Europe’s Green Nightmare May Soon Be Over

Perhaps the tiniest of the protests belongs to the European People’s Party (EPP).

Just 19 months ago, self-described planet savers were cheering the European Parliament’s vote to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by 2035.

Today, after first Germany and then other nations began questioning the wisdom of ceding the world’s automotive future to the inscrutable Chinese, the EPP has called for an end to government by fiat.



But the EPP just wants the EU to try carrots rather than sticks to impose their climate agenda.

Rather than forcing Europeans into largely unwanted electric vehicles, the EPP called for relying on “innovative concepts and market-based instruments for climate protection with emissions trading, the expansion of renewable energies, and a circular economy.” 

The EPP also pledged to “further develop” von der Leyen’s “Green Deal” package of economy-stifling climate laws.

Net Zero by 2050, they insist, can be accomplished by persuasion and better policies – not mandates.

But they dared not question the “science” that follows Al Gore’s mantra that decarbonization must be the “central organizing principle of civilization.” 

What poppycock!


Germany’s weak proposal was to allow internal combustion engines in vehicles that only use synthetic “green” fuels – which today are quite expensive.

Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic agreed, and soon after EU climate czar Frans Timmermans announced “an agreement with Germany on the future of e-fuels in cars.”

Kinda like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


The German-initiated tweak of the EU’s Net Zero strategy was a sop to automakers who have recognized they cannot compete in price or quantity with the Chinese.

But Germany has led the way in the deindustrialization of Europe with its outrageous phaseout of non-polluting, reliable nuclear power plants. 


Today, as a result of these and other “misguided” energy policies, the cost of electricity across the continent has become so high – three times pre-pandemic levels — that trade unions are seeing the writing on the wall.

Their jobs will soon be gone unless Europe abandons its vainglorious battle against an enemy that does not exist – one that China, India, and emerging African nations surely see as benign. 

While the EPP’s proposal tinkers at the perimeter, many Europeans appear to be realizing they are being scammed.

Farmers in France, Poland, the Netherlands, and Germany are leading the fight against the EU’s job- and livelihood-killing mandates.

French farmers blocked major roads with enormous tractor-led convoys to show their disgust with excessive EU regulations. 

Farmers even staged a protest in Brussels, Belgium, home of the EU.

The French farmers’ union, Rural Coordination, called for a demonstration against the “ever-increasing constraints of European regulations and ever-lower incomes.”

Rural Coordination President Veronique Le Floc’h said, “Today, when we see that all the farmers in France are gathering near roundabouts blocking highways … It shows they are fed up. It’s a revolt.”


Early polling indicates that anti-EU-policy parties are likely to win big in nine member nations and come in second or third in another nine.

“Eurosceptic” parties are expected to be strongest in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia.

Anti-technocrat support is growing in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, according to a new report from the European Council on Foreign Relations


The protests are evidence of a growing divide between the “technocratic” EU and working class Europeans. French farmer union leader Arnaud Rousseau says there is a “growing lack of understanding between a technocratic structure walled into its Brussels offices and the reality of what we experience on our farms.”


If current trends hold, the European Parliament could see a populist majority that would likely oppose “ambitious” EU actions to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions across the continent.

And for good reason. 

Those actions include

taking internal combustion engines off European roads and highways,

banning the use of natural gas and

forcing people to purchase expensive, ineffective heat pumps, and

slaughtering cattle, sheep, and other farm animals – all guaranteed to lower the standard of living for most Europeans.


But even with a majority in the EU Parliament, the people’s parties may find victory just out of their grasp.

The final plenary session before the June elections will be in late April, and climate activists are working overtime to adopt new energy and climate policies that would be binding unless overturned – a more difficult job than just blocking them from being enacted. 


Among “unfinished” business for the lawmakers is final adoption of the very controversial Nature Restoration Law, a regulation to reduce methane emissions, and carbon dioxide standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

In theory at least, the plenary vote should be a rubber stamp – unless, that is, some members decide their reelection hinges on stalling the vote. 

The first job of the newly elected Parliament will be to choose a designated European Commission president – and that choice may determine just how far the populists can go in reshaping the EU’s long-term climate agenda. 

The next job is to set the “Strategic Agenda for the EU,” which starts with setting the “political guidelines” that give the public (and journalists) information about the EU’s likely direction for the next five years.

Only then – and that could be as late as September – will the President be formally elected.


The Identity and Democracy group, which includes France’s National Rally, Alternative for Germany, and Italy’s League, possibly gaining more than 30 new seats to become the third-largest alliance in the European Parliament.

That would give those opposed to the globalist agendas more sway in EU decision making since Parliament became directly elected in 1979. 


Should this coalition strike deal with the EPP, the death march toward Net Zero might be slowed, if not halted altogether.

That could enable Europeans to take a longer look at the outcomes for people of the policies their governments want to impose – and decide which are worth keeping and which are too destructive of the European and local economies. 


This, of course, causes the climate radicals (who call themselves mainstream) to shudder.

What if, said Professor Simon Hix, an author of the ECFR report, this “backdrop” of stirring populism is fueled by the inevitable return of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November?

“Parties of the political mainstream need to wake up and take clear stock of voter demands,” he said.

Hix added, “They should make clear, on key issues relating to democracy and the rule of law, that it is they, and not those on the political fringes, who are best placed to protect fundamental European rights.” 



That’s a funny way of describing opposition to climate alarmist legislation and to policies the people by their vote have determined are not in their interest.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.

Views: 12


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on March 26, 2024 at 9:26pm

On snowy days, despite their huge installed capacity, MW, their generation, MWh, is way short of their “wished for” generation, due to “weather dependence”

That solar generation would normally have a big bulge at noon-time, which far exceeds demand.

Storing it in batteries and discharging 80% of it during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, is out of the question, as that would add at least
30 c/kWh, to the price of the solar electricity fed to the battery.

Go woke, go big-time broke.

Now you know why the electricity rates in California are skyrocketing.
A bunch of climate screwballs are in charge, stealing from your pocket
They make the rules that enable their stealing.

The only solution is to elect Trump by a landslide to far more than overcome any fraud, so he can undo all that dysfunctional wind/solar/battery BS

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service