Bloody hell! I thought the RSPB was a charity, until I discovered Wind Turbines.


David Davis

This is shocking and obscene. I’ve filed it under pornography.

What I thought was a charity about birds and wildlife, but is probably a quango instead, has a “Climate Change Policy”……

Here’s an extract:-

Ruth Davis, head of climate change policy at the RSPB, said the charity was promoting the development of wind power because the evidence of the increasing impact of global warming on birds was “truly terrifying”.

“Left unchecked, climate change threatens many species with extinction.

“Yet that sense of urgency is not translating into actions on the ground to harness the abundant wind energy around us.”

She said the solutions were largely common sense, including a clear lead from government on where wind farms were built and clear guidance for councils on how to deal with applications.

here’s another extract:-

The Government must step in to provide a clear lead on developing wind farms more quickly without damaging wildlife or alienating communities, the RSPB urged.

Make up your own mind what these people are for.

About these ads

3 responses to “Bloody hell! I thought the RSPB was a charity, until I discovered Wind Turbines.

  1. Steven Northwood

    This is a section from one of my recent university assignments;

    Wind Power to replace 10% of fossil-fuel burning in the UK

    “Insofar as wind power is concerned, which is the subject of my critical appraisal for this part of the assignment, it could be possible to replace 10% of fossil-fuel burning in the UK with this technology, but there are availability factors which would need to be addressed, as the power generation, at the point of operation at least, would be practically dependant on the wind.

    Of course, with information from the Meteorological Office and any historical records of high-low pressure readings for a given area, an engineer could calculate the mean yearly power generation for a turbine or set of turbines. This could then replace demand previously supplied by the burning of fossil fuels. There would need to be an auxiliary supply of power to prevent power shortages in the event of a prolonged unforeseen lack of wind power due to the weather.

    From my own professional perspective, I do not think that green energies such as wind power or water power can ever really be considered as more than a small alternative to supplying our current energy requirements. Modern industry and vehicles will always need energy which can be produced at the point of operation and according solely to demand, and not according to any other factors such as weather patterns.”

    The forthcoming energy problems will not be solved by returning to windmills and waterwheels, full-stop. Any drive to do so compromises our economic and industrial autonomy and hands any dynamicism to other countries.

    If we don’t slip into melancholy and industrial endarkenment, I predict these contraptions being torn down, as Nietzsche said “a laughingstock and a painful embarrassment”.

  2. Lots of decentralized small scale power generation using DC current could seriously lighten the main grid load. Maybe then with the addition of nuclear power, we could wean ourselves off coal and oil.

    • I do agree Roger:

      I’m not knocking wind power “per se” – merely the global-statist-scumbag manifestation of it that’s foisted upon people’s power grids.

      There are a number of farmers around here who have smallish turbines, I guess about 5 to 12 Kw capacity, which they use to augment their local supply, and which may well be runnable when, say, power lines are donw in the winter. I guess they ought to be feeding stacks of car-batteries with them, no?