It may have been a predictable outcome, but more than anyone
else, green energy seems to confer its benefits on landowners rather than power consumers. Wind
turbines, solar panel arrays and biofuels all require far more land than coal, nuclear
or gas for power generation.
THE importance of
renewable energy generation is poised to become hugely important to landowners
over the next decade.
The findings came from
a snapshot poll taken at a conference organised specifically to discuss the
issue. The Renewable Projects: Landowner to Landowner event at Stoneleigh Park
in Warwickshire, found that 65% believed that renewable energy production would
be very important to their overall business in 10 years’ time, compared to 54%
in five years’ time, and 19% at the moment.
Oddly enough, even fracking doesn’t occupy much land and as
far as eco-fascists are concerned it isn’t green. Supposedly this is because
CO2 is generated by burning natural gas, but is that the only factor?
I’m not saying that climate activists are in the pockets of
major landowners, but as things have turned out they may as well be. Especially
when one considers how inefficient and unreliable green power is.
So are big landowners at least partly responsible for keeping
green energy scams alive in spite of the screwed science and obvious lack of warming? Certainly many of them appear to be intent on taking
advantage of it, but are big landowners a major factor in the demented government
line that CO2 still causes global warming even if it doesn't get warmer?
I don't know, but I wouldn't bet against it.