Skip to content

The Hidden Climate Agenda

July 6, 2019

By Paul Homewood


H/t Robin Guenier


Robin sent me this long, rambling analysis of the “Climate Crisis” by Ted Nordhaus, who is apparently a neoliberalist (no, me neither).

He starts with this make believe account. (His climate assumptions are simply absurd, but I assume they are intended to make his point).


The Empty Radicalism of the Climate Apocalypse


What would it mean to get serious about climate change?

“We must stop asking what the Earth can do for us,” newly elected President Jay Inslee concluded in his inaugural address, “and start considering what we must do for the Earth.”

Inslee had launched his campaign two years earlier as a longshot, single-issue candidate. But events rapidly outpaced what had begun as a boutique candidacy intended to call attention to climate change.

In the spring of 2020, another record Mississippi River flood, a brutal tornado season, drought in the Northwest, and a series of damaging thunderstorms in the Northeast brought battleground primary states into Inslee’s camp. As Democrats gathered for their convention in Milwaukee that July, three weeks of heat that approached 40 degrees Centigrade across the corn belt wiped out half the nation’s corn crop. Then, on Labor Day weekend, a category 3 hurricane made its way up the Eastern Seaboard, maintaining hurricane strength all the way to Washington, DC. Six weeks later, a category 4 hurricane took dead aim at New York City, forcing a hasty evacuation of millions of people out of Manhattan and other boroughs.

Inslee had set out to run an optimistic campaign, arguing that a Green New Deal to take on climate change would create good jobs at home and position the United States to compete for growing clean energy markets abroad. But by the time of his election, the feel-good rhetoric was unnecessary. The nation faced a crisis and President-elect Inslee was the person to fix it.

As his first act as president, Inslee declared a national climate emergency. As his second, he announced national carbon rationing. Until further notice, consumers were limited to one tank of gas per month. Based on time of year and regional climates, natural gas and heating oil deliveries to households were cut by as much as 60%. Utilities were directed to submit plans within the month to cut total electricity generation by 40% and to optimize their existing generation mix to use as little fossil generation as possible.

The rationing was dubbed temporary by the new administration, a stopgap measure until the president and the new Democratic Congress were able to mobilize the full force of the nation’s manufacturing and industrial capacities to retrofit the economy for a low carbon future. Inslee informed congressional leaders that he would relax rationing only once Congress had enacted the measures he would shortly send to the House and Senate.

Inslee delivered to Congress a sweeping package of legislation to tackle the crisis. Senate Bill 1 nationalized the power sector, centralizing the nation’s mostly private utilities under the publicly owned Tennessee Valley Authority in the East and the Bonneville Power Authority in the West. Senate Bill 2 created the National Renewable Energy Corporation with a mandate to convert domestic manufacturing capabilities to produce wind turbines and solar panels sufficient to produce 60% of the nation’s electric power with renewable energy by 2030. Senate Bill 3 created the National Nuclear Energy Corporation, which consolidated the nuclear divisions of Westinghouse, General Electric, General Atomics, and Bechtel into a single public corporation with a mandate to operate the nation’s existing nuclear reactors and construct 200 more large light water reactors of a single design to meet the rest of the nation’s electrical needs within 10 years. Senate Bill 4 nationalized the Big Three automakers, along with Tesla. The new national automobile corporation would produce only electric and fuel cell vehicles, with a target of retooling all automobile manufacturing capacity to electric vehicles within three years.

A month after his inauguration, Inslee traveled to meet with European allies. There, he announced his plan to convert NATO to a global climate mitigation and relief force. NATO and its wealthy members would directly finance the construction of low carbon infrastructure across the globe. Like the Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe, NATO would provide long-term, low-interest loans for developing economies to purchase and deploy clean energy technology. NATO forces would also lead relief efforts to rebuild after natural disasters and resettle refugees in regions less vulnerable to climate change. “It doesn’t matter whether you are black, white, or brown, American, Indian, or Chinese,” Inslee thundered at the end of the NATO meetings. “We are all Earthlings now, with a common challenge and a common destiny.” As Inslee boarded Air Force One, en route to meet his Indian and Chinese counterparts, the battle to stop catastrophic climate change had finally been joined.

Nordhaus then begins his argument:

Many conservatives have attacked the Green New Deal as socialism—a Trojan horse that in the name of addressing a manufactured climate crisis reveals the true progressive agenda, which aims to overthrow capitalism, abrogate economic freedom, and centrally plan the US economy. And yet, as my imagined narrative of a climate change presidency illustrates, what is striking about the Green New Deal and similar proposals coming from climate hawks and left-leaning environmentalists is not their radicalism but their modesty.

At a moment when advocates make a range of demands that are simultaneously vague and controversial, from ending capitalism and economic growth to rejecting materialism and consumption to reorganizing the entire global economy around intermittent sources of renewable energy, almost no one, in either electoral politics or nongovernmental organizations, seems willing to demand that governments take direct and obvious actions to s
lash emissions and replace fossil energy with clean.


Nordhaus has it wrong about introducing socialism to tackle climate change. Rather, socialists want to use “climate crisis” as a way of smuggling socialism through the back door.

Socialism on it’s own cannot mend the climate. After all communist regimes have an appalling record where environmental matters are concerned.


Nationalising the National Grid, as Corbyn wants to do here, won’t alter the simple fact that you cannot run a modern economy on intermittent renewables, no matter how many billions you throw at it in subsidies.


If you want to significantly decarbonise the power sector, you only have one route, and that is nuclear. But there are serious social and environmental objections against that option.

We can of course rule out biomass, which is essentially a con.

Even nuclear cannot solve all the problems. It is not flexible enough to cope with fluctuations in demand. And construction of hundreds of new nuclear plants would require massive amounts of concrete and steel, both energy and carbon intensive.


As the Inslee projection makes clear, significant decarbonisation would mean widespread rationing, and centralised control of society, economy and individual lives.

And it does not just end there. Not only will energy need to be rationed, so too will all the goods we rely on. Many of these are imported from countries which continue to emit CO2, so it would defeat the purpose if these are not strictly rationed as well. Indeed we can surely look forward to foreign exchange and import controls.

And then there’s food. Decarbonisation policies, phasing out of mechanisation and fertiliser, not to mention the end of livestock farming, will devastate agricultural production. Unless this shortfall is made up from abroad, we can all look forward to food rationing.


We have, of course, been here before. The poor souls who had to live in the Soviet Union had to endure all of these things- centralised control of their lives, shortages, poverty and state direction of industry. Grim lives, all enforced under the watchful eye of the state.


Thanks, but no thanks.


  1. July 6, 2019 12:17 pm

    Bring on Thorium!

  2. MrGrimNasty permalink
    July 6, 2019 12:54 pm

    Caroline Lucas was spouting off on the local news last night.

    Apparently some schools have introduced a half-day on Friday because of evil Tory cuts (i.e. politically motivated left-wing disruption to extract more cash).

    Anyway, cue a bunch of schoolkids with banners ‘we want 5’ etc. and Lucas spouting off how schoolkids couldn’t afford to miss half a day’s lesson.

    By now you are probably spitting coffee at the willfully blind hypocrisy of the kid climate strikes, which strangely, were never mentioned.

    • Athelstan. permalink
      July 6, 2019 4:11 pm

      coming soon, they’ll be shutting on Friday and opening on Sunday.

      • alexei permalink
        July 6, 2019 8:31 pm

        I sometimes wonder if TPTB have not cottoned on to the fact that plugging climate apocalypse is a useful deterrent from the really major future risk we should all be concerned with.

    • Phoenxi44 permalink
      July 6, 2019 6:16 pm

      Amazing that she thinks it’s perfectly fine to impose huge costs on everyone for Green subsidies but its evil incarnate to impose cuts on anyone because the government spends to much.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      July 6, 2019 8:26 pm

      The “asymmetric week” as they call it has been the practice in several Scottish LAs for years. A few parents are unhappy because it means arranging childcare for Friday afternoons. I’ve never yet heard of children protesting!

  3. Broadlands permalink
    July 6, 2019 1:23 pm

    “…almost no one, in either electoral politics or nongovernmental organizations, seems willing to demand that governments take direct and obvious actions to slash emissions and replace fossil energy with clean.”

    Almost no one has quantified what this means. (1) How much CO2 in parts-per-million? (2) how much time to completion, in years? Not one “green” politician seems willing to demand an answer to the solution devoid of qualitative rhetoric.

    • July 6, 2019 10:20 pm

      The extinction rebellion idiots had a deliberate policy of not stating any deliberate policies, knowing that as soon as they made any practical proposal their coalition would begin to fracture. The masses want to be saved from the imaginary bogeyman, but don’t want there to be any personal cost.

  4. rms permalink
    July 6, 2019 1:50 pm

    “hundreds of new nuclear plants”. Would be great if some organisation with authority, expertise (e.g. NOT scientists), and responsibility would design a nuclear power infrastructure (location, number, timing, cost, schedule, etc.). Hundreds just doesn’t seem right; but I’m in favour if “more” and “smaller” and closer to where the electricity is used to significantly reduce losses in the grid.

  5. July 6, 2019 2:04 pm

    Perhaps not the central point , but are any of the climate – numpties aware that we can get rid of artificial fertiliser , or livestock farming , but not both
    ? Soil is not ” the gift that keeps on giving ” . No artificial + no manure = no food . And only a very cynical person would think that might suit the green misanthropes .

  6. July 6, 2019 2:12 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

    • Stonyground permalink
      July 6, 2019 6:48 pm

      Recently I have been hearing radio ads for Shell Energy. They are claiming that they can supply 100% renewable energy for your household needs. This is quite obviously untrue and , as I understand it, lying in advertisements is illegal. Presumably they can get away with it as long as no one complains. Wouldn’t it be brilliant if renewable energy really could be seperated from the rest and sold to gullible virtue signallers at a price that reflects its actual cost. The wake up call that is delivered after a week of still and cloudy days would be such fun to watch.

  7. Ariane permalink
    July 6, 2019 2:20 pm

    The Leftists – who support the nonsense that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing a climate emergency- are infantiles. Behind the anti-industry plot to characterise CO2 as evil are the Greens and those wealthy fascists and neo-Malthusians who want to impoverish and destroy the rest of us.

  8. Up2snuff permalink
    July 6, 2019 2:37 pm

    Actually, there’s a word in Inslee’s short fiction that could and would work had, say, the Blair/Brown Government, for the UK, gone down that route. ‘Ration.’ However, it would have disadvantaged high earners and the wealthy so Blair & Brown didn’t put it into action. I wonder why?

    If everyone had a personal carbon allowance, every year – so many car road miles, bus, taxi & train miles plus boat & air miles (mix of business/vacation & short/long-haul) – and there was a market to trade unused allowances, those who had small carbon footprints (and maybe the small income to go with it) could then sell their unused allowance in the market to the Emma Thompsons of the world who need to fly around the globe.

    For example, you decide to have a ‘staycation’, so you sell your vacation flights allowance on the market to some youngsters out of school who wish to have a gap year together with some young professionals who wish to weekend in Prague, Dublin & Paris in addition to their annual holiday in, say, Spain.

    In the UK, this would go a long way to closing social disadvantage and so-called inequality gaps as well as, possibly, social care and other issues we currently wrestle with in the UK.

    Over time, the annual Carbon Allowance (or Ration) could be steadily reduced (or even increased) according to the latest thinking on CO2 induced planet warming and climate changing by those the politicians believe the most.

    This would, of course, generate jobs that socialists do not like – financial traders – but it would also generate profits that could be taxed and spent by government on pet projects. They would like that.

    I wonder if the threat of CO2 Global Warming and Climate Change would very quickly be deemed ‘to have gone away’ under such a system?

    • Up2snuff permalink
      July 6, 2019 2:52 pm

      Sorry, first line correction – more correctly, Nordhaus’ short fiction about Inslee

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 6, 2019 6:21 pm

      No, it would generate mass unemployment and huge social costs for any government stupid enough to do it. And how would it reduce inequality? Rationing always inreases inequality because those with wealth get more of the rationed resource and thre is no way the market can increase the amount of the resource – so the price goes up.

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 6, 2019 11:01 pm

      In 2004/5, Kevin Anderson of Tyndall was proposing just such a system with a proposal that everyone should be issued with a “Carbon” Credit Card, which would be debited every time you purchased fuel etc.

  9. Immune to propaganda permalink
    July 6, 2019 2:46 pm

    You’re doing a noble job as always Paul. I can’t see how we are going to defeat this disguised socialism in the West unless we have more political leaders like Trump.

  10. Andrew Harding permalink
    July 6, 2019 3:28 pm

    Of course it is politically motivated! The beauty of capitalism is that it thrives on mankind’s basic instinct to provide for spouse and family. Socialism/Communism goes against this instinct by force and/or very high taxation. Venezuela is the current prime example another is the comparison between North and South Korea. The incentive to work hard is lost and those countries that are ruled by the Left sink into economic decline as the UK did under Wilson and Callaghan in the mid-1960s-70s.

    Every single time far-Left governance has been tried it has failed, but still the Left don’t get the message! So instead of bullying and cajoling as they have always done their new tactic is to present a scenario of there being no alternative. The result is Man-Made Global Warming, which morphed into Climate Change when most people noticed that the Earth is not warming.

    Blaming CO2 as a greenhouse gas (which it is but the effect is logarithmic, any concentration level above 20ppm is mostly irrelevant) becomes an essential cause to fight for. Once that seed was planted in the minds of the proles it was nurtured by blaming any event on CO2, specifically the CO2 emitted by the greedy capitalists. The solution? Stop burning fossil fuels, the fact that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere anyway and life continued anyway is a minor distraction.

    To solve this non-existent problem we need to use non-CO2 emitting energy sources. Logically this would be nuclear fission now or fusion in the future, however, we were told Nuclear is too dangerous (Thorium Reactors aren’t) and fusion is too far in the future to deal with the ‘climate emergency’. Wind, Solar, Tidal, Hydro are the options with hydro the only one that is reliable and not intermittent. In other words, if the Sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow at the right speed or from the right direction and the Moon is in the ‘wrong’ place in the sky we have no electricity. Societies will regress back to the Dark Ages before capitalism existed, which is exactly the objective the Left is hoping for.

  11. Athelstan. permalink
    July 6, 2019 4:15 pm

    Green agenda, Communism are one.

    vote liblavCongreen, go straight to industrial suicide and statism-Communism the EU version.

    • Ariane permalink
      July 6, 2019 4:42 pm

      You guys have it all wrong: Communism is not the same as the Green agenda. Communism is an ideology where ‘the workers control the means of production’ and such workers obviously want industry and economic growth. BUT the Greens want to get rid of industry because they love wilderness and wild animals and ‘the Earth’ (Mother etc. etc.) more than they love people. In fact, Greens can be people and population-haters. Thus, though hiding behind Leftist Infantiles, the Greens, particularly the ‘Deep’ ones, are very very Right-wing. The Greens’ ideology is where the State controls the means of production, NOT THE WORKERS!!

      • Up2snuff permalink
        July 6, 2019 5:43 pm

        Ariane, I think the Communists looked for somewhere to hide in 1989 & 1990 and thought ‘Where can we keep a low profile, where no-one will come looking for us for reparations or revenge? Aah, that Green movement looks good. Let’s disappear for a while and then we can sign up for that as concerned citizens and do our bit.’

        Some have done that, while also re-habilitating themselves in political life. Martin Schulz strangely comes to mind, for example. Have I got the right person there?

      • Ariane permalink
        July 7, 2019 12:15 pm

        Up2snuff, if a Communist were looking for somewhere to hide and thought the Green movement was a good place, then they would have had their own rather than working people’s welfare in mind. The Greens want to stop the use of cheap energy because they are anti-industry and anti-economic growth and a lot of them were/are anti-working people too – none of which would be the perspective of a Communist.
        However, for people who like fat salaries and pensions and real (unaccountable) power, the EU and Green movement are the best places to hide in plain sight, pretending to be nice, but promoting state control of energy policy (via climate legislation, carbon (dioxide emissions) taxes etc. That is fascist not socialist.
        It would be more accurate to say that it was rich people of a fascist turn of mind who were, in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, hiding their true colour, who thought of a very clever plot to keep working people subjugated and poor. That plot would also co-opt all those increasingly wealthy and ‘infantile’ leftists (disappointed by Stalin et al.) Thus were the Greens, environmentalism, ‘sustainable development’ and anti-CO2 ideas born, promoted and funded at the global level.

      • July 6, 2019 10:16 pm

        Where there is wealth, nature will be preserved. Where there is poverty, everything will be burnt or eaten.

      • tom0mason permalink
        July 6, 2019 10:20 pm

        ‘You guys have it all’ CORRECT. Fixed for you!
        The Green Agenda is NOT environmentalism, it’s communism in the old failed Soviet mold. It’s not about ‘the workers’ it’s about control.

  12. Dave Ward permalink
    July 6, 2019 4:46 pm

    ” You cannot run a modern economy on intermittent renewables”

    Something I (depressingly) pondered yesterday afternoon while observing the TOTAL lack of movement at Sheringham Shoal windfarm. Although there was a light sea breeze it wasn’t enough (7kts, according to “”) to start any of them turning, let alone produce a useful output.

    In years to come this site, and all the others like it, will be seen as monuments to the utter, utter stupidity of politicians…

    • Curious George permalink
      July 6, 2019 5:24 pm

      The goal is to run a centralized economy. Products like steel or cement will be replaced by vodka. Vodka Putinka will become a gold standard.

  13. Coeur de Lion permalink
    July 6, 2019 5:20 pm

    As I write a very low demand of 31GW has an ENORMOUS seven percent supplied by wind in a nice breezy summers day. God help us, the BBC Is telling us that Alaska is melting and this is the canary in the coal mine. Can I say coal mine any more?

  14. July 6, 2019 5:33 pm

    Ted Nordhaus lists damage caused by climate. He then suggests drastic changes that would cause more economic harm than the damage caused by the climate. Also his changes would not stop future damage by the climate.
    Better to look at ways to lesson damage by extreme weather events.
    When France had there resent short lived heat wave they took simple practical steps to lesson the effect.
    That is why we have reservoirs to collect water when surplus for times of shortage.
    While prevention is better than cure and proper maintenance of forests and waterways can prevent. Reserves and emergency planning makes more sense than these extreme changes.
    This is like the talk of ending petrol/diesel cars by 2030 and changing house boilers from oil/gas to electric in the UK.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      July 6, 2019 8:15 pm

      What you seem to be suggesting is adapt as and when something happens. That is, after all, what the ‘natural world’ does. If I recall correctly that is what Bjorn Lomborg suggested a long time ago.

  15. Ian Phillips permalink
    July 6, 2019 6:17 pm

    ……and in this new society, where most of us will have to make do and mend (…during those brief spells when the lights are on), we mustn’t forget the exhausted apparatchiks and elites, in charge of things, who have to work so hard against the odds to grant us even the most meagre of luxuries. They will, like the former Soviet rulers and the Brussels nomenclature, no doubt have special shopping centres, where they can get hold of everything….and a privileged energy allowance for them to enjoy a normal life style.

  16. Jackington permalink
    July 6, 2019 8:32 pm
    James Lovelock on the Today programme yesterday – 100 this week!!

  17. alexei permalink
    July 6, 2019 9:05 pm

    Pity those of us who have Inslee as state governor claiming that “defeating” climate change is the most urgent challenge of our time”. Claiming in his recent campaign speech that “our cities are burning, our fields under water”, he also tries to persuade that the devastating fires in California were due to climate change, though they have been attributed to failures of the local power company (now bankrupt) and neglect of forest maintenance. But passionately expressed lies (and media support) are the tool-kit of so many of today’s politicians.

    • Bill Dunnell permalink
      July 8, 2019 4:11 pm

      As a resident of Washington State We see ads from Inslee about how his plan will “create high paying clean energy jobs in every town and city”. I cannot help but think that if a CEO made a claim like that he would be in legal trouble but “sleepy Jay” Inslee in true political fashion can sing the dreams of avarice to the choir and never be held to account. Washington State owes its success to Amazon, PACCAR, Boeing, Microsoft and a strong agriculture sector replete with loggers and commercial fishermen. We have succeeded in spite of Jay and not because of Jay.

  18. swan101 permalink
    July 6, 2019 9:49 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

  19. tom0mason permalink
    July 6, 2019 10:13 pm

    NeoLiberal=socialist in an old failed Soviet mold.

  20. dennisambler permalink
    July 6, 2019 11:13 pm

    Ted Nordhaus is the nephew of economist William Nordhaus.

    Uncle Bill was the first to mention the ” 2 Degree over pre-industrial” magic figure, way back in in 1975:

    CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE? William D. Nordhaus June 1975

    (A working paper for IIASA)

    “As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to argue that the climatic effects of carbon dioxide should be kept well within the normal range of long-term climatic variation. According to most sources the range of variation between climatic (sic) is in the order of ± 5 °C., and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range.

    If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”

    In 1977, Nordhaus expanded on his theme in Discussion paper 443 for the Cowles Foundation at Yale:

    “Strategies for the Control of Carbon Dioxide”

    In this paper he repeated a lot of his IIASA paper, including the seminal paragraph: “If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”

    However, he changed his figure for the range of variation within a stable climatic regime “such as the current interglacial”, from l°C, to 2°C and said that in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature had been 0.6°C, rather than his earlier 0.7.

    This comment from an economist has since been repeated ad infinitum as a scientific dictum.
    John Schellnhuber claimed the 2 degree meme as his own when he got the EU to adopt it in 1996.

  21. dennisambler permalink
    July 6, 2019 11:18 pm

    This sort of projection of a future regime seems to be in vogue at the moment:

    (Parkville is the Melbourne University campus)

    MSSI Director, Professor Brendan Gleeson, has just co-authored with staffer Dr Sam Alexander a book “Degrowth in the Suburbs: A Radical Urban Imaginary.”

    “The book calls for the overthrow of capitalism en route to a mightily shrunken non–consumerist “eco-socialism”. MSSI cites reviews of the book as a “beacon of hope” for a “a tantalizing and realistic suburban future”, as the authors guide us “through the calamities of the Anthropocene”.

    MSSI last March also published an update by the Gleeson/Alexander duo, “showcasing new and exciting sustainability knowledge”. The authors respectfully quote Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto of 1848. But they argue for a decarbonised Australia which for radicalism makes Marx and Engels seem mild as maiden aunts”

  22. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    July 6, 2019 11:32 pm

    5859 words, 38627 characters and I’m no wiser as to what the author of the linked article was trying to say.
    They have constructed this ill-defined thing called ‘climate change™’ based on a load of interdependent assumptions none of which have any validity in fact.

  23. John Mirenda permalink
    July 7, 2019 5:08 pm

    I agree with your analysis of the leftist view, but think the scenario is not as unlikely to come to pass as you say. We are approaching a grand solar minimum, already causing massive flooding and disruptions, with more to come in the near future. I wish you would cover the grand solar minimum, to alert your readers to prepare for wetter weather and understand what is happening. Back to the political scenario: if these disturbances are wrongly attributed to CO2 then the public may actually go for the leftists, and unleash all the abhorrent measures mentioned. Please educate your readers about the grand solar minimum:

  24. Ken permalink
    July 9, 2019 5:58 am

    The writer is unaware of the fact that the there are not sufficient resources of labor, raw materials, and manufacturing capabilities to remake the power generating infrastructure in such a short timeframe. And rationing will make the shortfall that much larger. What will be the source of energy for this massive conversion, good old unicorn flatulence? That is the Green leftist’s favorite fuel it seems. Perhaps they think they can just command all of this new hardware into existence. If they pass enough laws. If they get enough control of the people. If they can keep people from driving so much. Flying so much. Going to the beach. Etc.


    • Ariane permalink
      July 9, 2019 12:23 pm

      Ken, the Greens are not leftists, or socialists or communists. Those Greens who think they are on the Left are deluded. Genuine Greens are the kind of people who will only be happy when the rest of us live in dark cold hovels. The history of Green does not stem from anything remotely Left-wing. Hitler wrote a book promoting ‘national socialism.’ And he criticised the Jews for being ‘capitalist’. ‘National socialism’ is at the other end of the political spectrum from leftism, socialism or communism. National socialism equals fascism; or the control of the nation’s people by the Nazi state. Real Greens want to destroy human prosperity and populations, and one good way they’ve hit on is to control energy policy via stupid parliamentarians and deluded supporters.

  25. Richard Phillips permalink
    July 10, 2019 10:47 pm

    If nuclear is so inflexible, how come that the French managed to obtain 83% of their power from it at one time.????

    Richard Phillips

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: