Dutch Are Falling Out Of Love With Wind Farm Subsidies

Interesting article from EPAAbuse:

"Windmills are iconic images in Holland, but wind farms are proving to be more expensive and unsightly than the lovely windmills that grace Dutch dinnerware.

Reuters reports that the Dutch people and the Dutch government are worried out the cost of green subsidies to keep the wind farms operating.

The Netherlands has 36 North Sea wind turbines –each 30 stories high and many more on land.
The Dutch government, however, is cutting back its subsidy of the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour and is trying to get private investors involved. It cost 4.5 billion euros last year to subsidize wind power in Holland.

The Dutch government wants to attract private investors in the wind farm industry by offering themsubsidies.

According to Reuters:

Offshore wind farms produce more electricity than onshore ones but it costs twice as much as onshore wind power due to the higher cost of materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex maintenance.

Wind turbines in the sea need to be more robust to withstand strong winds and salt water; their maintenance some miles away from the coast requires special equipment and transportation.

Drilling the seabed is more expensive as it requires a specialized workforce and equipment.

Then there’s the additional cost of connecting the offshore farms to the grid.

Onshore, wind turbines face local resistance.

Offshore wind turbines are highly expensive and land-based turbines anger residents. Unmentioned in the Reuters article is the fact that these wind turbines routinely kill birds and bats — something that horrifies animal rights activists.

James Delingpole, author of Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors, describes the mess that Denmark is in over its love affair with wind farms. According to Delingpole:

“… it has the world’s highest density of wind towers—5,200, one for every 1,000 people. In return for this monstrous blight on their once beautiful landscape, the Danes enjoy the privilege of paying the highest energy prices in Europe and about four times the U.S. average. Their wind power is so inefficient that it’s only viable with a massive taxpayer subsidy at the behest of the government: about 50 percent of the 2008 Danish household electricity rate of 28 eurocents per kilowatt hour is tax. Between 1996 and 2004, the Danish taxpayer spent an average of €257 million per year subsidizing wind farms.

"

Exposed: U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) Scam

"It was first reported on by Steven McIntyre on his blog, Climate Audit (and was run on the FP Comment page of Friday’s National Post). McIntyre revealed that the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that “close to 80% of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.” He further revealed that the claim arose from a “joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).” And it turns out that while working for the IPCC, the Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself. A report on renewables, by the Renewable Energy Council of Europe, and Greenpeace, peer-reviewd by the man who wrote it. All they need add is a citation from the Suzuki Foundation and an endorsement from Elizabeth May and “the science will be settled” forever. This is not just letting the fox into the hen house. This is giving him the keys, passing him the barbeque sauce and pointing his way to the broiler. Or, as McIntyre put it in plainer terms: “A lead author of the IPCC report, and of the hyped 80% scenario, is Sven Teske of Greenpeace International, whose official contribution is essentially based on a Greenpeace report cooked up with Europe’s renewable energy industry.”", in EPAAbuse.

A tragedia Grega

Nao sei se ja repararam mas, cada vez mais se tem visto um sentimento de odio contra os Alemaes.

Dizem as pessoas, aparentemente, informadas e espertas, que os Alemaes sao muito maus e que estao a tentar apoderar-se da Europa, tentando controlar os piquenos!

Ao longo das ultimas semanas, tenho visto um constante zum zum sobre como os Alemaes sao porcos, feios e maus, porque nao querem continuar a suportar os PIIGs.

Dizem as mas linguas (muito informadas e inteligentes), que os Alemaes nao estao a apoiar o espirito de Uniao necessario ao sucesso da Uniao.

O problema e que, com este escalar do odio aos Alemaes e ao seu estilo de vida, comecei a ouvir varias bocas sobre como os Alemaes nunca saldaram as suas dividas da Primeira e Segunda Guerra Mundial, e que o seu estilo de vida so foi possivel gracas a terem escravizado outros povos e por os outros paises da UE serem obrigados a importar bens Alemaes.

Ouvi isto umas 3 ou 4 vezes e ja estava a achar estranho, ja que o discurso se estava a tornar repetitivo e estranhamente consistente.

Ora, e claro que isso tinha uma razao de ser! E que, aparentemente, anda por ai um email a circular que fala do quao maus os Alemaes estao a ser para a Grecia, e de como a Grecia e uma cambada de coitadinhos por causa dos abusos Alemaes.

E o email reza assim:
"Ler até ao fim. Resposta de um grego a um alemão que se sente ofendido com o "estilo de vida" grego.

Carta aberta, publicada na revista STERN, de um cidadão alemão, Walter Wuelleenweber, dirigida a "caros gregos", com um título e sub-título:

Depois da Alemanha ter tido de salvar os bancos, agora tem de salvar também a Grécia

Os gregos, que primeiros fizeram alquimias com o euro, agora, em vez de fazerem economias, fazem greves

"Caros gregos,

Desde 1981 pertencemos à mesma família. Nós, os alemães, contribuímos como ninguém mais para um Fundo comum, com mais de 200 mil milhões de euros, enquanto a Grécia recebeu cerca de 100 mil milhões dessa verba, ou seja a maior parcela per capita de qualquer outro povo da U.E.

Nunca nenhum povo até agora ajudou tanto outro povo e durante tanto tempo.

Vocês são, sinceramente, os amigos mais caros que nós temos. O caso é que não só se enganam a vocês mesmos, como nos enganam a nós.

No essencial, vocês nunca mostraram ser merecedores do nosso Euro. Desde a sua incorporação como moeda da Grécia, nunca conseguiram, até agora, cumprir os critérios de estabilidade. Dentro da U.E., são o povo que mais gasta em bens de consumo.

Vocês descobriram a democracia, por isso devem saber que se governa através da vontade do povo, que é, no fundo, quem tem a responsabilidade. Não digam, por isso, que só os políticos têm a responsabilidade do desastre. Ninguém vos obrigou a durante anos fugir aos impostos, a opor-se a qualquer política coerente para reduzir os gastos públicos e ninguém vos obrigou a eleger os governantes que têm tido e têm.

Os gregos são quem nos mostrou o caminho da Democracia, da Filosofia e dos primeiros conhecimentos da Economia Nacional.

Mas, agora, mostram-nos um caminho errado. E chegaram onde chegaram, não vão mais adiante!!!"

Na semana seguinte, o Stern publicou uma carta aberta de um grego, dirigida a Wuelleenweber:

Caro Walter,

Chamo-me Georgios Psomás. Sou funcionário público e não ?empregado público? como, depreciativamente, como insulto, se referem a nós os meus compatriotas e os teus compatriotas.

O meu salário é de 1.000 euros. Por mês, hem!... não vás pensar que por dia, como te querem fazer crer no teu País. Repara que ganho um número que nem sequer é inferior em 1.000 euros ao teu, que é de vários milhares.

Desde 1981, tens razão, estamos na mesma família. Só que nós vos concedemos, em exclusividade, um montão de privilégios, como serem os principais fornecedores do povo grego de tecnologia, armas, infraestruturas (duas autoestradas e dois aeroportos internacionais), telecomunicações, produtos de consumo, automóveis, etc.. Se me esqueço de alguma coisa, desculpa. Chamo-te a atenção para o facto de sermos, dentro da U.E., os maiores importadores de produtos de consumo que são fabricados nas fábricas alemãs.

A verdade é que não responsabilizamos apenas os nossos políticos pelo desastre da Grécia. Para ele contribuíram muito algumas grandes empresas alemãs, as que pagaram enormes ?comissões? aos nossos políticos para terem contratos, para nos venderem de tudo, e uns quantos submarinos fora de uso, que postos no mar, continuam tombados de costas para o ar.

Sei que ainda não dás crédito ao que te escrevo. Tem paciência, espera, lê toda a carta, e se não conseguir convencer-te, autorizo-te a que me expulses da Eurozona, esse lugar de VERDADE, de PROSPERIDADE, da JUSTIÇA e do CORRECTO.

 Estimado Walter,

Passou mais de meio século desde que a 2ª Guerra Mundial terminou. QUER DIZER MAIS DE 50 ANOS desde a época em que a Alemanha deveria ter saldado as suas obrigações para com a Grécia.

Estas dívidas, QUE SÓ A ALEMANHA até agora resiste a saldar com a Grécia (Bulgária e Roménia cumpriram, ao pagar as indemnizações estipuladas), e que consistem em:

1. Uma dívida de 80 milhões de marcos alemães por indemnizações, que ficou por pagar da 1ª Guerra Mundial;

2. Dívidas por diferenças de clearing, no período entre-guerras, que ascendem hoje a 593.873.000 dólares EUA.

3. Os empréstimos em obrigações que contraíu o III Reich em nome da Grécia, na ocupação alemã, que ascendem a 3,5 mil milhões de dólares durante todo o período de ocupação.

4. As reparações que deve a Alemanha à Grécia, pelas confiscações, perseguições, execuções e destruições de povoados inteiros, estradas, pontes, linhas férreas, portos, produto do III Reich, e que, segundo o determinado pelos tribunais aliados, ascende a 7,1 mil milhões de dólares, dos quais a Grécia não viu sequer uma nota.

5. As imensuráveis reparações da Alemanha pela morte de 1.125.960 gregos (38,960 executados, 12 mil mortos como dano colateral, 70 mil mortos em combate, 105 mil mortos em campos de concentração na Alemanha, 600 mil mortos de fome, etc., et.).

6. A tremenda e imensurável ofensa moral provocada ao povo grego e aos ideais humanísticos da cultura grega.

Amigo Walter, sei que não te deve agradar nada o que escrevo. Lamento-o.

Mas mais me magoa o que a Alemanha quer fazer comigo e com os meus compatriotas.

Amigo Walter: na Grécia laboram 130 empresas alemãs, entre as quais se incluem todos os colossos da indústria do teu País, as que têm lucros anuais de 6,5 mil milhões de euros. Muito em breve, se as coisas continuarem assim, não poderei comprar mais produtos alemães porque cada vez tenho menos dinheiro. Eu e os meus compatriotas crescemos sempre com privações, vamos aguentar, não tenhas problema. Podemos viver sem BMW, sem Mercedes, sem Opel, sem Skoda. Deixaremos de comprar produtos do Lidl, do Praktiker, da IKEA.

Mas vocês, Walter, como se vão arranjar com os desempregados que esta situação criará, que por ai os vai obrigar a baixar o seu nível de vida, Perder os seus carros de luxo, as suas férias no estrangeiro, as suas excursões sexuais à Tailândia? Vocês (alemães, suecos, holandeses, e restantes ?compatriotas? da Eurozona) pretendem que saíamos da Europa, da Eurozona e não sei mais de onde.

Creio firmemente que devemos fazê-lo, para nos salvarmos de uma União que é um bando de especuladores financeiros, uma equipa em que jogamos se consumirmos os produtos que vocês oferecem: empréstimos, bens industriais, bens de consumo, obras faraónicas, etc.

E, finalmente, Walter, devemos ?acertar? um outro ponto importante, já que vocês também disso são devedores da Grécia:

EXIGIMOS QUE NOS DEVOLVAM A CIVILIZAÇÃO QUE NOS ROUBARAM!!!

Queremos de volta à Grécia as imortais obras dos nosos antepassados, que estão guardadas nos museus de Berlim, de Munique, de Paris, de Roma e de Londres.

E EXIJO QUE SEJA AGORA!! Já que posso morrer de fome, quero morrer ao lado das obras dos meus antepassados.

Cordialmente,

 Georgios Psomás"

E esta tudo dito! Nao e verdade?

Ora, fora as inconsistencias obvias deste email, como o facto do Ikea ser Sueco e nao Alemao, isto ate parece ser uma daquelas tipicas respostas onde "o gajo calou o outro".

Mas, como eu nao sabia pormenores do que se passou com a Alemanha apos a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e quanto e que eles realmente pagaram (ou deixaram de pagar) em retribuicoes, decidi fazer uma pequena pesquisa.

Como ja esperava, encontrei dados muito interessantes que desmentem o que este email parvo diz.

Encontrei entao estes artigos deveras interessantes:
"Does Germany Owe Greece $95 Billion from WWII", "War Reparations" e "How much reparation did Germany have to give the Allies in particular England France and the US at the end of World War 2?"

Onde descobri coisas como:
"The suffering caused to Greece by the Nazis is undeniable. Yet at the same time, human suffering cannot really be measured. Independent historians unanimously agree that the total economically measurable damages suffered by Greece as a result of the German occupation, in both absolute numbers as well as proportionate to the population, put Greece in fourth place after Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

At the Paris Conference on Reparations, Greece was finally accorded 4.5% in material German reparation and 2.7% in other forms of reparations. Practically, this meant that Greece received mainly material goods — like machines made in West Germany — worth approximately $25 million, which in today's money amounts to as much as $2.7 billion.

That is why under the terms of the 1953 London Debt Agreement, reparation payments were put off until a peace treaty was signed. That finally happened in 1990, which didn't require Germany to pay further reparations to other countries like Greece.
Greece accepted the treaty, though clearly it had little choice. After decades of partnership with Germany (Greece has been a member of NATO since 1952 and associated with European organizations since 1961), it would have been politically difficult to demand huge reparations — although the issue of compensation was periodically raised by Greek politicians, mostly to score points in domestic politics.

And yet payments were made over the years — at different times and from different pots — including as much as $41 billion since 1949, although given the variety of agreements that were reached, it's impossible to say with certainty.
Independent from all other claims, the Federal Republic of Germany did pay compensation to individual victims of Nazi crimes. On March 18, 1960, an agreement was signed between Greece and West Germany to the effect that Germany would pay 115 million deutsche marks to Greek victims of the Nazi occupation. The agreement was made under the stipulation that no further claims for individual damages would be accepted.


However, claims from the descendants of Greek victims continued to be made. The best-known case was made by children of the residents of a village called Distomo who were killed on June 10, 1944, in what the Germans called a "retaliatory strike." In 1997, they received a verdict that they were entitled to €37.5 million in damages from Germany. After much legal wrangling, the case is now before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Another legal issue that has surfaced concerns the 476 million reichsmarks lent against its will to Germany by the Greek National Bank during the war. If this were to be considered a form of war damage, then in principle it would be subject to reparation — except that according to the 1990 treaty, Germany would not have to pay it. If the money were, however, to be considered a normal credit, then Greece would be entitled to get the money back."

Ora bem, esta claro que quem ler isto se vai focar no facto de que a Grecia aceitou que a Alemanha ficasse com a sua divida saldada porque nao teve escolha. Mas, na realidade, a leitura nao deve ser essa.
A leitura justa e que os Gregos foram postos numa situacao onde era beneficial para eles esquecer essa divida. E, mesmo que nao tenha sido beneficial, o problema e DELES que aceitaram essas condicoes.

E claro que tambem nao e justo ler apenas isso, ja que, como o artigo aponta, eles pagaram $41 bilioes a Grecia desde 1949.

Mas, nao fiquemos por aqui, e continuemos a analisar a situacao do pos-guerra:

"The question is complicated. To the best of my knowledge the Allies never counted the value of the things they took out of Germany, but they considered it "reparations" nevertheless. They also forbade the Germans from counting.

The Russians took much equipment, telephone switchboards, factories etc. Some of this was sent to them from Western Germany by the U.S. The Russians also used millions of German civilians and former soldiers as slave labor well into the 1950's.

The Russians also took a quarter of Germany and divided it between Russia and Poland, after ethnically cleansing its inhabitants. This was done in accordance with agreements with the U.S. and UK so should count as some sort of "reparations" deal that the U.S. and UK too were responsible for.

...

There were no reparations in money from Germany to the western allies after WWII. The reason is simply that Germany had no financial resources with which to pay. The country was ruined, bankrupted, wrecked, and occupied.
In the east it was another matter. In additional to mass rape, murder, and incarceration of common soldiers the Soviet forces looted the country of anything they could steal. Since Germany had little money to steal, the Soviets stole trains, art, automobiles, furniture, plumbing fixtures, bathtubs, jewelry, and power plants. They broke into private homes and looted all the possessions of the inhabitants. Any who resisted were murdered on the spot. Museums in Russia still contain vast amounts of the stolen art, as they do additional stolen art from their Spanish campaign, just prior to WWII. 

...the French took 'reparations' in the form of slave labor. Thousand of German POWs were forced to work in French coal mines where about 5,000 died. Many German troops, who would have starved otherwise, 'joined' the French army and fought in that countries Vietnam war. "

Ora, parece-me a mim que os Alemaes foram escravizados apos a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e as "obras de arte preciosas" dos Gregos estao agora espalhadas pela Europa.

Como um dos comentarios num dos artigos dizia:

"It sounds like Greece has developed the stereotypical view of most welfare recipients: they can't take care of themselves and they refuse to accept responsibility for their own mistakes so they start pointing their fingers at someone else and threatening lawsuits.  Whatever claim they may have had to reparations died when they signed that treaty in 1990."

E claro que agora se esta tudo a virar contra a Alemanha, nos mesmos estamos a fazer o mesmo (tal como fizemos contra o FMI e contra os Estados Unidos, e como faremos contra quem vier no futuro!).

E que e TAOOOO mais simples apontar o dedo aos outros do que tentar perceber onde falhamos, tomar responsabilidade, e corrigir os problemas.

Isto e tal e qual como Portugal e o FMI que, segundo os iluminados dizem, veio para se aproveitar de nos Portugueses. Alias, veio aproveitar-se tanto de nos que ate ja descobriu buracos colossais na Madeira e no Continente. E esta tudo muito bem, afinal, e sempre boa politica matar o mensageiro!

Holly mother of God

Holly mother of God, are you going to eat that?! :o)

Bloomberg to OWS: Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks

Now, this is a VERY interesting article (from Hotair.com)...

"By this time, everyone should be aware of the federal policies that precipitated the housing bubble and its collapse — the push by Congress and two administrations to push higher-risk lending in order to expand home ownership, as well as the effort by Congress to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to spread that risk through mortgage-backed securities.  While Wall Street made the situation worse by developing risky derivatives on those securities and failed to recognize the risk inherent in the securities themselves, the collapse wouldn’t have occurred at all had the federal government not intervened to distort lending for their own social-engineering goals.

Michael Bloomberg tried to explain that to Occupy Wall Street protesters this morning, and pointed out the contradiction between their protests and their demands:

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t gave gotten them without that.
“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for.”
Bloomberg went on to say it’s “cathartic” and “entertaining” to blame people, but the important thing now is to fix the problem.

It’s even more important to not make the same mistake again, which is exactly what the OWS crowd wants.  They want Congress to intervene even more heavily to lower lending standards as a policy of “fairness,” which is exactly what Congress did in the late 1990s, and which started the housing bubble that nearly destroyed the financial sector in 2008.  And Investors Business Daily claims that they have the “smoking gun” that shows exactly how the government created the bubble in the first place by intimidating banks into distorted lending practices — based on a flawed study:

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies. …
The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.
It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.
The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Lenders faced a nightmare regulatory threat and so began to “bend” their lending standards to demonstrate compliance.  Congress helped by authorizing Fannie and Freddie to buy up subprime mortgages at a higher rate in order to incentivize compliance.  That opened the floodgates, as Fannie and Freddie essentially ended any risk for lenders in the subprime market, and it also opened up a significant incentive for so-called “predatory lending.”  After all, why not give consumers more credit than they could handle if the original lender didn’t have to bear the cost of failure?
As a result, demand accelerated, and so did prices.  They got disconnected from their usual tie to the rate of inflation, soaring far above normal valuation.  People believed they had acquired a windfall of real equity and began either trading up or opening up home-equity lines of credit to fuel consumer spending.  In 2008 the bubble popped, and a lot of homeowners found themselves unable to make their payments as jobs disappeared and property values rapidly descended.
And that may not be over, either:

The besieged housing market has even further to fall before home prices really hit rock bottom.
According to Fiserv (FISV - News), a financial analytics company, home values are expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, pushing them to a new low of 35% below the peak reached in early 2006 and marking a triple dip in prices.
Several factors will be working against the housing market in the upcoming months, including an increase in foreclosure activity and sustained high unemployment, explained David Stiff, Fiserv’s chief economist.
Should home values meet Fiserv’s expectations, it would make it the third (and lowest) trough for home prices since the housing bubble burst.

In June I also made the same observation, based on projecting normal inflation without the bubble from 1998 onward.  Rapid job growth could change that, but since we don’t see any indication of that on the horizon, CNN Money’s prediction is likely to come true."

Pretty interesting, ah?

Michael Moore Refuses to Answer Questions Regarding His $50 Million Net Worth at Occupy PDX

This guy is a scumbag... :o\