One keeps hearing about Thorium as a possible breakthrough energy source. It would appear there could be something to it. Certainly, given the vast amounts of money invested in other sources of energy it would not seem far-fetched to think that entrenched interests would want to keep Thorium down. What if the subsidies given to the failed energy source of wind power were instead directed to Thorium or other potential true breakthrough energy sources? Do we want to direct resources into catalyzing the next true breakthrough or do we want to keep throwing good money after bad, developing Rube Goldberg schemes to make unworkable wind somehow work?
Abundant Energy for Everyone on Earth
Here’s the deal: It’s abundant. It’s cheap. It will help us get through the major climate crisis coming our way – a mini ice age. There are several varieties from GEET to GALT. We can grow anything, anywhere with cheap and abundant energy.
Full read at following weblink:
A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current nuclear power market, despite the potential benefits.[
Full read at following weblink:
Thorium: Kirk Sorensen at TEDxYYC
Thorium: An Energy Solution (FREE at Top Documentary Films)
Shouldn't the media report how bad previous climate change predictions have been instead of participating in the indoctrination?
By Jack Hellner
For the last 100 years, we have seen climate prediction labels go from global warming, global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate catastrophe, climate emergency, and climate collapse. The goal has been to scare the public and especially the children to give up their freedom and money to the powerful government.
Instead of journalists investigating and saying how wrong previous predictions have been, they go along with the indoctrination to force the radical leftist agenda and policies on the public. These people all pretend they care about the poor and middle class, but the proposed policies would destroy tens of millions of jobs, would make income and wealth inequality much worse, and would make many millions more people dependent on government.
Everyone should stop pretending Biden, Mayor Pete, Bloomberg, or any other Democrat is moderate. They are all willing to destroy the economy and give much greater power to the government on the climate and fossil fuels.
Here is a small sample of predictions on the climate that almost all of the media regurgitate with no questions asked:
Here is a small sample of questions for politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, educators, Time persons of the year, and people who pretend to be journalists peddling the indoctrination and pushing the agenda.
It is truly a shame that the media are willing to repeat talking points to push a radical, leftist agenda instead of doing their job of investigating and asking questions and telling the public the truth.
Read the rest of the article at the following weblink:
A Reminder of How Climate Change Hoax Undermined Reputable, Legitimate Science
December 26, 2019
The Carbon Tax: the Big City 'Incentivizes' Rural Vermonters
By John Klar
Progressive legislators, interest groups, and government entities are clamoring to impose their utopian climate change agenda on Vermont’s citizens when the legislature commences its 2020 session. There are numerous Achilles heels in these well-laid (if foolish) plans, and they are easy to spot -- ineffectiveness; damage to the economy; inequality; government bloat.
A key watchword in 2020 will be “incentivizing.” Taxpayers must snap into alertness whenever they hear this shifty expression, because it masks true intent. In Orwellian fashion, the word generally is presented as a positive, when in fact it is always a negative. An accurate definition of the word in this context would be “changing behavior by government compulsion.”
For example, the current proposal for Vermont under the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) is to add 5-18 cents per gallon in tax to Vermonters’ fuels. Proponents argue that this gas tax will “incentivize” citizens to drive less: a sin tax. But who in the world thinks that an 18-cent-per-gallon “incentive” will curb consumption? Advocates argue that it is axiomatic that a higher cost will reduce consumption -- but gas averaged $3.99/gallon nationally in May 2011, and is now only about $2.60.
A degree in rocket science is unnecessary to see where this leads. Once the 18 cents per gallon (presented now as a mere pittance) fails to impact consumption behaviors, the progressives will be back, explaining that the tax must be raised to achieve that goal -- even though many low-income Vermonters are already squeezed to breaking point and use gas to travel to work. The question then becomes how much legislators tax Vermonters to “save the planet.” But the tax will only go up, always with the moral clarion call of saving the children.
The other end of the “incentivizing” scam comes when the government bureaucracy decides how to spend the money extorted through the gasoline and fuels taxes. The proposal is that the money will be invested in part to “incentivize” the purchase of electric vehicles. These vehicles perform poorly in cold, rural environments. Yet even if they did perform adequately, this scheme is patently unfair. As wealthy Vermonters are given an “incentive” to purchase a brand-new $40,000 car in the form of subsidies, perhaps through a sales tax exemption (one proposal), poor Vermonters will not be able to “take advantage” of these programs, and will still pay the same old sales tax every time they muster the meager funds to get another used vehicle. The wealthy receive a beneficial (and optional) incentive to purchase; the poor pay the tab via forced subsidization.
In its January, 2019 discussion of these complex issues, Resources for the Future (“...an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC”) assesses the economic impact of various options:
Read the full article at the following weblink:
The top 10 Bombshell climate TRUTH stories of 2019