcity, fear, and more scarcity.
Google says, “Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global oil production is reached, after which production will begin an irreversible decline”. Without supplying corporate sanctioned statistics, I think it’s fair to say that there have been a lot more people driving a lot more cars and transporting a lot more goods and a lot more services for a lot more people worldwide in the last 50 years than there were the 50 years before 1973.
Fact Checkers, Beavis and Butt Head, may debunk that observation with logic like. “it’s false because of words and stuff”, which makes perfect sense to those who like to keep abreast of the news.
Zbigniew Brezinski’s famous quote from 1972 is probably appropriate here, which says, “Shortly the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news”.
The term propaganda got a bad rap in the Second World War, so Edward Bernays introduced the term public relations which of course now has been replaced by the term news. (NEWS North East West South)
U.S. oil wells were noted to have been drying up since the late 1960s. That is, oil was being pumped out faster than it was replenishing. The USA had to import oil to meet their increasing demands and the price of crude went from$3 a barrel to $12 a barrel by 1974 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/03/1970s-oil-price-shock) as OPEC’s oil embargo was introduced to punish the United states and Europe’s support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war in October 6th – 27th in 1973.
“For the US, the Arab oil embargo came at a time of declining domestic crude oil production, rising demand, and increasing imports. The OPEC embargo was successful because US crude oil production had peaked in 1970 at 9,637 kb/d (10,044 kb/d in November 1970) and had declined in 1973 to 9,208 kb/d”. http://crudeoilpeak.info/oil-crisis-1973
Also, from google “The idea of “peak oil” – a peak is the amount of oil we can physically extract, followed by an irreversible decline in production – has been around for decades. So far, though, it has never been reached on a global level”. July 2023. They were wrong in 1973 and we hadn’t used half of the world’s oil reserves or even reached world peak oil at that time and still to this day we have still not reached it, according to google. I haven’t seen a Beavis and Butthead fact check on that yet but there appears to be no shortage of supply.
None the less, fear and the concept of scarcity prevails.
The dry USA oil wells, whilst sitting idle, have been refilling and are now viable again. Before Biden “took office”, the USA was once again heading towards oil self-sufficiency but that is a political issue and not our focus. Our focus is the practicality of replacing coal and oil with “renewable energy” because of “global warming”, which has in the last few weeks officially, (WEF and WHO), has become “Global Boiling.
Those people who think the planet is warming because the MSM, using red weather maps as evidence of “the fact” are proof Zbigniew Brezinski knew what he was talking about.
As the oil wells refill, I wonder if dinosaurs are still dying and decomposing deep in the earth’s centre? Google addresses that question thusly, “How did dinosaurs turn into oil? By advising, “The notion that petroleum or crude oil comes from dinosaurs is fiction”, and then asks if the reading is “Surprised?”
I wasn’t, but I was surprised that google continued with, “Oil formed from the remains of marine plants and animals that lived millions of years ago, even before the dinosaurs. 12 Feb 2021”, which is also fiction according to other “scientifical authorities” if you continue with the google research.
Before we leave the fiction section let’s consider the allegation that, in “1893, the Rockefeller Foundation paid scientists at the Geneva Convention to call oil a “fossil fuel” to “induce the idea of scarcity” and so increase its price, adding that oil does not “come from fossils”. In the same debunking article, “In 1892 (which is the year before 1893, easily known by anyone with education credentials equivalent or exceeding that of “Jethro Bodine”, but not noticed by the “trustworthy” and “reliable” debunker with a lack of attention to detail) at the Geneva Convention, the biggest man in the oil industry, J.D. Rockefeller paid scientists to call oil a “fossil fuel’, inducing the idea of scarcity in order to set a world price for oil. The truth is that oil is the 2nd most prevalent liquid on earth next to water, and at all times it is regenerating within the earth faster than it could ever be depleted”. Read the detailed debunking here https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fossil-fuel-rockefeller-idUSL1N2QQ1UK
The German chemist Caspar Neumann had apparently introduced the term back in 1759 however, regardless of whether the term is applicable to oil, snake or otherwise, it has become a staple in our modern vocabulary and used with authority just like the term “Conspiracy Theory” has been used since it was introduced to quieten the chatter regarding JFK’s assassination.
(Need another rabbit hole? Research Mary’s Monkey JFK Assassination)
But I digress. (Part 4 of this article soon)
John Lynn