“[A]cross the United States, rural communities have become a flashpoint for siting for wind and solar energy projects…. [T]he cumulative impact … could matter to efforts to reach climate goals. And the Apex experience in Vermillion County [Indiana] proves just how challenging it can be.” (E&E News, May 18, 2022)

Has the tide turned against the hideous government-enabled superstructures politely called industrial wind turbines? Robert Bryce has been following community rejections of such projects since at least 2016 and 2017. His tally today has reached 330 wind and industrial solar projects (databank list here). The number is rising, and with growing electricity issues, hard questions are being asked of intermittent, predatory renewables.

The mainstream media portrays renewables siting as an isolated issue. But the intrepid Bryce is breaking through the narrative of a inevitable ‘renewables future’ and ‘reset’ from mineral energies.…

“The problem is in details such as costs, energy density and, as always, reliability. But nobody in Brussels and national capitals seems to care about petty details. The political EU is firmly in “Whatever it takes” mode and we’re all footing the bill.”

Irina Slav is a voice speaking truth to power. Her posts and opinion pieces at OilPrice.com deserve reading and study.

One of her recent posts called out the perilous double-down-on-failure approach of the EU (and UK) on energy policy. It says much about the sorry state of energy thinking that environmentalists greenwash and complain about energy companies greenwashing. Climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists treat good news as bad in their religious compunction to rail against modern living and prosperity.

Her article follows.

The feeling of being right about something should be a pleasant one.…

“The biggest risk to progress in responsible investment right now is greenwashing. It’s a bigger danger than skepticism, it’s a bigger danger than denialism. Greenwashing is so dangerous because it destroys trust.” (- Dan Mikulskis, below)

Declaring war on the most abundant, reliable, convenient energies has predictably brought forth gaming and hyperbole in the quest of corporations to be “woke,” yet serve consumers and stockholders.

Enter “greenwashing” by business firms, which Paul Watchman defined as including carbon offsets, carbon capture, distant promises, and fickle support for Net Zero and like programs.

The climate alarmists and forced energy transformationists are alarmed. The world is going the other way as evidenced by a global boom in oil, natural gas/LNG, and coal.

The ‘this might hurt a bit’ verdict from Dan Mikulskis follows:

Ok this might hurt a bit.…

I could not help but notice that Ms. Dennett is well appointed. I wonder what she would look like without oil-based products like clothing, even makeup? What would her house look like without oil and gas-based products? What would the pharmacy down the street be like?

Here is the news: a contractor in a very public way ends her relationship with an oil and gas company to help save the world.

The good news? She did not glue herself to the Shell Building in protest. She is not on a hunger strike, or worse.

The bad news? She thinks all oil and gas activity should cease for human betterment. She sees herself as some sort of a heroine, which is in itself greenwashing if she travels and lives a nice lifestyle.…