(Natural News)—In the race to embrace renewable energy, the UK has found itself in a costly predicament. Wind energy, once hailed as the silver bullet for our energy woes, is now proving to be a significant financial burden. The UK has spent more than £1 billion this year alone to turn off wind farms and start up gas plants in a stark reminder that hasty decisions without proper planning can lead to disastrous consequences.

It’s not surprising that wind energy is failing to live up to its promises. Governments, driven by the fervor of achieving net-zero targets, have blindly pushed for alternative energy without fully considering the drawbacks. The UK’s energy grid, designed for a different era, is struggling to cope with the surge in wind power. The result? A record amount of wind power is being wasted, and consumers are footing the bill.

The UK has boosted its offshore wind fleet by 50% in the past five years and plans to double it over the next five years. However, the grid infrastructure has not expanded at the same pace. This mismatch has led to the operator paying wind farms to turn off, particularly those in Scotland, to prevent grid overload. The irony is palpable: while the UK pays Scottish wind farms to shut down during windy conditions, it simultaneously pays for gas-powered plants in the south to fire up. This absurd scenario highlights the flawed logic of rushing into renewable energy without considering the big picture.

The problem is exacerbated by the UK’s energy system rules, which are outdated and ill-equipped to handle the complexities of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator is forced to shut down far-flung wind farms and start up gas-fed plants closer to demand centers. This not only undermines their misguided decarbonization goals but also increases energy bills, making it harder for consumers to benefit from the touted advantages of renewable energy.

Clem Cowton, director of external affairs at Octopus Energy Group, rightly criticizes the “outdated rules” of the energy system. However, the blame should not be solely on the rules but also the lack of foresight and planning. The mad rush to achieve net-zero targets has resulted in bad planning, with little to no consideration for the practicalities of integrating large-scale wind energy into the existing grid.

A cautionary tale

This situation should serve as a cautionary tale for other countries considering similar energy transitions. Wind power, like electric vehicles, is often portrayed as a panacea for our environmental woes. However, the reality is far more complex. Wind energy is expensive, environmentally harmful, and, as the UK is discovering, often inefficient. Consumers are not only paying for the construction of these wind farms but also for their failings. The question remains: who will bear the cost of deconstructing these wind farms when the climate change crisis, much like the COVID-19 pandemic, loses its urgency?

The looming return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House has just planted a bomb under Labour’s Net Zero obsession. With a Trump-led America pulling in the opposite direction, the UK’s ambitious decarbonization plans may face even greater political peril.

The UK’s experience with wind energy is a costly lesson in the dangers of hasty green policies. Governments must approach renewable energy with caution, ensuring that infrastructure and regulations are in place to support the transition and that it truly is a better alternative, which isn’t the case with wind power. Blindly pushing for alternative energy without considering the drawbacks is not only financially irresponsible but also undermines the very goals it seeks to achieve. The UK’s £1 billion wind energy fiasco should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers worldwide.

Sources for this article include:

Expose-News.com

Bloomberg.com

GBNews.com

“Everything was a lie from the beginning. The asymptomatic people don’t transmit. Kids were not harbingers of the disease. They don’t actually, they’re like a break on the disease. Lockdowns were a farce. Masks don’t work,” he said.

He also came up with a colorful way to describe the illusion of masks helping to prevent the spread of the virus, stating: “I tell people, I joke sometimes I say masks do work. A lot like bathing suits work to keep pee out of the pool. They’re not very effective. So that’s one of those things that, you know, it was a farce. Pretty much everything they said was a farce.

He also spoke out about COVID-19 vaccines, something that has cost some doctors their medical licenses and professional reputations. Even though it has now become painfully obvious that these vaccines are, in many ways, as dangerous as a lot of us originally feared, the topic is still largely taboo among medical professionals when speaking on the record.

Dr. Urso said: “Well if you want to destroy your immune system, take a COVID-19 vaccine. It will destroy your immune system. It distributes widely in your body. It can’t be broken down because it’s a genetically modified RNA. There are contaminants, process related impurities, what I usually call them, but contaminants for most people, that they haven’t gotten out of the vaccines.”

He also drew attention to problems linked to the vaccines, such heart attacks, strokes and cancer, quoting a statistic that there were 40% more deaths in 2021 among the 18-to-64 age range after the rollout of the jabs.

In addition, he explained how the design of the vaccines is inherently flawed and they are capable of distributing their contaminants and impurities to the brain, ovaries, testes and bone marrow.

And unlike many of the doctors who are talking about this now but weren’t nearly as forthcoming a few years ago, Dr. Urso has been saying these things all along. He drew the ire of the establishment when he made comments on social media during the pandemic promoting the use of hydroxycloroquine (HCQ). He also expressed doubts about the efficacy of masks and appeared on Fox News discussing his views. In addition, he appeared at events with the group of physicians known as America’s Frontline Doctors, who shared information with the public about how they can treat the virus with alternative solutions like vitamins and HCQ.

Doctor was subject of medical board complaint after prescribing HCQ to COVID-19 patients

In 2020, the Texas Medical Board dismissed a complaint against him over his prescription of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients. The medical board concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he violated the Medical Practice Act, and their investigation revealed that he was “appropriate in his care and treatment” of his patients.

Although the board did not specifically mention HCQ in its letter, Dr. Urso had previously claimed that he had been reported to them for using the drug for COVID-19 patients. It is not known who filed the complaint against him.

This type of smear campaign was common when the vaccines came out and was used as a way to discredit those who had the courage to go against government narratives and Big Pharma and point out the potential problems with injecting our bodies with untested vaccines.

Sources for this article include:

• TheBurningPlatform.com
• MedPageToday.com

Speaking to Tucker Carlson, he called attention to the way that the West has been criminalizing the platforming of Russian media outlets. It’s a big departure from the Cold War, when mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times would regularly publish speeches that were given by Soviet leaders like Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev.

He told Carlson: “Now it’s practically criminalized.”

He pointed out how obvious this was when the conflict between Russia and Ukraine first escalated in February of 2022. He said: “One of the very first steps [the EU] took legislatively was to ban the platforming, to criminalize the platforming of Russian media, like RT and Sputnik. They made it a crime, and YouTube immediately pulled it off because they didn’t want their citizens hearing any information from the Russian perspective.”

This is putting us at a disadvantage by preventing us from getting a better idea of their viewpoints, he says.

“I mean, you can hate Russia, you can think Russia’s evil, you can think whatever you want about Russia, but why wouldn’t you want to hear from the other side?” he asked.

Carlson agreed, saying that a speech he heard from Russian President Vladimir Putin in which he announced his military operation was very insightful. He said that most Americans aren’t aware of what Putin is thinking, and he doesn’t understand why people want to remain ignorant.

Greenwald and Carlson concluded that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that “propaganda works.”

Russian state media target of censorship campaigns

The media outlet RT has been described by the U.S. State Department as a major part of the Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation campaign and was blocked in the European Union and Canada in 2022. However, replicas of its articles appear on numerous other websites, and there has been a concerted effort to try to stop its message from spreading.

German Marshall Fund senior fellow Bret Schafer said: “It was quite evident when we were running the search results in the E.U. that if Russian propaganda is not showing up on Russian domains, it’s getting through, which is sort of a double whammy because it’s not just evading restrictions and bans, it’s doing so on sites that are less transparent than RT itself.”

YouTube blocked global access to all channels that are affiliated with RT and has taken steps to remove what it claims is “harmful misinformation.”

RT acknowledged in a statement that its content doesn’t follow the “U.S. State Department/NATO party line” but is glad to hear its content is reaching different platforms and users.

In September, Facebook owner Meta said that it would be banning RT along with Rossiya Segodnya and other Russian state media outlets from all of its platforms, which include WhatsApp and Instagram, on the grounds that they allegedly used deceptive tactics to conduct influence operations online.

“After careful consideration, we expanded our ongoing enforcement against Russian state media outlets. Rossiya Segodnya, RT and other related entities are now banned from our apps globally for foreign interference activity,” the social media company said in a written statement.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that the world should treat RT’s activities like they would covert intelligence operations.

Sources for this article include:

• RT.com
• NYTimes.com
• Reuters.com

Trump has never bought into their delusions about manmade climate change and can’t be bullied the way liberals can into supporting their profitable green measures. Not only has he ridiculed some of their more outlandish claims in the past, but he has also promised to continue the practice of extracting fossil fuels and back out of the highly flawed Paris climate accord.

Clean technology proponents are already in damage control mode, with United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell trying to allay market fears by stating: “Those investing in clean energy are already enjoying huge wins in terms of jobs and wealth, and cheaper, more secure energy. This is because the global energy transition is inevitable and gathering pace, making it among the greatest economic opportunities of our age.”

Reuters, meanwhile, reported that Trump’s win “has darkened the outlook for a strong deal at the COP29 climate summit” scheduled for next week in Azerbaijan. The participating countries are expected to set a new target for climate aid that may surpass $1 trillion annually; climate alarmists are worried that other countries won’t provide funding if the U.S. doesn’t get on board.

Reuters was also quick to point out that he has called out climate change for being a hoax and that his policy advisers considered removing the U.S. from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many are worried that he will try once again to withdraw from it when he retakes office, which could also set the stage for other countries being reluctant to participate.

Centre for European Reform Senior Research Fellow Elisabetta Cornago implied that the outcome of the election could spell disaster for climate change funding. She said: “Pushing for more ambitious climate finance is going to be almost impossible without the U.S. buy-in, which will de-motivate developing countries from taking seriously the climate ambitions of the West.”

One Latin American climate minister told the AP that Trump’s return to the Oval Office is a big setback.

“The election feels like a slap in the face to climate progress, but it won’t stop the global push for clean energy. Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end,” the official stated.

Trump is expected to boost fossil fuel production

Trump has stated his intention to increase the production of fossil fuels, and he is expected to prop up the industry through regulation and potentially opening more federal lands up for drilling. He may also roll back some policies that pertain to emissions and fossil fuels, something he did during his first term in office as well. In addition, he plans to support new liquefied natural gas export terminals. This is something that Biden has been actively working against.

Climate change alarmist Sam Ricketts said that Trump’s presidency will make the planet unsafe for children.

“This is obviously a difficult result to stomach for those of us who care about our democracy as well as healthy communities and a safe and livable planet for our children. There’s no sugar-coating it: This is a gut punch,” he said.

Trump has yet to release his official climate agenda, but he has said that he will repeal the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which spends billions of dollars on greening the economy.

Sources for this article include:

• ClimateDeport.com
• Reuters.com
• Politico.com