Environmentalists think purposeful pollution will save the world

Energy scarcity is hard-wired into the system

As dependence on technology grows – everything is computerized from phones to dishwashers – so does the need for rare earth minerals to power them. By promoting the changeover from gas-powered vehicles, generators and farm/landscaping equipment to electric replacements relying mostly on 1000 lb. lithium batteries, energy scarcity is hard-wired into the system. The result is vehicles and appliances that cannot operate on fluctuating wind and solar energy generation to partially power their volatile batteries. The premise is daily proven in California where gas, coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned in favor of square miles of wind and solar farms that are so inadequate EV owners are told not to charge their cars. Rolling brownouts are on the daily menu regardless of heatwave or coldsnap. Then there's Hurricane Ian and the claim that had there been more solar or wind farms in Florida, power outages would have been less severe. Really. Here are two good reasons these renewable sources would be worthless in 150 mph winds: 1) solar arrays and wind turbines are blown away, destroyed in hurricane force winds; 2) it would take months to years to replace solar panels, windmills and infrastructure rather than days or a couple weeks to get power plants back in operation. Dave Walsh, former president of Mitsubishi Power Systems, explains how ludicrous is the argument for solar over conventional power. The promise (that can never be fulfilled) is that all this suffering will save the planet from… what? Even the climate change theorists have yet to have a win on their side of doomsday predictions. Interestingly, where real environmentalists actually made headway in cleaning up smog in cities like Los Angeles by putting the brakes on sulfur dioxide emissions back in the 1970-'80s, the new age climate conductors are now promoting re-introduction of the very pollutants it took decades to clear from the air. The "why" is what's topsy-turvy. After measurements of ice caps have shown little to no loss of depth over the last 20 years, when they'd been predicted to disappear by the year 2000 (then 2010 and now?), some over-eager "scientists" are recommending flights at 43,000 feet that would release sulfur dioxide to "refreeze" the poles. According to conflicting NASA and NOAA analyses, neither pole is in real danger of melting away anymore than polar bears have diminished in numbers. They haven't. To date, the denizens of the north have flourished since Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was released.

The west's cavalier attitude about the massive emissions from the calculated destruction confirms the greenhouse gas argument is and always has been political, not scientific

There's more. While in the EU European farmers are being pressured to cut back methane emissions that essentially destroy dairy and beef industries, attempting to force Dutch producers to downsize their operations by up to 70%, one or other side of the Russia-Ukraine war sabotaged the NordStream gas pipelines, releasing 300,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. Whoever is responsible (there appears to be more logic in assuming it was US/NATO rather than Russia) gutted the whole concept of farmers and ranchers contributing significantly to methane "pollution." The west's cavalier attitude about the massive emissions from the calculated destruction confirms the greenhouse gas argument is and always has been political, not scientific. It's political when United Nations envoys such as Undersecretary General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming sit back on their haunches and proclaim they "own science," referring to their misinformation campaign in conjunction with Google to wipe media clean of properly conducted research that refutes man-made climate change. If the UN "owns" it then it's not science but propaganda. While warmongers natter about natural gas provisions for Europe amid an engineered energy crisis, no government is seriously addressing "renewable" sources that are incapable of supplying a fraction of household and industrial needs. They are perfectly comfortable leaving the majority of the world's population in the dark and starving. On the other hand, tech companies tout electric-powered airplanes that just made a whopping eight-minute flight. After reading up on the protocols and knowing the shortcomings of battery technology, buying a ticket wouldn't be on my bucket list since it might be the last item fulfilled. Moreover, there's electric-powered farm equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit that could be stranded in the middle of a half-reaped field when harvesting the crop is a non-stop, time sensitive operation. Circumstances like that could mean devastating loss to a farmer, not to mention less produce on market shelves or for livestock feed. If it weren't for the misanthropic climate change policies busting economies, the world would be in pretty good shape.