Laigle’s Forum

Were they really unintended? Or do they just enjoy messing with us?

by Don Hank

On June 3, the BBC broadcast a report on how fishermen were forced to throw back perfectly good caught fish dead into the sea. The report failed to mention that EU regulations were the root cause of this wastefulness.

Precisely because of such media blackous, we need to be reminded that the Western elites are wasteful and harmful to the poor and disadavantaged, whether intentionally or out of sheer stupidity, despite their avowed “environmentally friendly” and “Third World friendly” policies, which almost never seem to achieve the purported goals.

I mentioned it before, but it bears repeating, that the treaty between the EU and Panama, for example, had 2 adverse effects, one on the environment and the other for the poor in the Third World:

1–The day after the treaty was signed, the price of fish, the number one protein staple in Panama, doubled, converting this staple into a luxury item that many Panamanians can now eat only on special occasions.

2–The transport of the fish to Europe is by air, which translates into several times as much CO₂ emissions as shipments by sea.

As we read in the report linked above, before this treaty went into effect, the EU had implemented a fishing policy for Europe that also had disastrous effects on the environment there and on European fish prices, which indirectly led to treaties between the EU and the Third World related to fish and seafood trade.

In drafting, issuing and enforcing such regulation, the EU has followed the guidelines of UN Agenda 21, which purportedly is aimed at reducing pollution and especially CO2 emissions, and at helping the poor and middle class in Third World countries. Agenda 21 was attributed largely to the efforts of Maurice Strong, who was then Under-Secretary General of the UN.

The above-outlined unintended consequences of the Panama treaty are being repeated all over the Third World and reflect the total inability of out-of-touch spoiled billionaire white men like Maurice Strong, and his American counterpart George Soros, to intervene meaningfully and positively in the affairs of ordinary people with ordinary problems of survival and supporting families.

These results also reflect the inability of government (whether supranational or other) to control systems like the world economy, which, though not perfect, worked fairly well before all of this meddling by global governance aficionados with too much time on their hands.

 The more they meddled, the worse the economy became, until today we stand on the brink of a collapsing dollar, a collapsing euro, historical high unemployment and staggering debt that threatens whole generations to come.

Unintended consequences?

Or mission accomplished?

BBC report:

http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?p=3325

Agenda 21:

http://laiglesforum.com/sustainability-agenda-21-doesnt-sustain/2431.htm

EU destroying European farming:

http://laiglesforum.com/eu-still-taking-down-farmers/188.htm

Environmentalism run amok:

http://laiglesforum.com/high-level-eco-terror-or-incompetence/1448.htm

The new royalty — EU spending sprees (they think it’s divine right)

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/06/new-report-on-lavish-commission-spending-eu-elite-lead-lives-of-renaissance-popes.html

The wind farm boondoggle

by Don Hank

Wind farms are considered an “investment” and governments are trying desperately to attract capital to build them.

However, as Christopher Booker recently wrote for the Sunday Telegraph, they are not a feasible investment.

And there are other issues as well:

First and foremost, any enterprise that requires government subsidies is a scam, and these babies just soak up public funds like a sponge while providing diminishing returns. A bona fide investment is one that the enterprising investor with a little vision can see is going to pay off eventually, either sooner or later. Wind farms without subsidies attract zero capital.

It is cynical and cunning to pretend that a wind farm could be a capitalist business enterprise, because, as the following article shows, the cost-benefit ratios are abominable. The public winds up paying not only at the start but throughout the use of this boondoggle.

Second, the machines are extremely noisy and the property values in their vicinity plummet.

Third, they occupy valuable farmland that is then taken out of use. The value of the crops that could have been raised there is lost forever, replaced by a “commodity” of much lower, and questionable, value.

You don’t save the planet by adding pollution, and noise pollution is pollution. And you don’t provide for a hungry populace by destroying farmland.

The labor and material costs of these windmills are very high and we can assume that any cost analysis including both the land and the machinery plus the labor needed to maintain and operate the system, will wind up showing a constant loss for the public, as well as huge “profits” for the public-private partnerships at our expense. (Some of the first PPPs were seen in Mao’s China. They are typically the first step in a gradual migration toward total and totalitarian communism. No one should confuse PPPs with free market capitalism. They are quite the opposite. Historians will also recognize their similarity to Mussolini’s state-private joint enterprises — a hallmark of fascism).

The bottom line is that the New World Order needs you poor. Otherwise they are afraid middle class people will overrun the planet and make it less desirable for the Self-Elect. They are already nervous about our presence here on “their” planet.

If the world needs clean energy, so far, all things considered, nuclear power is the only way to go, provided the redundant safety systems are put in place.

Dispersants, non-toxic but potentially deadly

Don Hank

I have subscribed to the EPA’s alerts list on the steps being taken by the government to clean up the Gulf. So far, every alert has focused mainly on the toxic effects of dispersants, assuring the public they have very low toxicity.

Generally speaking, however, discussions of dispersant toxicity – e.g. test reports on dispersants issued by the EPA – are dangerously misleading because they invariably point out only how innocuous the dispersants themselves are –  a red herring if there ever was one, because dispersant toxicity is not the issue here, and it is alarming that the EPA does not seem to notice this.
You see, the dispersant does not need to be toxic itself to activate (or develop) the toxic effects of the crude oil itself, and therein lies the danger.
When a dispersant is applied onto an oil slick in deep water, the effect is to disperse oil that until that time was more-or-less safely amassed on the surface – at least temporarily – and hence sequestered away from the depths. It had limited impact on deeper lying wild life. Until that point, it was a simple matter to collect the oil with skimmers, the only reasonable removal method for use in deep water (particularly since it enables the valuable crude to be collected and sold so it can help pay for the cleanup). Once dispersant is applied, however, the oil can no longer be collected because the dispersant acts as a surfactant (detergent) and emulsifies the more volatile compounds in the oil. These toxic volatiles are then irreversibly dissolved in the water fully developing the toxicity of the petroleum oil itself. The process is exactly the same as that occurring in your dish water when oily residues from the frying pan are emulsified and dissolved. The crucial difference is that your frying oil is not toxic. Crude oil is.
Meanwhile, the less-volatile compounds such as tars, which do not dissolve, settle to the bottom or agglomerate and develop their toxic impact on mollusks, crustaceans and fish living deeper down. Once a certain level of these tars is reached in the environment, the living things coming into contact with them can no longer be used as food. The time it takes the oil-eating bacteria to degrade these dispersed oil components will vary, but the process can take years. Vast areas of the Gulf can be effectively lost to fishing for a very long time.
That the EPA would even think of perpetrating such a disastrous – and completely unnecessary – toxification process is beyond me, unless they have some ulterior motive.
Sure, in the shallows, dispersants can and should be used. But in deep water, where skimmers can quickly get up almost all of the oil, there is absolutely no excuse for their use.
I have contacted the EPA with these concerns, and they have not responded. They appear impervious to any of the concepts I have laid out here and refractive to persuasion. Perhaps the only hope we have is that some foreign government or entity will bring this dangerous, unscientific behavior of the EPA to the attention of the world press at some point and initiate an action forcing our government to take the appropriate steps.

That is not a far-fetched expectation: By contacting the Houston Chronicle, the whistle-blowing Dutch government, has already applied pressure on the administration to accept their offer of skimmers – an offer that was made 3 days after the spill. Nonetheless, a reluctant EPA waited one and one half months to accept the skimmers and even then, hamstrung the skimming process with unreasonable restrictions that greatly slowed this urgent and vital removal operation.

Whether motivated by the US government or by a foreign government’s intervention, a ban on dispersant use in deep water is absolutely necessary whenever skimmers are available – and they almost always are.

Obama was odd man out at the G8 and G20 summits – the only one not to renounce furhter use of the Keynesian bailout system. The rest of the attendees urged him to stop issuing bailouts. Now it appears that, despite prodding from our allies, this “green” president is odd man out again: the only one dragging his feet on cleaning up the Gulf.

Please be sure to read the comment by microbiologist Dr. Mir Islam in the comments section below.

Read more on this subject:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/26/obamas-coup-de-grace-for-the-gulf/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/17/a-problem-solving-method-that-is-not-and-is-popular/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/10/high-level-eco-terror-or-incompetence/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/06/14/its-official-petroleum-is-a-waste-product/

by Don Hank

Surprisingly, even the left-leaning Huffington Post seems to have writers who understand science and realize that the Obama administration lacks the most rudimentary grasp of sci-tech know-how. They see the danger, and more and more thinking people on the Left, for whom the environment is not a political tool but a sacred focus of their worldview, are having their eyes opened.

The US government will not allow the oil skimmers in the Gulf to do their job. If they were operated as intended, and as is done in Europe, the skimmers would separate the oil from the water in the skimmed material, returning water with a small oil content back to the spill area. This returned water, while slightly contaminated, would have a lower oil content than the surrounding water, thereby providing a considerably more-positive net oil/water balance than existed before the skim run.

Let’s back up here a moment and look at the term “oil/water balance.” It is critical to the Gulf situation. At this moment, due to the administration’s slow response, the ratio of the amount of oil entering the Gulf (and hence the world’s oceans) to the amount of water is in all likelihood increasing. This means there is a negative oil/water balance and it is getting worse. In medicine, a balance like that means the patient is on his way out. You can’t constantly increase the amount of toxins to healthy fluids in the body and expect to survive. 

In the Gulf by law, the tanks into which the skimmers pump their payload must be filled not with almost water-free oil, but with a material consisting mostly of water, and returned to a processing plant unseparated — a highly inefficient process in which the tanker carries oil with a high water content for remote processing in lieu of the cheaper and more elegant rough-processing in situ in order to enable much more-pure oil to be sent to remote processing. The logic of our brilliant lawmakers is that returning slightly contaminated water into the Gulf would tend to pollute the water again. That could be the case if only a limited number of skimming runs were allowed. However, there is no limit to the number of runs a skimmer can make. But because of the high output of the ongoing oil spill, the only limiting factor is time, and this absurd rule – made by politicians lacking the rudiments of scientific understanding and completely lacking in common sense – is the factor that most greatlyincreases process time. If the water were returned to the ocean at the spill site with a small oil content, as a result of imperfect separating techniques currently available, the residual oil in the water would again float to the top and be skimmed in a subsequent run. Very quickly, at yields several times those obtained under this disastrous rule, the last tanks collected would run clean. On balance, the Gulf would be cleaned up several times earlier.  That is the essence of the process used in Europe, and they have gotten quite adept at this.

Obama can and should ask Congress for an emergency waiver of this law that so severely hampers cleanup.

Let’s see. It took him one and one-half months to realize we needed to accept those Dutch oil skimmers offered on April 25, 3 days after the oil well exploded. Maybe if we’re lucky he can move a bit faster on this.

Of course, not much hinges on it now where he is concerned. The Democrats in Congress who are up for re-election are doomed anyway.

Will he go out like a shooting star and let the Gulf die, expending the last ounce of Democratic capital on making America more humble and striking at the British Empire that mistreated his Kenyan family? It’s entirely possible given his rigid mentality.

Or will he remember that with the Gulf completely dead — as it eventually may be at this rate — there will in fact be less incentive for an offshore drilling ban, not more?

After all, even if we can eventually no longer fish in the Gulf, thousands of Gulf residents still might be able to make a livelihood from it.

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS FORUM:

http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1

The notion of “global warming” has been used to introduce perhaps the biggest tax in history, and one of the avenues for this tax was so-called “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits.”

Fortunately, the American people have not completely fallen for this scam as yet. But the UK, which has long labored under the heavy hand of two essentially foreign governments — their “own” out-of-touch ”leaders” and the EU — has had little choice. Almost none of the elected leaders in the UK there are in touch with the people, who are increasingly aware that they are being scammed on a grand scale. (While serving as the head of state, Tony Blair was also the head of the Fabian Socitey, whose avowed purpose is to undermine democracy and introduce Marxism — Karl Marx’s sister was one of the founders).

Now please pay attention: America now faces the same choices as they once did: either we go it alone as the exceptional nation we have been or we take that same turn into oblivion and let the “elites” take us over. So far we have done a terrible job of maintaining our sovereignty and our representative government. Many “conservatives” and even the somewhat more enlightened Tea Party people have fallen for the RINO neocon scam in MA, where Scott Brown was presented as a “conservative”. CPAC portrayed Scott, Mitt Romney and other RINOs the same way, although, to the credit of the attendees, in a poll taken by CPAC, Romney lost to Ron Paul — a sign that the leadership of groups like this is no longer calling the shots.  A McCain loss in his Senate campaign in Arizona would be a further sign that even without any higher-up leadership, the grassroots can now make up its own mind.

Our heads are very slowly emerging from the sand, but there are a lot of GOP die-hards out there who keep longing for the “good old days” of the globalist, open-borders GW Bush administration. They haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The press release appearing below is one of the most amazing but likewise, one if the saddest, pieces  of news Laigle’s Forum has ever received from an independent source.

It is in fact the fulfillment of what WND’s Jerome Corsi had foreseen and written about earlier (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118953). It shows not only the extent of the criminal activity of the world elites but also the extent to which they will go to hush up their activities.

The sender, the assistant to Nigel Farage, founder of the UK Independent Party (UKIP), one of the most outspoken voices in Europe and a man who has consistently opposed the European Union dictatorship — even from his position as a Member of Parliament in the EU, sent out the press release immediately after dictating it, showing the outrageous consequences of “carbon credits.”

To sum it up, 1 billion pounds sterling  in carbon credits were given to an Indian-owned UK steelworks so that the plant could be closed down — ostensibly to save the world from the emissions caused by this plant — leaving 1,700 workers jobless. And here is the rub: in Robin-Hood fashion, the cool billion of UK taxpayer money will be invested in steel plants in India, where no one believes in the “carbon offset” schemes and where the emissions will continue unabated, with nothing of the stated goal being accomplished.  The net result is an enormous transfer of wealth by Fabian-style stealth from a “rich” (but soon to be poor if the elites have their way) country to a developing country. I hope you understand that the end game of the elites is to “spread the wealth around” as Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet or anything else. It is like Chicago-style power politics on a world scale.

It is vitally important for us to be aware that all globalists and globablist organizations (like the CFR) want only to spread the wealth, Marxist style. They do not want prosperity for you or your children and, as evidenced hereinbelow, they could care less about the environment or “global warming.”  And here is the smoking gun in Mr. Nigel Farage’s press release, as dictated to his secretary.

Don Hank

Sir

Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesborough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (“mothballed” is the euphemism)  It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.  By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

There’s more.  The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP’s leader in the EU’s “parliament”, Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC’s “Question-Time” programme, from Middlesborough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the “Question-Time” panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week’s Sunday Express, has also been “pulled”.

 Yours etc

On another note, please let us know what you think of the below-linked post “Enjoy the internet while you can.” For example, is there anything offensive in the way it is written? Please let us know either by sending us a note at zoilandon@msn.com or by adding a comment at the bottom of this latest post “The rotten fruits of…”

Thank you!

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/enjoy-the-internet-while-you-can/

Further reading 

Climate change hoax:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/10/1181/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-takes-hit-take-action-on-dod-pro-homo-policy/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/11/30/the-real-climate-conference-in-copenhagen/

European Union as dictatorship:

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/03/25/government-by-deception/

http://laiglesforum.com/europe-a-dictatorship/

Freedom threatened:

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/08/31/816/

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/11/26/america-in-full-suicide-mode/