Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Advantages of Factoring and Purchase Order Financing When Selling Your Products or Services to the Federal Government

Are you selling products or services to the federal government? Every year, city, county, state and the federal government buy billions of dollars in goods and services from business of all types.

Although doing business with the government is great and financially rewarding, it can also be hard on your cash flow. Why? Government agencies take, on average, about 40 days to pay their invoices. In the meantime, you have to cover all your recurring expenses such as payroll, rent and supplier payments.

This is not a problem if you have 60 days worth of operating capital in your bank account. But what if you don’t? In that case, many business owners will try to get a business loan. Although that may help, business loans are tough to get and take a long time to set up. Also, business loans have set limits.

What business owners need, is a product that provides financing solely based on the business opportunity – on sales possibilities. This product exists and is called invoice factoring. There are many factoring companies that specialize in factoring government contractors and vendors.

Factoring accelerates your government payments, and enables you to get paid in days rather than months. It’s a form of financing where the factoring company advances you money against your government receivables. You get to use the funds immediately, while waiting to get paid. Once the government pays, the transaction is settled.

If you are reselling products to the government, you should also consider purchase order financing. In this case, the factoring company provides you with financing to pay your suppliers, enabling you to make the sale. Purchase order financing works well with invoice factoring and can also help you grow your company – exponentially.

So, if you own a business that sells to the government, be sure to look into factoring and purchase order financing.


Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Progressive Eco-Group Admits That Renewable Energy is a Government-backed Hoax That Enriches Big Corporations

Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the "global industrial economy," AKA capitalism.  Given the group's hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.

What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations — and green energy investors like Al Gore — at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.  If you find that admission hard to believe, please keep reading.  The questions and answers below are verbatim from the FAQ page on the organization's website.

Will green technology save the planet?

No. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, and the grid itself are all manufactured using cheap energy from fossil fuels. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible.

Solar panels and wind turbines aren't made out of nothing.  They are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported, processed, manufactured.  Each stage leaves behind a trail of devastation: habitat destruction, water contamination, colonization, toxic waste, slave labor, greenhouse gas emissions, wars, and corporate profits.

The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.

From beginning to end, so called "renewable energy" and other "green technologies" lead to the destruction of the planet. These technologies are rooted in the same industrial extraction and production processes that have rampaged across the world for the last 150 years.

We are not concerned with slightly reducing the harm caused by industrial civilization; we are interested in stopping that harm completely. Doing so will require dismantling the global industrial economy, which will render impossible the creation of these technologies.

Will renewable energy save the economy?

Renewable energy technologies rely heavily on government subsidies, taken from taxpayers and given directly to large corporations like General Electric, BP, Samsung, and Mitsubishi.  While the scheme pads their bottom lines, it doesn't help the rest of us.

Further, this is the wrong question to ask.  The industrial capitalist economy is dispossessing and impoverishing billions of humans and killing the living world.  Renewable energy depends on centralized capital and power imbalance.  We don't benefit from saving that system.

Instead of advocating for more industrial technology, we need to move to local economies based on community decision-making and what our local landbases can provide sustainably.  And we need to stop the global economy on which renewable energy depends.

"Stopping the global economy" means destroying the capitalist system that created here in America the most widespread prosperity the world has ever known.  That a progressive eco-group would admit that the true agenda behind the push for renewable energy has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with destroying capitalism is quite remarkable.  To reinforce its position that renewable energy is a hoax, DGR's website has a cartoon that shows dollar bills being sucked from a wind turbine directly into the pocket of a fat cat investor in subsidized green energy projects.  

The Elmer Gantry of renewable energy

Few insiders have profited more from taxpayer-backed renewable energy projects than Al Gore.  When he left the vice presidency in 2001, his net worth was estimated at $1 million to $2 million.  Since then, his wealth has skyrocketed to $300 million, and if the climate change legislation he advocates is enacted, the former vice president stands to become a billionaire.  Much of his enviable fortune has come from being an inside investor in government-backed renewable energy projects, many of which went belly up after the insiders made off with millions, leaving hardworking U.S. taxpayers stuck with the bill.

Like all wealthy eco-preachers, the Elmer Gantry of renewable energy uses his immense wealth to indulge in lavish living.  When asked by Rep. Marsha Blackburn during his 2009 testimony before Congress whether he personally profits from his advocacy of global warming, Pastor Al professed a vow of poverty, and if you've never seen video of the tense encounter, you don't want to miss it: "Every penny I have made I have put into a non-profit deal, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.  And Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is out of greed, you do not know me."


Turned out Rep. Blackburn knows him quite well.  As the greedy owner of a gargantuan green energy fortune, Pastor Al looked her squarely in the eye and denied making even a penny of profit.  If every penny he makes goes into a non-profit deal, how did he end up with $300 million?  The same way his alter ego pilfered money from the Lord: by concealing his true stripes.

As the social Utopians at Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledge, the push for a "green economy" is a scam that enriches big corporations and fat-cat investors like Al Gore.  Shortly after teen climate activist Greta Thunberg gave an emotion-charged speech at the U.N. last September, I wrote about the renewable energy hoax in "The Cynical Plot behind Global Warming Hysteria."  If not for a totally corrupt Western media, two things would have happened years ago: man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water, and Pastor Al would have been called out as the self-righteous hypocrite he is.

Source: An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Friday, December 13, 2019

Greta Thunberg is a Symbol of the Misanthropic, Godless State of Many of Today’s Youth

In what may be the most anticlimactic announcement ever made, Time magazine has named Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg its Person of the Year for 2019.

The on-line version of the article shows Greta staring stoically out toward the ocean, her long hair gently blown by a sea breeze. She is a young woman who clearly has big things on her mind.

Al Gore, a less influential member of the climate hysteria movement, had high praise for young Greta. “This moment does feel different,” said former vice-president Gore, who received a Nobel Peace Prize for his own work on climate-related issues. “Throughout history, many great morally based movements have gained traction at the very moment when young people decided to make that movement their cause.”

The diminutive Thunberg, who is nearly 17 years old but looks much younger, began skipping school in 2018 to spend her days outside the Swedish Parliament holding a sign that read “School Strike for Climate.” From those humble and lonely beginnings, she has become the world’s most famous climate warrior, spreading the message of the coming man-made climate catastrophe to anyone who will listen.

Thanks to a well-orchestrated marketing campaign, the list of who will listen now includes some of the world’s most influential people, including Hollywood stars, heads of state and even the Pope. 


“We can’t just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow,” Thunberg said in the fawning article in Time. “That is all we are saying.”

The 16-year-old Thunberg is surely saying more than that. She is saying that a man-made climate catastrophe is on its way, and if we don’t believe her, we’re stupid. She is calling for the complete abandonment of fossil fuels as a source of energy — no matter the cost in money or human suffering — to stem the tide of the coming climate emergency.

And if we object to any portion of what she wants, she accuses us of “stealing her future.”

How dare we?

“I want you to panic,” Thunberg told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January. “I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.”

Greta has become the world’s most recognizable figure in the climate hysteria movement. She is the perfect front person since, as a child with a mental condition (Asperger’s syndrome), any reproach to her ravings can automatically be dismissed as “mean” or “unfeeling.” Greta is a human shield for the movement, which even the most hardened climate realist can have some sympathy for. Her fear and her anger have made her a symbol for all youth everywhere.

“She symbolize the agony, the frustration, the desperation, the anger — at some level, the hope — of many young people who won’t even be of age to vote by the time their futures are doomed,” said Green New Deal advocate Varshini Prakash, the founder of the Sunrise Movement.

And it’s true; Thunberg is a symbol. She is a symbol of a cult-like political and cultural movement that couches itself in the language of science but is, in fact, the antithesis of science since it squelches any skepticism with angry words such as “denier” and “heretic.”

She is a symbol of schools worldwide, which frighten children by teaching the shoddy science of man-made and catastrophic global warming as if it were a fact. It is clearly not a fact when literally thousands of scientistsdisagree with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It’s not a fact when the data that the “scientists” use to prove their assertions is observably manipulated without consequence. It is not a fact when a substance that is necessary to life on Earth, carbon dioxide, has been demonized simply in order to create a man-made link to the Malthusian proposition that a slightly warming globe will be a disaster.

She is a symbol of the misanthropic, godless state of many of today’s youth. Many of today’s children look at the future as a dire, hopeless place, which gives them an excuse to not care about anything and instead skulk back into their smartphones, video games, and social-media accounts and wall off the real world from their own realities.

But Greta, with her youth and her Asperger’s syndrome, is not the one who should be blamed for her fame. With D-list celebrity, Antifa parents — who reportedly switched to veganism at Greta’s demand — who allow her to be used as a puppet by Soro’s/Gates funded NGOs, she didn’t have much of a chance. Once those NGOs got a hold of her, her place as Time’s person of the year was set in stone.


Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Dutch's AVR Supplying Carbon Dioxide in the Greenhouse to Accelerate Plant Growth

AVR has found a beneficial way to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Waste to energy GHG emissions make the burning of waste to produce power a not so clean solution. However, AVR, a Dutch waste to energy (W2E) company, has found a way to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by supplying some of the carbon dioxide (CO2) it produces to a local horticultural greenhouse.


The C02 helps to promote plant growth in the greenhouse

The AVR’s W2E plant is located in Duiven and, according to the company, it is the first facility of its kind in Europe that is capable of capturing carbon dioxide on a truly significant scale. The captured CO2 is given to the local horticultural greenhouse where it encourages the plants within the greenhouse to grow, creating a win-win situation.

More specifically, the flue gases from incineration that create the waste to energy GHG emissions are fed to the installation though a pipe. The carbon dioxide is removed from the smoke by way of liquid. This liquid is then heated to release pure CO2. This resulting pure CO2 can be cooled and compressed into a liquid for storage in one of four barrels, according to AVR Manager Robert Hageman, Waste Management World reports.

When the CO2 is ready for the greenhouse, it is transported by Air Liquide. The CO2 can be used by greenhouses to make crops like flowers, fruit and tomatoes grow at a quicker rate. Traditionally, the effect was produced by burning natural gas, but with the CO2, this is no longer required.

AVR’s waste to energy GHG emissions reduction goal is to eventually become carbon neutral

Currently, the Duiven W2E plant processes waste from1.5 million homes. This releases about 400,000 tons of CO2. However, thanks to the new process, the company is able to reuse 60,000 tons of this CO2.

It took over a year to build the CO2 capture installation with the help of technical engineering company TPI, and cost €20 million ($22 million). AVR is presently investigating if a similar installation would be possible at its location in Rotterdam.

waste to energy GHG emissions - basil plants in greenhouseUltimately, the company’s goal is to be free of waste to energy GHG emissions. The CO2 capture installations are a step in the right direction.

Source: Erin Kilgore

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Thursday, October 17, 2019

The German Government Got Caught Erasing Data on Very Dangerous Levels of Wind Turbine Infra-sound

The German government got caught destroying data showing residents exposed to dangerous levels of wind turbine infrasound.

In the USA, wind farm neighbours are exposed to precisely the same soul-destroying cacophony; a mix of thumping, pulsing (‘amplitude modulated’) low-frequency noise and infrasound.

Evidence proving the unnecessary harm done to wind farm neighbours by wind turbine noise mounts by the day: Germany’s Max Planck Institute has identified sub-audible infrasound as the cause of stress, sleep disruption and more (see our post here); and a Swedish group have shown that it’s the pulsing nature of low-frequency wind turbine noise  (‘amplitude modulation’) that is responsible for sleep problems in those forced to live with it (see our post here).

The obvious connection between exposure to low-frequency wind turbine noise and infrasound and health problems (such as sleep deprivation and cardiovascular disease), is something the wind industry has been attempting to cover up, since the very beginning.

In Chautauqua County (Upstate New York), a group of health professionals led by nurse, Evan Davis are deeply troubled by the fact that wind farm neighbours are being treated like unwilling guinea pigs. Relying on a growing number of consistent reports from badly affected locals and backed by a wealth of quality scientific research, Davis recently gave evidence to the Villenova Town Board.

Ailments in Arkwright circle back to turbines

It often takes medical science a long time to recognize a fully documented problem. For example, as early as 1954, x-rays were known to produce cancer in newborns whose mothers were x-rayed.

Research scientist Alice Stewart’s extensive documentation of the correlation between X-rays and infant cancer was finally published in Lancet in 1956, but the medical establishment rebuffed it for another 25 years.

“It wasn’t until 1980 that the American medical organizations recommend that the practice be abandoned.” That story is told in Margaret Heffernan’s 2011 book, “Willful Blindness (Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril).” Heffernan’s next book could well document the health and ecological disaster from industrial wind turbines.

Registered nurse Evan Davis, a Villenova resident, has called attention to an increasing number of idiopathic illnesses in Arkwright: a disease cluster. Wikipedia defines a disease cluster “an unusually high incidence of a particular disease or disorder occurring in close proximity in terms of both time and geography. Typically, when clusters are recognized, they are reported to public health departments in the local area. If clusters are of sufficient size and importance, they may be re-evaluated as “outbreaks.”

In his recent testimony to the Villenova Town Board, Evan Davis said: “In the months following the Arkwright wind project (activated Sept. 8, 2018) we’ve had a major increase in referrals with idiopathic vestibular issues, syncope, migraine, seizures, and strokes.”


Davis is a case manager for a home care agency who sees patients throughout northern Chautauqua County. “We don’t have solid evidence to show direct correlation, but there’s definitely been an increase in referrals and health concerns in the Arkwright area related to these windmills.”

“I’m seeing in a lot of elderly patients what’s known as syncope or sudden loss of consciousness, in some cases related to cardiovascular. Other cases, again, idiopathic: can’t prove a reason.

But the coincidence of all this happening within three to six months of the windmills going in seems too much of a coincidence to me,” nurse Davis said in an interview (see ‘Chautauqua Updates’ on YouTube). “We’re seeing a lot of referrals in other areas, physical, occupational therapy. Many related to musculoskeletal movement issues, as I mentioned: speech, sleep disturbance, insomnia. … The World Health Organization did a study on people around the windmills and found higher levels of stress cortisol, which relates to higher incidents of depression, among other physiological symptoms.”

It’s not like this sort of information has not been available to the medical world. Dr. Nina Pierpont, Ph.D. and resident of Adirondacks area of New York, identified the many symptoms produced by industrial wind turbines in many professional papers as well as her 2009 book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” For years she documented cases of low frequency noise and infrasound illness that followed the introduction of wind turbines near her. People’s only recourse was to move out, sell if possible, abandon otherwise.

In his recent testimony before state Sen. Robert Ortt’s public health presentation in Buffalo on Sept. 10, acoustician Robert W. Rand (ASC, INCE) emphasized “Distance has proven to be the only reliable noise control option available for wind turbines so far. In most places there isn’t enough distance to avoid impacts.” Rand suggested four to 12 miles from residents

Chautauqua nurse Davis was surprised at how quickly the negative health effects occur, and how quickly they can be resolved: “we can see health effects in a relatively short period of time. In the case of wind turbines, symptoms present themselves over a several-week period.” He continues, “I had a patient not too far from here (who) suffered from severe dizziness, nausea and vomiting, 24 hours a day. (Physicians) tried everything they could to figure out what was causing it. There’s a procedure called an epley maneuver. It’s done by physical therapists to try to realign (inner ear) ossicles … nothing worked. Patient went on a trip; tried to get away, clear her mind. Got away from the windmills, symptoms went away; comes back home, they come back, within the day.”

“This is a controlled lab experiment where you can test on rats. We’re live subjects, and they’re experimenting on us in the real world. … If even there were just a small glimmer of something that would have an adverse effect, wouldn’t the state, wouldn’t public officials, elected officials of a town or county — they have a civic duty, even more so than a health care provider, they have a civic duty to the people and residents, to make sure that they’re safe. Why would they put monetary gains above the health of the citizens? It’s un-American.”


Source: Stop These Things

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

White Supremacy Was Behind Greta's Climate Strike Movement

Organizers say millions of youth around the world have joined the Fridays for Future student walkouts to protest climate change.

They have hailed its founder, 16-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden, who is currently on a North American tour to join protests and speak out on the alleged emergency facing the world, including at the United Nations last month.

And while Thunberg has been careful to cater to indigenous groups and their activist supporters – she has claimed some protests are taking place on indigenous land – many are now turning on her, claiming that she is getting attention because she is white and that support for her is proof that white supremacy and white privilege are alive and well.

“Y’all need to ask yourselves why you find it so much easier to hear from white people, regardless of age, when it comes to the violence they have caused across the world,” No White Saviours tweeted.

“It is a SYMPTOM of global white supremacy that certain people are HEARD & given a platform, certain people have access to the RESOURCES to be the HEROES that the world will pay attention to.” 7:30 AM – Sep 27, 2019

“Greta should have grabbed some children from Flint or NJ and took them to the UN. They are impacted right now by environmental terrorism caused by racism, White Supremacy, and racialzed governance. Greta at the UN was the epitome of White Privilege/White power= Save white kids!” Marley K tweeted.

“Propping up Thunberg over Indigenous people who have been fighting this battle for ages can’t be reduced to it’s the message that counts.”

Thunberg’s message isn’t an accurate assessment of the threat of the climate crisis (if it was white supremacy would be more explicit),” Hari Ziyad tweeted.

“Thunberg’s message is that we need to always think of protecting the little white kids. The same message that is part of the problem in the first place,” Ziyad tweeted.

Activists seem to believe that this has long been an issue with “people of color” have long been believers manmade climate change.

“No disrespect to Young Greta, but a quick tutorial on “White Supremacy”… El Viejo Ebro tweeted.

“INDIGENOUS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WARNING EVERYONE ALL OVER THE GLOBE ABOUT “CLIMATE CHANGE” FOR DECADES!!” one person tweeted.

“There is no mention of them now that this is mainstream. Just Greta…” he tweeted.

“I’m glad to see so many sharing @GretaThunberg ‘s #HowDareYou message,” another tweeted.

“However, Indigenous peoples have been saying this for 500 years. So it is not a new message. Her message has political and cultural authority due to white supremacy.”

“White environmentalists are instead urged to support and raise awareness of the work being done by people like Canadian Indigenous teen Autumn Peltier, an advocate for water protection of the Great Lakes, and ‘Little Miss Flint’, a youth activist raising awareness of the US city of Flint’s water crisis,” the New Zealand-based Newshub website reported on the backlash.

Friday, September 13, 2019

When the Tax Credits Expire, New Wind-energy Installations Will Plummet

The wind industry once held a kind of ‘social licence’. Now that ‘licence’ has been revoked, with rural communities in uproar.

In Germany, new wind farm construction has ground to a halt this year – and across the USA the same pattern is emerging. Local governments, legislators and conservation groups have united to pull the plug on wind power.

We’ll hand over to Robert Bryce for a roundup on the mounting revolt against Big Wind.

Big Wind’s Big Headwinds

On Monday, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution that adds the city to the list of municipalities that have committed to a local version of the Green New Deal. More than 100 cities have now declared their intent to obtain all of their electricity from renewables or “clean” energy sources. Furthermore, the Sierra Club claims that one in four Americans now live in communities that are “committed to a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy.”

While there’s no doubt that renewable energy is politically popular, there’s also no doubt that wind energy projects – both onshore and offshore – are facing increasing opposition and that, in turn, could cause the all-renewable goals to be missed.

To be sure, the US wind industry is growing. Overall capacity tripled over the past decade and an estimated 13,000 megawatts will be added this year. But recent news out of Oregon, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Germany shows that regulators, local governments, and environmental groups are slowing or derailing wind projects. Furthermore, the industry is also facing the expiration of the federal production tax credit, the lucrative subsidy that has driven much of its growth.

History shows that when the tax credits dry up, new wind-energy installations plummet. In May, the Energy Information Administration underscored this point, explaining that in 2012, (just before the PTC was temporarily phased out) the “high level of annual capacity additions…was driven by developers scheduling project completion in time to qualify for the PTC. Similarly, the increase in annual capacity additions for wind scheduled for 2019 is largely being driven by the legislated phaseout of the PTC extension for wind.”

The industry is also facing regulatory uncertainty. Last week, the Trump administration announced that it was delaying approval for Vineyard Wind, a proposed $2.8 billion, 800-megawatt offshore wind project that aims to put dozens of turbines in the waters off Martha’s Vineyard. The delay will allow federal agencies to do a “robust cumulative analysis” of the environmental impact of offshore wind projects.

The federal delay on Vineyard Wind came about three weeks after the conservation commission in Edgartown, Massachusetts voted 5 to 1 to deny a permit that would have allowed the wind project’s high-voltage transmission cables to pass through the Muskeget Channel. The commission said the project’s owners did not submit “sufficient information to protect against long-term and short-term adverse effects on the resource area,” which they said “is critical for the protection of marine fisheries, land containing shellfish, storm damage prevention, flood control, and protection of wildlife habitat.”

Wildlife concerns were a factor in an August 1 ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court which will halt the construction of the proposed 194-megawatt Summit Ridge wind project near the Deschutes River. The court invalidated a set of rules that were adopted in 2017 by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council that limited public participation in the siting of new energy projects. The ruling is a win for nine environmental groups who were opposed to the wind project, which according to a spokesman for Oregon Wild, “threatened bald eagles, golden eagles and several other important bird and bat species.”

In June, the North Dakota Public Service Commission unanimously rejected a 200-megawatt wind project in Burke County due to concerns about wildlife. According to the Grand Forks Herald, in 2016, officials from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department said that NextEra Energy, the developer of the proposed project, “could not have picked a worse spot.” In March, the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended against the project due to the number of bald and golden eagles in the region, which also has a “high concentration of significant, relatively rare, high quality breeding waterfowl habitat.”

In February, Apex Clean Energy withdrew its application to build 108 megawatts of wind capacity on New York’s Galloo Island, a small island off the eastern shore of Lake Ontario. The project was withdrawn after Clifford Schneider, a retired biologist who worked at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation for 34 years, discovered that Apex knew that bald eagles had been nesting on Galloo Island but didn’t disclose that information in a timely manner to state regulators.

Nor are the concerns only about wildlife. In May, in Indiana, Tippecanoe County commissioners voted 3-0 for a zoning ordinance that prohibits wind turbines taller than 140 feet. According to the local newspaper, the commissioners decided the “county couldn’t afford to hamstring other kinds of development with long-term leases tying up tens of thousands of acres.”

Perhaps the most remarkable example of the opposition to wind energy can be seen in Germany, a country that has long been touted by renewable-energy advocates as a model to be copied. Last year, climate activist Bill McKibben declared that “Germany has shown the path forward.”

But last month, the German newspaper Die Welt, reported that new wind installations in Germany during the first six months of 2019 “collapsed” falling to the lowest level since 2000, the year the country introduced the Renewable Energy Act. Just 231 megawatts of new wind capacity were installed during the first half of the year, which according to the German Wind Energy Association, “corresponds to a decline of 82 percent” when compared to the same period in 2018.

Die Welt reports that the main cause of the slowdown is “the legal resistance of wildlife and forest conservationists fighting new wind farms.” More than 70 percent of the legal objections are based “on species conservation, especially the threat to endangered bird and bat species.” In addition, some 17 percent of the legal objections to new wind projects are due to concerns about the noise generated by the turbines. In all, some 11,000 megawatts of new wind energy capacity in Germany is being held up due to fights over permits.

The punchline here is obvious: if Germany is, in fact, showing the way forward on renewable energy, the US wind industry should be ready for headwinds.

Source: Stop These Things

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Saturday, September 7, 2019

In 2020, Democrats Want to Destroy the World by Kill All Coal, Oil and Gas Job

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel warned on Saturday that 2020 Democratic candidates' climate proposals could cause the loss of millions of jobs.

"When you talk about banning fracking. When you talk about a carbon-free economy by 2030 or 2050, you are saying 'we are going to kill every coal job in the country, every oil and gas job, all of the shipping jobs that they do -- we're talking about millions of positions," Strassel said during the "The Journal Editorial Report."

"That is not a vote-getter out at the polls," she said. Strassel speculated that progressives, upset with the Democratic establishment after the 2016 election, were flexing their muscles with their highly ambitious proposals and sought to have one of their candidates get the party's nomination in 2020.

"The problem here ... is that this was one of the reasons they did lose last time," she said. "Remember, [former Democratic presidential nominee] Hillary Clinton still says one of the bigger mistakes she made was promising to put a lot of coal workers out of a job."

Strassel's comments came days after a CNN town hall in which Democratic presidential hopefuls offered their visions for addressing climate change. As Strassel noted, Democrats have pushed a variety of plans, including banning fracking and dramatically decarbonizing the economy.

Many of those candidates have endorsed the "Green New Deal," which included a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have portrayed climate change as an existential threat while touting the economic benefits of additional regulation. While it's difficult to forecast the impacts of these proposals, conservative groups have estimated they would inflict a heavy economic toll.

Sanders has proposed perhaps the most aggressive plan of the 2020 candidates -- indicating that he would nationalize most, if not all, of U.S. energy production. Apparently anticipating arguments like Strassel's, Sanders included a pledge to end unemployment by creating "20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis."

"These jobs will be good paying, union jobs with strong benefits and safety standards in steel and auto manufacturing, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting, coding and server farms, and renewable power plants," his plan claimed.

President Trump, who pulled out of the Climate Paris Agreement, has long cited the economic costs of additional environmental regulations. Before the CNN event, Trump accused Democrats of raising energy prices and hurting the poor with their big proposals.

Source: Sam Dorman is a Fox News reporter

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Trump Was Right When He Tweeted About Climate Change

President Trump tweeted about the climate and environment on Wednesday, but was he right?

In the first part of the Twitter thread, the president said: “Which country has the largest carbon emission reduction? AMERICA!”

The United States did indeed have the largest drop in total emissions from 2005, its peak year, through 2017. Total emissions of carbon dioxide fell 862.5 million tons, according to the Global Carbon Project. That period included the Great Recession, which helped drive down emissions.

Analysts say the U.S. drop in emissions was due largely to conversions from coal plants to natural gas-fired electric plants. But the pace of those conversions is slowing.

In 2018, U.S. emissions bounced back up 3.4 percent, according to a study by the independent Rhodium Group.

In addition, as a percentage of total emissions, arguably a more relevant metric, the U.S. performance has been outdone by many countries, according to data on national emissions from the Global Carbon Project. From 2005 through 2017, U.S. emissions fell 14 percent. But over the same period, Britain’s plunged 33 percent. Italy’s tumbled 28 percent. France’s fell 18 percent.

Trump was even more flatly wrong in some other things he said.

Second, he tweeted: “Who has dumped the most carbon into the air? CHINA!”

China has overtaken the United States as the biggest annual emitter, but China still has a long way to go before it catches up with all the emissions the United States has dumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era. From 1959, China emitted 196.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the Global Carbon Project. The United States, by comparison, has emitted 286.2 billion tons.

Third, he tweeted: “Who’s got the world’s cleanest and safest air and water? AMERICA!” And later, he said: “I want crystal clean water and the cleanest and the purest air on the planet — we’ve now got that!”

The Post Fact Checker has taken this on before:

Trump withdrew the United States from participation in the Paris accord to combat climate change, and he falsely asserted that the United States had the world’s “cleanest air” and “cleanest climate” and even the “cleanest water.”

The United States actually ranks 27th in the world, according to the authoritative Environmental Performance Index, a project of Yale and Columbia universities. It ranks 10th for air quality — but 88th on exposure to particulate matter, an indication of the health effects from pollution — and 29th for water and sanitation. The United States is tied for first place — with nine other countries — for the quality of drinking water.

As for whether things have improved under Trump, that’s hard to track in the available data — in fact, the number of unhealthy days in the United States went up from 2016 to 2017, according to government data — but he has taken a number of actions that could reverse or slow the gains made in air and water quality since 1990.

Fourth, Trump tweeted: “The Democrats’ destructive ‘environmental’ proposals will raise your energy bill and prices at the pump. Don’t the Democrats care about fighting American poverty?”

This is complicated. Democrats have different proposals. And different policies have different impacts. The plan unveiled by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) includes no carbon taxes, precisely to sidestep the type of assertion Trump made today. No one is pushing for higher gasoline prices — even though they would make for effective climate policy and bring down oil use.

Ironically, the Energy Department on Wednesday issued two rules — one final and one proposed — that will prolong the sales of a range of incandescent lightbulbs that were supposed to be phased out on Jan. 1, 2020. Consumers were expected to buy more energy-efficient LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. Those might be more expensive at the outset, but the more efficient bulbs save much more than that in electricity costs.

Next, Trump tweeted: “The badly flawed Paris Climate Agreement protects the polluters, hurts Americans, and cost a fortune. NOT ON MY WATCH!”

It’s not too clear what polluters he has in mind. The president has attempted to protect Appalachian coal mining companies by rolling back a variety of regulations for protecting streams and wetlands. He has also responded to small to medium independent oil and gas companies by seeking to lift limits on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Many of the companies and the American Petroleum Institute want voluntary measures so firms do not have to spend money to control leaks at the wellhead or along pipelines.

Source: Steven Mufson and Chris Mooney - Washington Post

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal

Monday, September 2, 2019

Interesting Facts and Opinions About the War in Iraq

The world was expecting news from the US for quite a while, but when the official declaration of war came out the reaction didn’t seem that expected. On March 19th, 2003 the first US troops entered the territory of Iraq with definite task: to occupy the territory of dictatorship of Saddam and destroy his regime. The announcement caused many emotions like anger, frustration, fear, disdain, happiness, excitement, agreement. A great variety of motivating emotions showed up and flooded the society. Countries also differed in reaction on the statement, some supported, some declined as unacceptable and some remained neutral, though it may seem that it is impossible in such kind of circumstances. Though the intentions of the US were clear, there were a lot of accusations in personal gain campaign and disregard for the opinion of the world. The real question is: was the war a mistake or a right move towards freedom and development.

To evaluate the situation objectively we have to put aside all the principles we were brought on. We are a nation that longed for liberty since it was born out of blood of our ancestors and inheritance of the Natives. Let’s look at the picture as neutral people that are not involved in the campaign. The war in Iraq showed of what society is afraid most of all.

The same day people flooded the streets with protests against poverty, inflation, nuclear attack, disorder in the country etc. This was the war, highlighted in every news sequence in the world, but the fact is that no one can be 100% sure that the information we receive is exact and trustworthy, even with all this freedom and possibilities given. Us army with battalions from other countries exterminated the regime of Saddam and the nightmare for Iraqi people is over. The number of victims that were tortured, killed, assassinated or destroyed in another way is close to a hundred thousands.

And now when the action is over we are to ask: was a campaign successful or was it a tremendous mistake? Analyzing information provided by pentagon, the costs of the two wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan amounts to $518bln dollars. That is enough to fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for more than 13 years and provide every child in the world with basic immunization for more than a century. "War is an expensive proposition. Whether you're for the war or against the war, that's a fact," said Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan organisation that advocates balanced federal budgets. He is absolutely right in his statement.

One more important thing is to see if Iraqi people realize what a radical change they have in their history. The aim of the US is reached, for troops came not to take lives, to conquer land, to own oil, but to bring piece and safety into the homes of Iraqi people. After the hardships of the war are forgotten, Iraqi people will either hate the US for the rest of their day or bless the day when they stepped onto their land.

Advertisement

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Bukit Asam
  5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  6. Harum Energy
  7. Mitrabara Adiperdana 
  8. Samindo Resources
  9. United Tractors
  10. Berau Coal