Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: Green energy is big business

  1. #1

    Green energy is big business

    Years before anybody had heard of Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg and her mission for climate action, Crown Prince Charles with the Bank of England and City of London finance were already redirecting pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects.
    A key player in linking world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of England governor Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about climate related risks”.

    In 2016, the TCFD with the City of London Corporation and UK Government initiated the Green Finance Initiative to channel trillions of dollars to “green investments”. The TCFD is chaired by multibillionaire former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, it includes people from BlackRock; JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical; mining giant BHP Billington; David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC (formerly of Goldman Sachs).

    Of course they needed a representative kid to promote their agenda…
    Greta Thunberg is part of the network tied to the organisation of Al Gore’s partner, David Blood. Greta Thunberg and her 17-year-old US climate friend Jamie Margolin were both listed as “special youth advisor and trustee” of the Swedish We Don’t Have Time NGO, founded in late 2017 by Ingmar Rentzhog.
    Rentzhog is a member of both Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders and the European Climate Policy Task Force. Rentzhog made his money as the founder of investment company Laika Consulting and his chief operating officer, David Olsson, worked at one of Sweden's biggest property funds Svenska Bostadsfonden, whose board Rentzhog joined in June 2017.

    In February 2019, in a blatant publicity stunt, after meeting Greta, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed that between 2021 and 2027, “every fourth euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate change”.
    This decision had nothing to do with Greta’s plea; it was made months earlier on 26 September 2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others.

    On 17 October 2018, weeks after the previous decision was made, Juncker announced that Breakthrough Energy will have preferential access to funding…
    Members of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson (the good friend of Ghislaine Maxwell and NXIVM); Bill Gates; David Rubenstein (founder of the Bush-linked Carlyle); and George Soros: https://www.globalresearch.ca/climat...-trail/5690209
    (http://archive.is/5ReVu)


    In July 2019, outgoing UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond wrote that the TCFD “has been endorsed by institutions representing $118 trillion of assets globally”.
    Following are some of its supporters…

    ABN Amro bank; ABP; Accenture; AEGON NV; Allianz Global Investors; American Bar Association; Anglo American; Autoriteit Financiele Markten (Netherlands); AXA Group;

    Bank of America; Bank of England – PRA; Barclays; Barrick Gold Corporation; BASF; Belgian Ministery of Finance; BlackRock; BNP Paribas;

    Citigroup Inc.; Credit Suisse Group;

    Daimler; Danske Bank; De Nederlandsche Bank; Deloitte Global; Deutsche Bank;

    Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management;
    Fidelity Investments; Financial Conduct Authority (UK);

    Glencore; Goldman Sachs; Government of – Canada, Chile, France, Sweden, UK;

    Hewlett Packard; HSBC Holdings;
    ING Group;
    JP Morgan Chase;

    Mazda Motor Corporation; Mitsubishi; Morgan Stanley;
    National Bank of Belgium; National Bank of Canada;
    Pepsico, Inc.; PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC);

    Rabobank; RBS; Rio Tinto; Rockefeller Assat Management; Royal DSM; Royal Dutch Shell; Royal Philips;

    Societe Generale; Solvay; Swiss Re Ltd.;
    Tata Steel; The Crown Estate (UK); Total SA; Toyota Motor Corporation;

    UBS Group; Unilever;
    Vanguard;
    Yamaha Corporation: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/tcfd-supporters/
    (http://web.archive.org/web/20190126120752/https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/tcfd-supporters/)


    Maybe it’s a bit too cynical of me to conclude that these “philanthropists” have a motive for creating global warming for real…
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    It shouldn´t surprise anybody that none other than Queen Elizabeth II profits from the wind energy fraud.
    The payment is currently 25% of the profits of the Crown Estate. The rate has been increased from 15% for 10 years (until 2027) under the guise of refurbishing Buckingham Palace.

    The Crown Estate holds “ancient” exclusive rights to the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power.
    In 2018, the U.K.’s world-leading investment in offshore wind farms contributed toward a record Sovereign grant to the Royal Family - $137 million.

    In 2018, the Crown’s seabed generated 7.7 gigawatts (0.2 GW more than in 2017).
    The Sovereign Grant will continue to rise as more offshore turbines are build.

    The Queen’s seabeds reportedly generate 8% of Britain’s electricity, but the British government has recently decided that even more money must be wasted on wind power:
    We’ve set out that by 2030, offshore wind is going to be providing at least a third of the UK’s entire power needs.
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5443959/o...-royal-budget/
    (archived here: http://archive.is/FQvDz)


    Then the “reputable” Guardian announed in the headlines that the “Crown backs down and ‘refines’ plans for offshore wind auction”...

    But the millions flowing to the Crown Estate wasn’t lowered, but instead they made the tender offering more transparent.
    For some reason, the British government planned to make the taxpayer loose even more money in a “sealed envelope bid”...

    According to the Guardian, the Crown Estate collected (only) £41m in 2018 (instead of $137 million): https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-wind-auction


    It is expected that by 2030, Queen Elizabeth will earn more than £100 million annually from windfarms alone. According to the Daily Mail, last year the Crown Estate collected £41million from windfarms.

    Between 2001 and 2010, the old Civil List for the British Royals was £7.9 million annually (that’s besides most if not all of their expenses are paid). In 2011, it grew to £13.7 million.
    In 2012, when the Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant, initially set at 15% but further increased to 25% of the profits from the Crown Estate, financial support to the Royals immediately more than doubled to £31 million. This has continued to rise, to a staggering £82.8 million last year 2018-2019.

    Profits from valuable London sites owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which has net assets of more than £1 billion, go to Prince Charles. Profits for Charles, have grown from £12.9 million in 2012 to more than £21 million in 2018.
    Queen Elizabeth is also one of the top recipients of EU money, receiving £557,707 in 2016 for her Sandringham farmland alone.

    A conservative estimate for Elizabeth´s wealth in 2011 was £1.15 billion, that´s excluding what´s held in trust by the Crown. Elizabeth´s investment portfolio alone is valued at £500 million and her stamp collection is worth £100 million.
    Exact figures are hard to come by, though, because of the state-supported secrecy.

    In 1910, Queen Mary had the power to seal wills introduced.
    The Queen Mother reportedly had £70 million when she died. In 1942, she was left expensive jewels by an heiress to the McEwan brewing fortune.
    The sister of Elizabeth, Princess Margaret’s will has remain inaccessible, it has been estimated that she left an estate of some £7.6 million, having previously disposed of £12 million of assets to her family. Where did she get all of this money?!?

    These Royal degenerates are exempt from inheritance tax from a king or queen to their heir. Supposedly Elizabeth voluntarily pays taxes, so why would she have hundreds of millions stashed away in British offshore tax havens?
    Because of the all-encompassing secrecy, we simply have to believe that she pays taxes: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-Family.html
    Last edited by Firestarter; 11-19-2019 at 10:56 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  4. #3
    In the not so good old swinging 60s, my home town of Amsterdam was dumping and burning toxic waste at the Volgermeerpolder and Diemerzeedijk which has severely damaged the health caused amongst others by dioxin: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6690112


    It looks like nothing has changed, only these days importing garbage and burning this in Amsterdam is called “green energy”!
    The incinerators are placed where the poor survive, so never mind those health effects!

    Around a quarter of the waste burned in the Netherlands is imported. This has been going on for 8 years. Most of it came from England and Wales, some 25,000 tonnes of British rubbish every week.
    Recently it was reported that new waste imports are limited because 4 of the 6 incinerator of Amsterdam’s AEB are out of order: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/0...sing-problems/


    Of course burning garbage produces carbon dioxide, besides toxic emissions.
    The 3 largest garbage incinerators of the 12 in the Netherlands are in the top 10 of Dutch companies emitting most carbon dioxide: Attero, AVR and HVC emit about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
    About 80% of the imported waste in the Netherlands comes from Great Britain (in Dutch): https://wisenederland.nl/groene-stro...valverbranding


    In 2017, 2018, the UK exported a total of 611,000 tonnes of plastic waste to other countries in 12 months (down from 683,000 tonnes in 2016, 2017).
    In this period, China almost stopped reprocessing plastic from the UK (the amount dropped by 94%).
    Malaysia, Turkey, Poland, the Netherlands and Indonesia import most UK plastic: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46566795
    (http://archive.is/qKs2w)



    Waste-to-energy plants are expensive, so they generally charge more to accept trash than landfills.
    Transporting the garbage across the globe of course also costs energy (but I doubt if any “scientist” takes that into account in their politically correct calculations on “green energy”).

    Waste to energy has become a preferred method of rubbish disposal in the EU. In 2013, there were 420 plants in Europe to provide heat and electricity to more than 20 million people.
    The European countries that import most garbage are Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands (even more than Norway).

    From October 2012 to April 2013, the UK paid to send 45,000 tonnes of household waste from Bristol and Leeds to Norway. Because it’s called climate friendly, Norway – like the Netherlands - accepts rubbish to keep the incinerators burning.
    Incinerators in Norway make about half of their profit from the fee paid to take the waste and the rest from the sale of energy: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...y-waste-energy


    Great Britain is already building more incinerators, but it is also a concern involving the Brexit hysteria.

    Sweden is already thinking on new ways of importing garbage from the UK, as now most of their imported waste comes from Norway that isn´t part of the EU either: https://www.thelocal.se/20181112/swe...rexit-solution


    According to our wonderful media, burning garbage in the developed world is environmentally friendly, but in the Third World it’s pollutive. Never mind that on average those poor countries produce a lot less garbage than us in the developed countries...

    Some 1.1 billion tonnes of waste, more than 40% of the world’s garbage, is burned in open piles. While carbon dioxide is the major gas emitted by trash burning, this reportedly amounts to “only” 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
    There are however some other emissions that should be important health concerns (besides polluting the environment).

    About 29% of global emissions of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets from dust to metals that can penetrate deep into the lungs come from trash fires.
    About 10% percent of mercury emissions and 40% percent of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) come from open burning.

    This pollution can cause lung, neurological diseases, heart attacks and cancer: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-problem-17973
    (http://archive.is/ylPbJ)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 11-19-2019 at 11:02 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  5. #4
    We’ve been fooled into believing that electricity produced by wind is better for the environment than conventional energy sources.

    For nearly the last 40 years, world energy demand has grown at about 2% a year.
    Since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per year, we would need to built an additional 350,000 per year, just to supply the growth in energy consumption. That’s 150% of the amount that was built in the world since the early 2000s!

    That many turbines would require a land area half the size of the British Isles, including Ireland (61,000 sq mi) – to be build every single year.
    In 50 years this would amount to a land area about half the size of Russia covered with wind farms (3.05 million sq mi).
    Please note that this would only cover the increase in energy consumption!

    In reality the vast majority of generated energy in the third world is from burning “traditional biomass”: sticks, logs, charcoal and dung burned for cooking food.
    Even in rich countries with subsidised wind and solar energy, most of the “renewable energy” in fact comes from wood and hydro.

    It takes a lot of energy to build wind turbines, which apart from the fiberglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. Coal is needed to make the steel and cement.
    A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 metric tons, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. They need about half a ton of coal to make a ton of steel. Add another 25 tons of coal for the cement and you’re talking about 150 metric tons of coal per wind turbine.

    If they would build 350,000 wind turbines a year (just to keep up with increasing energy demand), they would need 50 million metric tons of coal a year more than being mined now. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

    If you look at these numbers, you can only conclude that it is utterly futile to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone reduce emissions, without destroying the planet (that´s besides the huge number of birds being chopped up in the blades of the turbines): http://rodmartin.org/utter-complete-...ud-wind-power/
    (http://archive.is/PRoXo)


    Then there´s the cost...
    Offshore wind is very expensive. In 2017, the first U.S. offshore wind farm on Rhode Island cost a whopping $150,000 per household powered!

    In 2018, Virginia politicians approved an offshore wind project at an estimated cost of $300 million.
    Virginians will first pay 25 times the U.S. market price for the turbines and then pay 78 cents/kilowatt-hour for their intermittent electricity. That’s 26 times the 3 cents per kWh wholesale price for coal, gas, hydroelectric or nuclear electricity in the Commonwealth!

    Because turbines age, onshore wind electricity output declines by 16% per decade of operation.
    Natural gas plants have 30-40 year lifetimes, while wind turbines last only 15-20 years, or even less for offshore wind farms (due to the weather conditions).

    Removing (decommissioning) wind turbines is also very expensive.
    Virginia’s turbines will be 27 miles from the coast (which is even more expensive to remove). Removing an industrial-scale “wind farm” could cost billions, and could double the cost of wind power.
    One study estimates that it will cost $565,000 per megawatt to remove Europe’s offshore turbines — or about $3.4 million for each new generation 6-MW turbine.

    Because wind varies from second to second, day to day, year to year, you can´t rely on wind power when it´s needed most.
    Industrial wind promoters claim turbines generate electricity about a third of the time. Energy experts put that output at 20-30% or even lower, depending on location.

    From an economic, environmental and energy perspective, wind energy is unsustainable: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-are-about-to/
    (http://archive.is/A5TwX)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Years before anybody had heard of Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg and her mission for climate action, Crown Prince Charles with the Bank of England and City of London finance were already redirecting pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects.
    A key player in linking world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of England governor Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about climate related risks”.

    In 2016, the TCFD with the City of London Corporation and UK Government initiated the Green Finance Initiative to channel trillions of dollars to “green investments”. The TCFD is chaired by multibillionaire former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, it includes people from BlackRock; JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical; mining giant BHP Billington; David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC (formerly of Goldman Sachs).

    Of course they needed a representative kid to promote their agenda…
    Greta Thunberg is part of the network tied to the organisation of Al Gore’s partner, David Blood. Greta Thunberg and her 17-year-old US climate friend Jamie Margolin were both listed as “special youth advisor and trustee” of the Swedish We Don’t Have Time NGO, founded in late 2017 by Ingmar Rentzhog.
    Rentzhog is a member of both Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders and the European Climate Policy Task Force. Rentzhog made his money as the founder of investment company Laika Consulting and his chief operating officer, David Olsson, worked at one of Sweden's biggest property funds Svenska Bostadsfonden, whose board Rentzhog joined in June 2017.

    In February 2019, in a blatant publicity stunt, after meeting Greta, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed that between 2021 and 2027, “every fourth euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate change”.
    This decision had nothing to do with Greta’s plea; it was made months earlier on 26 September 2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others.

    On 17 October 2018, weeks after the previous decision was made, Juncker announced that Breakthrough Energy will have preferential access to funding…
    Members of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson (the good friend of Ghislaine Maxwell and NXIVM); Bill Gates; David Rubenstein (founder of the Bush-linked Carlyle); and George Soros: https://www.globalresearch.ca/climat...-trail/5690209
    (http://archive.is/5ReVu)


    In July 2019, outgoing UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond wrote that the TCFD “has been endorsed by institutions representing $118 trillion of assets globally”.
    Following are some of its supporters…

    ABN Amro bank; ABP; Accenture; AEGON NV; Allianz Global Investors; American Bar Association; Anglo American; Autoriteit Financiele Markten (Netherlands); AXA Group;

    Bank of America; Bank of England – PRA; Barclays; Barrick Gold Corporation; BASF; Belgian Ministery of Finance; BlackRock; BNP Paribas;

    Citigroup Inc.; Credit Suisse Group;

    Daimler; Danske Bank; De Nederlandsche Bank; Deloitte Global; Deutsche Bank;

    Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management;
    Fidelity Investments; Financial Conduct Authority (UK);

    Glencore; Goldman Sachs; Government of – Canada, Chile, France, Sweden, UK;

    Hewlett Packard; HSBC Holdings;
    ING Group;
    JP Morgan Chase;

    Mazda Motor Corporation; Mitsubishi; Morgan Stanley;
    National Bank of Belgium; National Bank of Canada;
    Pepsico, Inc.; PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC);

    Rabobank; RBS; Rio Tinto; Rockefeller Assat Management; Royal DSM; Royal Dutch Shell; Royal Philips;

    Societe Generale; Solvay; Swiss Re Ltd.;
    Tata Steel; The Crown Estate (UK); Total SA; Toyota Motor Corporation;

    UBS Group; Unilever;
    Vanguard;
    Yamaha Corporation: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/tcfd-supporters/
    (http://web.archive.org/web/20190126120752/https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/tcfd-supporters/)


    Maybe it’s a bit too cynical of me to conclude that these “philanthropists” have a motive for creating global warming for real…
    Pretty good reporting here on what those links only scratch the surface of

    Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg
    http://www.theartofannihilation.com/...trial-complex/


    The gist is that the current corporatist model is running out of tech innovations to monetize so a new paradigm ("Green") must be consented to by the masses, in order to unlock the huge amounts of money held by pension funds, investment accounts, etc around the world for redistribution to undeveloped (aka "unbanked") areas. A socialist lifestyle for the little people that have been raided is implemented while corporate capitalism gets a reboot using feel-good "Green" technology in the newly "banked" areas.
    Last edited by devil21; 11-20-2019 at 09:48 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Pretty good reporting here on what those links only scratch the surface of

    Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg
    http://www.theartofannihilation.com/...trial-complex/
    My main problem with the report is that it’s too long. Its writer can continue to find new organisations in the climate calamity network, forever, but I don’t see where this leads to understanding what is really happening. As such, I doubt if the report will ever reach the “centre”.
    Where are the connections to the Royal families or Donald Trump for example?!?

    If you want to understand what is really going on in this climate emergency propaganda, you first need to study for thousands of hours on the history of eugenics, depopulation agenda, Malthus, Fabian Society, Pan-Europa Union, Mont Pelerin Society, Big pharma, World Bank, IMF, UN, WWF, 1001 Club, Club of Rome, Lucius Trust…
    Even when you spend thousands of hours on research, there’s no guarantee that you will ever really “understand” what’s happening.


    In the report you linked to, I also missed the Financial Stability Board (FSB) of the Bank for International Settlements (that’s sometimes called the bank for central banks), which created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD).
    As for the TCFD, just look at its supporters (this in itself is a network that’s interesting, to say the least)!
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post

    The William Engdahl article in the Original Post is a good introduction for this topic. It’s a good short explanation that explains something of the “centre” of the climate conspiracy.
    My impression of Engdahl’s books is that they are variations of the same themes, with even the same information repeated in several books. I’m not sure if any of his books focus on this topic (maybe Myths, Lies and Oil Wars): http://www.williamengdahl.com/books.php
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    The gist is that the current corporatist model is running out of tech innovations to monetize so a new paradigm ("Green") must be consented to by the masses, in order to unlock the huge amounts of money held by pension funds, investment accounts, etc around the world for redistribution to undeveloped (aka "unbanked") areas. A socialist lifestyle for the little people that have been raided is implemented while corporate capitalism gets a reboot using feel-good "Green" technology in the newly "banked" areas.
    They want us afraid, so that we wind up, asking for a strong government, international organizations and tax-exempt NGOs to save us from the environmental catastrophe. The best way to make us terrified is by actually destroying nature and causing global warming.
    Can you imagine that I’ve actually found evidence that the same corporations that support the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure are also investing in destruction of nature and that the green energy agenda actually supports pollution and global warming?!?

    Between 2001 and 2015, over 300 million hectares of forest was destroyed: nearly the size of India. About a quarter was needed for the production of commodities like beef and palm oil. In south-east Asia alone, some 78% of the deforestation is for commodities like palm oil.

    Between 2013 and 2019, companies razing forests to produce palm oil, beef, and rubber were backed with $44 billion from over 300 investment firms, banks, and pension funds. The financers of this deforestation include giant banks like Deutsche Bank, Barclays, HSBC, Santander, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.

    Global Witness investigated the financing of 6 huge agribusinesses: 3 in the Amazon, 2 in the Congo Basin, and 1 in New Guinea.
    The 3 largest beef companies in the Brazilian Amazon - JBS S.A., Marfrig Global, and Minerva Foods - account for more than 45% of the region’s meat. Their supply chain is tainted by deforestation.

    The second-largest investor in JBS is BNDES, the biggest development bank in the Americas, with held over $2.7 billion of JBS stock (in April 2019). Its third-largest investor is the giant investment fund the American Capital Group with more than $800 million (March 2019). Following is BlackRock with over $218 million of JBS stock. Deutsche Bank held over $11 million in JBS shares (April 2019), on top of that it loaned JBS $56.7 million in 2013.

    Goldman Sachs has held over $4.5 million worth of shares in JBS, as well as a small number of shares in the beef producer Marfrig, between 2018- 2019.
    Bank of America underwrote bond issuances worth some $498 million for Minerva since 2014, and also provided over $50 million in loans to Marfrig.

    Between 2013 and 2018, Santander, the largest bank in the EU, underwrote over $1 billion in financing to Marfrig including more than $300 million in 2018 alone. Its second-largest shareholder is the San Diego-based Brandes Investment Partners, with $94.8 million in stock.
    Bank of America is Minerva’s largest US creditor, the bank underwrote nearly half a billion dollars in credit for the company in the period surveyed. It also provided over $50 million in loans to Marfrig.
    Morgan Stanley underwrote a series of bond issuances worth about $947 million for Marfrig between 2014 and 2017.
    In 2013, the genocidal World Bank – which touts its investments in “sustainable solutions” – gave a ten-year loan to Minerva via the International Finance Corporation worth some $61 million.

    Singapore’s Halcyon Agri Corp took control of tens of thousands of hectares rubber plantations in Cameroon, adjoining the Dja Faunal Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage site.
    In March 2018, the China Development Bank was Halcyon’s largest investor with over $73 million in shares. In 2015, a consortium of major banks including the Dutch ABN Amro (my former employer), Credit Suisse and Singapore’s DBS Bank, facilitated a three-year, $388 million credit package for Halcyon. Credit Suisse also helped with a bond issuance for Halcyon Agri in 2017.

    J.P. Morgan Chase has underwritten a $150 million bond issuance by Olam in September 2016, only 3 months before Olam was accused of destroying 20,000 hectares of rainforest in Gabon for its oil palm plantations since March 2012. In 2017, JP Morgan underwrote another $50 million bond issuance.
    Barclays arranged a $2.2 billion revolving loan facility for Olam in 2014.
    Olam got a $2.2 billion revolving loan facility from the big banks. HSBC provided $1.1 billion in loans and $583 million in underwriting services to Olam between 2013 and 2019. Standard Chartered provided an estimated $187 million in underwriting services and $1.16 billion in loans.

    Indonesia has become the world’s biggest producer of palm oil - and was financed entirely by Western and Asian banks.
    HSBC funded companies destroying forests for palm oil in Indonesia. Other big names such as Citigroup, Standard Chartered and the Dutch Rabobank financed a company implicated in human rights violations in the palm oil sector.

    Since 2008, the Rimbunan Hijau Group (RHG) that is active in New Guinea has deforested more than 20,000 hectares in the province of East New Britain, with the intention of increasing this to 31,000 hectares of oil palm.
    RHG’s financiers include Sarawak’s State Financial Secretary of Malaysia, with over $6 million in shares (March 2018), and the Malaysian Affin Bank, which provided over $33 million in loans.

    According to this investigation the biggest 8 financers of rainforest destruction with more than $1.5 billion are:
    HSBC ($3.7 billion)
    BNDES ($3.0 billion)
    Temasek ($3.0 billion)

    DBS ($2.0 billion)
    JP Morgan Chase ($1.9 billion)
    Banco do Brasil ($1.7 billion)
    Bradesco ($1.7 billion)
    Credit Suisse ($1.6 billion): https://www.globalwitness.org/en/cam...t-rainforests/
    (http://archive.is/S4qZD)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  9. #8
    You're right that it doesn't cover everything. To cover everything would take an epic volumenous book! Fwiw, I'm not convinced that there isn't actually a periodic climate change underway that necessitates some parts of the bigger agenda. Too much of the bigger agenda is for personal gain, corporate gain and overall control, however.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Fwiw, I'm not convinced that there isn't actually a periodic climate change underway that necessitates some parts of the bigger agenda.
    As far as I can tell, IF high carbondioxide levels in earth atmosphere cause global warming, the most important thing to prevent the climate catastrophe, is plant more plants and trees...
    I guess that many people won´t believe that “green energy” subsidies are used to cause global warming and deforestation!


    While it´s doubtful that carbondioxide causes global warming, nobody claims that it´s highly toxic. Because of “green energy”, the most powerful greenhouse gas known to man has been leaking into the Earth's atmosphere - Sulphur hexafluoride (a.k.a. SF6).
    Sulphurhexafluoride is widely used in the “green energy” industry - wind, solar and gas. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2), and just one kilogram warms the Earth as much as 24 people flying London to New York return.

    Emission of Sulphur hexafluoride is increasing by 30-40 tonnes per year.
    Total SF6 emissions from the 28 EU member states in 2017 were the equivalent to 6.73 million tonnes of CO2, roughly the emissions from 1.3 million extra cars on the road for a year.


    The global installed base of SF6 is expected to grow with another 75% by 2030.
    Electrical company Eaton, claims that as much as 15% of SF6 is leaked in manufacturing switchgear.
    Another concern is that SF6 is a toxic synthetic gas that can't be destroyed naturally (so another ecological disaster under the name of “clean energy”): https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
    (http://archive.is/z6voi)


    We´ve been told that human overpopulation causes deforestation...
    I could argue of course that all of these wind turbines that hardly generate energy take up space where trees could grow. But it´s even worse!
    We all know that it´s horrible that Brazil´s president Bolsonaro threatens to sell the “lungs of the earth” Amazon (I´ve even seen “conspiracy theories” that Bolsonaro had fires started in the Amazon). The European Union is actually calling for cutting and burning trees, subsidised, under the name of “renewable energy”!
    Everybody in the Netherlands, where I survive, can see that this is happening at a rapid pace.

    The EU is expanding “renewable energy”, with wood about two thirds of Europe's biofuel. The EU cuts and burns almost a gigantic cube of 440 million cubic meters of wood and wood waste every year to generate heat and electricity. Trees aren´t only felled in Europe: the EU's hunger for biofuel is so great that they´re importing wood pellet.
    While burning wood is widely praised as “carbon neutral”, in reality burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal per unit energy.

    You don’t need a PhD to understand that cutting and burning a forest emits carbondioxide quickly, re-growing forests takes forever (and never when trees continue to be cut down).
    Thousands of firewood and wood pellet companies in the EU are hollowing out forests. This subsidised wood burning is destroying forest ecosystems that will never recover in our lifetime — all in the name of climate change mitigation.

    Many countries, including the US and EU member states, also subsidise wood heating, which constitutes more than half the wood burned in the EU.
    It´s the billions in subsidies that caused the last 10 years of exponential growth in the wood pellet industry. The US-based Enviva, which exports millions of tons of wood pellets to the UK, EU, and Asia, saw its share prices increase substantially: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/09/un...al-commentary/
    (http://archive.is/ziikg)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 11-22-2019 at 08:27 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  12. #10
    I'm thinking any climate change ongoing is wholly unrelated to rain forests, CO2 emissions by animals and humans, hexawhatever, etc but rather much more based in....hmmm....shall we say....cyclical cosmic phenomenon beyond any of our control. ymmv
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  13. #11
    One of the things I noticed is that all the stories on climate change, that scared me when I was young, didn’t come true.

    In the 1960s and 70s, when the global temperature dropped, they actually warned for the coming ice age. At that time many scientists predicted that global “cooling” would drastically reduce food production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


    The following blog shows that the story on “climate change” has been changed over and over and over again for the last 120 years.

    See 2 quotes.
    Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1989:
    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
    To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
    Philip Stott, professor of bio-geography at the University of London, 2006;
    What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...te_scares.html
    (http://archive.is/69SMk)


    James Corbett shows that it’s “impossible” to measure the average global temperature.
    (video was deleted www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-HyviLy6c)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 10-26-2021 at 01:11 AM. Reason: Deleted video
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  14. #12
    What frustrates me in all of these politically correct, environment catastrophe stories, is that the war machine is somehow ignored. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as war.

    Reductions to the Pentagon’s budget would bring a huge drop in pollution and carbon dioxide emission. The CO2 emissions are enormous, especially when mercenaries, bombs and planes are transported half way over the globe in container ships, trucks and cargo planes.
    The Pentagon also spends fuel on lighting, heating and cooling more than 560,000 buildings around the world.
    Mass migration is fueled by wars, which in turn causes an increase in CO2 emission, especially with the migrants returning “home” for the holidays every year.

    In 2017, the US Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of fuel, the navy $2.8 billion, the army $947 million and the Marines $36 million. In 2017, the US military consumed about 269,230 barrels of oil a day, which emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide.
    If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, greater than entire nations like Sweden, Norway, Finland or Peru and just below Portugal.

    The USA was exempted from military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but to no avail, as the Trump administration will withdraw in 2020.

    That´s besides bombs are regulary enriched with toxics, see for example Vietnam that was bombed with Agent Orange, or more recently the depleted Uranium filled dirty bombs on Iraq.
    In Iraq, children living near US bases have an increased risk of heart disease, spinal deformities, cancer, cleft lip and missing or malformed and paralyzed limbs.

    US military bases despoil the landscape, pollute the soil, and contaminate the drinking water.
    At the Kadena Base in Okinawa, the US Air Force polluted land and water with toxic chemicals, including arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and dioxin.

    If the Pentagon’s budget is cut in half, the US would still have a bigger military budget than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined!
    The $350 billion savings could then be used to save the environment: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09...e-intertwined/
    (http://archive.is/6S7DX)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  15. #13
    I always thought it is strange that electric cars are considered better for the environment, as I never quite understood why it would be better to generate electricity in a power plant as opposed to burning fuel in the motor of the car. As long as coal- or gas-fired power plants are used to generate electricity, electric cars aren’t better for the environment.
    Because of the difference between electric and conventional cars, it is actually difficult to compare them. Of course this makes it easier to manipulate the “scientific” propaganda in favour of the money generating electric cars…

    When I searched the internet for the recent German report that shows that electric cars are worse for the environment than diesel cars, for some reason the first search results, try to “debunk” this claim. The study compared the Tesla Model 3 to the Mercedes C220d diesel car.
    According to these researchers, it takes enormous amounts of fossil fuels, some 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2, to produce the Tesla Model 3 battery (much higher than a conventional car), with an average lifetime of only 10 years. The battery makes the electric Tesla car emit even more carbon dioxide (per average driven mile) than the diesel Mercedes.

    Another study showed that a mid-sized electric passenger car in Germany must drive at least 219,000 km before it is better in terms of CO2 emissions than a comparable diesel car. The first problem is that passenger cars in Europe last only 180,000 km on average.
    Even worse is that electric car batteries don’t last long enough to achieve those 180,000 kilometres. Drivers recharge their batteries “too often”, because recharging takes a relatively long time, which is bad for the durability of the battery: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...imate-friendly
    (http://archive.is/qySWo)


    That’s not even counting that the electric car batteries are made out of relatively rare metals of which there is only a limited supply. The production and disposal of these batteries is also very bad for the environment.

    The one million electric cars sold in 2017, will produce 250,000 metric tons of battery pack waste, enough to fill 67 Olympic swimming pools, when they reach the end of their lives in 7 to 10 years. Landfill is not an option for lithium batteries, which are flammable and release toxic chemicals like cobalt, nickel and magnesium into the environment.

    In 2017, the electric cars accounted for only 1.3% of annual worldwide sales but they are trying to make electric cars more than half of all new sales by 2040 (which would make the problem of disposal of the batteries 40 times as bad): https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/b...scn/index.html
    (http://archive.is/U9nwW)


    Or see this video from 2016, 5 minutes.
    This is also about the tax subsidy fraud and pollution.
    Last edited by Firestarter; 11-26-2019 at 11:01 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  16. #14
    '' Green energy is big business ''


    I don't doubt this at all, I don't know that I've ever really considered this aspect of
    Green Society, in general.

    A question of the diversion of pensions comes to mind;

    How did they or did they get a legal path to this diversion of funds: ?

    Is it under a blanket of 'Investment' rules?

    Or is there some kind of 'Charitable' or 'for humanity' clause that allows them to
    divert these funds.?

    In my view this 'diversion of funds' , especially pension funds, should be a hangin' offence.

  17. #15
    Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has repeatedly pledged that the UK will ensure that companies are “pulling their weight” to tackle the “existential threat” to the planet.

    McDonnell warned:
    For those companies not taking adequate steps under Labour they will be delisted from the London Stock Exchange.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9208801.html


    On 14 January, Larry Fink, chief executive officer of BlackRock Inc. (the largest investment fund in the world), admitted that climate change has become a “defining factor” in the long-term prospects of companies worldwide. BlackRock promises to stop investing in firms with “high sustainability-related risk”.

    Sir Christopher Hohn, the world's top hedge fund manager in 2019, has donated £200,000 to the controversial Extinction Rebellion (making him its biggest individual donor), which stages mass environmental protests.
    The TCI Fund Management owned and run by Hohn added $8.4 billion (£6.4 billion) in 2019 in 2019, more than any other major hedge fund according to LCH Investments (with assets of to $30 billion).
    Hohn and his wife Jamie Cooper regularly correspond with Bill and Melinda Gates, and in 2012 British PM David Cameron invited Hohn to speak at a summit on malnutrition at No. 10 Downing Street.

    While Hohn sells himself as a conscious “activist” environmentalist, in reality much of his profits have been generated by “dirty” firms.

    TCI’s investments include Canada's 2 biggest rail firms, which have been fined in recent years for environmental scandals.
    One of Hohn's major holdings is Canadian National Railway Company, in which TCI has a £1.4 billion stake. In 2017, the firm was fined 2.5 million Canadian dollars after pleading guilty to massive spills of diesel.

    Meanwhile, US rail company Union Pacific, in which TCI has a stake of more than £500 million, is under investigation over breaking environmental laws after cancers in the Houston area seem to be caused by contamination.

    TCI once owned a big stake in Indian state company, Coal India.
    TCI still owns a stake in Ferrovial SA that runs airports (including London’s Heathrow).
    TCI also owns a stake in chemicals company Univar Solutions.

    TCI has also invested in the gigantic US arms firm Raytheon, which agreed to pay thousands of dollars to Florida residents over groundwater contamination.

    In 2007, 2008, TCI was also involved in orchestrating one of the most disastrous banking deals in history. After buying 1% of the Dutch ABN Amro bank (my former employer), Cohn called for a sale of the bank. ABN Amro was then sold to a consortium led by the Royal Bank of Scotland in the biggest European banking merger ever.
    TCI pocketed $1 billion, but in 2008 the banking consortium collapsed in a major bankruptcy, in the 2008 economic crisis: http://archive.is/rv9Do


    In the following video...
    David Rockefeller talks on the dangers of overpopulation that can be solved by sustainable development.
    He’s followed by Bill Gates talking about getting population growth to 0, using health care, vaccines, reproductive health services.
    Then some arguments that there is no overpopulation at all.
    And finally, the one child policy in Communist China.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  18. #16

    Solar generated electricity fraud

    Solar panel owners in Victoria (Australia) have complained that they get charged $60 a month for electricity, even though producing about double the energy that they consume.
    So first they invest, and then the electricity company makes the profit!

    Households pay 29¢ per kilowatt hour, but are paid only 5-7¢ for the electricity they deliver to the energy company: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-g...07-gu7j7o.html
    (http://archive.is/kdvAq)


    California is the first state in the USA to require that new homes have solar power starting in 2020.
    Because California leads the US in “green” solar generated electricity, energy prices are among the highest in the US. Californians pay about 60% more than the rest of the US.

    The mandatory solar panels will cost about $10,000 per new home. According to solar energy propaganda, it takes more than 30 years for an average homeowner to save $19,000 in energy costs.
    That’s quite a return on investment!

    Unfortunately solar panels are known to sometimes break down in less than 3 years.
    In such cases, of course, the costs for the solar panels get even higher, produce less electricity and produce more toxic waste…

    Following are official numbers for degrading of solar panels. All of the manufacturers claim that the solar panels remain at 80% of their starting efficiency in 20 years (should I believe their information?).


    The production of solar panels leaves a trail of hazardous waste. Households with solar roofs produce up to 60% more electronic waste than non-solar households.
    In over five years, 17 of 41 solar panel manufacturers in California produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water: http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-s...olar-opposites
    (http://archive.is/qUGwz)


    Solar panels leave a trail of chemical pollution. The Asian countries to which production has moved are the most polluting and worst in protecting the health of their employees.
    Since 2008, photovoltaics manufacturing has moved from Europe, Japan, and the USA to China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan; today nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China.

    Manufacturers rely on hydrofluoric acid to clean the wafers, remove damage that comes from sawing, and texture the surface to better collect light.
    Hydrofluoric acid is highly toxic and causes serious damage to an unprotected person.

    A new development is producing thin-film solar cells, which in theory is better for the environment, but in which the heavy metal cadmium is used, which causes cancer.

    Making solar cells costs a lot of energy. Hypothetically they pay back the original investment of energy after only 2 years of operation (???), but it takes much longer to return the investment of money (if at all!).

    A lot of water is used to produce solar panels.
    Utility-scale projects in the 230- to 550-megawatt range use up to 1.5 billion litres of water during construction and another 26 million litres annually during operation.

    In 2008, it was reported that the Chinese polysilicon facility High-Technology Co. (owned by Luoyang Zhonggui) in the Henan province had dumped silicon tetrachloride waste on neighbouring fields instead of investing in equipment to reprocess it, making those fields too toxic to grow crops and causing serious health damage to local residents
    This factory supplied polysilicon to Suntech Power Holdings, at the time the world’s largest solar-cell manufacturer, and to several other major photovoltaics companies.
    It seems highly unlikely that this company was the only one with these practices...

    In August 2011, a factory in China’s Zhejiang province owned by Jinko Solar Holding Co., one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish.
    Local farmers used the contaminated water for cleaning, which killed dozens of pigs.
    No information on the human health damage…

    Because the carbon footprint of photovoltaic panels made in China is about double that of those manufactured in Europe, it takes twice as long to compensate for the carbon dioxide emissions: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech...n-as-you-think
    (http://archive.is/FcrHo)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    How wonderful is that? We have to be terrified of global warming and then “renewable” energy must be used that is more expensive and doesn’t even lower carbon dioxide emission and...
    destroys nature!

    The following “scientific” paper was published earlier this year, but can only be read after payment...
    Jose Rehbein et al. – Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas (2020): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/gcb.15067


    The conclusion of the paper is that 2,206 of the 12,600 “renewable energy” facilities (sun, wind and hydro) are in important biodiversity areas, where they damage nature...
    According to lead author José Rehbein:
    Energy facilities and the infrastructure around them such as roads and increased human activity can be incredibly damaging to the natural environment. Many of these developments, when not well planned for, are not compatible with biodiversity conservation.
    The majority of these 2,206 “renewable energy” facilities in important biodiversity areas, are now located in western Europe and developed nations elsewhere.
    The new 922 “renewable energy” facilities are planned in important biodiversity areas in Asia and Africa, which hold much of the world’s biodiversity: https://ibed.uva.nl/content/news/202...ity-areas.html
    (http://archive.is/XR7f8)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  21. #18
    I’ve earlier posted on how with the help of the World Wildlife Fund, rainforest is destroyed to make room for palm oil plantations which threaten the habitat of the orang-utan in Indonesia: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6961165


    The palm oil demand has been rising very fast since the 1980s.


    To add injury to insult, palm oil has also been promoted as green “renewable energy”, which of course will cause even more rainforests to be destroyed.
    While the European Union has threatened to phase out palm oil as biofuel by 2030, cynically continuing to subsidise this until then, the Brexitted UK seems set to buy palm oil biofuel at discount prices...

    According to the following palm oil energy is even more damaging in terms of CO2 emissions than those “terrible” fossil fuels...
    The use of palm oil for biodiesel increased five-fold following the introduction of the target to source 10% of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020. Scientific evidence shows that burning biofuels, including palm oil, can actually release more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels.
    https://www.orangutans-sos.org/no-pa...uels-campaign/
    (http://archive.is/DkSEL)


    Major consumer brands like Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, and the Hershey Company have been buying palm oil from an illegal plantation inside the protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve in Indonesia’s Aceh province.
    Rawa Singkil holds the highest density of critically endangered orang-utans in the world...

    This “illegal” palm fruit is sold by brokers to processing mills just outside the protected reserve.
    The palm oil is then sold to global traders, the Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) and Indonesia’s Musim Mas Group. These companies then sell the (illegally produced) palm oil, directly or indirectly, to the household consumer brands mentioned above.

    Major banks, including Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, ABN Amro Bank from the Netherlands and Singapore’s OCBC, continue to finance the GAR: https://chinadialogue.net/en/food/11...gutan-enclave/
    (http://archive.is/N2smX)


    Not only palm oil plantations in Indonesia threaten the habitat of endangered orang-utans.
    The Batang Toru hydropower project in North Sumatra, threatens the only habitat of the critically endangered Tapanuli orang-utan (of which there are only 800 left in the world).

    India plans 175 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2022. This will require some 12.5 million hectares of land (an area the size of Austria). This could threaten more than 10,000 square kilometres of forest and 2,500 sq km of important bird habitats by building wind farms.
    India’s Rajasthan desert region will be a major area for wind and solar power expansion. It is right here where the last viable population of one of the world’s most threatened birds, the Great Indian Bustard, is surviving: https://www.eco-business.com/news/so...st-asia-india/
    (http://web.archive.org/web/20200404110940/https://www.eco-business.com/news/solar-wind-and-hydro-projects-are-threatening-key-wildlife-habitats-in-southeast-asia-india/)
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  22. #19
    There are some climate “models” that get lots of publicity and others that are completely ignored by our wonderful media.

    In 2018, some “scientists” concluded that a high amount of wind power causes global warming!
    If hypothetically speaking (not possible in reality) the USA would let all its electricity demands be generated by wind power, it would warm the United States by 0.24 ˚C.
    That is higher compared to “decarbonising” the USA’s electricity sector this century, which would cause the US to warm “only” 0.1 ˚C.

    The model used based the warming effect of wind power on the theory that wind turbines generate electricity by slowing down wind and altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere”.
    This effect causes warming of the atmosphere.

    According to John Dabiri of Stanford this type of modelling is very poor and that a “more realistic” simulation found “little temperature change near the surface”: http://archive.is/Af15G


    We can argue about models all we want, but the following is no hypothesis, and happening as we speak...

    About 85% of turbine components can be recycled or reused, but most of the tens of thousands of fibreglass blades (some as long as a football field) have nowhere to go but landfills.
    In the US alone, some 8,000 fibreglass blades have to be disposed of in the next 4 years. Europe even has to get rid of 3,800 annually through at least 2022.

    And because the wind energy is booming business, it’s only getting worse!
    According to Bob Cappadona, “The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever”.

    See the Casper Regional Landfill in Casper, Wyoming, where 870 blades are buried “forever”.


    In the European Union, some blades are burned but this doesn’t generate much energy and the burning fibreglass emits pollutants.
    Some say that waste from some other energy sources is even more polluting than the relatively “clean” wind turbine blades.

    Michael Bratvold responded to the adverse publicity:
    The backlash was instant and uninformed. Critics said they thought wind turbines were supposed to be good for the environment and how can it be sustainable if it ends up in a landfill?
    http://archive.is/olTU8
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  23. #20
    One of the most interesting climate calamity activists is banker Mark Carney.
    The Canadian Carney was Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to March 2020.

    Carney started his career at Goldman Sachs before he joined the Bank of Canada, where he (also) was Governor since 2007.
    It was at about this time that Carney joined the Rockefeller Foundation’s Group of 30.
    Carney also became a board member of the World Economic Forum.

    Carney was a participant at the 2011 and 2012 Bilderberg conferences.
    Before being selected to lead the Bank of England, he was Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements' Committee on the Global Financial System from July 2010 until January 2012.

    Carney will continue his career pushing the environmental agenda in combination with the corona lockdown.
    In January 2020, Queen Elizabeth II chose Carney as finance advisor for the UK presidency of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference (that has since been postponed to November 2021).

    In March 2020, Carney was selected as United Nations special envoy for climate action and finance.
    Carney will lead the “Canadian Pandemic Recovery Plan” task force to make British colony ready for “renewable, green” energy in the midst of the COVID-19 “pandemic”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney


    Following are some excerpts from the best article I found on this Mark Carney.
    New plans to overthrow market-driven investment systems are a constant feature of today’s global financial scene. The recent appointment of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance signals a renewed international effort to turn the world’s energy investors into pawns of state climate activists and agitators for market-distorting policies.
    (...)
    British energy commentator John Constable suggests it is Carney and other green energy advocates who lack a realistic plan. Global energy use over the past 30 years suggests fossil fuels have been expanding as stable and risk-free investments while renewables have failed to gain ground.
    (...)
    In a November report on that country’s energy transition to a greener and more sustainable regime, McKinsey & Company essentially concluded that Germany’s two-decade orchestrated green energy revolution has been a disastrous failure. The results have been dismal. Germany will fail to meet its greenhouse targets by a wide margin, the country’s power grid is in trouble, electricity may have to be imported, and electricity prices are 45 per cent higher than in other European countries.
    https://financialpost.com/opinion/te...-energy-crisis
    (https://archive.is/PKPsA)


    The following graph from the International Energy Agency shows that most of the growth in global energy consumption is accounted for by growth in fossil fuel energy. Despite the massive amounts of taxpayer’s money pumped into “green” energy.
    From 1990 to 2014, “green energy” increased from 13% to (only) 14% of total energy consumption.



    Mark Carney has promised that COVID-19 will move the global energy transition “more to centre-stage” for investors.
    Government bail-outs for carbon-emitting will increasingly carry a “quid pro quo” to demand that the firms will join the path to “net zero carbon emissions”: https://www.energyvoice.com/coronavi...-centre-stage/
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  24. #21
    I’ve earlier written in this thread about wind energy that generates so little energy (compared to the energy needed to build and dismantle them and the financial costs) that they are no real alternative to “conventional” energy...
    I’ve also posted in this thread that because of the batteries, electric cars are even more polluting than diesel cars.


    Even our wonderful media admit that it’s a problem that wind and solar energy (only) generates enough energy at peak moments, while at other moments it doesn’t generate enough electricity.
    Now the “solution” for this minor technicality is to start gigantic battery parks, which according to Bloomberg has already made the costs for solar and wind power generated electricity drop by 9% “in the last six months” (to $44/MWh for wind and $50/MWh for solar energy).

    https://thenextavenue.com/2020/04/29...-energy-costs/

    For some reason they forgot to compare the price to “conventional” energy. They also “forgot” to take into account the enormous environmental “costs” of these highly toxic batteries, let alone the massive amounts of energy needed to produce them!
    They forgot the environmental results of the space these “parks” consume, where forests could grow.
    They even forgot to take the financial “costs” to produce these battery parks into account...

    But please don’t think for yourself, or you’ll see the environmental, green energy agenda for the fraud it is.


    There is another problem with these battery parks, where the electricity is stored in lithium-ion batteries. Lithium batteries have a habit of “spontaneous” ignition. Of course producing more pollution and greenhouse gasses!
    See an example of such an explosion in South Korea.


    There have been so many lithium-ion battery fires in South Korea that in 2019 the government stopped installing more battery parks.

    In the USA there have been some concerns over battery parks since April 2019 when an explosion at Arizona Public Service’s McMicken battery facility near Phoenix sent several fire-fighters to the hospital. Arizona regulators subsequently learned that a fire in 2014 also destroyed APS’s Mt. Elden battery storage system.

    There have been more explosions of wind power storage batteries, for example at a power station located near Brussels, Belgium: https://stopthesethings.com/2020/03/...world-on-fire/
    (http://web.archive.org/web/20200413115445/https://stopthesethings.com/2020/03/01/giant-batteries-bomb-renewable-energy-storage-systems-literally-setting-the-world-on-fire/)


    Of course mining for lithium and cobalt (also needed for these very polluting batteries) is associated with human rights violations (like child labour in the Congo) and pollution.
    Like for example in China (where Lithium is mined): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...ous-scale.html


    Australia, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, dominate more than 80% of world lithium production.
    Congo is the top producer of cobalt.

    Another minor technicality is that because of the high demand and prices, “direct-shipping ore” from mining sites to China has become common practice.

    Because raw material is sent out before it is concentrated, more mass has to be shipped, which “means that your energy consumption for transportation is much higher -- roughly three times higher”.
    This of course results in these batteries needing even more energy to be produced. Thankfully our wonderful media forgot to connect these dots, or maybe, possibly even the environmental crazies will lose faith in “green energy”: https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...t-at-what-cost
    (https://archive.is/OYuwO)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 09-13-2020 at 09:49 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  25. #22
    Thanks to @devil21

    It looks like the green energy fraud will intensify with sleepy Joe as president.
    Joe Biden has selected BlackRock executive Brian Deese, who was economic adviser to President Barack Obama, to lead his National Economic Council.

    According to Moira Birss, director at non-profit environmental group Amazon Watch:
    Any BlackRock executives that move into the Biden administration need to prove that they are willing to take bold, proactive action to stop climate change. This includes regulating their friends and former colleagues on Wall Street in order to rapidly and justly decarbonize the economy and the financial system.
    https://archive.is/LiMOV
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  26. #23
    Clean energy sounds sooo much better than energy generated by dirty fossil fuels.
    At a clean energy publicity stunt in Michigan, one journalist asked the trick question "what’s charging the batteries?" for electric cars (whose batteries makes them more polluting than diesel cars).

    J. Peter Lark from the Lansing Board of Water & Ligh, explained what generated the "clean" electricity: “Right, it would be charging off the power grid which is about 95 percent coal”.

    It is known that most electric cars in the USA are powered by electricity that is generated by "dirty" coal.
    In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia in British colony Canada, where much of the electricity is generated by burning coal, electric cars produce much more carbon pollution than gas-powered cars.

    Where electricity is generated through coal burning, electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than fossil-fueled cars because of the pollution caused by generating the electricity, according to a December 2014 study: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-02-...cent-coal.html
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  27. #24
    In 2010, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) published their Vision 2050 document. The WBCSD connects 200 CEO's from some of the world's largest multinationals. It is a hub for the UN, EU, World Economic Forum, World Bank, World Health Organisation, World Wildlife Fund, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and BlackRock.
    To transform the economy to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they said to need a "Crisis. Opportunity" pathway to make "fundamental changes in governance structures, economic frameworks, business and human behaviour" possible.

    The WBCSD envisioned that the transformation would start in 2020. Is it just another one of those strange "coincidences" that the corona "pandemic" was started at precisely the projected time? That was after BlackRock in August 2020 had written that government fiscal policy should be controlled by central bank monetary policy - Going direct in the next crisis.
    The corona lockdown has already transformed much of our behaviour in line with the green build back better, zero growth sustainable future: reduced travel, limited access to resources, low employment, austerity, reliance upon state financial support and new forms of currency based upon sustainable, stakeholder metrics.

    In his 2021 letter to CEO's, BlackRock chairman Larry Fink, expressed his thanks for BlackRock's opportunity to rig the economy:
    The pandemic has presented such an existential crisis … that it has driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully...
    Markets started to price climate risk into the value of securities … then the pandemic took hold.. and the reallocation of capital accelerated even faster. I believe that this is the beginning of a long but rapidly accelerating transition - one that will unfold over many years and reshape asset prices of every type … the climate transition presents a historic investment opportunity.
    .
    Before his departure as governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney (UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, special Advisor to the COP26 conference for the UK and a Board Trustee of the WEF) warned that companies that won't meet the green energy standards "will go bankrupt without question".
    In other words, corporations that won't bow down to the sustainable depopulation future will be destroyed.

    In November 2020, Rishi Sunak (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced that the UK would issue sovereign green bond and would make TCFD disclosures mandatory for all companies:
    The UK will become the first country in the world to make Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) aligned disclosures fully mandatory across the economy by 2025 … The UK will also implement a green taxonomy - a common framework for determining which activities can be defined as environmentally sustainable.
    .
    In 2018, PwC projected in "Workforce of the Future" that because of increasing automation and AI a massive decrease in jobs is unavoidable, in line with the 2013 Oxford University study that 47% of jobs will be lost.
    This suggest that our world economy can only be "sustainable" with a reduction of the population by half: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the...t-carbon-reset
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    The concept of green energy comes from the perseverance of non-renewable energy resources and the need for clean energy. The depletion of climate is one of the biggest concerns of the time, and it is vital to improving the conditions for our survival. Green energy is produced from natural resources which would not pollute the environment or the atmosphere. Hence solar, wind and hydral energy are the renewable forms of green energy.
    The global renewable energy market was valued at $928.0 Billion in 2017 and is expected to reach $1,512.3 Billion by 2025, registering a CAGR of 6.1% from 2018 to 2025. As awareness and education on the urgency to act increases, the market will mark a further rise in value. If the installations of solar panels/ cells become the common norm/ practice for every household, the value of the green industry will cross many competing sectors and become one of the most developed and delivering industries. The rise of the industry is bound to increase research within the science and technology sectors while increasing employment with this sector. There are many advantages to using renewable energy sources for businesses, such as marketing opportunities, reduction of emissions, lower energy costs, and many others; hence the popularity and demand is yet to rise in context to the situations.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by larryklein View Post
    The concept of green energy comes from the perseverance of non-renewable energy resources and the need for clean energy.
    The conspiracy theory of global warming is pushed by the same psychopaths that want the world depopulated. They have been planning this for century (even before Malthus).

    These same insane eugenics psychos are making billions from this fraud. It are these same psychos (and of course the environmental organisation) that have most to gain by as much pollution and destruction of nature.
    It is certainly possible that all of these green energy policies (cutting down trees and burning them as green energy) are actually causing global warming.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  31. #27
    To create the batteries for these "clean" electric cars that cause more pollution than "dirty" fossil fuel cars, much lithium is needed.
    Mining lithium causes pollution, destruction of nature and human rights violations...

    Lithium extraction requires huge amounts of water, approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne. Much of the world’s lithium resources are in the very dry Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, lithium and other mining activities consume 65% of the region’s water, causing groundwater depletion and environmental degradation. Locals are forced to leave their homes.

    Toxic chemicals from the mines are stored in tailings sites that also cause environmental disasters and death when there's a leakage.
    In May 2016, dead fish, cows and yaks were found in the Tibet’s Liqi River, contaminated by a toxic chemical leak from the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine run by Chinese company BYD.

    In Serbia there have been some protests against the litium mining activities in the Jadar Valley by the Queen Elizabeth controlled Rio Tinto.
    The lithium mine threatens land and livelihoods for more than 15,000 farmers in Loznica and Krupanj, and also the health of Loznica, Šabac and Valjevo. People that refuse to sell their land face being evicted to make way for Rio Tinto's polluting mine: https://corporatewatch.org/serbia-ri...-jadar-valley/
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  32. #28
    No worries for the eugenics psychos that rule the world. They have found that the herd has “a powerful tendency to conform” and can be easily “nudged” into changing their behaviour by government announcements.
    The report that exposed this by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) was accidentally (really?) published by the British government before being hastily taken down.
    BIT was part of the British government's effort to use “totalitarian” and “unethical” methods to scare the population into confirming to the draconian lockdown that has caused a "pandemic".

    The paper noted:
    Government statements, actions and laws powerfully shape perceptions of normative and acceptable behaviour. For instance, even with public criticism being high, many still perceived government approval as the yardstick for safe behaviour during COVID-19 ‘we’re allowed to do this now [so must be safe]…’.
    This reveals, for many, a deep set reverence for legitimate government authority, regardless of one’s personal political views.
    .
    They conclude that similar scare tactics used to force people into accepting the brutal COVID lockdown can be used to make them adopt to the green, climate change agenda: https://summit.news/2021/10/22/delet...es-to-conform/
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  33. #29
    Green Energy is big money for those well connected.

  34. #30
    I'm afraid that I can't take the stupidity anymore. Can't some of these obedient mind-controlled slaves figure out how ridiculous it is that tales like the following get pushed in the spotlight?!?

    A doctor diagnosed a Canadian patient with "climate change" after a slew of health problems suddenly grew worse amid a heatwave.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...climate-change
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Congress: Kremlin Used Green Propaganda to Undercut U.S. Energy
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-08-2018, 11:35 PM
  2. Japan: Surplus green energy eyed for fuel-cell cars
    By Peace Piper in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2014, 06:00 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 12:07 AM
  4. Subsidies: Fossil fuels favored over green energy 6 to 1
    By BenIsForRon in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 10:25 PM
  5. guiliani and his government run energy business..
    By stefans in forum ABC/Facebook Debate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2008, 07:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •