PJTV & Pajamas Media on big green,
BIG GREEN 1: The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism (vid)
The environmental movement since the 30s has been the fastest growing with regard to getting legislation passed.
The amount of money being spent on environmental causes since the late 80s has basically quadrupled.
$1.9 bn to $8.2 bn.
People don't realise the agenda is to reduce the human population and end private land ownership while increasing federal ownership and reduce fossil fuel use by making it more expensive..
BIG GREEN 2: The Big Business of Scaring America to Death (vid)
How did the environmental movement become so big and how does it use its size to set policy and buy influence in Washington D.C?
Cap'n'trade is is a perfect example of what has often been called an unholy alliance between bootleggers and baptists. It used to be that the bootleggers supported the baptists because they want alcohol kept illegal...
There are more than 26,000 enviro groups across the country and a huge percentage of them are based in Washington.
How does big green influence federal and environmental regulations and are these policies good for the American people?
Green Money: The Perpetual Motion Machine
Part III of the Washington Examiner/PJM special report on the environmental movement looks at how Big Green funds itself through a never-ending parade of lawsuits aimed at the productive sector of the economy.
In today’s Examiner, the “Big Green” series looks at how the environmental activism industry is funded. With the dues and contributions of millions of environmentally concerned citizens, of course, the various environmental groups start out with millions of dollars in annual revenue, and literally billions of dollars in assets, all dedicated to protecting the environment; that must be the source of their funding.
Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?
Because of convenient peculiarities in the laws, and some special relationships with the federal government, a large part of the environmental groups’ funding for legal aspects of their Good Works comes, not from their own assets, but directly from the federal government.
How the Environmental Movement Became Just Another Washington Power Bloc
It’s not just a band of flannel-shirted environmentalists any longer; it’s become a big-money, major player in Washington power politics and American elections. (Starting today, the Washington Examiner is publishing a five-part special report in association with Pajamas Media on "Big Green.")
Starting today, the Washington Examiner is running a special report on “Big Green”: the alliance of progressive activists, environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and the Democratic Party that has become perhaps the most powerful single lobby in Washington today.
It was, to some extent, a “stealth” campaign. “Conservationists” had been around for a hundred years, and the original Environmental Protection Agency was, after all, pushed through by Richard Nixon. Partly because of events like the Cuyahoga River fire in Cleveland in 1969, there was a general agreement in the 1960s that pollution of the air and water had become too obnoxious and that something had to be done.
The environmental movement quickly got involved with the New Left, becoming a sort of side-show for anti-war demonstrations while pollution became one of the litany of evils of what had been traditional American life. Along with real issues like river and lake pollution, there had been Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, published in 1968; the Club of Rome’s book The Limits to Growth, in 1972; and a succession of other doomsday scenarios in the popular press.
What started as a largely bipartisan issue in the 60s began to transform into a more distinctly partisan issue in the 70s. Looking back, what was happening was a natural agreement of interests: in all of these groups, there was the general assumption that the various evils of humanity could only be remedied by government action, led by the enlightened. This meant that government must become stronger, have more power, and broaden its authority to deal with these new problems.
The environmental movement was quickly co-opted.
Young, Dumb, and Scared: Big Green and the Existential Protection Racket
What keeps the environmental activism industry in business? Fear. (Part IV of the Washington Examiner/PJM special report on the environmental movement.)
[...] The environmental activism industry had learned a lesson: get them young, get them dumb and keep them dumb, and scare the hell out of them.
In today’s installment of the “Big Green” series at the Washington Examiner, Mark Hemingway and Ron Arnold show us how well the environmental activism industry has learned their lesson.
Global Warming murder fantasy nabs prize as most honest political ad of all time
“10:10″ is a campaign to get people around the world to lower their carbon consumption by 10% in the year 2010. Global Warming and all that, you see.
It’s quite a large, well-organized movement, funded in part by the British government.
[Delingpole:Now you’ve seen the video, prepare not to be surprised that your taxes helped pay for it.
The 10:10 Campaign is supported by:
ActionAid (Govt of UK 2nd largest funder in 2009);
The Carbon Trust (surely #1 on the list of quangos-to-go);
The Energy Saving Trust.]
Within minutes of its unveiling earlier today, “No Pressure” caused such an uproar that it was taken offline while the producers issued an apology.
Luckily, enterprising bloggers saved copies and have been frantically re-uploading them to YouTube, to prevent the video from disappearing down the memory hole.
Why? Because no video has ever provided such a revealing and shocking peek into the mindset of the Global Warming alarmists.
What kind of people blow up children?
White supremacists, for one example. On the morning of Sept. 15, 1963, members of a Ku Klux Klan “splinter group” set off dynamite under the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., killing four girls: Denise McNair, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley. Denise was 11; the other three were 14.
Islamic supremacists, for another example. Groups like Hamas and al Qaeda not only attack civilians indiscriminately but frequently employ Muslim children as suicide bombers. Our friend Brooke Goldstein made a whole movie about it.
There’s a new kind of supremacist on the scene: green supremacists. They haven’t blown up any children–not in real life. But they’ve been thinking about it.
Another sicko ad from the greens (Green Hell)
Last week’s exploding kids video was not a one-of-a-kind twisted green ad. Below is an ad from ACT-Responsible:
Time for a name change for Act-Responsible.
Is the UK any different?
The UK government, persuaded by Houghton, (and in recent times his IPCC, the Royal Soc. and Grantham Inst.) that CO2 was harmful without any evidence, financed the UN IPCC, and funded Houghton's organisations EAU CRU and Hadley Centre (Brit Met) that have stayed faithful to his dogmatic fantasy in supporting government policy by "homogenising" data to amplify warming that was otherwise within the natural range (as did NIWA, GISS and others). The fancied CO2 driven warming is STILL devoid of credible evidence despite the almost total focus of climate science, ocean science etc. in looking for it (driven by biased funding from gov'ts, the EC, UN, the RS, Grantham Inst. etc.), despite the world having spent much more than $79 billion on research over the last 2 decades and despite the absence of any warming signal of any significance since 1995.
A rational person would say enough is enough, evidence is not there to be found. If the influence of CO2 additions is too small to be found there is no point in looking further as such influence is irrelevant, nor is there any point in penal regulations to reduce its production as the impact of such is most certainly totally irrelevant to climate temperature**. Aside from that proven benefits far outweigh the (20 year old broken) hypothesised negative promoted by the hippie activist Hansen that suggested detrimental influences.
Yet still ecoturds, genuine environmentalists, politicised charities, businesses, finance and insurance organisations, banks, wind energy and biofuel pushers, political parties and the European Commission promote the fantasy as an issue because they ALL profit at great cost to taxpayers, energy end users and their standard of living. The EC/EU is one if not the biggest beneficiary of the continued deception through the carbon credit scam (scam because it is in no way justifiable and does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, in fact certificates are permission to emit CO2), probably through investments in WE and biofuels and through their increased influence in EU member countries and theft of their sovereignty using the "green" lies.
Huhne possesses either or both traits of the eco fascist and environmental movements, the propensity to deceive and the gross lack of intelligence to see the immense harmfulness of the hippy ideology they are pursuing. Huhne must be aware that wind energy in no way reduces CO2 emissions, in no way reduces fosfuel dependence, is nowhere near cost effective and recent research indicates the possibility that wind farms cause warming. Add in lunatic carbon capture and storage (CCS) and 30% more fuel is needed to produce the same energy. Huhne and by extension the government is knowingly (or unknowingly***) committing fraud against UK energy users by forcing an energy source of only unredeeming features and negative benefit into the energy mix and against tax and VAT payers by the enormous subsidies given to wind energy developers and suppliers. Can no-one end this criminal activity within active government?
*** If "unknowingly" there is no possible justification for Huhne to have any authority.
Via Junk Science
** EPA Estimates Its Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Would Reduce Global Temperature by No More Than 0.006 of a Degree in 90 Years
Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 [6 to 15 thousandths] of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA's analysis.
As a side effect, these rules would “slow construction nationwide for years,” the EPA said in a June 3 statement.
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighted those findings in a report released last week.
The GOP minority report, issued last Wednesday, said a series of proposed and partially implemented new regulations on industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters, and ozone levels will put over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit.
The authors cite the EPA’s own staff to show that greenhouse gas regulations, which would require major sources of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to obtain permits and limit their output, could seriously harm the economy if implemented. (Chris Neefus, CNSNews.com)
EU worried about waning public image of renewables
The European Commission is looking into mechanisms to boost public acceptance of renewable energy projects to meet its climate goals, but behavioural scientists warn that obvious solutions like individual compensation do not always work.
But renewable projects often run into resistance from local communities, who have to live with the noise of wind turbines or the visual changes to their landscapes.
Mindful that developers of renewables projects often run into public resistance at the permitting stage, the European Commission's energy department has launched a study investigating how to increase local acceptance. (EurActiv)
For Those Near the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy
VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.
“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”
Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.
They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.
Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states.
In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.
Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.
“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” (NYT)
And on the topic of avian and bat decimation by the bird liquidisers:
That Balanced Coverage is Blowin' in the Wind
You've surely heard the information presented here, right? Or, given the inane visual and rhetorical campaign promoting windmills and solar panels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- because, you know, the menace of all of those (foreign-) wind- and solar-powered cars...er, ...because we get electricity from burning oil...or, something -- you've seen this in stories about windmills just as you recently were inundated with snaps of the oil-covered pelican?
There have been at least 152 [fires caused by turbines] to date. Sooner or later, forest fires are bound to be caused by burning wind turbines. Some may have occurred already, and the cause covered up - politically correct oblige.
Peter Brookes' work in a slideshow here.
[Transferring money created by inflation to banks, banks need inflation to boost profits. Inflation is a backdoor tax.]
A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.
Lenin said creating a central bank is 90% of communising a country.
Eco fascists celebrate Lenin's birthday every Earth day (coincidentally the first one was held on Lenin's 100th).
Mayer Amschel Rothschild said let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. The BoE controls the UK's money and the Fed Res that of the US. Government is just decoration and a rubber stamp to their decisions.
Truth hurts. Which truth do you want? The red six pointed star is the bankster family Rothschild's (nee Bauer) symbol. The Israeli star is blue. See 1743 at this link.
Pink Floyd Frontman Targeted By ADL For Criticizing Globalist Military Industrial Complex
The vid is brilliant. The ADL if public funded needs to be unfunded. And introduced to intravenous Sensodyne (clinically proven active ingredient to help relieve hypersensitivity within 2 weeks)