‘Natuur beschermen’ door bos te kappen voor windturbines? @clintelfoundation

‘Natuur beschermen’ door bos te kappen voor windturbines? @clintelfoundation

Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago

Duitsland zegt windenergie nodig te hebben om de natuur te beschermen. Maar in het Zwarte Woud betekent dit dat bos plaatsmaakt voor industriële windturbines.

In Baden-Württemberg vervielen op circa 15.000 hectare eerdere beperkingen voor windenergie — een gebied ter grootte van ongeveer 21.000 voetbalvelden. Volgens de eigen bosbeheerorganisatie van de deelstaat verdwijnt per turbine gemiddeld een halve hectare bos permanent. Tijdens de bouw is tijdelijk nog bijna evenveel ruimte nodig.

Is dit natuurbescherming of de industrialisering van het bos?

Volg Clintel voor een realistische kijk op klimaat, energie en natuurbeleid:

https://clintel.nl/nieuwsbrieven/

Video: Electroverse
Nederlandse ondertiteling: Clintel

Volg ons op sociale media:

Clintel international clintel.org
Clintel Nederland https://clintel.nl/
Clintel shop https://clintel.shop/
X https://x.com/ClintelOrg
X https://x.com/ClintelNED
LinkedIn /clintel-foundation
Facebook /clintel-384028188858886
Instagram /clintel_nl
Tiktok /clintel_nl

‘Natuur beschermen’ door bos te kappen voor windturbines?

The Greatest Untold Story of the 21st Century by Gregory Wrightstone 18 June 2024

Wim Röst, lezing Hillegom, 20 juni 2023

$The fundamental issues with solar and wind energy according to Dr. Lars Schernikau Energy Expert Dr. Lars Schernikau: Wind and Solar Energy Make Electricity Expensive Grid-scale batteries are not the solution—they are expensive, do not last long, and are harmful to the environment. Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy expert and author who has thoroughly studied the electricity generation system. He says that wind and solar energy production are unstable and, instead of lowering prices, will significantly increase the total cost of electricity generation. In an interview to Freedom Research, Dr. Schernikau explains in detail the requirements of the electricity generation system and why wind and solar energy, which are proclaimed by the authorities to be environmentally friendly, are actually not so, and why the increasingly widespread use of these systems will drive the electricity prices up, rather than reduce them. In the interview, Schernikau pays particular attention to storage technologies, i.e. batteries. These systems are supposed to supplement weather-dependent wind and solar energy production, i.e. provide us with electricity when the wind is not blowing and the Sun is not shining. However, according to Schernikau, batteries are not the solution because they are extremely expensive and current technologies are capable of storing only a fraction of the energy that we actually need. In addition, Schernikau says that batteries and their production are an environmental nightmare. Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy economist and entrepreneur involved in commodity trading. He is the founder, shareholder, and former board member of the German-listed commodity company HMS Bergbau AG and has founded and advised several other companies in the commodity, mining, and energy sectors around the world. He studied at New York University and INSEAD in France and holds a doctorate in economics from the Technical University of Berlin (TU Berlin) in Germany. He advises government agencies, banks and corporations on energy policy issues. He is also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Last year, he and Professor William H. Smith published a book that takes an in-depth look at electricity generation systems, their efficiency, environmental footprint, and future options: The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy. Watch the whole interview here: https://www.freedom-research.org/p/energy-expert-dr-lars-schernikau Subscribe to our newsletter: https://clintel.org/newsletter/ Follow us on social media: Clintel international https://clintel.org/ Clintel Nederland https://clintel.nl/ X https://x.com/ClintelOrg X https://x.com/ClintelNED LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/clintel-foundation/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Clintel-384028188858886 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/clintel_nl/ Tiktok https://www.tiktok.com/@clintel_nl$

“Onze mensen moeten gewoon kunnen leven”

$How Much of the CO₂ Rise Is Human? | Hermann Harde How much of the observed rise in atmospheric CO₂ is caused by human emissions—and how much can be explained by temperature-dependent natural processes? In this presentation, German physicist Hermann Harde examines the global carbon cycle and contrasts the IPCC’s explanation of increasing atmospheric CO₂ with his own approach. Harde questions the assumption that the natural carbon cycle remained fixed at a pre-industrial equilibrium of approximately 280 ppm. He argues that natural emissions and absorption vary with temperature and that natural and anthropogenic CO₂ molecules must be treated equivalently within the carbon cycle. He discusses: • the IPCC carbon-cycle model and airborne fraction; • residence time, adjustment time and effective absorption time; • whether absorption is proportional to emissions or atmospheric concentration; • the Bern carbon-cycle model and its multiple adjustment times; • temperature-dependent emissions from soils, oceans and the biosphere; • radiocarbon as a tracer of atmospheric carbon exchange; • carbon-14 measurements following nuclear bomb tests; • a three-reservoir model involving the stratosphere, troposphere and surface; • the relationship between tropical temperatures and net CO₂ emissions; • El Niño events and variations in the Mauna Loa record. Using radiocarbon observations, Harde estimates an effective atmospheric absorption time of no more than approximately eight to ten years. His model attributes about 13 ppm—or roughly 9% of the atmospheric increase since 1850—to human emissions. He argues that the remainder can largely be explained by temperature-dependent natural emissions, particularly from tropical soils and the biosphere. Harde also estimates that the anthropogenic contribution to industrial-era warming is approximately 0.3°C. He concludes that policies intended to reduce this relatively small contribution threaten energy security, economic prosperity and living standards. The presentation concludes with a short discussion in which Ferdinand Engelbeen challenges Harde’s treatment of fossil-fuel emissions, carbon isotopes and the concentration differences that govern exchanges between the atmosphere and other carbon reservoirs. Recorded during the Clintel Workshop on Recent Research Developments on Atmospheric Temperature, Carbon Dioxide and Their Relationship at the National Technical University of Athens on 19 September 2024. This video was filmed, edited and produced by Aphroditi Katerinopoulou: https://vimeo.com/user52800014 aphroditikat@yahoo.gr Hermann Harde is a physicist formerly affiliated with Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg, Germany. Learn more about Clintel and the World Climate Declaration: https://clintel.org/ Hoofdstukken 00:00 Introduction 00:45 Opening remarks 03:13 The IPCC explanation of rising CO₂ 05:14 The pre-industrial carbon balance 07:40 Residence time and the airborne fraction 09:15 Problems with conventional carbon-cycle models 11:13 Multiple adjustment times in the Bern model 12:35 A modified IPCC interpretation 16:00 Harde’s approach to the carbon cycle 19:07 Radiocarbon as a tracer 20:12 Carbon-14 and nuclear bomb tests 21:44 A multi-reservoir carbon model 23:15 Modelling radiocarbon decay 26:16 Applying the model to human emissions 28:17 Estimating the anthropogenic contribution 28:46 Temperature-dependent natural emissions 30:43 Analysing the Mauna Loa record 32:53 Tropical temperatures and El Niño 34:31 Soil respiration and ocean outgassing 35:27 Temperature, emissions and phase relationships 36:43 Comparing calculated and measured CO₂ 37:53 Is only 9% of the increase anthropogenic? 39:11 Historical CO₂ measurements 40:30 Conclusions 42:08 Questions and discussion 42:47 Ferdinand Engelbeen challenges the model$

Climate: The Movie (teks bahasa Indonesia)

De energietransitie bestaat niet: fossiele energie blijft domineren

Does CO₂ Drive Temperature—or Follow It? | Peter Stallinga

Waarom je je geen zorgen hoeft te maken over klimaatverandering #science #news #podcast

De 97% consensus leugen

CO₂ lie not allowed to fall down

‘Natuur beschermen’ door bos te kappen voor windturbines?