Whereas “renewable energy” conjures
up visions of wind, solar, and tidal power, “clean” energy sources that will
last forever to power the world into a “green,” sustainable future, it won’t
happen without an Orwellian restructuring of the world’s social and economic
fabric as envisioned by the UN’s Commission on Environment and Development more
commonly known as the Bruntland Commission.
Chaired in the late 1980s by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime
minister of Norway, the commission set about to advance what appeared to be a
noble and desirable cause.
Its foundational report, titled Our Common Future, stated: “Humanity
has the ability to make development sustainable in order to ensure that it
meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future
generations.” So far, it seems pretty hard to argue with a goal like that.
Unfortunately, while it would be
great if wind and solar power could accomplish this, their potential capacities
and reliabilities just aren’t there.
As for tidal power, applications for
utility scale power generation are both unproven and doubtful. Ditto for
geothermal, which is another geographically and capacity-limited source.
In other words, none of these
“renewables” offer anything remotely close to a sustainability panacea . . .
either now or likely ever. Nuclear power, breeder reactors in particular, come
much nearer to making a real difference, yet never seem to get the same credit.
As Roger Andrews observes in his August 26 Energy Matters: Environment and Policy blog, the Brundtland
Commission went on to link sustainable development objectives to eradicating
world poverty . . . again something that sounds really good. Its report stated:
“Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting
basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their
aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always
be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.”
Sure, let’s all agree that poverty
is a truly tragic condition.
The big rub here is that eradicating
poverty won’t be accomplished by depriving desperate world populations of
access to affordable and reliable energy — those who now depend upon animal
dung fuel for heating, cooking, and water purification — people who lack
electricity essential for refrigeration to keep perishable food safe or provide
periodic lighting.
And that’s exactly what is happening
through international lending programs that emphasize costly and anemic
“renewables” while denying vital funds needed to develop abundant local fossil
fuel resources.
So the Bruntland Commission offered
another condition. In order to raise underdeveloped countries out of poverty,
“Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt
lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means — in their use of energy, for
example.” In other words, the solution is for rich countries to send money and
become subordinate to a U.N.-run world government which will ensure equal
distribution of financial and natural resources.
Needless to say, that world government would also decide
what common lifestyle levels and ecological means are acceptable.
Such decisions must include social
engineering to control optimum population size. As Our Common Future admonishes: “Sustainable development can only
be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing
productive potential of the ecosystem.”
Hey, it’s merely a guess, but
perhaps limiting access to affordable energy might be a very effective means to
accomplish that desired population reduction.
If any of this sounds familiar, you
might understand that the Brightland Commission’s sustainable development
mantra provided the foundation for the UN’s Agenda 21 program, which calls for reorienting lifestyles away
from consumption, encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth,
resource-sharing through co-ownership, and global wealth redistribution —
beginning with ours.
A 1993 UN report, titled Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save
Our Planet, proposes “a profound reorientation of all human
society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the
priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources.”
The report emphasizes that “this
shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human
action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every
level.”
Last year President Obama’s Council
on Sustainable Development was organized to develop recommendations for
incorporating sustainability into the U.S. federal government. Predictably,
grant programs issued through HUD, the EPA, and nearly every other alphabet
agency will spread their Kool-Aid policies throughout the nation.
As Tom DeWeese forewarns in a “Reality News Media” blog, while such
grants will be represented as voluntary, expect ongoing restrictions on energy
use, development, building material, plumbing and electric codes, land use and
water controls, public transportation, and light rail subsidies, and pressures
for communities to impose politically correct and economically disastrous and
socially unsustainable Agenda 21 development plans. Welcome to life in the ant
colony they have in mind.
http://www.cfact.org/2015/09/09/renewable-energy-claims-are-unsustainable/?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_ campaign=60afca75a3Lights_out_9_16_2015&utm_medium =email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-60afca75a3-270308565
A version of this article also
appears at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Climate-Change-United-Nations-Barack-Obama-Global-Warming/2015/09/08/id/678545/#ixzz3lHNUoowU
No comments:
Post a Comment