Global Warming It’s a Good Thing


Are the deserts getting greener?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020.

But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile.

Full story at the BBC

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Global Warming It’s a Good Thing

  1. Hey Slavko
    Good Comment!……Like the rest of us “informed” citizens you have hit the nail on the head! Money Hungry Politicians and Industrialists are the ONLY people benefiting from this huge Wind Scam!

  2. i paid for this to be printed in Tobermory Press

    WIN TURBINES
    No Benefits – Huge Negative Impact

    Industrial wind turbines will produce only about 25% of their rated capacity. For example, 400 feet high 2 – megawatt (2000 kilowatt) turbine assembly would produce an average of only 25% of its capacity or 500 kilowatts. It will produce that average only a third of the time. It will generate nothing at all and yet draw power from the grid the rest of the time. Because the output is so highly variable and rarely correlates with demand, other sources of energy cannot be taken off line. With the extra burden of balancing the wind energy, those sources may even use more fuel just as cars use more fuel in stop and go city driving.
    The industry is unable to show any evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels. Denmark, despite claims that wind turbines produce 20% of its electricity, has not reduced its use of other fuels because of them.
    Large-scale wind power does not reduce our dependence on other fuels, does not stabilize prices, does not reduce emissions or pollution, and does not mitigate global warming.
    Instead, each turbine assembly requires dozens of acres of clearance and dominates the typically rural or wild landscape where it is sited. Its extreme height, turning rotor blades, strobe/flicker effect, visual dominance, property devaluation, risk to quality of well water, loss of wild life habitat, flashing light night and day,(we can really have “Dark Sky Star Party”) flying ice, health hazard, and much more, ensure intrusiveness far out of proportion to its elusive contribution. Each facility requires new transmission lines infrastructure and new upgraded roads, further degrading the environment and fragmenting habitat. (Where is Bruce Peninsula Environment Group? Do they not have any concerns?)
    Why do utilities support wind turbines?
    Given a choice, most utilities choose to avoid such an unreliable non-dispatchable source. In many places they are required to get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. In other places, they anticipate being required to do so in the near future.
    Ontario utilities do not require showing any benefits (e.g. in terms of emissions) from using renewable sources – they just need to have them on line. In Japan, many utilities limit the amount of wind power that they will accept. In Germany, the grid managers frequently shut down the wind turbines to keep the system stable. In Denmark, most of the energy from wind turbines has to be shunted to pumped hydro facilities in Norway and Sweden.
    Yet wind energy is profitable. Taxpayers cover two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost of erecting giant wind turbines. Governments require utilities to buy the energy, even though it does not effectively displace other sources. In addition, wind companies can sell “renewable energy credits,” or “green tags”, an invention of Enron. They are thus able to sell the same energy twice and allow polluters who buy them to pollute more instead of paying fines. The companies generally cut the local utilities in on some of the easy profits.
    Why do communities support wind turbines?
    Developers typically target poor communities and make deals with individual landowners and the town boards (which are very often the same people) long before anything is made public. With a prospect of adding substantially to the tax rate and or hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoff each year, it is understandable that a lot of people are reluctant to consider the negative impacts. They are willing to ignore the effect of such large machines on themselves and their neighbours. Excited by the financial promises of the wind companies, they forget that their giant machines will destroy precisely what makes their community liveable.

    Don Crosby (The Sun Times) reported (in part) on June 27, 2009.
    PRENEAL Canada has signed an agreement with landowners on the Bruce Peninsula to option several thousand acres of land for the development of a wind farm.
    Glen Estill, a spokesman for the Northern Bruce Peninsula Landowners Committee, confirmed that the local landowners had been approached last fall by various wind developers and felt the community would be well-served if the various options were studied in depth.
    Estill said the project could cost $500 million and include 60-80 turbines. “The PRENEAL proposal was deemed to be the most interesting for both the landowners and the community…we are very enthusiastic about this agreement. We feel we have negotiated a good deal for all the landowners and the community” said Estill.
    Estill said that because of the larger size of newer wind turbines and the long, narrow farms on the Bruce Peninsula, not everyone involved with wind farm will have a turbine on their land. But the agreement allows property owners with a turbine next door to receive a share of the compensation.
    Local people are invited to invest up to 30% of the equity of the project. Landowners who live next door to those who are host to a wind turbine will also share in the benefits even if they don’t have a turbine on their property.
    I don’t understand. Why would landowners be paid for not having a turbine on their property? What is the motive for payment?
    Just to point out, 30% of $500 million is approximately $166.7 million. Is Bruce Peninsula in a position to invest that kind of money?
    To me, this sounds like nothing more than dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit.
    I’m sure that people who are in favour of wind turbines on Bruce Peninsula are well meaning and sincere people. But their argument for the wind turbines reminds me of the man that just had to have a pickle to eat with his sandwich. He would take a bite of his sandwich
    and then a bite of that pickle. Another bite of the sandwich, and then another bite of the pickle followed. His lunch was the sandwich, and that should have been enough for him, but it wasn’t. He always had to have that pickle to make what he called a “complete” meal.
    People favouring wind turbines on Bruce Peninsula are asking for one hell of a big pickle.
    In conclusion, I believe that with no benefits, huge negative impact and billions of taxpayers dollars spent, The Wind Industry is the biggest government subsidized fraud in the history of mankind. I challenge the industry, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of The Environment John Gerretsen, and Minister of Energy George Smitherman, to show us where and how much less of other fuels we are consuming because of the wind turbines.
    We must say “no” to wind turbines on Beautiful Bruce Peninsula.
    Slavko Grguric, Miller Lake

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s