COP28: Could have been done on Zoom? Why this all looks a farce to the rest of the world.

Rather than fly to Dubai's COP28, should King Charles have led by example

and sent a video message over Zoom to show the way forward, instead?

An interesting fact - The total CO2 amount in the world's atmospheric gases =

CO2 = 1/2 of 1% of the total 100% of all gases.

Nitrogen is 95% of all gases.
 

Another year, another meaningless 'COP Summit' ? - this time we learn that there will be some 400,000 attendees to the Dubai COP28 conference, you can't help feeling that there is some element of hypocritical repetition here. Or another 'you couldn't make it up' story.

400,000 people intent on 'saving the Planet' are jetting from across the world to warm and sunny Dubai, perhaps there is clue in that. It is warm and sunny?

One thing we did benefit from during Covid was that so many of us were able to work from home. So that was one good thing to come out of it.

Zoom became the vital work tool of the day, often saving many people the worthless drudge of commuting to an office every day and allowing them to work from home. Hurrah! And from having to mix with stupid idiots you normally would otherwise avoid. But I digress...

COP28's spectacular own goal has been to treat the rest of the world not attending this earnest jamboree as fools. 

They have not seen that had this conference and all it's virtue signalling could have been conducted on Zoom. The likely only outcome of COP28 is to achieve a COP29 in 2024. Nearly 30 COP meetings later we are still alive and the doom and gloom about a dead planet hasn't happened yet.

The world is an oil based economy, Oil isn't going away anytime soon, nor are fossil fuels. The 'beloved' and failing EV market will need Oil to make tyres for these vehicles, which wear out tyres at a far higher rate than Petrol or Diesel vehicles. 80% of a Tyre is made from Oil. The paint and plastics on an EV are made from Oil. Go figure. Do the math - We need Oil.

Tarmac for roads includes Oil. EV's due to their weight cause more damage to roads.

If the West stops using Petrol or Diesel, Russia and China as examples likely won't be so squeamish. We can produce synthetic Petrol and Diesel fuels from renewable elements. We do not need to abandon the internal combustion engines, which are the cleanest ever now and will only improve.

We make clean air zones in cities, yet base an airport on the city periphery which blows pollution right back across these 'clean air zones' - we are not stupid. 

We can see the stupidity of charging motorists to drive and allowing unabated, free pollution by aircraft to be dumped back on those cities into those clean air zones.

The difference between Natural Gas and Hydrogen is barely a few elements, yet there is this a fanatical zeal to get rid of Natural Gas usage only because it is a 'fossil fuel.' This is frankly ridiculous when there is no viable ad cheaply priced technology in place, to take its place.

Whilst King Charles often pours forth his views on the climate and his concerns are valid to a point, he could have stolen a march on the whole COP28 shebang by giving a Zoom message to the COP28 delegates from the UK, rather than jet off to Dubai.

Perhaps this might have made the other delegates think. Maybe not. 

However, with all manner of celebrities and old has-been politicians bobbing up at COP28, it looks just to be another nice little 'jolly' - the lure of warm winter sunshine and the opportunities for networking, glad-handing and hobnobbing, or any other form of nobbing one wishes to indulge in, must out way any concerns for the climate then?

Be warned, the public are not fooled by all this vacuous grandstanding and dire warnings of climate doom being spewed out at COP28 and every COP before and likely in the future. 

Where is Greta Thunberg when you need here? I suppose it's early days yet and she has a week or so to pop up uninvited and foist her views on this jolly shindig.

Great White Sharks off the British Coast around Cornwall - not Climate Change but warm water currents. Here is why...

Great White Sharks Migrate - 

that means they pass the UK Coast as a natural process

Blaming Climate Change for the possibility of seeing Great White Sharks off the UK Coast around Cornwall is both lazy and incorrect.

The actuality is that these apex predator Sharks migrate from North America, down towards the African Cape around to Australia. 

They follow the Gulf Stream, the warm water currents that are created by the tectonic Earth plates releasing warmth from the hot mantle of the Earth into the sea.

These warmth outlets change position as some are closed and others open. This is natural, this has nothing to do with the climate. 

As such the warm water 'paths' that this process creates, change over time, this also influences our weather patterns too. It can indeed change the weather bring meteorological changes over lands where this previously was not a problem or occurrence.

There is evidence that these plates have now created new warmth tracks across the ocean lower down and this means that Great Whites are now found in the mediterranean ocean in more recent times. 

This is a change from the established paths from Florida round the African Cape towards the direction of Australia.

The other effect is that this change of passage means that these Sharks will pass closer to the UK mainland than before and as with the Mako Shark, close to the UK Coast as Mako have been caught in UK waters recently.

It is therefore likely that these super Sharks will soon be positively identified and encountered in our waters closer to land than before. Thanks to nature.

 

Climate Change Net Zero Scam - How we are being taken for a ride.

The Climate Change Net Zero Scam - How we are being taken for a ride.

Citizens are being taken for fools over 'Climate Change' -

The biggest scam since the South Sea Bubble?

This short pin-point article should show you why the Climate Change excuse is being used to control people and the hypocrisy of the 'Green' policies threatening our future prosperity and freedom of movement:

The heritage vehicle movement creates £18 Billion for the UK treasury a year, taking away road fuels will kill that. That £18 billion was our Defence budget about 10 years ago. 

(We will lose not only historic vehicles which will be worthless museum pieces without access to fuels, but skills and jobs across a wide range of outlets.)

New Electric vehicle take-up and sales are not rising as hoped.

(Second hand electric vehicles are being dumped onto the used car market because people are seeing the pitfalls, mostly the charging cost, accessibility and lack of working chargers or the right type for their cars.

Electric vehicle ownership is now 1,000,000 as opposed to 34,000,000 Petrol and Diesel vehicles. With the 2030 'Ban' approaching in just over 6 years, the take-up is pitiful and by 2030 I doubt will be at 10%. 

This folly of pursuing these vehicles for general use is obvious, they do have a place in urban areas for short journeys but otherwise they are a failure.)

Untaxed Airlines taking off, blow out pollutant emissions back over 'Clean air zones' such as happens in London, Bristol, Birmingham where ULEZ zones are enforced - somewhat an own goal. 

(Each aircraft movement creates the same CO2 output as a family car driven 75,000 miles - equating to about 10 years of average driving of that car in just that one takeoff. 

Multiply that by the aircraft takeoff events happening at 90 second intervals for most of the day and that means around 30 events per hour across at least 12 hours a day for each airport meaning around 400 flights per day on a busy day.)  

Burning wet biomass culled from North American mature forests, then shipping the wood debris across the Atlantic in ships travelling 10 feet per Gallon of oil consumed and burning this wet wood, creates massive amounts of CO2 making one such 'Power Station' that burns Biomass the biggest sole CO2 polluter in the UK.

(Powdered Coal burned in Power Stations is more efficient and less net CO2 producing than wet biomass - We were told NOT to burn wet wood some years ago in woodburning stoves - which anyone with one of these, knows not to do. 

We have 300 years supply of high grade coal in Wales that is cleaner and greener than the Biomass alternative.

Culling mature trees in the USA means that there is a 30 year wait for replanted growth to equate in CO2 consumption what has been cut down. Sheer stupidity to think this is ecologically sound)

The world is an oil based economy and has been for over 100 years.

(Even electric vehicles use tyres made from 80% oil and the paint that Just stop oil vandals throw around is likely made from Oil, as are their banners. 

Oil has to be refined, as part of that process we get Natural Gas, Petrol Diesel, lubrication Oils and Grease and other products from this operation. Fuels are volatile and are hazardous to store and burning them is a way to use them.)

Electric vehicles are the future.

(In the 1900's America had a flourishing Electric Vehicle presence, it died a death because of the obvious limitations that exist today and because now as then, liquid fuels are more convenient and efficient.)

The reality is that if the developed countries shy away from Oil, other nations will not and continue to use it. Oil is not going to go away.

It is likely that the finite minerals needed for batteries will be gone before direct one for one replacement of today's vehicles will be achieved.

(Synthetic fuels have been made since the 1940's, only the prevalence of naturally occurring Oil and the fact it is cheap to exploit  have meant that synthetic, Green and Net Zero fuels which are possible and being made now have only just now become alternatives. 

We should be in no rush to dump or stop manufacturing internal combustion vehicles which CAN operate on synthetic fuels.)

Tyre debris causes ill health.

(The worst offenders are electric vehicles that wear tyres out far quicker, around every 2 years and these tyres are 80% Oil, the Tarmac used on our roads is also from Oil.)

Free energy has been available to the world since 1954.

(See Stephen Greer's work on this subject. We have the technology gained around 1954 to have moved away from Oil to free and clean energy. The USA which relies heavily on Oil would have lost its world advantage and considerable wealth by pursuing this path. Do the math as they say.)

Policies such as Net Zero and the cessation of production of Internal Combustion Engines has been engineered as part of a Transport Apartheid project to control personal transport and restrict movement. It will not stop nations including China, India or Russia from burning fossil fuels.

Adopting dates grabbed out of thin air of 2050, then 2036 and now 2030 as dates to 'ban' I.C.E engined vehicles are sheer folly. 

These 'statements' are being made without a credible solution either in place, without a realistic alternative being in place and often made by headline grabbing politicians and those with often very little technical idea of the problems to overcome or the practicalities.

Many scientists and leading industrialists have pointed out this obvious error.

Almost as big an error was the failure to unify the charging plug size and pin layout on electric vehicles and chargers before going down this 'green road'.

The bottom line is that the Sun creates our climate and China has a large industry controlling the weather though electronic and airborne chemical means. 

Such artificial 'influencing' of the climate means that any fluctuations or spikes in the weather can be 'conveniently' blamed on climate change when this is patently not the case.

Climate Change is the biggest scam since the South Sea Bubble fiasco in the 1700's.

It cannot explain why in the days when Jesus was around that Grapes could be grown in Britain, as they could also in the Tudor times, yet conversely how in the 1800's the climate was so cold that the River Thames was frozen solid for months in Winter.

More than 10,000 years ago there were no glaciers and Greenland was fertile green land not an icy enclave. We had an Ice Age. It is a phase. 

Sea levels are controlled by gravitational forces from the Moon which is moving away from the Earth by 12 inches a year. Less gravity force = less pressure on the water = water rising over time. Simple physics not 'Climate change'.

We are all being scared over this climate 'situation' and it is being exploited to control us. It all looks like a huge scam.

Germany to outflank EU 2030 petrol and Diesel vehicle Ban - as I have been saying for ages! Wake up Britain!!

 

We are still in love with Petrol and Diesel Vehicles  -

well maybe not the Allegro....

It has now come to pass that the Germans have seen the light well and truly over the scam that wants us to not buy Petrol and Diesel vehicles after 2030 only Electric Vehicles.

Hats off to Porsche, for having developed a 100% Green and 100% Net Zero synthetic Petrol substitute that can be used in modern and old vehicles, the future of older cars and new ones looks much healthier. The Classic Vehicle sector in the UK is worth £18 Billion a year

Germany wants to exempt vehicles that can use 'alternative' fuels to fossil fuels - i.e. synthetic Petrol and Bio / Organic Diesel fuels from the 2030 vehicle sales ban. 

With Mazda recently bringing a new diesel car to market, they obviously realise too that the electric vehicle folly is going to run out of juice.

Wake up Britain! For too long politicians have been going on about 'sustainable air travel' using 'cleaner, synthetic fuels' but not a single word about synthetic fuels for road vehicles. Why??

Yesterday, I drove 20 miles  to work and I counted every vehicle on the road - over 200 and the ratio of Electric Vehicles (all cars) was 1 electric vehicle to 62 Petrol or Diesel vehicles. 

If that is the ratio reflected across the nation, then it is going to be decades before the EV has taken over and that is at this rate that looks unrealistic. Thankfully.

Italy has also rebelled against the EU as it now realises how many jobs will be lost to the electric vehicle folly, talk of Green jobs being created in the wake of the electric vehicle is unproven.

E10 Petrol said to be the equivalent of taking over 300,000 vehicles off the road is rubbish. Take out the illegally re-wilded wild Boar put back into nature that release captured CO2 equivalent to 1 million cars a year and you are making a more positive move and solving a food problem at the same stroke for some years.

E10 fuel is far less efficient with a car losing over 100 miles of range off a tankful compared to E5  fuel.

As we have seen recently, when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn't out as in Winter, the old Coal power stations are brought back on line, better to burn powdered coal than wet biomass which kicks out far more CO2 only tolerated because it is 'renewable' - so is coal , if you plant trees and wait 350 million years for it to convert. Coal was a tree once. We are told not to burn wet wood in stoves, yet it seems ok in Bio Mass plants. That is a wet wood transported by sea at a cost of ten feet to a gallon of Marine oil burnt. Not very green.

Time for Britain to wake up from its usual complacency and start synthetic fuel production soon. It's about time we had people running this country who actually had some professional skill in knowing what they are doing rather than hapless 'seat hopping' amateurs.

Is COP26 a Cop out? - Why not do this meeting by Zoom conferencing? Here's how we can actually fix the Climate...

 

COP26 - Good Cop or Cop out?

We already have the tools to fix the problem...

The bottom line is that unless China actively takes measures to reduce emissions now then the COP26 is just going to be a talking shop and we might as well not bother.

Are we facing an artificially created 'Climate Crisis'? Can we fix it? Yes we can...

The solution is that humans abandon their individualistic, nationalistic policies and start to work together as a collective species, putting aside religious beliefs and politics and strive for a common good. That's the theory. It could be achievable if the will was there.

But, here's what needs fixing...

Weather has been able to be manipulated for decades by humans which is a fact. 'Cloud seeding' to create rain in Deserts is nothing new. 

Satellites can be used to start fires at ground level by use of lasers, as has happened in California - where fire investigations show houses burned but not the forest around in many cases. Satellites can possibly manipulate the weather too from above.

HAARP Weather control, in use for decades can also influence weather, so can keeping weather patterns localised and ramped up, to create localised hot, cold or wet conditions, thus 'creating' a climate problem. As in Greece recently.

The 'climate change solutions' on offer being promoted in the media to fix that but, someone is making a profit from that or have you not worked that out? Is it a simple case of 'create a problem, show you have a solution and divert attention from what is really going on behind the scenes'?

When the wind turbines don't work and its too dark or cloudy of Solar, Diesel generation is used to supply power as an adjunct to Nuclear. Did you know that?

The gulf stream affects weather - the holes in the earth plates allow heat from the earth's core to escape and heat the ocean able, causing bands of warmer water, this makes the weather change and move as the plates of the Earth close over and new places emerge allowing the warmth to escape. This is natural climate change.

The Earth is subject to the Sun. In AD0001, the Romans were able to grow grapes in Britain, it was warmer then than now and didn't have the fossil fuel burning we do with a 60+ million population. In the 1500's Grapes could be grown at Hampton Court Palace. It was again, warmer than now. The ice caps are artificial, as the fossil data will show you when the ground is uncovered. 

Boris Johnson, the great history buff allegedly likened climate change to the fall of the Roman Empire. The empire fell through internecine warfare and a collapse in society not because of a few degrees of warming. Quite the opposite, when the cold came to Britain, the Romans left.

Clean and free energy has been available to humans since 1954

Yes we have had access to this since 1954 ask Dr Stephen Greer. We are kept into being an oil based commercial economy and to give away 'free' energy means you can't tax it or make money selling it. 

But we would all benefit from this clean, free energy which exists and is being suppressed for the above reasons. Greed.

COVID19 and travel - the Zoom phenomenon

Covid19 has been a welcome game changer in some ways, we can now work from home in some cases blowing that myth out of the water that this was not possible (prior to Covid 19), which saves us travel costs, travel emissions, not having to associate with people we would rather not and being work better and more productively. We don't waste time travelling either. Or pollute.

So why not conduct COP26 by Zoom? 

A big question and I am not really buying 'the need for face to face contact' argument, surely one to one appointments can be sought delegate to delegate by Zoom? 

Or is that too simple? Lead by example, not dictate and do the opposite.

EV's - Battery Electric vehicles - are they a big swindle?

You might feel 'pious in your Prius' as you drive, but the real costs of Green motoring are literally costing the Earth's finite resources.

A Battery powered vehicle costs half as much again as a petrol or diesel vehicle to buy. With the right spares backup, the liquid fuelled vehicle could last 40 years. The battery one 7 years, before its battery needs replacing and the car is likely scrap as the battery cannot be replaced in the car without pulling the structure apart. So, you balance the damage done by making 6 battery cars to equal the life of 1 fuelled car. Do the math. 'Green' doesn't add up here.

But, the charging of the electric cars is the next issue, besides the lack of points that are available or work, is the cost of charging. Some tariffs can cost you the same to charge your battery giving you 200 miles of range if you are lucky, as a tank of petrol or diesel taking you 400 miles. 

The real cost of charging, once there is a sizeable volume of electric road vehicles will hit hard because there is nothing stopping the battery chargers being changed to charge your wallet more to charge your battery. You will not be in control of the charging prices for what electricity you receive. Vehicle excise duty lost to your 'Green' car will be recouped by road pricing and through the charger. You will likely not have any option than to pay up or peter out.

China now holds control over much of the manufacturing and mineral resources concerned with motor vehicle battery production. What is to stop them raising the price a they see fit to whatever level they choose once the fossil fuelled cars are not on sale? Bet they didn't think that one through.

We could switch to synthetic petrol and diesel fuels which ARE carbon neutral. The folly of going down the battery vehicle route will soon become apparent. It grabs headlines and in time hit you in your wallet like an electric version of Dick Turpin. Highway Robbery for the 22nd century.

We can make synthetic fuels from Algae, we cannot make new Cobalt, Lithium or other rare earth metals and elements used in electric car batteries. If we can't recycle these car batteries we will have created yet another fiasco like the Fridge Henge. Why cannot people see through these simple things?

Liquid fuelled motor vehicles using petrol or diesel are the cleanest they have ever been and will get cleaner almost producing no emissions. This is the future. Battery may work in cities, it is not the answer for our needs.

The UK issue of emissions

The UK produces less than 1% of global emissions, China 25%. The place to reduce emissions is obvious. Recently a coal mine project in Britain was halted, it was to produce Coke for Steel making - British steel used by Volkswagen for instance, due to its quality, is well regarded. The mine isn't going ahead I believe, thanks to 'Green' pressure here.

So that means the jobs and the production will go to China which opens 1 coal fired power station a week and uses Coal in their Steel production. An industry which overproduces and 'dumps' cheap steel on the market.

Our British furnace might have been partly powered by renewables or nuclear which would be less damaging to heat up. Go figure. The UK Coal use would be minimal compared to China.

The UK has reduced CO2 output by over 40% it is now time others did the same before the UK is forced down  by using hobbling measures whilst other major nations pollute and do little or nothing. The UK is just looking stupid by trying to set some mythical example it has no real hope of achieving because of costs for one reason.

Burning Wet wood is banned on domestic Wood burning stoves. Yet, a power station can burn wood chips which are wet and this is 'Green' despite as a result producing enormous amounts of CO2 - likely more than efficiently burnt coal would produce. 

Plus these wood chips are from American forests being felled to feed this situation. Add in the shipping from the USA and the Green dividend looks questionable. Who thought this was a great idea? Dunces cap awaits... You could not make this up.

British manufacturing 

Covid has ramped up transport costs especially from China and this means that Britain is now viable in some situations as a manufacturing base again. But we are hobbling ourselves by introducing stringent carbon neutral and net Zero carbon policies foisted on us by eco zealots whilst China still creates large global emissions unchecked. 

Promises from China of mending their ways need to be put in place now not some arbitrary future date.

We cannot have 'real carbon neutrality' - we all breathe out CO2 for a start. Go figure. 

We live in a commercial world, we consume, we have done since the time of the Atlanteans.

At the time of the Dinosaurs the climate was far warmer than today so that the large dinosaurs could exist and the proportion of CO2 the atmosphere contained was far greater than today - the fossil record of plants shows that too. 

In year zero a millennium ago Grapes were grown in Britain as they were in the 1500's - if it was that warm then, it was warmer than the '1.5 degrees catastrophe' that people say will cause problems. Its called science. The sun dictates how warm this planet is. 

Heathrow airport expansion

Do we need this? Of the Heathrow airport expansion - 'Good for business' Mrs May said - but not good for the environment. Covid has knocked a lot of air travel on the head. Most of it was a luxury and not necessary. Our environment has benefitted from less air travel. We can keep that dividend.

E10 Ethanol Petrol - Dump this 'not Green' fuel for Synthetic fuels - these are not the future.

A big con - E10 Petrol is not green at all. 

E10 is less volatile than the old unleaded petrol meaning you need to use more fuel to gain the same performance how can this be 'Green'? The Ethanol in E10 combines with water to damage fuel system parts in some engines. It is worse performing for your engine than E5 by a long while. we proved that in an old car from 1930.

The Ethanol in the E5 and E10 is derived from Sugar Beet cultivation, which makes its own CO2 problems and denying sugar  and food growing land to local populations, potentially creating local food poverty problems too. 

Factor in clearing CO2 absorbing trees for growing this Beet and it just looks like more lunacy on a plate. It will be like Palm Oil all over again, clearing fertile ground, often forested areas to make a product that is not needed.

Creating a big carbon footprint of making the Ethanol and delivering it too is lunacy.

Untreated (with enhancing additives) E10 fuel older than 30 days will need to be disposed of as its usable volatility diminishes, so do councils have the facilities at their waste management plants to collect and store this hazardous fuel in great quantities? Treated with additives, E10 fuel can last 3 years plus and remain usable.

Millions of litres of untreated fuel as a consequence, are likely to be ending up being wasted each year from surplus unused fuel purchased for use in garden machinery alone. A percentage of all the Fuel having to be delivered to petrol stations may have to as a consequence, be 'dumped'. This is hardly green. This is stupidity on a grand scale.

Wild Boar introduced illegally as 're-wilding' measures in the 1980s create the same amount of CO2 that 1 million cars do, as their foraging releases CO2 stored in the earth. 

Rather than the 350,000 cars worth of emissions reduction the RAC claims E10 fuel introduction will make (a figure which I am personally not buying), why not get rid of the Wild Boars, a much bigger problem? Do the math, 350,000 against 1,000,000. And the E10 fuel that will need disposal. 

We are no longer in the EU, let us dump E10 and go back to E5 a better fuel that causes less problems and is more Green and more efficient. A compromise but worth it. On this note, petrol and diesel engines burn more cleanly than ever. They can only improve but not by E10 and Adblue which drastically reduces Diesel vehicle economy.

China and production

China has become the big manufacturing base of the world, it has become a commercial consumer society itself and raised the standard of living of their citizens in recent decades. 

But it also makes a lot of crap we consume and don't need to consume, because our markets create artificial demand for this stuff as part of our 'consumer society'.

We can do without the single use plastic stuff produced for 'Secret Santa' and 'Halloween' events, which are just commercial opportunities. This is the stuff that gets sent to landfill sometimes unused. Why the hell are we doing this? 

Developing countries

Countries that are not currently at 'western' levels of development - should these be encouraged not to develop and given aid not to advance? Can the world's resources cater for their new needs and materials demands if they advance? Do they need to develop?

Since 1970 our world population has almost doubled. That's part of the problem.

As a planet run along commercial lines, unless we find ways of doing that in a better way, we will not make any progress towards the ideals that this sort of conference aims to employ.

We will also run out of resources. Like the elements needed for batteries, whilst Algae we can use to make synthetic fuels is infinite. Go figure.

Are Electric cars and Carbon Neutrality a big con - and is climate change just another political bandwagon to hitch a ride on?

Are we being conned over electricity and the Green agenda?

We have had access to free energy since 1954 but we are denied it. Why?

Electric cars are being toted as clean and green and the future. Far from it. 1 in 5 Californian electric car owners are trading their electric cars back in for gasoline cars - because the range isn't there, nor is the quickness of charging time or availability of charging points.

Motor manufacturers are currently engaged in an apparent race to the bottom by not planning or introducing new models of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles as governments career headlong into a potential fool's paradise of no having no new ICE vehicles sold as of 2030. The future is not electric cars. It is not battery cars. It is bio fuelled cars.

In California, they are apparently falling out of love with Electric Cars!

Modern vehicles are infinitely more efficient and cleaner and they have ever been, the future for transport is bio fuels not the direction being navigated down the battery route. Battery power units are not at a development stage that means we are going to get a really good range or power output then there is the question of the battery charging rate that will differ between batteries and of course the costs to charge a battery. We likely don't have the source power to charge the batteries required.

Battery cars are driving the wrong end of the problem - they drive the wheels directly, losing 25% efficiency there due to frictional forces, plus the load on the battery. Why not use the battery to drive a brushless generator and create through rectification more power than you put in, thus your battery car would go further and quicker for long operations such as motorway driving, perhaps a 70mph motorway cruise range of 400 miles could be achievable this way, not the environmentally heavy demanding theoretical ranges now in place.

As I predicted, this battery technology is quite new and what happens if like computers, one system quickly supersedes another? You are going to have Apple envy and a divisive battery car snobbery, with entry level vehicles looked down on, rather than a level playing field battery system.

What happens to old batteries? Can they be recycled, what happens to the rest of the vehicle which less the battery is about valueless except for scrap? Because the battery is built in to the structure in current vehicles and is not easy to remove.  

Slowly, some proponents of the carbon neutral folly are removing their green tinted spectacles and starting to see that China effectively now controls the majority of materials needed for battery cars and renewable energy. 

A lot of these resources are situated where China has invested in their extraction and controls the materials holdings in the regions. If China holds considerable access rights to these materials, it can dictate the price to supply and even if it wants to supply other nations. 

The risk is that when 2030 hits and people cannot buy ICE cars perhaps because of battery cost just for example leave alone the availability factor, what then? Some people could be looking mighty stupid as the rest of us say 'we told you so'. 

The risk is that having lost 10 years of development on ICE cars which may be even more cleaner then and possibly using greener by development, and use of bio fuels, we will be doubly disadvantaged. 

The Covid situation has meant more people can work from home and are choosing to do so, thus a 'commuting less workforce' saves the environment by cutting car use painlessly. This will probably achieve as much as this battery vehicle folly might in CO2 reduction alone.  

In 2030 when we are standing around wanting batteries or materials, we are going to look like a load of fools when these are either not available or priced at a premium rate many will not be able to afford. This is akin to the largest schoolboy error in the history of our species occurring, within plain sight. A real slow motion car crash if ever there was one. 

So then in addition, how does using child labour in some countries to extract Cobalt and other rare earth minerals sit with the typically left-leaning, climate change wokesters bent on sending us down the electric and renewables route? 

These are the sort of people who spout on media platforms on black lives and slavery issues, yet seem strangely less vocal when effectively both of these issues these days can involve their pet causes, such as obtaining materials for their beloved electric cars in some cases? Strange that.

Face the facts - in the United Kingdom alone, 33 million vehicles will need replacing with electric ones, plus the charging point infrastructure and the generated power required to fuel these items to be in place in less than 9 years, it is probably not achievable in the timescale nor practical. Nor likely affordable to the average motorist.

Yet some politicians and activists are intent on careering the motoring population down their sanctimonious road to a situation that is probably the wrong road. (We have been encouraged to adopt private transport by governments of all persuasions in the past.) Many people can't afford the alternative to ICE vehicles, the savings of these electric cars are lost in other costs - the worst cost is to the planet. 

Covid 19 has slashed air travel, much of which was a luxury, unnecessary and a colossal waste of resources. A large jet aircraft for instance generates on takeoff the equivalent of one automobile's total CO2 output for 10 years of average driving during that 10 minutes of takeoff activity. Multiply that with every jet leaving Heathrow in a day and you'll see the obvious savings to the planet. by reducing air travel alone.

How are we going to have a net CO2 output with air travel operating at previous levels?  Have these people not thought this through? How can you have a commerce based economy without generating CO2? It is not presently possible. 

With Covid starting to recede in some areas there is a rush to get air travel going again - how does this square with the same politicians clamouring for switching to electric vehicles on environmental grounds trumpeting a return to flying? You could not make it up. The hypocrisy is both obvious and risible. Wanting one pie in the sky ideal and another highly polluting one simultaneously. 

Around Heathrow airport a new low emission zone for road vehicles is in force whilst the same airport is planned for massive air travel expansion dubbed 'good for business'. Road vehicles (who use the is new zone) pay 80% of the cost of their fuel purchase price already as tax, aircraft fuel is devoid of tax I believe? What is the logic here? Pollute massively for no cost, pay to pollute and be charged twice?

Free energy you are asking? Yes. It exists, we have been standing on the basis of it since our species first stood on this planet. It is under our very feet. 'We have the means to take ET home' it has been said, so that means we already have very advanced power systems available to us, far in excess of what we mostly know of today, which we could be using to subvert climate change perhaps with clean energy.

'We have had the potential for 'free energy' since 1954' - we have also been told - but you can't tax free energy or control it unless you control the technology that can utilise it. We could have changed our way of living more than 60 years ago it seems for the better, for cleaner and quicker travel - but it's all about control - control of resources, control of energy, control of political power, revenue, taxes from things we use and lastly control of the population. 

How much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2? a small percentage, less than half of 10%. In the time of the Dinosaurs, CO2 made up a far bigger proportion of the atmosphere than today. This is one reason why trees and vegetation grew so large in those times, not to mention the creatures. Less gravity was a factor too, of course.

Hydrogen as a usable fuel is a pipe dream today, it can be used but it is not feasible at present -  by more efficient use of fuels we have, use of bio and synthetic fuels which will capture CO2 in their growth will help, as will reduction in the human population are the solution. Even the ecologists agree on this last point.

Like racism, climate change has been stoked up into an emotive subject that some see as a means of making a career from, or a bandwagon in some cases to jump onto. 

We live in a commercial world based on trading, manufacturing and commerce - like it or not since the last industrial revolution at least. That world needs resources, fuels and energy at a minimum to operate on. Free energy isn't in that equation today, but it should be.

We do not live in a 'one world society', we do not enjoy a civilisation that is geared to a common set of ideals to maintain the population and its future for one population, living in a harmonious and forward thinking situation. 

We exist in a world divided by factions, religious and political outlooks, one where the forces of nature - dog eat dog et al, operate. We really need to change society, change who we are as people to change the world and that isn't going to happen all the time that there is money to be made from societal division, warfare, where a supply and demand commerce situation exists and is actively helped to exist.Whilst beliefs differ, so will outcomes. You only have to look at the Palestine situation to see the rocky relationship there.

Ask yourself who really gains from Carbon neutrality? Who has their fingers in the Green pie? Sure as eggs is eggs, a lot of the same movers and shakers in commercial business will be taking their fingers out of one pie and sticking it into the eco industry one. As the saying goes, 'where there's muck, there's brass.' This applies here to this subject.Carbon seen as muck, there's money in a solution - the brass. 

The frightening thing is how school children have as a result been scared and mentally damaged by the climate change doom and gloomers, into thinking the world is going to end in 10 years or less. 

How does business work? It is basically making a profit by taking care of someone else's problem and providing a solution for the problem at a cost - Carbon neutrality is that problem being promoted today and there are probably plenty of organisations lining up to take care of it and present their invoices for doing so. 

Sure, they will have skilled public relations messaging and content to soft soap the population into accepting how 'good' this low carbon solution is for our world, but you can be darn sure that there are those looking to make big money from the 'problem' by being part of the 'solution.' That's how business works. Think about it for yourselves and ask yourselves where is the smart money being made today? 'Solving' the climate issue.

At the moment, unless we change to the potential free energy situation and re-evaluate what we are doing and where we are going as a species, we are prisoners of Doctors who seemingly allow infection to continue but also provide medication to help cure it every so often.

The question you should be asking is why not change the world beyond this issue? Can you not see that replacing one mode of transport's motive power is not the end of the problem. There are a set of problems to conquer. Not just one.

The world's outlook needs changing. Who we are, who we want to be in the future, do we need this type of world or society? What is the human future, what should we be doing for mankind's future? The problem is that we are all such different people, that it  is unlikely to work or for people agreeing to a common plan of action.

These are the type of questions that need to be asked. Just messing about like kids in a sandpit pushing toy cars about and pretending yours is electric powered and is going to save the world, is just a diversion from what really needs to change and why. The species has to fundamentally change to make this truly work.

The bottom line with business is making a profit. Until humanity is put on the spot to redefine their future and come up with a workable plan, it is likely to just be business as usual.

 

Heathrow third runway expansion plan exposes the 'Big Green Con' for what it is

Airlines - the pawn in the cocktail that surrounds the Heathrow expansion scheme

So, the big expansion of Heathrow is to go ahead, bringing 180,000 new jobs into this already crowded and expensive area of the South East, one of the most expensive areas to live anywhere, certainly the most expensive in the UK.

Not only that, but large areas of residential accommodation will be lost to make room for this concrete snake. So where will these residents go, in an already house-saturated area?

Aside from the 260,000 extra flights a year this runway will generate, the 747 Jumbo in the room is a collection of factors seldom talked about.

• The thousands of tons of fuel consumed in taking off and in flight,
• extra flights to fill slots
• near empty aircraft flown just to maintain routes
• the thousands of tons of CO2 expelled from the engines daily 
• the fact aircraft are not taxed on emissions and
• the fuel dumping that goes on where aircraft circle to land and have to vent fuel into the atmosphere to make themselves lighter for landing.

Climate change so-called, has been one of the great rip offs of history, 'buying' carbon credits, essentially giving you a licence to pollute is not the solution, preventing the pollution in the first place is the solution.

Money talks and air travel is big business.

'Climate change' rhetoric is another corrupt way of big players making money and controlling small players.

Expectations in our society for instant consumer gratification means that where items might be sent by sea and take a week or three to arrive, air travel speeds that to 3 days or 5, even at economy rates.

Why are we not satisfied with less?

This 'service delivery' expectations norm is behind this requirement to expand air travel.

The downside to this expansion and I lived in the South East near Heathrow for many years will be,

• Worse air quality, Heathrow would be the largest single CO2 polluter in the UK
• More pollution
• More road traffic on already overcrowded roads
• More aircraft movements
• Greater risk of air crash generally
• Greater risk of air crash due to fuel shortage and delays in landing
• Risk from some carriers skimping on fuel loads which could cause crashes
• Aircraft noise pollution
• More aircraft in the immediate airspace of the South East
• Travel to work for airport workers and ordinary commuters will be more difficult
• House prices will be hot or rise
• Houses will have to be built to replace those lost to expansion, in an already over saturated area of the UK

So, the apparent benefits of Heathrow being a 'Business Hub' are fairy dust, sugar coating a Kerosene saturated cake.

We were offered free, safe and clean energy in the 1950's in exchange for abandoning nuclear power and weapons. Had we taken this offer, then Heathrow might be a more acceptable solution.

However, we see the usual lefty comments on Heathrow from celebrities who spout green tosh and fly all over the world to pick up their awards. Funny that.

Is Heathrow expansion good news?

Only financially. Its the costs that people will have to endure that will show that this is a price not worth paying.

I am no luddite, but we have to start to reign in this consumer society before we run out of world.

Electric cars - you're going about it the wrong way...

Small, electric car by Renault

So, you might think an electric car is 'greener' but is it and are the main builders going about building the electric cars the right way?

Firstly, unless you're going to harvest the sun power for later use in a non-hazardous storage system, then the 'green' argument for powering a car is fatuous. That's because your juice is going to come from either burning fossil fuel or from nuclear. Oh, and the battery is its own little eco hazard area where it's made. But there is hope...

Its the way manufacturers go about the design that may be in need of change. Like the forklift and the milk float, they tend to harness the linking of heavy batteries to get the amps for motive power. Which means you end up dragging a ton of lead about which gets more of a problem the more your battery potential energy is used up. 

Maybe they're missing a trick. They should use a small battery to drive a small rotor over a stator coil and get high amp but low voltage power to drive something else and step up to real cooking volts. Just like and ATV stator does.

With high capacity capacitors and solar panels, you could charge up an underfloor power cell during the day and start your drive on free energy. Then, with rotor units in the wheels, you can start to generate more power as you drive, so that hopefully at 30mph you could be making your own volts in excess of what you need to get forward motion. 4 wheels, 4 rotors, no real drag, free power.

I've seen how an ATV stator can kick out over a hundred volts at idle, so scale it and drop all the heavy batteries with their eco disaster problems. Less weight to move and less weight to drag the thing down.

Many electric cars are made just far too heavy, they are over engineered to accommodate heavy assemblies. So lighten it all by using aluminium, more strength for less weight.

Think different, think light, think power and rectification of power.

Look at trains, they are diesel powering generators to provide the power, not direct drive to the wheels.

Political Corruptness - the Climate Change rip off

A normal solstice sunset

In the 1970's the big jump-on industry for the largely otherwise unemployable was the 'race relations' industry, that was supplanted in the 1990's by the 'Global Warming' industry, when it was found that the race relations complaints were actually coming from indigenous white people, the complete turn around of 'cause.' A new Hobby Horse was needed.

So the next industry to latch on to the boob was 'Global warming' and when that was exposed as not happening, indeed 'Global Cooling' as the statistics stated, the so-called 'Warmists' had to find another way to posit their agenda. And so they called it 'Climate change.'

But do we have other arguments for weather and climate pattern changes? Yes. Firstly, lunar orbital change.

We rely on the moon's orbit to drive our tides, we are currently moving away from the moon a little more every year and so by default, the influence of the gravitational forces on our planet lessens, just like on an electric guitar, when you reduce the pickup height away from the string, the signal gets weaker to the amplifier.

Magnetic levitation and equilibrium display

My suggestion is that the lunar trajectorial orbit has changed, rather from being as it was, a flat rotational orbit, I suggest that other planetary influence now has changed the flat linear pattern into a 'light roller coaster' effect, as we see form the funfair ride below, the moon now moves on a path where it rises and falls in its circular rotational orbital path.

Thus, the lunar gravitational effect on our planet is reduced in parts of its orbit, this leads to changes in the tide height and tidal patterns, which then affect the weather.

The funfair roundabout showing the variable linear 'orbit' of up and down movement

The Jetstream that moves around our skies and is another weather affector, is driven by the volcanic activity of the planet core. The Earth plates move periodically and as we know heat rises, this allows areas of the ocean to become hotter spots, which then when hot air hits cold air, helps to form weather patterns. The Earth plates move and rearrange themselves, as a result the hot currents are generated in different areas of the oceans.

This also affects the migratory pattern of marine life, particularly Sharks. The Great White is a migratory species that swims an orbital pattern around the oceans from Florida to Australia, it essentially follows warmer water patterns where its food sources swim. A case of 'follow my larder.'

With the Jetstream moving because of the places the water is heated have changed, we are now finding migrating Sharks are coming close to European waters as they follow the warmth.

Whereby they would tend to be spotted around the African Cape, the movement upwards of a warm water circuit nearer to Europe has meant Great Whites are now off the Cornish Coast and being caught in the Mediterranean where they were previously rare, a 7m Great White was caught off the Italian coast, miles from where it should have been off the Cape.

Similarly, other shark species like Mako have been caught off Cornwall, where they should not really occur. This was trumpeted as 'climate change,' but the reality is a far simpler explanation, it happened by natural movement of the tectonic plates. Sorry.

Oil makes the world go round

We have since the end of WW2 been moving towards a personal transport culture. Unless you lived in a city like London, well served by large capacity people movers, the tube, trains and busses, then it was a car, bicycle or foot for the rest of us.

We now have to rely on personal transport for many of our consumer needs and for those in rural areas, it is the only option in many cases. It is the price you pay for the better quality of life you get in the country. 

A vehicle excise tax on the amount of CO2 your engine generates is the norm now, not based on just ownership, but it is the wrong solution.

You may possess an older car that you rarely use on which you have to pay £240 a year duty, you may do 1000 miles a year in this car, but you may buy a car which has a zero rate duty because it is more modern design engine with lower CO2 emissions and which you can do 30,000 miles a year in for no charge.

Which does the most damage? Surely the answer is obvious. The basic factor is, the more fuel you buy and consume, the greater the penalty for polluting should ultimately be which can be met through the fuel.

Don't think that your vehicle excise duty goes on roads, it goes to prop up the welfare state, they told me that when I worked for them. This makes any 'environmentally friendly' excise policies hot air and 'driving a green car' makes no difference. It's all about money in the end.

One of the biggest rip offs is 'Carbon Credits,' essentially buying a licence to pollute. What this does is in our sector of the world,  is enables a company to buy the right to pollute, the need is to clean up the energy outfall or find alternative energy means, less polluting and to stop the pollution before it starts, not the sticking plaster solution at the end.

Then we do not talk about the elephant in the sky, the jet aircraft. Air travel has expanded enormously since WW2, yet when we talk about CO2 reduction, we always steer away from any mention of the travel industry and air travel's contribution.

Indeed, actually talking of extra runways at airports, like Heathrow, when you need to reduce or relocate is ludicrous. Aircraft are not taxed for CO2 output, when a chancellor proposed this, there was outcry and the idea quietly dropped. We have airports in major urban conurbations, the risk of accident is reasonable. To add to the problem, increases the risk.

The jet engine is now much more efficient than ever, but the fact remains, that a jet engine at Jetstream level altitude of 30,000 feet does create warmth that can affect the weather.

The rise in Asian manufacturing capacity creates its own problem with pollution. Yet it is a hot potato that no one wants to mess with, for cultural and economic reasons most likely. We only have to look at some industrialised parts of China to see the problems of pollution, both air and waterborne have and continue to create. 

This is it seems is the price we have to pay for cheap goods, whilst in the West we are heavily penalised for producing a fraction of the world's pollution and perceived climate altering problems, those elsewhere stick two fingers up and laugh as they continue to pollute without penalty, it would seem.

The UK has 300 years of coal supply in the ground

The nonsense of the situation is that in the UK, we have a 300 year supply of good quality coal, yet because of a stupid EU climate agreement we were signed up to, we are now decommissioning and demolishing coal fired power stations.

Yet in Germany, they are building new ones. This is the sort of complete stupidity that goes on. We can produce clean burn power based on coal. Just like Germany.

American forests are senselessly being felled and wood converted to wood fuel pellets

But oh no, we have to import from America, pellets of reformed wood to burn, which are shipped across the Atlantic by polluting cargo ships. The forests are felled and the trees chipped and made into wood pellets, they are then burned in UK power stations. The so-called 'carbon footprint' of this exercise is far more CO2 heavy than burning coal.

WHY? Because these trees are counted as 'renewable energy' so was coal, it was a tree once!

So what about solar or wind power? Too costly and not viable. Solar, only when there is day light, wind, only when the wind is blowing and not too much. Token windmill tilting.

The answer is free energy. This has been known about for decades but it is free and would destabilise the economy if used.

So there you are, this is the surreal reality if there is such a thing of why we are in this confusing place!