On Saturday, September 8, 2018, environmental activists around the world, totaling in the thousands, participated in protests, calling on their governments to "end fossil fuel production and embrace renewable energy."  Despite the facts that the UN IPCC has stated their computer models on climate change were biased in favor of a catastrophic "global warming" in what amounts to a "climate change hoax"government scientists were found padding the temperature monitoring data to support the false narrative of climate change/global warmingthe UN admitted the issue on climate change was designed to "redistribute wealth from prosperous countries to poor ones";  climate alarmists admitted they were wrongnone of the climate change science satisfies the Scientific Method meaning the theory of climate change/global warming is inconclusive;  and, independent scientists, not beholden to government, have debunked the climate change hoax, these brainless environmental activists, drunk on the rhetoric of hypocrites Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, cling to their "climate religion," the UN IPCC false reports, and biodegradable signs lobbying government to cease using fossil fuels to produce energy and embrace renewable, unreliable methods to their own detriment.

Jason Hopkins wrote at The Daily Caller:

Dubbed the “Rise for Climate” movement, thousands of environmentalists took to the streets to demand an end to the fossil fuel industry, claiming it is fueling a “climate crisis.” Around 820 demonstrations took place in 91 different counties, according to the Rise for Climate website. Led in large part by 350.0rg, the worldwide marches were orchestrated by other environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund, Climate Action Network and GreenFaith.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Protest organizers are demanding a “swift” and “just” transition to 100 percent renewable energy, which would include solar and wind technology.

“Climate change is the defining issue of our time, it is a crisis of democracy, justice and human rights,” May Boeve, the executive director of 350.org, said in a prepared statement. “The climate movement is made stronger by its sister movements: for human rights, economic justice, democracy, and much more. This weekend Rise for Climate will demonstrate the growing strength and diversity of the climate movement.”

Demonstrations took place in San Francisco; Paris; Sydney; Bogota, Colombia and numerous other cities around the world.

Evidently, these environmental activists are not aware of the pitfalls of wind and solar power, eleven in the  united States have been identified.  One has to ask the question – how are the climate change "ministers" going to get to all those meetings around the world if fossil fuel is prohibited?  The climate change magnates like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio will have to learn to sail the seas, count on driving only 300 miles per day max using an electric car, get out that bicycle and pedal the roads. and don those "New Balance" walkers should fossil fuel be eliminated.

What happens to the airline industry, reliant heavily on jet fuel made from kerosene?  Demanding that nations transition to 100 percent renewable energy is unrealistic, fantastical and costs exorbitant amounts of money to convert or replace transformers, power lines, etc.  And, what happens when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow?  What is the cost to consumers who have to invest in coils and batteries to collect and store energy for use when power doesn't flow?

Not one of these environmentalists have accounted for the transport of goods to stores such as groceries, clothing, etc., or the defense systems nations rely on for security.  While they glue themselves to their smart phones texting, emailing and "snap chatting," not one consideration has been given on how they will charge all these portable electronic devices on unreliable sources like wind, solar and water;  unless, these activists expect everyone to live with a nuclear power plant in their backyard.  After the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima disasters and the toxic wastes these plants produce, not one individual should support relying on nuclear power due to the potential for human error to cause accidents, natural disasters damaging reactors, and the difficulty, if not impossibility, to store the waste safely for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.  Despite what some may say, nuclear power is not clean.

Hopkins continued:

The vast majority of the marches appear to be peaceful in nature, however, some protesters are reportedly participating in illegal activity. Activists in the United Kingdom locked themselves onto equipment in an attempt to halt mining work, according to the Independent.

It’s not immediately clear how quickly the activists want a transition to 100 percent renewable energy. Most solar and wind power advocates acknowledge such a transition would take decades to complete. In the United States, the only state to have passed a 100 percent clean energy mandate is Hawaii, but that target isn’t until 2045. The California legislature passed a similar bill that awaits approval by the governor, but that bill’s deadline, too, isn’t until 2045 and it encompasses other zero-carbon sources such as nuclear and hydropower.

One can look for taxes to increase in Hawaii as well as the State asking for federal funding to support their "clean dream" where power is concerned, meaning taxpayers in all States will be helping Hawaii convert to wind, solar, hydro-, and nuclear power.  Last month, the California Assembly passed SB 100 that requires the State convert to "emissions-free" electricity production in less than 30 years.  Should the Senate pass the bill and Governor Jerry Brown sign it into law, Californians can look to additional expense in electrical power through home upgrades in the form of batteries to store power in case of no wind, sun or water and changing their electrical grid system in addition to the expense already incurred with mandatory solar panels by 2020.  However, it looks like California will be retaining the use of gasoline for automobile transportation and jet fuel for air transportation – a must for the Hollyweird elite, government officials and the average citizen, including those environmental activists so against "emissions."  But, one wonders how many Californians are going to enjoy the personal increased cost for this transition.  Moreover, should other States follow Hawaii and California, and the federal government offers subsidies, Americans can see substantial increases in taxes and the like to cover the exorbitant, unpractical cost of conversion of the electrical grid.

Of course, this is ignoring the carbon emissions of people, cows, wild animals, domestic animals and family pets.  Somehow, these environmental activists lobbying for all of this expense to the general public never equate that expense applies to them as well.  Although these brainless activists might not mind an exorbitant increase in taxes for the conversion or implementation of a carbon footprint tax, that is not the case for most Americans.  Plus, there is no way to definitively measure an individual's carbon footprint since many variables interfere with such.  All in all, this is nothing more than another way for government to control the people and redistribute wealth, as well as set the stage for UN Agenda 21, now known as Agenda 2030.   Since places most conducive to providing wind and solar energy are located far away from most customers, it could provide the catalyst for relocation of a regional population into a very small area, complete with compact living quarters.  And, not one of these "green energy gurus" have considered the devastation upon an individual nation's economy, much less what it would do on a global scale.

As we have seen with anti-constitutionalists, these people are too busy spouting rhetoric, drinking from Al Gore's "Carbon Dioxide is Bad" chalice, and drowning out the reality of exorbitant cost, unreliability, and the unfeasible nature of their alternative "green power" sources.  As a family member is fond of saying, "The school of hard knocks is a well earned education when a fool will learn no other way."  Until these "environmentalist activists" experience spotty electrical service, frequent inability to charge their electronic devices, water and sewerage issues, difficulty using electric power yard equipment, and the increased cost to their pocketbook, they will not believe this is all a ruse.  Why?  Because, despite converting electrical power to "green energy" sources, current power plants using fossil fuels will need to remain in place and running since it can take days to power one up should problems develop with the new system resulting in a prolonged outage.

So, in a reality check manner, what positive measures would converting to green energy accomplish except to drain the government coffers, the personal finances of the individual, and make these "greenies" feel good?  Nothing.  But, it does allow a redistribution of wealth among prosperous nations to less prosperous ones, supposedly;  and, place everyone on an equal footing – demoting first world nations to third world ones.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.