Category Archives: Climate Change

Wind Energy Fraud: War On The High Plains

In this exclusive report, Infowars reporter Millie Weaver exposes the explicit fraud, deception, and outright criminality behind wind energy and how it may be used to run rural communities off their properties as part of a major land grab effort in concert with Agenda 21. Millie Weaver starts off asking people who live and work in Kansas City, KS what they know about green energy and industrial wind farms. Not surprising, city people virtue signal their liberal support for industrial wind energy dogmatizing it as a viable solution to the alleged problem of “climate change” without much thought. However, when asked how much energy wind farms produce, what they know about impacts on birds, bats, the environment and human health, most city people appear to be clueless. Weaver then goes to a small town where a local florist has noticed a significant increase in funerals for people who live outside town in close proximity to the wind farm. Weaver then journeys to El Paso County Colorado giving us an insiders view of the fraudulent and deceptive nature of big wind energy corporations by attending and speaking at a local County Commissioner’s hearing regarding health concerns about a local wind farm. Rural people who have been impacted by the wind farm speak out about having to abandon their homes and health effects they have experienced in a plea for help. World renowned acoustician Robert Rand presents prima facia evidence that the wind farm is in perpetual violation of state noise nuisance laws. He presents data which shows the wind farm is operating at noise levels know to cause sleep deprivation, stress, and other health impacts reported by those living in close proximity to it. Millie Weaver discusses medical opinions of doctors who examined data collected as part of a scientific medical study which investigated the serious health impacts of residents living near the wind farm. At the hearing, a wind energy advocate “Dr”, who has been giving medical opinions and medical advice in support of the wind energy project while downplaying people’s health concerns, is exposed as not being an actual “doctor”, rather, being nothing more than a person with a “PhD” in Philosophy. County Commissioners and State legislators now wrestle with the legal conundrum of needing to enforce the law to protect the health and well being of rural residents, to prevent lawlessness and the appearance of giving unequal protection under the law, while facing threats from wind energy tycoons of billion dollar lawsuits if the wind farm is shut down. After the hearing, Weaver takes us within the wind farm footprint only to find that the wind turbines have temporarily been turned off. She interviews several residents neighboring the wind farm who discuss the health impacts they and others have experienced since the wind farm began operation in late 2015. People complain about not only getting sick from the wind turbines, such as regular headaches, nausea, and dizziness, but that they’ve had to get rid of their cattle, that their chickens have stopped laying eggs, and that many of their animals have died. We also learn that some people having been having seizures and cardiovascular problems. Many people have left the area and many others discuss being in the process of selling or abandoning their properties just to get away from the wind farm. Finally, Weaver interviews Larry Mott of GES Tech Group, Inc, an engineer who has closely monitored the wind farm. HE explains how industrial wind turbines are extremely inefficient at producing usable energy and that they are only good at producing bogus carbon credits. He discusses the corruption that allowed the wind farm to be constructed despite massive public outcry by residents who are now forced to live near it. He also discusses how billions-of-dollars in government subsidies are the only real source of profit from wind energy and exposes how wind energy is a major tax fraud Ponzi scheme. As a bonus, Weaver interviews Lord Christopher Monckton who delves into the serious harm wind farms have on large raptors, rare birds, and the uphill battle Donald Trump has faced fighting wind energy.

Advertisements

War on Meat Eaters: Experts Say We Should Tax Meat Eaters the Same Way We Tax Smokers

Source:Futurism
Date: 26 December 2017
Author: Lou Del Bello

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.

Meet the Meat Tax

Eating too much meat and smoking both have an impact on the public, from an environmental and health perspective. Meat production degrades the environment by releasing greenhouse gas emissions and using up a disproportionate amount of land and water per unit of protein, while smoking leads to enormous health bills that the public often has to pay for.

In a new report, investment analysts suggest passing on the costs of the meat sector’s impacts to those directly responsible, the same way we tax smokers. The simple idea of the so-called meat tax is that if your burger ends up costing as much as a plate of caviar, you may decide to explore vegetarian options.

“Meat consumption is also one sector where both the issues of environment and health overlap,” Rosie Wardle, head of investor engagements with the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) Initiative, told Futurism.

“We feel that everyone should have the right to a healthy and nutritious diet,” she said, “and ideally that should help promote a shift towards eating more plant proteins, which is healthier and better for the planet.”

The analysis explores three fields in which damaging practices have been successfully targeted with various tax schemes by governments, and asks whether meat could be the fourth. Over 180 countries already impose a tax on tobacco, 60 jurisdictions have rolled out a carbon tax scheme, and there is a tax on sugar in at least 25 countries.

A new meat tax “would generate money that could be spent in healthcare,” Waller explained. She added that while nothing has been executed yet, “we are seeing these proposals coming up more and more. It’s becoming a discussion item.”

A Growing Army of Carnivores

Nordic countries such as Denmark and Sweden were among the first to recognize the mounting threat of unchecked meat consumption driven by a booming global population. In 2016, the Danish Council on Ethics proposed a tax on red meat based on climate impacts. In Sweden, the Green party also called for a climate tax on food, asking for the introduction of a climate label to help consumers understand the footprint of their dietary choices.

 

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.
Image Credit: franzl34/Pixabay

According to Oxford University’s Our World in Data project, global meat production has grown almost five fold since 1961. Asia alone produces between 40 and 45 percent of the world’s meat. In Asia, production has increased 15 fold since 1961, and is projected to continue to grow in the future.

The threats associated with this trend are more complex than those posed by tobacco, carbon or sugar. The meat industry is not only a big source of carbon emissions; red meat over-consumption has also been linked with increased risk of diabetes, cancer and the spread of antibiotic resistance.

However, eating meat is not necessarily bad for you if done in moderation. Additionally, in places where hunger or malnutrition are still rife, introducing beef, pork or poultry to more plates would have clear health benefits.

Barring Meat, Boosting Inequality?

“Consumers respond to price changes in different ways,” Josef Schmidhuber, deputy director of the trade and markets division at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), told Futurism. “Some will immediately adapt their behavior when prices change, other will stick to their old habits.”

Generally, people who are poorer adapt quicker to fluctuating prices, a trend that economists call “elastic demand.”

“So if you have a beef tax, who will you tax out of the market? Those who are poorer,” explained Schmidhuber. “And that’s a bad idea, because you penalize those who need to increase their meat consumption. We call this model ‘regressive tax.’”

On the other hand, Schmidhuber argues, a tax on meat will have little impact on those who consume too much, as this group often has extra money to spend on expensive meat. The tax would therefore fail to target the group that most contributes to the problem.

A softer approach to the problem is offered by the nudge theory, for which the economist Richard Thaler was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize. It suggests that rather than punishing people for making the wrong choice, we could make it easier for them to do the right thing.

In the case of meat consumption, tissue culture could soon do this by providing a substitute that is close enough to the animal product that more people will switch with no regrets. Soy-based main dishes already have a place on most supermarket shelves, but visionaries are experimenting with vegetable meat that looks so much like beef that you can see it sizzle on the grill and even bleed.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. While money is poured into developing more sustainable foods, the idea of a meat tax remains attractive, especially in rich countries. “Based on our findings, and looking at the pathways other products have been on to get to the tax,” Wardle said. “We think we may have something on the table within the next five to 10 years.”

My Conclusion: Reason why the elites want to eat fake meat that made by nothing but plants base ingredients. For me I have nothing against recipes that is made by 100% plant base ingredients but you can’t call meat unless it contains meat or it either vegetarian (if contains diary or eggs ingredients and no meat) or vegan (if contains 100% plant base ingredients, no animal products). In the video above now they trying make meat from bacteria do you don’t have to kill animal to get meat; but it won’t contains the same nutrient value as meat that from a animal that have been killed for. That why I prefer meat that from a animal rather that from a bacteria that is grown in a lab to make meat because of the nutrient value.

I understand there are issues within the factory farms when animals are mistreated and been pump up with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals and hormones just in order to get more from them. With animals raised on a organic farm they tend to have the best lives out there; because farmer never pumped them with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals, and hormones; farmer ensure the animals are well taken care of and getting the maximum animal welfare. They quality of meat, milk and eggs from animals raised on organic farm are better and healthier. Farming should be based on quality not quantity of the product from the animal because animal can only produce so much so farmer maybe get the animals to produce the best.

Animal rights and vegan extremist are using the environment as an excuse to push their agenda set up by the elites and to have cattle farming  and ranching done way with. And we won’t have a choice to eat a meat from a animal but instead we be eating meat that is either lab grown or Genetically Modified. The fake meat that is plant base will be GMO based.

The taxation on meat and any other products is just flat out wrong because its based on an agenda by the elites to have cattle farming and ranching done away with as well eating meat and any other animal products done away with. But the elites will still be eating meat and any other animals; well as organic farms and they will not touch GMO because they know it is harmful to human health as well as to animals. Treating those who eat meat as smokers is just flat out wrong and those who are push for it; they will not get away with. Once people recognize the evil within the animal rights and climate movement; they will reject it. It’s up to us to speak out against the animal rights movement, Climate Change scare (which they try to use the weather or the environment in order scare us into submission), the anti-human movement, the nature rights movements; how do they do it? First they either create or find a problem; then they try to get us to reaction; then they offer the solution. Problem, Reaction and Solution. That why I created Eco Liberty Blog on wordpress so can educate and inform people while the mainstream media will not cover what I’m covering. And Why we can be good human as well as good environment stewards.

California lawmaker wants to ban gas car sales after 2040

Source:Sacbee
Date: 29 September 2017
Author: Alexei Koseff

France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles.

When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars powered by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it’s essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.

“The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way,” Ting said. “At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand.”

California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million “zero-emission vehicles,” such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.

But progress has been modest so far, as consumers wait for prices to drop and battery ranges to improve, or opt for large trucks and SUVs that are not available among electric offerings. Slightly more than 300,000 zero-emission vehicles have now been sold in California, and they accounted for just under 5 percent of new car sales in the state in the first half of the year.

Ting is among the policymakers pushing to increase incentives for drivers to ditch their gas guzzlers. He is also working on legislation that would overhaul California’s electric car rebate program by making more money available for rebates, then ratcheting down the value of those discounts as the state hits sales targets.

“California is used to being first. But we’re trying to catch up to this,” Ting said.

France and the United Kingdom both announced this summer that they would ban the sale of new gas and diesel cars after 2040. India is aiming to get there by 2030. And China said this month that it would stop the production and sale of vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels in the coming years.

Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, caused a stir earlier this week when she told Bloomberg News that California might consider doing the same.

“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’ The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California,” she said.

Her remarks were met with skepticism from automakers and industry analysts, and outrage from many drivers. But Ting said the state must be aggressive in establishing a vision for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“If you had told me five years ago that we might have autonomous vehicles on the road soon, I would have laughed,” he said. “The technology is moving so quickly, I don’t know if by 2040 we’ll be owning our own cars.”

My Conclusion: They banning car in the name of reducing carbon emission and climate change is use as an excuse to pass laws to further the globalist agenda. This has nothing to with saving the earth.

Climate alarmists demand imprisonment of climate change skeptics … want to charge them with MURDER

Source:Natural News
Date: 25 September 2017
Author: Tracey Watson

(Natural News) It’s official: The last vestiges of common sense have now finally gone out the window. The Washington Times is reporting that climate alarmists are calling for those who do not buy into the catastrophic man-made global warming narrative to be jailed … for murder! That’s right folks; if you don’t accept the idea that humans are causing temperatures to soar at an alarming rate and destroying the planet, you’re a murderer – and must be punished as such.

Recent headlines clearly reflect the increasing frustration felt by climate change fanatics.

A September 1 headline in Outline declared, “Climate change denial should be a crime,” with writer Brian Merchant claiming, “In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable.” Continue reading Climate alarmists demand imprisonment of climate change skeptics … want to charge them with MURDER

Over 31,000 scientists say global warming is a total hoax; now they’re speaking out against junk science

Source:Natural News
Date: 21 September 2017
Author: Lance D Johnson

(Natural News) Over 31,000 scientists have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, supports the necessity of carbon dioxide and sheds light on the agenda of global warming, which includes industrial energy rationing, central economic planning, and global taxation schemes. These scientists are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet.

The petition, which includes important peer-reviewed research, is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise. The petition warns the United States about signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country. Continue reading Over 31,000 scientists say global warming is a total hoax; now they’re speaking out against junk science

NASA confirms: Sea levels have been FALLING across the planet for two years … media SILENT

Source: Natural News
Date: 26 July 2017
Author: Mike Adams

(Natural News) As the global warming narrative unravels under revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.

On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. Continue reading NASA confirms: Sea levels have been FALLING across the planet for two years … media SILENT