Ian Bradford continues his series by looking at the United Nations (UN) role in the climate change movement. (Part 3 is here which has links to Parts 1 and 2.)

Will alternative energy sources work?

By Ian Bradford

In 2009, the UN Secretary General made no secret of the fact that he wanted the UN to be the World Government.  

If all the UN proposals goes ahead (See article 3) it will cost every NZ household another $5,000 per year, cause thousands of job losses and put severe restrictions on all of us. 

Because we will no longer be able to use fossil fuels like wood, coal and gas, we shall see for example, the formation of many wind farms at various strategic places in the countryside. It is well known that they are noisy and destroy the landscape profile. But what happens when there is no wind?  We revert to fossils fuels which are much more reliable and cheap. 

We shall see mirror farms also being produced in sunny areas of the country. Experience overseas has seen that they are unreliable at providing energy needs for the reason that if there is no sun a reversion to fossil fuels once again has to happen.  While some will become very rich under the new regime the general population of developed countries such as NZ, Australia, the US, and Great Britain, will have their standard of living severely reduced. That is the aim of the UN.   

These alternative energy systems, such as wind and solar, are environmentally disastrous. They cause loss of ecosystems, destruction of wildlife, sterilisation of land, huge costs that may not be retrieved during the life of the system, and ironically, the emission of huge amounts of CO₂ during construction. 

Problems with wind farms

In 2004, Denmark decided not to build any more wind farms, having previously embraced them. The reason: Denmark was producing the most expensive energy in Europe. They couldn’t buy wind generated energy from North Germany as the wind wasn’t blowing there either so they resorted to buying reliable hydro and nuclear energy from Norway or nuclear generated energy from France at very high prices.  

Electricity from the wind is unreliable, uneconomic and degrades the environment.  Wind energy doesn’t decrease CO₂ emissions nor make any changes to global climate. 

Every wind farm needs generous taxpayer subsidies and there would be increased electricity charges to consumers.  Eventually subsidies would end and the once pristine countryside will be left with defunct wind farms as a memorial to arrogant green stupidity. Wind farms are parasitic.  They cannot produce continuous electricity without coal, gas, nuclear, hydro or geothermal backup.

Some 800,000 Germans are described as being in energy poverty. German consumers are now forced to pay more than $24 million each year, to subsidise electricity from solar, wind and bio fuel generating plants. Germans, because of the green dream have the highest electricity prices in Europe. 

The value of cheap energy

Cheap energy is fundamental for employment, living in the modern world and for bringing the third world out of poverty. 

Three short decades of irresponsible climate policy will take more than a generation to reverse, because there are now armies of bureaucrats, politicians, scientists, and businesses living off the climate catastrophe scare. 

I have tried to explain above, that these alternative forms of energy production are a failure. We need to learn from overseas experience.  If we continue to go down this path then all New Zealanders will suffer greatly.  All the while, we must not forget it is all being done in response to a gigantic fraud.  

UN aims and Angola

As mentioned at the start, the aim of the UN is to become the world government. 

In 2010 the IPCC Working Group Co-Chair Ottmar Eden admitted that environmental climate policy is not even about environmental protection but it is about “how we redistribute wealth.” 

If the UN is to become the World government then we would effectively be run by the developing nations because they have the majority. I randomly picked five developing countries. They all happen to be in Africa. These five are Angola, Central African Republic, Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Angola has a very high crime rate. You cannot walk alone at night in Angola. However, it is rich in natural resources. It has large reserves of oil and diamonds, hydroelectric potential and rich agricultural land. The country was ravaged by bloody civil war from 1975 to 2002. Cuban intervention in Angola began in November 1975 when Cuba sent combat troops in support of the communist aligned peoples’ movement for the liberation of Angola against the pro-Western National Union for the total independence of Angola. 

(More in article 5)

Every one of the countries listed above has a similar profile. It is difficult to see how colonialism is to blame for the low standards of living in each of these countries.  With a large crime rate, civil war, and invasions, how can these countries progress. They all seem to have the natural resources. These need to be better managed. The governments of each need to tackle crime seriously, and the civil war problem needs to be addressed. I suspect that many other countries have similar problems. There are two other countries I can mention. One is Myanmar. The army now controls the country. There is no democracy. Recently, the army shot one hundred demonstrators including some children. Since the army took over 546 civilians have been killed. The other is Mozambique. A week ago the coastal town of Palma was invaded by Islamic militants. Dozens of civilians were killed and 11,000 displaced. Militants linked to the  Islamic state have killed more than 2500 and children as young as eleven have been beheaded in the Mozambique province of Cabo Delgado. 

So the question is:  do we want to be controlled by countries like Myanmar, Angola or Mozambique-each classified as a developing nation in the UN?, because that is what will happen if (a) the NZ Government  keeps going down the carbon tax, emission trading scheme and all the regulations that go with these, and (b) the UN get’s its way.  New Zealand could end up being ruled by unelected bureaucrats.  New Zealander’s lives would be severely interfered with: permits for many things, multiple taxes, limited private ownership, maximum state ownership of assets and so on. 

It has been suggested that developing nations should open up themselves to developed nations. There is a great example of this, and that is the Korean Peninsula. South Korea has opened itself to the West.  As a result, it is prospering.  Its electronics and motor vehicles are well known, and of high quality. On the other hand North Korea has shut itself off from the world. It has a communistic/totalitarianism state. It reaps what it sows. Its people are some of the poorest in the world.

I think there is a point here. Nations can choose which path they take. Some opt for communism, some for a dictatorship. In the end, as I have just indicated, you reap what you sew. We are fortunate in NZ that our ancestors opted for a democratic form of government with capitalism rather than socialism.  This has brought us all a very reasonable standard of living.