Letters to the Editor

Green energy policy – nothing that works

quill pen

To the Editor
Climate Conversation

29th April 2015

Modern industrial society commenced with the use of coal and oil to power factories, trains, ships and agriculture and to generate electricity. With abundant energy prosperity increased and people could save enough to support leisure, education, culture and environmental concerns.

But the dark greens have a dream to dismantle all this and return society to the hunter/gatherer era.

In an unguarded moment Maurice Strong, a leader of the international green movement, said:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Greens have thus gleefully spread the global warming scare to justify a massive political war on hydro-carbon fuels. Timothy Wirth, ex-President of the UN Foundation, spilt the beans:

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.

To mask their real aim of de-energising modern industry, they continually promote “alternative energy”.

The only alternatives to coal, oil and gas for stable, reliable and economical grid power are nuclear energy and, in favourable locations, hydro or geothermal.

Nuclear power could be one of our cheapest and safest energy sources, however greens have opposed and denigrated it for decades, and erected such bureaucratic and financial hurdles to it that it is seldom considered in most pampered western societies.

green nuclear energy

THE POWER OF STEAM. How can nuclear power be green? Because it’s entirely natural. Sure, we declared our nation to be ‘nuclear-free’, though the concept denies physics (and we were exercising a young sense of nationhood). But a nuclear power station is by any measure a deeply green provider of renewable energy and consider this: IT’S JUST A STEAM ENGINE! – Editor

They are in favour of hydro, providing it does not disturb one fish or one frog on their favourite river.

But they continually spruik the benefits of wind and solar power.

Wind and solar can be useful in some mobile or remote locations, and for some people with deep pockets who wish to become independent of the grid. But being totally unable to supply 24/7 grid power, they need reliable backup (or massive batteries) of about 75% of their rated capacity. Once we subtract the energy and resources needed to build and maintain the towers or panels, the roads and transmission lines, plus backup or batteries, and then run all this intermittently, the whole-of-life net contribution of wind and solar to energy supply or emissions reduction is negligible or negative.

Another dark green leader, Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountains Institute, said:

It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. – 1977

Green energy policy promotes this dictum by supporting “Nothing that Works”.

Viv Forbes


forbes [at] carbon-sense [dot] com

Visits: 55

14 Thoughts on “Letters to the Editor

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 5:56 pm said:

    ‘The Climate Change Industry and the Hoax of Global Warming’

    By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh


    The real reason behind the global warming scare and why the United Nations’ alarmists have been driving us into forced submission of environmentalist stewardship is that they want capitalism destroyed and replaced with their vision of a utopian communist economy that has never worked across the centuries. These progressives have a problem with the Industrial Revolution, with “fossil fuels,” (They are not so fossil since the earth keeps producing them), with the only successful economic model that has provided generous income to all these hot-air spewing, idle bureaucrats, who have nothing better to do than meet in exotic locales planning the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs that feed their exorbitant lifestyles, salaries, bonuses, and pensions.

    Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Convention on Climate Change, disclosed the real reason for the climate change industry when she told us that they are not interested in saving the world from global warming Armageddon but they want to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”


  2. Mike Jowsey on 29/04/2015 at 6:03 pm said:

    Well done Viv. But I think the idea of nuclear power being one of our safest energy sources is hard to agree with when Fukushima, and Chernobyl are still very much in my memory. The repercussions of both are still irradiating large areas and waters, and will for centuries. And then there’s the nuclear waste problem.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 6:26 pm said:

    Also from the Johnson Paugh article above:

    The climate change industry has admitted through a Freudian slip that their agenda of climate change is “disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.”

    Well, the rain disruption to the kiwifruit harvest has abated for now so it’s back to work tonight (sigh).

    That’s enough disruption without megalomaniacal UN economic wreckers moving in.

  4. Alexander K on 30/04/2015 at 9:55 am said:

    My Dad, who fought in two world wars as a private soldier and had learnt, over his years on this earth, a thing or two about power and command structures, was deeply skeptical about the United Nations and it’s inherently Socialist agenda.
    He had seen the very worst that governments could do to each other and what he had seen convinced him that any large political structure such as the UN was ultimately inherently both unworkable and evil on the basis of the tenet that ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
    Although he died in the early ’60s, he saw very clearly that no good would come of the UN, with its socialist nature and the eventual enormous power it would weild.
    As I see things, it is the duty of every sentient person to resist the ultimate power of the UN, not with violence but with the determination that individuals and nations must retain their hard-won democratic freedoms along with the right to work intelligently and to make progress toward, however we define it, a better life for ourselves and our offspring.

  5. Mike Jowsey on 30/04/2015 at 6:18 pm said:

    Well-said Alexander. I was listening to a rant by Russell Brand yesterday during which he was promoting socialism as just a way of sharing. Everyone just shares their toys. Instant utopia. The trouble is, I don’t want to be forced to share. A friend asked to borrow a tow rope today and I gladly said yes, feeling good about helping a mate. Buggered if I’ll let some socialist legislation steal that good feeling.

  6. ‘I don’t want to be forced to share.’ Exactly.

  7. Mike Jowsey on 01/05/2015 at 1:24 am said:

    Exactly. The osmosis from socialism towards tyranny is the problem. The nanny state. Don’t blame me for getting off-topic and philosophical – Alexander started it!

  8. Richard Treadgold on 01/05/2015 at 11:19 am said:

    “Don’t blame me for getting off-topic”

    Heh, heh! I understand. The topic ranges wide because the so-called ‘Green’ philosophy ranges widely. Mention greens in climate change and it’s a mere hop, skip and jump to economics, education, immigration and anything in between. Try as valiantly as we might to constrain ourselves to the socialist interference in climate science for the sake of their pre-existing social policy and the tremendous distortions they are causing, we must fail because we are thick with curiosity and persistence; students who stop at nothing in the search for truth. There; now you’ve got me going as well. 😉

  9. Alexander K on 01/05/2015 at 3:49 pm said:

    Richard and Mike: you have fallen into the trap that always confronts me when I try to get my head around the silly policies and people that the Greens laud. Any group outside the fashion industry that can take Dame Vivienne Westwood seriously – I did an appreticeship at the manufacturing end of that industry, and walked away from it when it became obvious that Chinese manufacturing was deliberately killing our cut-and-sew factories.
    I spent enough years as a kid immediately following WWII living in the manner the Greens idolise, and only nut-cases would want to go back to that: lighting a fire in the stove to cook a meal, burying the froducts from the one-hole long-drop on a weekly basis, milking the house cow EVERY day, butchering the family mutton carcase and breaking it down into the various cuts, making curries when the meat got a bit smelly but was still safe to eat. The job I REALLY hated was helping Mum butcher and de-feather old chooks en mass when they went off the lay and it was no longer economic to feed them.
    Anyone who wants to go back to that does NOT understand how progress works, IMHO.

  10. Richard Treadgold on 01/05/2015 at 4:40 pm said:


    Richard and Mike: you have fallen into the trap … Anyone who wants to go back to that does NOT understand how progress works.”

    I’ve missed something; I certainly don’t want to go back to that.
    What are you disagreeing with, Alexander?

  11. Mike Jowsey on 01/05/2015 at 5:57 pm said:

    I don’t feel trapped. I do enjoy lighting two log burners each night. It reminds me of the Carbon Cycle. We do our own meat here on the farm too – so much better than supermarket fare. But I would definitely draw the line at emptying longdrops or milking a house-cow. Although I actually wouldn’t mind the cow too much. Debra is into cheese making, and finding a cheap source of organic, raw milk is always a problem in our Nanny State. Like I said though, do not force me to live this way – you’ll take all the enjoyment out of it.

  12. Alexander K on 03/05/2015 at 9:07 am said:

    My apologies, guys – I didn’t complete a paragraph and the thing timed out before I could fix it.
    What I intended was to describe the trap the Greens always lay by offering too many targets, which I always fall into.
    Mike, having to light a fire in a cold stove in in a cold house in the freezing pre-dawn dark is not a romantic chore if one has to do it every morning before dressing for school. And as a victim of a recurrent health problem that was contracted from unpasteurised milk straight from the cow as a small boy, I think people who want to purchase raw farm milk don’t realise the health risks they run by drinking the stuff. I know nothing about cheese-making, however.
    While I think of it, Mike, did your parents marry in Hamilton, NZ, in the post-war era? I remember a cousin of mine marrying a Mr Jowsey there in the late forties or early fifties.

  13. Mike Jowsey on 05/05/2015 at 7:45 pm said:

    Hi Alexander, I think milking shed hygiene has improved enormously over the last 50 years. Anyway, each to his own eh! As long as the socialist nannies don’t force everyone back to that era. Hamilton – no, but quite possibly a relative. Not many of us about, but there were a fair few around greater Auckland. I grew up in Papakura, then Kohimarama, but was born in Pukekohe. It’s a small world in Middle Earth.

  14. Alexander K on 19/05/2015 at 9:48 am said:

    Mike, I have just Googled ‘Milk-borne dieases and I am more convinced than ever I was before that drinking unpasteurised milk is NOT a sensible thing to do. If you can convince me otherwise I’d be happy, so it’s your turn!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation