UN calls on humanity to end ‘war on nature,’ go carbon-free

Fake concept spread by fake media - nothing but a scheme to destroy the U.S., extracting our wealth in the process, redistributing it and making some very nefarious people extremely wealthy in the process.

High past time to get out of this globalist, China loving, America hating organization. We can have our own "reset" and the U.N. along with a number of other organizations should not exist after we get done. America first. Simple concept.

The head of the United Nations is calling on countries to end what he calls a war on nature and instead embrace a future without carbon pollution triggering global warming.



Views: 64


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 December 8, 2020 at 9:29pm



Whereas world and US RE goals may be partially achieved by 2050, CO2 reductions would be significantly less than claimed by wind and solar proponents.


If combined- cycle, gas-turbine power, CCGT, plants would perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar electricity on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient).


Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.


The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

Excerpts from several articles are in the Appendix.




The CO2 graph shows increasing CO2 ppm versus years, despite various “fighting-climate-change” RE programs and $trillions of CAPEX for RE.


The annual up/down CO2 ppm values, having a range of about 6 - 7 ppm, are due to world's biomass growth of winter/summer conditions, i.e., natural variations.


To “reset” the atmosphere’s CO2 ppm to pre-industrial levels, Mankind's RE build-out efforts would have to significantly reduce annual man-made CO2.

That would allow natural absorption of CO2 to reduce the atmospheric CO2 ppm from about 410 ppm in 2019 to about 280 ppm in 2050


The graph shows, none of the very puny, man-made RE efforts appear to have had no effect over the past 60 years.




If man-made CO2 emissions would instantly stop, about 50% of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere would be absorbed by natural sinks in about 50 years, increasing to 70% by about year 100, with the remainder absorbed in about 25,000 years.

In the real world, annual man-made CO2 emissions could only gradually be reduced, say 1% - 2% per year, first to decrease its upward trend to zero, and then reduce it.

That phase likely would last about 10 - 15 years.

That phase would start after a worldwide consensus is reached to finance and implement it, which likely would take several years.

Any determined effort would be lasting for many decades.





Comment by Willem Post on December 8, 2020 at 9:24pm







World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration. EIA.

See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint



Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.


Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.




China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.


They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements


Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.

However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.

Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.


If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.

The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.

The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.

The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.




The analysis in this article includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.

The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.


50% RE by 2050


World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y


US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y


100% RE by 2050


World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y


US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y




The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.


This more-inclusive report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world CAPEX at $100-TRILLION to $150-TRILLION, over the next 30 years, about $3 TRILLION to $5 TRILLION per year.

For reference, world CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.



NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:


Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.

Nuclear plants about 60 years

Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years

Wind turbine systems about 20 years

Solar systems about 25 years


Additional Considerations


1) Fossil Fuel Feedstocks: There are a vast number of systems and activities requiring fossil fuel feedstocks to produce millions of every-day products and services. What would replace these fossil fuel feedstocks? Biofuels would require more than a billion of acres of fertile land.








2) Rebuilding for Energy Efficiency: Reforming transportation systems and vehicles, and rebuilding almost all buildings, including housing, would be required to reduce their energy consumption by at least 50%. The world fleet of cruise ships and private yachts and private planes would be outlawed?


Any costs (in the US at least $50 trillion) associated with these 2 items are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

Any costs for on-going replacements of mostly, short-life RE systems, are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.


NOTE: Achieving 100% RE by 2050, as a slogan, sounds attractive. It likely would be not feasible for a multitude of reasons.

World RE was about 100.18 quads, or 15.98% of total energy consumption in 2019, per EIA.

EIA projects world RE at 252.25 quads, or about 252.2 / 910.69 = 27.7% of world energy consumption by end 2050

See table 1A.

See URL, click on PPT to access data, click on page 4 of PowerPoint for inter-active graph.



3) Reliability of Electric Service: High levels of wind and solar on electric grids would require an HVDC overlay grid, connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids.


The HVDC overlay grid would move around electricity to wherever it would be needed, to ensure 99.97% reliability of service throughout the US. The CAPEX for a US overlay grid would be about a $400 to $500 billion.


The CAPEX for site-specific, custom-designed, utility-scale, storage would be about $400 billion/TWh, if $400/kWh, delivered as AC.


For example: The New England grid, with a fed-to-grid of about 110 TWh/y, would need about 9 to 10 TWh of storage (battery storage or pumped-hydro with reservoir storage) to cover wind/solar lulls and seasonal variations, if it had 1) much more wind and solar, and 2) no gas-fired CCGT plants, and 3) no nuclear plants, and 4) no major transmission connections to NY and Quebec.



4) Standards for Determining CO2 Reduction: Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries! The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.


- The CO2 of upstream energy is usually ignored.

- Energy systems are rarely analyzed on an A-to-Z basis, because various RE promotion programs would not be anywhere near as attractive, regarding annual costs and CO2 reduction. See Appendix.


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 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From 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?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From 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.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

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