Conservative Woman readers

In response to Karen Harradine: UN’s green dream robs the poor to feed the rich, Owen_Morgan wrote:

The UN’s climate posturing is worse than perverse. It is abundantly clear that hardly any advanced economies can rely on so-called ‘renewables’. I can think of Norway (hydro-electricity) and Iceland (geothermal), but both of those have rather special geographies. South Australia tried to commit itself to solar and wind power, with literally dismal results; the lights went out. South Australia, by the way, is very nearly twice the size of Spain, with a population smaller than Hampshire’s.



In the name of a preposterous scam, the UN proposes that advanced economies follow South Australia’s example. China and India are conveniently not classified as advanced yet, so they are permitted to burn through as much fossil fuel as they can get their hands on. Undeveloped economies are told, effectively, to stay undeveloped. Even if the money gouged from Western taxpayers were actually spent on ‘clean energy’ in poor African countries, rather than on keeping Mercedes-Benz busy with Maybach orders, solar power and other renewables would never enable an undeveloped economy to grow into a developed one.
Take into account the numerous ways in which supposedly clean energy is, in reality, extraordinarily destructive to the environment and the UN’s hypocrisy is even more apparent. I do not believe the UN as a whole, or any one of its subsidiaries, serves a useful purpose.

32 COMMENTS

  1. Ah! Mercedes-Benz flavoured foreign aid.
    Living in Malawi in the late ‘70s we knew when Kenneth Kuanda had weedled some more money out of some virtue-signalling progressive government by the trains carrying shiny new M-B limos destined for senior party members trundling through from Beira to Lusaka.

    • The body of your text seems to mirror the behaviour of our elites. I am glad to see that we have imported yet another aspect of a vibrant culture.

    • Living in Malawi in the 1990s

      Nothing went that way anymore. Outside of Malawi’s borders to the East and South it had been Hell for many years….

      Nobody in the West cared. After all they the politics was right and they had sent the Mercedes, the surplus EU food and anything else we didn’t want but felt good to give.

      Don’t mention the mass murder, don’t report the hunger, don’t report the black on black racism, the nepotism, the fact that some lived like kings (and still do in places) while millions starve and are killed.

      Wrong narrative.

  2. At the very least, the actual individual policies that have been developed around these generally good ideas (cleaner air, less heat production — which BTW equals more efficient energy — and less environmental pollution) are deeply flawed in their present state.

    But that’s not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater — certainly, wind farms are a source of pollution (including visual pollution), but that doesn’t mean it would be best to return to coal power plants ; yes, electric car batteries are filled with harmful chemicals and minerals, and their lifespan is horridly low, and the electricity that powers them isn’t squeaky clean either, but that doesn’t mean that ridding ourselves of reliance on jihadi-financing OPEC countries and on the massively polluting petrol & diesel motor vehicle isn’t a good purpose, particularly as battery technologies continue to improve ; and let’s generally not confuse the benefits of the long-term goals here with the flaws of the initial implementations.

    • Oh, I don’t know. We subsidise idiocy like wind power while cutting research funding into the obvious permanent energy solution, to wit, nuclear fusion. If solar or wind are so bloody good, then let them compete on a level playing field.

      Incidentally, you may want to check out how large a wind farm has to be to replace something like Drax before you waffle about benefits of long-term goals. The birds and bats don’t see many benefits, that’s for sure.

      • Fusion reactors are no longer pure science fiction, but it will be decades before they might be clean and reliable energy sources.

    • I don’t disagree with what I think you are saying, efficiency is always good. Wind, solar, and hydro have their places, but the are extremely undependable, and very low density. As for electric cars, well I like the idea -especially in cities, where the average trip length is low, but remember if you mandate electric cars, and especially chargers that don’t take all night (literally) you will also increase by at least an order of magnitude the generating capacity needed. That means only coal, gas, and nuclear has a chance, unless you’re going to cover the UK in solar panel, punctuated by windmills, That would certainly cut down on the number of those annoying tourists, I reckon.

      • In the UK we had freezing temperatures yesterday with no wind. Two of our biggest nukes are unexpectedly shut down and the French had no spare electricity to import from their many nukes. Needless to say we don’t get much solar mid winter or at night. Fortunately, we pay the few coal stations left to stay open and instead of only contributing a few % they are now supplying 18%. Normally, we have about 30% of British and French nuclear but this is halved. Wind is currently at 18% with all the turbines on land and offshore. This may be increased but not by much and all of it has to be backed up by other generators when not producing for at least 60-65% of the time. And by the way, no carbon capture has been made to work economically yet. A huge number of batteries would be necessary to cover breaks in wind energy and cost more than the grid. Besides which there would not be enough lithium.

        Do our Green politicians understand this? Not if we listen to what they propose, which is no nukes, no coal, no gas, import wind and solar from the other side of Europe where it will always be windy and sunny. Our one Green MP is a teacher. The chair of the Climate Committee is a historian.

        http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/ go to current.

        • Sadly, par for the course, here as well. Windmills do an excellent job of killing raptors, not so good at providing electricity when it is needed, and our climate (although more extreme in temperature) is better for both wind and solar. It works well for cattle tanks and railroad signals, and other small intermittent loads, and that’s about it. Only coal, gas, and nuclear (fusion would be great if they ever figure out how to contain the plasma) are the only dependable, dense enough sources, and like I said, electric vehicles will merely make it worse. Hybrids, on the other hand, might be viable, which to me means without subsidies.

  3. Unfortunately all based on the false premise that mankind is responsible for climate change.
    I applaud clean energy but not the cost we are bearing in our electricity bills. Stop all subsidies and use the technology we already have to scrub the output from coal burning, we have vast stocks of coal, and gas if the NIMBY’s didn’t get in the way.
    Compared to the noxious gas output we contribute percentage-wise to the rest of the world, we barely scratch the surface.

  4. The UN has just become another Marxist infested institution that needs putting down. The largest voting block on it is the OIC and you only need to look at where the majority of resolutions land to see their influence.

  5. The UN is all about punishing civilised nations for imagined past transgressions.
    Or in plain English , gaining the whip hand and punishing whitey.

    • and mainly because the degenerates we’ve called leaders of the west and over the past 50 years excepting ‘the gipper’ and Maggie [although she kicked it all off – the great green myth] are hand wringing liberal tossers and with not a spine among ’em to share.

      We should withdraw from the UN and no ifs and without buts.

      Though……………………can you imagine mrs appeaser maybe – even letting that idea (Leaving the most corrupt and bent organization on the planet) into her dystopian puddled, cultural Marxism lover, pathetically diminished noodle, she’d fly off on her broomstick to whizz round and round screaming NO, NO, NO! and eventually disappear up her own fundament.

      • Have to admit I was disappointed (although not surprised) with her this week. By the way, I hear we are going to recognize Norwich as the capital of the UK next, since obviously it is up to us to tell everyone where their capital is.

  6. The growth and expansion of a self-sustaining, global professional political class has much to answer for. Steeped in Marxist theory and socialist romanticism in school and college, then apprenticed within “social democrat” political parties or their NGO sockpuppets before becoming “representatives”, often parachuted, with their own radical “change” agendas born from theory, emotional incontinence and idealism.

    Those people are the real poison threatening the planet.

  7. I couldn’t agree more. If it was disbanded though, what would take its place? Another such monster — meet the new boss …

  8. Short sighted backward folly…as time will show.
    Say what you will about GW Bush, he at least recognised the role of technology in mitigating habitat degradation.
    Since sufficient voluntary, cooperative action is not likely to happen soon enough, now is the time to redouble research, development, and yes, judicious subsidies into new technologies.
    The stance should be a matter of risk assessment, research, and evidence.
    It’s good business.

    • What does a commie like you know about “good business”? Was investing in Solyndra “good business” for the American taxpayer? How did green power work out for the Spanish taxpayer?

      There is no magical green technology just around the corner. Solar power and wind technology have already reached their limits. They are not remotely capable of meeting our needs. Throwing even more money at them won’t change that simple reality.

        • “Mitigation of risk actually is good business.”

          No, not when the risk is ridiculously exaggerated and when the “mitigation” amounts to policies which are ruinously expensive, actually lethal and ecologically disastrous.

          But you’re a commie and you don’t care about truth, people, the economy, or the environment, do you?

      • Solar power and wind technology have already reached their limits

        A completely false statement. These technologies are, in fact, vastly improvable.

        • How? Wind power is useless when there is no wind, or when it blows too hard. There is no technological breakthrough that is going to change those very simple facts. Similarly, solar power is not much use in places which are not very sunny and it generates nothing at all for half the time.

          Again, that fundamental truth is not going to change and any amount of wishful thinking, backed by zillions of other people’s Pounds Sterling, will not alter that.

          • Wind power is useless when there is no wind, or when it blows too hard

            So do you think that the present state of the technology and the associated engineering specifications is the be-all and end-all of a wind turbine ?

            There is no technological breakthrough that is going to change those very simple facts

            You’re thinking purely of the present.

            solar power is not much use in places which are not very sunny

            This is not true, and this is an area which will see continued advancement over the years, as semiconductor and power storage technologies continue to advance.

            that fundamental truth

            So you’re a fundamentalist then ?

Comments are closed.