"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work.

09/26/202243 Comments

Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars!

You heard that right. It won't cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then to switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don't be silly! It's going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you!

Now, I know what some of you skeptical Corbett Reporteers out there are thinking: how can that be? After all, as The Manhattan Contrarian blog points out in a recent post on the "Cost of the Green Energy Transition," the disruption to the European gas supply caused by the Ukraine kerfuffle is already wreaking havoc on Europe's economy, with Germans bracing for a 13% rise in their regulated consumer gas bills this year and UK residents facing a near tripling of their own energy bills. And that's before the Great Resetters start shutting off the pipes for real and forcing the hoi polloi on to the wind/solar/unicorn fart "green" energy grid.

But why believe the actual economic pain you're experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky "facts" that contradict this comforting fairy tale?

Oh, OK, I'll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It's designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal.

In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It's worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia.

Want to know the details? Let's dig in.

To access this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber, please sign in and continue reading below.

Not a Corbett Report member yet? Sign up to BECOME A MEMBER of the website and read the full newsletter or CLICK HERE to access the editorial for free.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In
   

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. brucha says:

    Thank you so much for this critical information. I plan to add it to my ongoing collection of sources for this article which attempts to wake humanity up to the planned global tyranny. Some of your material is already included. https://truth613.substack.com/p/from-my-heart
    Tonight and Monday-Tuesday is the anniversary of the creation of mankind and a day of judgment for all humanity for the coming year, so it’s a very important time to pray to the One G-d, the Creator, to save us from the evil plans. https://truth613.substack.com/p/inspiration-for-the-new-year

    • weilunion says:

      The day of judgment has been called more times than the end of the world due to climate change.

      And which God should I believe in?

      And whose God is the anniversary for?

      There are claims to over five thousand and counting.

      No, I agree with an old priest in a woman’s skirt, Jean Meslier, who stated:

      This was the opinion of Jean Meslier, the 17th century French philosopher, an atheist in a priest’s skirt (1)

      In the preface to his famous “Memoir of Thoughts and Sentiments”, he wrote that he had recently encountered a man who “was not a student, but who evidently possessed sufficient enough common sense to recognise and condemn the abominable abuses,” for he had said that:

      “all the great men of the earth should be killed, should be strangled with the intestines of priests and hanged by the neck…”

      Meslier adds:

      “This way of speaking certainly seems harsh, rude and offensive, but it must be admitted that it is frank and open. Frank, succinct and impressive.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

      Judgment days, the end of the world and climate change.

      Gee,ever wonder why people believe in such nonsense?

  2. mg00 says:

    Get ready for the guilt campaign. “Saving Mother Earth” through compliance to the green diktats will become just like “saving Gramma” by getting the jabs. Failure to obey WILL be demonized by the virtue police as proof of your uncaring selfishness, and more than enough justification to encourage your “friends”, family and neighbors to harass and report you to the “authorities”. Another big linchpin to the Divide & Conquer strategy that is working so well for the overlords.

    • jendeg says:

      I am curious about something- and please excuse my ignorance – but, I heard / read recently about Stanley Meyer and his water fuelled car. He was apparently assassinated because he was deemed a threat to the oil companies.

      Now, surely, if the globalists were really concerned about c02 and it’s ostensible effect on climate, they would be embracing the infinite possibilities of Meyer’s invention? Or, at the very least, exploring it further.

      Similarly, although James touched on it, are not the petroleum companies worried about the massive loss of profit they will inevitably suffer once we are totally ‘greenfield ’? Perhaps that same question applies to the coal industry, although, we will need some coal to generate the electricity needed to power the electric cars .

      Nothing adds up. Yet, the ‘aha’ moments are unrelenting for many of us .

      There are so many parallels between the scamdemic ( covid, aids etc), where good health practices were ditched to save ‘ just one life’; and the vaccine lie, where we were told we could only be healthy by jabbing each other endlessly.. Meanwhile, in Africa, Gates vaccinated the populace, but there seemed to be no thought given to living conditions.

      As we now seem to be facing another onslaught on our living conditions- why is it that so few seem capable of at least a modicum of curiosity?

      A bit of a ramble – but would be interested in any thoughts anyone here might like to share .

      • Duck says:

        Jendeg

        They do not care about the environment…if they did they would do simple fixes that work rather than power grabs that do not reduce pollution much.

        As Luke Smith once commented on his channel EVERY ‘solution’ to every ‘problem’ a bureaucrat offers is “give us more power”…. big business loves regulation even it it costs them money because it stops new players getting into the market since only the big corporations can afford the cost of compliance, soggoodbye competition ..every would be plutocrat loves control they get thru environmental regulations that THEY can afford to ignore.
        Mr Corbett has written often on this

        https://www.corbettreport.com/why-technocrats-love-the-green-new-deal/

        The reason few pushback is that the pain is so far not enough. Most people will follow power because that’s their nature…if it gets bad too fast there will be pushback I think but it depends on how the ruling class acts. They are currently rather incompetent

        • jendeg says:

          Yes: of course, they can afford the cost. It totally smashes the ideal of human altruism. I’m not sure it even exists or ever did.

      • paul823 says:

        “are not the petroleum companies worried about the massive loss of profit they will inevitably suffer once we are totally ‘greenfield ’?”

        If you already own everything what do you need with more money?

    • jendeg says:

      Duck,

      Yes: of course, they can afford the cost. It totally smashes the ideal of human altruism. I’m not sure it even exists or ever did.

  3. mg00 says:

    What to do? We’re all thinking and wondering… here’s my frustration in song:
    https://soundburstdigital.com/conspiracy-only-on-my-mind-3/

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      That 4 minute video of “exploding Carbon sinners” slides well with Corbett’s article.

      Published in 2010.
      Titled: 10:10 – No Pressure

  4. tedrp says:

    The riders of the four horsemen are well into their ride as the world shows. I appreciate Corbett’s truth seeking initiative and his documentaries are the real history of civilization. God bless you and your work James !

  5. mik says:

    Lecture from Simon Michaux (link in the article above) about what “green” transition means in terms of necessary materials is great…what a huge job, man. Of course there are shortcomings in it: big grid batteries won’t be lithium based, aluminum is used for cabling not copper….but in essence it is about magnitude and I’m sure he is got it right.

    Since the lecture is about abundance/scarcity of metals there is another reality check that needs to be made (we are reality based community, aren’t we).
    At 63:00 during Q&A there is a question referring to the club of rome.
    Here on CR we also had this topic and Simon-Erlich thing. Prevailing attitude was that Simon got it right, supposedly proven by winning a bet. Well, Simon Michaux did a real job and showed there is not enough of stuff for green folly. He also showed that raw materials are finite, for all intents and purposes.

  6. jane70 says:

    Good essay! Thank you!

  7. HomeRemedySupply says:

    For those who have read Corbett’s article, he really tears into the Oxford ‘study’.

    Sept 24, 2022 – OilPrice.com – By Haley Zaremba
    (just so folks know…Haley often pushes the green agenda at OilPrice)
    Climate Change Could Cost The Global Economy $23 Trillion By 2050
    https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Climate-Change-Could-Cost-The-Global-Economy-23-Trillion-By-2050.html

    EXCERPTS
    ~~ Climate change could cost the global economy as much as $23 trillion by 2050.
    ~~ The U.S. federal government alone could spend between $25 billion and $128 billion each year in such areas as coastal disaster relief, flood insurance and crop insurance.
    ~~ A new report from Oxford University found that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050…

    …Experts say that in a business-as-usual scenario, ecological and economic devastation are not just a threat, but an inevitability…
    …It is misguided, however, to think that the clean energy transition will be a costly and overall expensive venture. In fact, it is the only plan that makes any economic sense in the medium or long term.

    A brand new empirically grounded report from Oxford University finds that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050. For years, scientists have been reporting that the renewable revolution will overall save money – lots of money – over a long enough timeline, given the devastating negative externalities of climate change, but that amount has grown larger and larger as the cost of renewable energy technologies has continued to fall…

    “Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re advocating,”
    Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News.
    Going forward, clean energy is going to continue to be the cheapest option, whether you factor in environmental externalities or not. But when you do factor them in, oh boy is it a no-brainer…

    …These kinds of climate-driven crises are only going to become more frequent, more powerful, and more costly.
    For every additional tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted into the atmosphere, the higher the price tag of delaying the clean energy transition.
    The Oxford report empirically underscores the fact that not only is decarbonization an economic imperative, the faster we do it, the more money we’ll save.
    The models are clear: time’s a-wastin’.

  8. binns says:

    I remember seeing a film many years ago with Charlton Heston in called Soylent Green. In which people who died were changed into protein bars (they were coloured green) to feed the population. Maybe the same could be done for energy. When someone has died from hypothermia or starvation (because of there energy bills) they could be shipped off as fuel to a power station.

  9. bsand says:

    For your interest cheaper safer sodium ion batteries are getting into the market.

    A country that covers a number of time zones might develop more high voltage DC transmission lines to send solar-generated power from bright areas to less bright.
    California could send power to Florida for storing in vehicle batteries after work.

    And a point to keep in mind: the strong greenhouse gas water vapour amplifies the effect of CO2: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=7&t=354&&a=19

    • Duck says:

      Bsand

      Having been told that all the penguins would be dead by now and we’d be seeing floods I am disappointed that global warming is not real….. if it WAS really happening then I could look forward to a warm artic and Greenland being green like when the Vikings lived there.

      If there IS any warming it won’t be any warmer then the middle ages or maybe Roman times when Britain grew grapes.

      Funny enough I read that the eskimo are the third (??) Culture to live in the frozen north, every now and then such folks all die off from cooling and are replaced with new immigrants from the south when the warming returns

      Good news about better batteries coming down the line

      • bsand says:

        In this article James links to
        https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/
        which talks of Karl Popper and he claims “saltier seas and less salty seas,” represents pseudoscience.
        While I don’t disagree with all the article we are commenting on I do feel it to be important to be careful about getting things straight in talking.

        There was quite a bit of work going on in New Zealand in the 1970s studying layers of temperature and salinity in oceans. And transport between the layers by “fingers” of salinity. Salinity is not constant in one ocean let alone across the world.
        The Arctic less salty melt water sits on top of the more dense salty water below.
        Moving on from that challenge to James, note the much higher CO2 concentration therefore acidity tat less salty water is getting from the CO2 in the air. That can affect ability of marine organisms to make their shells. In this article “lower pH” means “more acid.”
        https://www.newscientist.com/article/2340425-western-arctic-ocean-is-acidifying-four-times-faster-than-other-oceans/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2022-09-30-Western-Arctic-
        So it’s not only warming to be worried about. The penguins will be going short of food.

        • Duck says:

          bsand

          Fool me once shame on you… If I am dumb enough to fall for it twice shame on me.

          There is no global warming.

          If there was global warming then they would not need to play tricks with averaging out all measurements to find a fraction of a degree.

          Even if there were global warming I would not worry, since we have been both much colder and much hotter then we have now- in Viking times Green land was much nicer then it is now.

          If in the future we get global warming I will not worry about it until AFTER greenland is green and cow filled once more…grapes and wine from South England like in Roman times would also be nice….I actually WISH for some global warming, now I think about it.

          • bsand says:

            Even if you don’t happen to be worried warming you should be worried about increase in CO2 level and the resulting ocean acidification which will be stopping sea organisms from producing their shells, since many of those are at the beginning of the food chain.
            CO2 chart from Wikipedia:
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/CO2_40k.png

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            bsand says:
            “you should be worried about increase in CO2 level and the resulting ocean acidification which will be stopping sea organisms from producing their shells, since many of those are at the beginning of the food chain.”

            Nope. CO2 poses no threat to nature, life nor mankind…
            …even if mankind had the ability to dramatically elevate global atmospheric CO2 levels, intentionally or unintentionally. But mankind does not have that ability. Mankind can’t do it on a global scale. It is impossible.
            The mechanics of natural processes demonstrate this.

            • bsand says:

              Many people would be wondering how atmospheric CO2 increased 50% in the last hundred years, that would be much more than in the previous 40 thousand years.

              • bsand says:

                CO2 stimulates plant growth but as frequently happens uptake of other nutrients can’t keep up and the protein quality decreases. That would be a reason for reduction in some insect populations. Pollinators going missing. Have you noticed fewer insects hitting your car on country trips?
                “Ebi directly refuted an idea that’s been floating around for a while about the effect of CO2 on food production and global hunger. Technically, plants need CO2 to survive: They bring it in, break it down, and rely on carbon to grow. Some researchers have claimed that more CO2 means that more plants will be able to grow, and higher CO2 levels will then help solve food insecurity.

                That, according to Ebi, is a hugely, dangerously wrong. Not only will climate change and global warming make agricultural productivity and much more unstable, but when plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says.”
                https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving

              • Duck says:

                Bsand
                Co2?
                Seriously?
                A big old volcano going boom can pump out more CO2 then humanity can.

                It’s fake and gay BS…having boiled off the oceans in Sim Earth and scared myself I now know it’s nothing to worry about.

                (you can still play simEarth on Dosbox btw…just make sure you download to he manual with the game)

              • bsand says:

                to Duck: “CO2 out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges
                Humanity’s annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions.”
                https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736161
                I don’t know sim Earth, but oceans don’t “boil off.” They evaporate, and they and our soils and vegetations and rivers can evaporate 7% more for every Celsius degree increase in temperature. Does sim Earth have “dew point?” Then the extra water vapour in the atmosphere can drive worse weather, too.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                bsand,
                I think you should probably look at some other sources of information than the “conventional sources” you are quoting.
                Are you deliberately not trying to watch some of Corbett’s earlier works on Climate Change?

                Corbett recently has the Flashback: Climategate (2009)
                https://www.corbettreport.com/flashback-climategate/#comment-140658

                But also take a look at
                — A Corbett CLIMATE CHANGE List of Videos —
                https://www.corbettreport.com/october-open-thread-2/#comment-119619

                If any Corbett Member (or non-member) has not watched the documentary(s) mentioned in the first link on the list, then they will be in the dark as to what is currently taking place on a global scale.

  10. bsand says:

    Some of the move to power efficiency may be driven by certain entities’ profit motives, I am wondering why US would have been behind with HVDC power transmission lines.
    The last picture in this article shows two images of New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern.
    “ABB has an historic involvement in the link. The first New Zealand link was commissioned by ABB, (erstwhile ASEA), in 1965 as one of the first HVDC transmission systems in the world. It was originally a bipolar 600 megawatt (MW) link with mercury arc valves, until the original equipment was paralleled onto a single pole in 1992, and a new thyristor-based pole was commissioned by ABB alongside it, increasing capacity to 1040 MW.”
    I wish we could keep thinking clearly.
    https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/abb-will-upgrade-historic-new-zealand-hvdc-link/

  11. bsand says:

    One of your links mentions: “Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.”

    Karl Popper escaped Europe from 1937 – 1945 and worked in Christchurch where I live. My grandmother went to some of his university extension lectures.

    There are several types of Antarctic ice formations.
    The “ice sheets” are the thick layers of ice sitting on solid ground.
    The “ice shelves” are the floating extension to the sheets.
    “Sea ice” is thin seasonal fringes extending beyond the shelves.

    I suggest warm subsurface currents coming to the Antarctic melt subsurface ice. This melt-water will be less salty and dense than sea water, rise, and being less salty will freeze readily on the surface, extending sea ice and reflecting away incoming solar heat from the region. Extra water vapour from warming oceans will
    fall as snow over the Antarctic. The extra snow weight must cause glaciers to move faster with subsurface melting. Large icebergs calve off.

    The British seem to be taking the most interest with their autosub (see Boaty McBoatface,) studying subsurface melting and currents.

    • Duck says:

      How much extra snow has been falling in Antarctica?

      My understanding was that its basically a desert as far as precipitation goes.

      also not sure how the weight of snow pushing down onto of the glacier would make it flow faster if its falling all along the length?

      • bsand says:

        Here is something about Antarctic snow fall.
        https://earth.org/data_visualization/antarctic-snowfall/
        “As the planet gets warmer, more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, which brings more precipitation in the form of snowfall. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture per 1°C (1.8 °F).”
        The atmospheric moisture doesn’t get right inland and there is low but steady snowfall there. But there is plenty nearer to the coast.

  12. gpru says:

    I am more optimistic about the ecology, economics, physics, and politics behind the green energy movement, using NASA technology to make critical systems engineering improvements that optimize space age technology for real world problems. We have all seen hydrogen rockets carry tons of payload into orbit. Hydrogen is the true energy carrier in hydrocarbons, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, not carbon. The hidden cost of cheap oil is toxic pollution, fascist engineering, war, and economic slavery. We can do better. For example, third generation concentrated solar power (CSP) plants use extremely hot iron balls to generate clean turbine electricity for days without any emissions or hazardous byproducts. Fourth generation plants could be used for desalination, electric power generation, and hydrogen/oxygen/ammonia production, exploiting high temperatures, light, and electrolysis to crack water/steam into hydrogen and oxygen or to produce water from air. Hydrogen fuel cells coupled with electric engines already power buses and cars with more torque and acceleration without any combustion or emissions. Planes, diesel-electric trains, and boats can also run on hydrogen (or ammonia) fuel cells, too. Hydrogen gas can be made on-demand with electricity from water, which is the most abundant element in the universe. Germany may soon be forced to rely on hydrogen power and other alternative energy sources in order to reach 100% renewable sources by 2035. Tanks can be delivered to hydrogen fueling stations like gasoline or it could be generated on site at the pump. Hydrogen gas could also be piped into homes like natural gas for combustion free fuel cell heating and cooling. Unlike so-called “fossil” fuels, hydrogen gas is non-toxic, less likely to explode, and less likely to cause fires because it dissipates so quickly. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, unlike oil. Fourth generation nuclear power plants could contribute electricity and high-temperature hydrolysis to the carbon-free energy mix in case of another asteroid cataclysm. GAF & Tesla solar roofing tiles may revolutionize off-grid and home solar+grid+battery tie-in electrical systems that decentralize grid energy production – like solar panels on street lights. Wind power may have a cautionary, unforeseen, geodetic downside, mechanically slowing down the wobbly rotation of the earth, which is “currently” 1,040 MPH at the equator. Heck, we might discover how to harness geothermal HVAC power with plastic water pipes buried ten feet, antifreeze, clamps, a car radiator,a saltwater pump, a thermostat, and a fan, for Christ’s sake! With God, anything is possible. THE MORE YOU KNOW…

    • bsand says:

      Escaped hydrogen may slow the recovery from escaped chlorofluorocarbons. see Tromp T and followers.

  13. MakerTools says:

    All one needs do is have a good look at the city built around one of the world’s greatest “free energy” sources, Niagara Falls, USA. You will see unbelievable poverty, abandoned homes, buildings, run down neighborhoods where citizens are unable to pay their electric bills and water bills, a place and state where those resources should be nearly free, instead they’re used to rob and harm people who live there.

    THAT’S the reality of the crook-controlled power grid in USA. Nothing was learned from Enron, those crimes are in full force today, with the faked system of supply and demand foisted on the unknowing public.

    WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 was where those files were so cleverly destroyed.

    Gore, when relinquishing his victory as president, so Bush could navigate through the demolition plans already laid out, went on to “oppose” big oil, which Bush was an owner in.

    The illusion Gore helped create, to shift us from oil to green solutions, was his new real job.

    His partner became a former Enron executive. Together they sold news reporting Aljazeera, “earning” Gore a tidy profit for his moving away from election as president.

    Ahh, what a complicated, rich tapestry they have woven, as the story spins, the narrative leads us to next-stage slaughter.

    “Jump, when we reach the cliff. Everybody else is.” (Said with sarcastic satire)

    sorry, no answers here, only observations. Great article, James. Thanks again.

  14. Ethan Hunter says:

    I really appreciated Michael Shellenberger’s testimony before Congress.

    A little background, Michael was for a long time an environmental activist that was opposed to fossil fuels, nuclear, and the use of natural gas. However, due to reality setting in and the high cost of alternative energies such as wind, solar, and geothermal – he has come to the conclusion that it is not economically feasible to transition to a green economy and the war on cheap sources of energy such as natural gas is a detriment.

    I especially love how he highlighted the Malthusian psychology of this war at 7:46 into the testimony hearing, which you can watch here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJL7pSq4bpY

    Here we see again how the mind-virus of Malthusianism is behind this insane agenda – and until this “root cause” is extricated from the body politic – we will continue to suffer the consequences of it’s insane religious zealotry.

  15. HomeRemedySupply says:

    — A Corbett CLIMATE CHANGE List of Videos —
    https://www.corbettreport.com/october-open-thread-2/#comment-119619

    If any Corbett Member (or non-member) has not watched the documentary(s) mentioned in the first link on the list, then they will be in the dark as to what is currently taking place on a global scale.

  16. bsand says:

    Back when CFCs were being legislated against there was opposition some of which could be repeated today for CO2.
    https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v3n1/ozone.html
    “Appeals to justice also underlie opposition to an immediate ban on CFCs. Justice requires that benefits and burdens be distributed equally. Banning the use of CFCs today would impose a great burden on the present generation, while the primary beneficiaries would be future generations.
    Finally, those opposed to an immediate ban on CFCs point out that today there is no consensus on how we should factor in the rights of future generations. So the claim that the present generation should ban CFCs out of respect for future generations remains a point of contention among philosophers. Many argue, in fact, that a person must exist before he or she can claim a right to something, and since future generations do not, by definition, exist, they can have no rights.
    Furthermore, rights are designed to protect and promote the interests of human beings. But we have no idea what interests or needs future generations will have.
    Presently existing persons, on the other hand, clearly have a right to the resources necessary to meet their basic needs. An immediate ban on CFCs would divert scarce resources from meeting these basic needs for the sake of benefitting future generations, which have no legitimate claims on us. Rather than worrying about the needs of people who do not yet exist, we ought to be directing our resources to meeting the present needs of presently existing people.”

    Some of that would apply to the current complaints against CO2 control. How would you feel about it?

  17. weilunion says:

    Jim McCurty

    You’ll work for food and die for oil

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top