All Episodes
Dec. 9, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
39:31
20131209_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Monday, December the 9th, 2013, and here are our top stories.
Tonight, a former ambassador to the UN warns of potential war between China and Japan.
Then, Google's Schmidt wants a government monopoly on consumer drones.
And a congressman demands that Obama rule by fiat.
That's next on the Info Wars Nightly News.
They revel in their masses of weakness.
They revel in their armaments against us.
They revel in their red carpets.
They revel in their Air Force One.
Well, as economic fundamentals are failing everywhere, governments around the world are pushing to get tighter controls of the media and pushing for war.
The former Chinese ambassador to the United Nations has warned that the dispute between Japan and China over islands in the South Pacific could lead to World War III.
He said it sounds somewhat alarmist, but this has also been talked about by Ambrose Evans Pritchard, who warned that Asia is on the cusp of a full-blown arms race.
And, of course, we see that South Korea's defense ministry announced that it will impose its own air identification zone in the region, which overlaps those of Japan and China.
What we have here is a Venn diagram for war.
And the press in Japan is very alarmed about this as well.
And John Bowne has a report on how they view it.
The Japan Times notes five out of nine weekly magazines that went on sale last Monday and Tuesday contain scenarios that raise the possibility of a shooting war with China as soon as next year in response to Beijing's imposition of an air defense zone over the disputed Senkaku Islands.
The Sunday Mainchi speculates that the communist superpower would utilize a false flag in the form of a civilian airliner being forced to land and passengers held hostage.
Another scenario revolves around China targeting oil supertankers bound for Japan.
If China were to target them, nothing could be worse to contemplate, wrote author Osamu Ieya.
Shuken Gendai, a weekly magazine sold by the largest publishing house in Japan, even speculated that Chinese President Xi Jinping could order the shoot-down of a Japanese civilian airliner, prompting a response from the United States that could lead to a fighter jet battle.
Unlike Japan, the U.S. military would immediately respond to a radar lock-on threat by shooting down the Chinese planes.
According to Saburo Takai, writing for Flash, China is intent on reclaiming the Senkaku Islands by force, if necessary, but still fears a military confrontation with the United States, a concern emphasized by Beijing's failure to respond to America's provocative B-52 bomber a concern emphasized by Beijing's failure to respond to America's provocative B-52 bomber incursion of the air defense In recent months, the Chinese have boasted that their aircraft carrier task force rivals the U.S. nation, Navy.
In October, the PLA released a map of major U.S.
cities and how they would be impacted by a nuclear attack launched from the PLA's strategic submarine force.
And with bluster straight out of a science fiction novel, the Chinese media outlets announced plans to turn the moon into a Death Star capable of launching missiles towards any target on Earth.
The Fed of China and the United States have become linked in a way far beyond what any of us could imagine.
We are now facing a common challenge.
And the challenge is how to build a world order for the first time in history On a global basis.
For InfoWars.com, John Bowne reporting.
Well, Russia's not known for its free press, but even though they have a lot of control, they're still pushing for even tighter control.
Today, Putin dissolved the state news agency and tightens his grip on the Russian media, according to Reuters.
Leanne McAdoo breaks that down for us.
Russian President Vladimir Putin tightened his control over Russia's media on Monday by dissolving the main state news agency and replacing it with an organization that will promote Moscow's image abroad.
Most Russian media outlets are already loyal to Putin, but the shakeup underlined the Kremlin's concern about the president's ratings and image, and how vital they are for keeping Putin in power.
What is this desperate need for world leaders to control the media?
Japan just passed a state secret act last week essentially banning journalism by threatening whistleblowers and journalists with lengthy prison sentences for divulging and reporting state secrets.
Critics say the secrecy bill could restrict public access to information on a wide range of issues including tensions with China and the Fukushima nuclear crisis.
And as China becomes a dominant player in international affairs, the country has cracked down on granting visas for foreign journalists.
And China has pressured publications such as Bloomberg to spike critical stories if they wish to maintain operations inside the country.
But are these countries just following the Western model of a free press?
Here in the United States, the president that promised to be the most transparent has been criticized for being the least transparent and the most aggressive when it comes to punishing leaks in an effort to control information.
With a compliant media, leaders like Putin can retain their power.
Japan can silence the hysteria resulting from a devastating nuclear reactor meltdown.
And they can fast-track secret trade agreements that will destroy sovereignty without input from a meddling public.
In order to maintain total control, rulers must control the message.
And there is no doubt a war on for your mind.
For the InfoWars Nightly News, I'm Leanne McAdoo.
Well, it's very important that we have a free and authentic media.
If you remember back to August, when the government was pushing its narrative for war in Syria based on a sarin gas attack, we pointed out how the rebels had been known by both the UN, the Russian, and even American intelligence had confessed that they knew that rebels had the capability to produce sarin gas.
It wasn't just a monopoly of the Syrian government.
And amazingly, even though That was rolled back.
We still have the media pushing back against any analysis that goes against the government's official story.
We have a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Cy Hirsch, who cannot get mainstream media to publish his analysis of this false narrative that tried to push us into a war with Syria.
It's reported today that corporate media ignores evidence of the CIA's al-Nusra responsible for a Syrian sarin attack.
On InfoWars we have this article.
He told the Huffington Post that there was little interest for the story at the New Yorker.
He then took it to the Washington Post.
They did not respond to media inquiries.
They did not want to publish it.
Finally, it went to the London Review of Books.
Yes, something where he's unpacking the lies of government that nearly pushed us into war.
That gets buried, not in any of the mainstream press, but on the London Review of Books.
And you can read the analysis and see the link to his article at InfoWars.
Now, there's a lot of talk in Washington about Obama as a dictator, finally.
It's been a long time coming, but it is now out in the open.
And you can dismiss a lot of this as just partisan politics.
We see that Cruz, however, is making some pretty good points.
He said that the Obamacare law says that big business doesn't get an exemption.
The president just waved his hand and said, I'm granting them an exemption.
Ignore that part of the law.
I don't want to enforce it.
And we've seen other congressmen point out that he's doing the same thing with immigration laws.
He's doing the same thing with the laws that forbid lying to Congress, just letting James Clapper go.
But this is something that's being talked about by law professors as well.
We've got Jonathan Turley saying that Obama's become the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid, and that is the concentration of power in a single branch.
But the left is not pushing back against these labels as Obama being a dictator.
In fact, we see that the progressive branch of the Democrats are actually pushing him to be more like a dictator.
We've got Congressman Keith Ellison and fellow progressives demanding that Obama set the minimum wage by fiat.
We in Congress will try to raise the minimum wage.
We've got opponents on the other side of the aisle who say that there shouldn't be no minimum wage.
So we are, it's difficult to fight these guys, but we know at the executive level, an executive order can change the situation.
We demand it right now.
Mr. President, sign the executive order.
Sign the executive order!
Well, there you hear the crowd of progressives chanting, sign the executive order.
Sign the executive order.
In other words, rule by fiat.
Rule as a dictator.
And while they're pretending to be the friend of the working poor, they are costing them their hours and in many cases their jobs through the Obamacare mandates, the hidden costs that the working poor may not see.
They're going to hand them bigger salaries just in terms of the number of pieces of paper that they get without actually getting any increase in purchasing price because of inflation.
That's what the government has been doing.
That's why they're hurting at the bottom scale, hurting at the minimum wage, is because of the inflation from the Federal Reserve.
And it is something where they're going to push essentially $27 billion in new gas taxes, is what the Democrats are talking about.
At the same time, they're talking about helping the working poor.
They're going to nearly double the federal gas taxes.
And then, of course, there's the super-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Which is going to complete the gutting of the economy, transferring even more wealth, even more power to this neo-feudal 1% of the 1%.
So all this is being done behind the scenes while they're pretending to be the friend of the working poor.
Now, Larry Pinckney breaks this down on an article on InfoWars today.
Barack Obama's de facto totalitarian nation.
He said the fact is that totalitarianism and fascism, in the words of Huey P. Long, have already incrementally come to America.
Not only wrapped in an American flag via false patriotism and corporate hegemony, but also aided and abetted by unprincipled and hypocritical gatekeepers who masquerade as so-called progressives.
That's right, progressives like Keith Ellison, who no longer believe in a democratic republic and who want their president to enact their agenda by dictates, as a dictator.
We'll be right back with more news about the corporate fascist police state.
Stay tuned.
The InfoWars crew absolutely loves coffee because we love being awake.
And I am somewhat of a connoisseur of coffee.
So many times you go to a restaurant or even to a coffee shop and the coffee tastes like garbage.
And in all the different coffees I've tried, my favorite is grown in the high mountains, in shade, Arabica, on the border with Guatemala, in southern Mexico, by the Chiapas farmers.
I make sure we've done the research.
I make sure it's the very best product that we can offer you when I put my name on it.
And I believe, and it's my taste so you may differ, that this is the best coffee in the world from Southern Mexico.
Wake of America Patriot Blend, 100% organic, Arabica shade grown.
And then we have the Immune Support 100% organic coffee infused with a special type of mushroom known to boost the immunity.
This coffee is seriously so smooth.
I normally have to douse my coffee with cream and sugar and cinnamon and all kinds of tasty treats, but this, I drink this black.
It is so good.
Well that's why I like it, is that it has a kick, it has really good caffeine in it, it has a good clean wake-up that lasts for a long time, doesn't give me a headache, but it's so smooth, it's so delicious.
Just try it out for yourself.
I'm telling you, this is my favorite coffee.
We went through a lot of trouble to bring you this.
Just try it and I think you'll be hooked like we are here at InfoWars.
Well folks, find out for yourself and support the information war today.
It's all available at InfoWarsLife.com or by calling toll free 888-253-3139.
Welcome back.
The Washington Post has an amazing revelation today.
They say the FBI's search for a fictional Moe suspect in bomb threats highlights the use of malware for surveillance.
The FBI apparently has now told the Washington Post that they can report on the FBI using your laptop to spy on you.
They say investigators have turned to a new kind of surveillance tool delivered over the Internet.
And the report goes on to say that the FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer's camera without triggering the light that lets the user know it's recording for several years now.
Well, of course, when the FBI is ready for you to know that, they will give it to the Washington Post, even to the Blaze, and they will pretend that it's a new secret that they've uncovered.
But this is something that Alex Jones has been telling you about for quite some time.
And then there's this article from nearly two years ago entitled, Alex Jones Was Right.
This is abovetopsecret.com.
They pointed out that Alex had been talking about spying via your webcam all the way back to 2008, and they link to the old video there.
And then from our archives in 2010, Big Brother was not just spying on school children through their laptops, and we have InfoWars referencing back to Alex Jones talking about this in 2006.
Well, that's it for our news portion.
Right after the break, we'll be talking to a former EPA scientist about the difficulty of using renewable energy on the grid.
Stay tuned.
We're on the march.
The Empire's on the run.
And the InfoWars Army is standing strong.
Wake up your family, friends, and neighbors and break the matrix at InfoWarsStore.com.
Learn the truth and spread the message of liberty with the world's most comprehensive collection of books and documentary films.
Maintain a healthy metabolism and energize your body to perform at peak health.
With survival shield, nascent iodine.
Protect your family and be prepared with survival foods and emergency preparedness kits.
And now you can drink safe water with your own ProPure water filtration system, which removes fluoride and other harmful chemicals from your family's water supply.
Save 10% with the promo code WATER.
So join the revolution.
Infowarsstore.com Many anthropologists and archaeologists believe that before man even discovered the power to harness and use fire, we were involved in agrarian activities.
That is, taking the seeds of plants and then replanting them to produce more.
The very foundation of our modern civilization and human culture is centered around the planting and cultivation of edible plants.
Here are some of the amazing deals at InfoWarsSeedCenter at InfoWarsShop.com.
The Survival Seed Vault by My Patriot Supply features only the finest survival heirloom seeds for a robust and hardy garden, even in the toughest times.
We also have starter varieties of the Deluxe Seed Packages for fruit, salad, salsa, peppers, medical herbs, and more.
Go to the InfoWarsSeedCenter at InfoWarsShop.com.
And remember, The revolution against tyranny is growing.
Well, our guest tonight is David Schneier.
He's General Counsel for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
He has 33 years experience working for the EPA.
He's both a scientist and a lawyer.
He's concerned about the environment, but he's no fan of needless regulation and regulations that don't work.
So, he's pointed out for quite some time what the LA Times and mainstream media is just now starting to reveal, that Renewables do not match up well with the grid.
As the LA Times story pointed out, the grid was not built for renewables.
That's a quote from someone at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
And they said, the frailty imperils lofty goals for greenhouse gas reductions.
That's quite an understatement, actually, of the real problems.
But the government, just like with Obamacare, has no problem just sending out mandates.
Fix it!
Just by a declaration or mandate.
But there's issues with that.
There's reality behind these mandates.
Somebody has to design the systems and they're just not there.
So joining us today is David Schneer.
Thank you very much, David Schneer, for joining us.
This is something that you've been talking about for years, how renewables just don't match up with the grid.
And now we're finally seeing mainstream media articles about this.
Tell us what the problems are with renewable sources like solar and wind and biofuels trying to match that up to the grid.
Well, let me first distinguish biofuels from the others.
Biofuels are available from mobile sources, but they have nothing to do with electricity.
Biofuels are by far the most expensive kind of fuel you can get and use a lot of water.
In fact, there's been a lot of talk lately amongst the activist environmentalists that biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol, are really harmful And don't want to see these expanded for the simple reason that it uses too much land, it uses a lot of fertilizers, and it harms water quality.
And that kind of discussion I heard even today on NPR, in fact, a discussion about this.
Their alternative, of course, is to use other forms of biological material, but that makes it even more expensive.
So let's set that aside and talk about the electricity side.
Wind and solar are variable.
The sun only shines part of the day, and wind comes and goes.
The challenge for both is that because they're not stable sources that you can forecast when they will be working and how well, To use them, you need backup or you need storage.
And California has gone down the storage route.
They've now said that massive quantities of electricity storage has to be available by 2020.
And even the newspaper folks have realized that that's not a technology available today.
There's no good reason to believe it's going to be available in another seven years.
And it is, in fact, extremely expensive.
So they're banking in California on the hopes of the future, whereas industry is banking on the fears of the future.
And that's because these kinds of technologies are highly variable and require a lot of backup.
And let me interject something there, too, because, you know, these renewables like wind and solar, especially solar, can work for individuals to some degree, but even if you're setting up an individual system for your home, trying to store that in batteries really is a whole separate issue.
Most of the time when I've talked to people about solar for my house, I'm told that I should basically stay on the grid because it is so overwhelmingly expensive to get a storage system even for a single home, let alone for the entire grid.
Well, that's really true, and I'll give you another example.
One of the plaintiffs in our Colorado lawsuit is a gentleman by the name of Rod Lewick.
He runs a back-end electronic storage and data processing center for banks and other organizations that need 24 hour a day, 365 day a year service.
He can't have a down period.
His clients simply can't survive it.
And so he put in solar.
And had an expert come in and say, all right, how's this look?
And the expert said, this is silly.
There's nothing wrong with solar, but you don't have all the rest.
He had to put in a massive bank of lead acid batteries.
He had to put in a controller system that cost well in excess of $50,000.
And he had to have a smart meter hook up that allowed him to use not only the grid, but also his diesel backup in case everything else went down.
That's right.
And he has, although the system is upgraded so it doesn't keep track of what you're using and when and where, the bottom line is his diesel has come on a number of times because he neither has the solar providing sufficient energy or the grid goes down.
And so, you're right, this is a technological thicket.
There has to be a lot of infrastructure change.
Even the folks who believe that you can reach, and there are some, We think you could reach 80 to 85% of all electricity needs in the entire United States through wind and solar.
Admit that that's actually impossible today.
It's not going to be possible without massive investments.
Let me read a quote there.
This is from Richard Harris, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
This is from an NPR interview he had.
He said, there's about a dozen optimistic reports that suggest our energy future can be built exclusively with renewable sources like wind and solar.
But many other reports say not so.
Renewables alone can't go the distance.
This is from the guy who's a National Renewable Energy Laboratory director.
So they're still looking, however, at reducing carbon dioxide, because to them that is the most evil substance on the planet, even though that's what plants need to survive.
They want to reduce that by 80%.
So they're either going to cut our power or they're going to go to what appears to be Obama's favorite energy source, which is nuclear power.
How would you assess the risk of nuclear power and how green that is?
Well let me start out by suggesting or by mentioning what's been going on in some of the universities.
One of the California universities professors has asked her students to develop an energy strategy that would get you off of carbon.
And inevitably what they come up with is massive reliance on nuclear.
Now let me just give you an externalities, quick externalities look as we economists and environmentalists say.
If you look at windmills, and you think, well, gosh, you know, the wind is straight, and they're clean, and they paint them white, and they're beautiful.
And you ask, what are the externalities of that?
Beyond the killing of birds and bats and stuff like that, there's a lot of what are called rare earth elements that are put into these.
And they're mined predominantly these days in China.
Yes.
And you don't want to see the lifestyles that people live in and around those, the desolation of the lakes, the incredibly high cancer rates, the children born with bones so soft that they will never grow up and they usually don't survive beyond a few months.
I mean, the externalities of wind we forget about until we remember we have to make the things.
The interesting thing about wind is that in mining rare earths for the windmills, you create as much nuclear waste As you as the entire nuclear energy program in the United States makes each year.
So the nuclear trade-off in terms of waste is exactly the same.
So the only question then becomes which one of these is more stable produces at a reliable rate and manner and cost least and that in fact is nuclear.
Let me add one other thought on nuclear.
We have been, nuclear power is an area of regulatory fear mongering.
And the reality is the U.S.
government has not responded well to the burps in the system.
The Three Mile Island accident, for example, produced such a small amount of radioactive waste that it wasn't measurable.
To any great degree, and it was gone within three days because it turned from whatever it was into lead.
It just wasn't dangerous anymore.
And that is often compared with the devastation over in Chernobyl where a reactor design blew up and caused enormous adverse effects.
I've been to Chernobyl.
I've talked to the public health folks who were running the program.
We don't want to do that, but we won't.
And the solution's going to be, and this is one that I really strongly favor, Our small package atomic plants, nuclear plants, they can run and build, let me put it another way, that will serve, for example, industrial centers.
Some local industrial park that wants to have its own secure energy system can have small nuclear reactors of the kind we've been using in naval warships for decades now.
We've never had an accident with any of them.
They do not require large quantities of water to cool.
They can be upgraded, and there's new evidence of showing that we can use, instead of uranium, we can use thorium, which does not produce the nasty radioactive products that are wastes.
In other words... And I guess that's one of the questions, Dave, I have about it, is the storage of nuclear waste, because that's one of the key issues at Fukushima.
Other than Three Mile Island in Chernobyl where we had nuclear reactor accidents, we understand now after Fukushima that the reactor pools themselves represent a clear significant risk that's perhaps as dangerous, if not more so, than the reactor.
And then there's the expense of containing that, there's the expense of decommissioning the nuclear power plants.
I mean, is that all being factored in?
Well, that is factored in whenever you, before you even build it.
What the problem is, is that our Congress, which has demonstrated that next to the word dysfunctional in the dictionary is the picture of the Capitol, is they've simply, and it's been Harry Reid's fault, Senator Reid, We refuse to allow opening of the one waste disposal facility that we know would be quite sufficient to take care of all of that.
David, let me interrupt you right there.
We're out of time for this segment.
We're going to be right back after the break and I want to continue this and talk to you about renewable mandates that are happening and your fight against that throughout the country.
We'll be right back.
Well, that's all the time we have in our regular broadcast.
We're going to continue that interview for our Prison Planet TV subscribers.
If you're not a subscriber, Check it out.
It's a way to support our operation and it's a way to get the content immediately as it's first available and you can share that with up to 10 people.
So we'll be right back after the break.
Now you can watch The Alex Jones Show live as it happens at Infowars.com slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15-day trial for Prison Planet TV.
More than 60 movies and documentaries all in one place at Infowars.com/show.
Welcome back.
We were just talking to David Schneer and he was giving us his take on nuclear energy.
David?
Well, the important part about nuclear power is that it takes so long to get permitted.
A facility in Virginia that has been on the books and been operating for You know, a couple of decades, wanted to build another unit.
It's been something in excess of seven years to get the next unit approved.
Still hasn't been done.
Hasn't been built.
Should have been.
And this is all bureaucracy and fear.
It's not good technology.
The technology's there.
But there are other approaches like thorium reactors and small reactors that have been used for many decades, are easy to build, are inexpensive in comparison to other sources, and can be used to supplement the major power centers that create electricity, whether it's natural gas or coal, or in many cases, large nuclear.
So there are answers, and they can be off the grid or only marginally attached to the grid, and they are cost efficient.
So nuclear is a growing area.
I think you're going to see a lot of it.
And the reason why environmentalists tend to like it is exclusively because it is fairly low.
Not zero, mind you.
Because you have to make the things, and that takes energy, and that's usually based on coal and natural gas.
Nevertheless, it's a good technology.
It would have been widely used in much greater use if Three Mile Island hadn't occurred.
But that did, and so now we're living with the aftereffects.
Well, now, on the after effects, it's not just Three Mile Island, but it's also Fukushima, I think, has given a lot of people pause to reflect on potential problems with nuclear power.
And the former head of the NRC has So that we basically ought to shut down all the existing nuclear reactors and come up with a different design because they have an inherent design flaw that is similar to the one at Fukushima.
What are the waste storage issues with thorium that are different from the current waste storage issues that we have?
Well thorium doesn't produce a radioactive waste that requires the kind of cooling that you get from uranium.
Furthermore, and this is really important, to understand Fukushima you have to understand that they're recirculating pumps.
We're not properly located.
They were located in a place where they could be damaged by a big flooding event.
And that's precisely what happened.
And it was when those pumps went out that they started getting an overheating in their in their waste pools.
That is not a problem in the United States, even for those nuclear facilities that are on the coastline.
Could we use a new design?
Sure.
In fact, as a free market environmentalist, my view is we ought to open up the opportunity to design all kinds of ways.
But the bureaucracy gets in the way of that.
We certainly could use a new generation design.
That would be fine.
It could be more efficient.
And there are probably many people who would like to do that or have them ready to go.
But what it takes is leadership at the federal level.
And a president who stands up and says, we're going to make this happen, and turns to the bureaucracy and says, make it happen.
Well, we have a president who said that he's going to essentially shut down coal, and he's pushing for nuclear.
What's your take on that?
Well, it depends on how hard he pushes.
The current president, sadly, has lost a lot of his strength or his policy presence because of other matters.
But the way it works in this day and age is if you turn to your Department of Energy and you say make it happen.
Now there's a new head of the Department of Energy and the question will be whether or not that person, I believe it's a woman and I don't recall her name, will make that happen.
But the focus on energy and environment under this administration Has been completely towards a war on coal without really talking much about what the replacement is and what's sensible in terms of a replacement.
Yeah, we've had, according to a coal association, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy, they pointed out that 300 coal plants have been shut down in 33 states due to EPA regulations and it looks like these EPA regulations are getting ready to explode as far as Standards on power plants in the next couple of months.
That's right.
EPA actually hadn't filed its regulatory agenda for two years.
It finally decided to file one.
Actually, the whole government, OMB finally decided to file it.
134 new regulations coming out of EPA.
And all of the greenhouse gas ones, all of the ones related to coal and all, are based on this endangerment finding.
And it has been in excess of five years since they made that finding.
There's an awful lot of new science out there.
I think if I was a betting man, I would bet that someone's going to challenge that at some point and force the agency to go back and rethink its approach.
Even under this administration, they would have a hard time coming to the same conclusions they did before, because we have so much more information now.
And even the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body, has admitted that CO2 is not as, the temperature is not as sensitive to CO2 as they previously thought.
That's true and we've seen that even though CO2 is going up, we're seeing temperatures remaining the same or even declining in spite of efforts in ClimateGate to try to hide that decline.
That information is out there and yet if you look in the press, if you look at public opinion, that paradigm That CO2 is going to destroy the planet, that an increase in CO2 increases temperatures globally.
That paradigm is firmly implanted and it's still being the basis of policy that is being forced on us, even from the EPA, it appears.
That is true, and it will take time to change that paradigm.
A word I don't often use, but it's probably proper here.
That concept, that issue, and that point of view will change.
Part of what's going to make a change is because the alternatives to coal are so expensive.
And there are folks who have attempted to argue that wind power is now competitive with coal.
That's a lie.
That's the big lie.
It simply isn't.
Our institute has put out a major report showing that the cost of coal remains by far the least costly approach, except possibly with natural gas.
And the wind is far more expensive than people talk about.
But what will happen eventually, under the continuing economic pressure of a society that has decided that people who don't produce deserve to have the same quality of life and goods and services as people who are productive, is that those people who are productive are going to say, you know, enough's enough.
And I think it's going to come from that.
But if you ask me seriously, will I still be alive by the time we finally put Climate change to bed.
I can't say that I will.
And I figure I've got 20 more years of kicking around.
Well, David, tell us why we should even care about cheap energy.
I mean, isn't this something that we should just willingly exchange our cheap energy for a cleaner environment?
What is the real reality here that we're looking at when we make energy expensive?
Well, I think you've got to understand two things.
First of all, if you look at the environmental quality now versus, say, in 1970 when EPA was formed, we've got clean air, clean water.
We handle our waste efficiently.
Drinking water supplies are safer than ever before.
We have a wonderfully clean environment.
And what we're now dealing with are little itty-bitty bits of this or that.
The new Hays Rules that you've heard about, for example.
If you use the models that EPA uses to try to show a picture of before and after for haze control, you can't tell the difference.
That's how clean things are at this point.
And so when you ask how much are we going to spend on the environment, you realize we're now at a point where to do anything more costs a great deal.
Energy, on the other hand, energy is what we call the master resource.
Energy is what decides how efficient, effective, and successful a civilization is.
So if you want to cook with and get your energy source from coconut husks, you can understand that you're not going to have much of a quality of life.
But if you want to live in America, and most people do, you need to have high quality, reliable energy.
And let me make one final point about that.
We talk about third world countries where they have brownouts or blackouts or rolling blackouts where you only get energy some of the time.
The whole concept of renewable energies is so unstable that in fact we have that here in America today.
People just don't realize it.
Some companies agree to be cut off from electricity if the power demand is higher than the supply.
That is getting to be a worse problem.
And so what we actually have, even though we don't call them that, are rolling blackouts in all states that have and rely mostly on and more and more on wind energy.
So America needs to go forward.
The answer probably is nuclear.
It's going to be a mix.
What it is not going to be is renewable energy.
Well, we want to talk to you again.
We're about out of time today.
We want to talk to you again about your lawsuit against renewable mandates on a state-by-state basis, on the constitutional issues with that, the legal issues.
But we're out of time for today, but if people want to find out about that lawsuit, they can go to Energy Environment Legal Institute.
That's eelegal.org.
David Schneer is the general counsel there, and you have several Interesting lawsuits that are going on.
Not just that, but you've also got the ongoing lawsuit with James Hansen regarding ClimateGate.
So there's a lot of interesting things there.
I suggest people go there and learn about what's happening.
Thank you for joining us today, David.
Thank you so much.
Look forward to talking to you again.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Well, I don't think that carbon dioxide is the most dangerous substance on the planet.
And I'm not a big fan of nuclear.
But it's interesting to see how the government, even though renewables don't work, are trying to force them by legal mandates.
It doesn't matter if the Obama website doesn't work, they can just...
send an edict out, and of course that's going to fix the software.
They take the same attitude towards these renewable mandates.
And it'll be interesting to follow up and see exactly what David Schneer and his organization are doing to fight those unconstitutional mandates.
But that's it for tonight.
Be sure to check out our new magazine, just came out, talk about dinosaur and fossil fuels.
Well, the dinosaur in the room is actually the old media.
And that's the theme of this magazine, how the new media is threatening the old media.
The L.A.
Times took quite a while to come around to the realization of the difficulties in matching renewable energy sources to the grid.
Well, we'll see you tomorrow at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Export Selection