Agenda 21

Those with Nothing to Hide….Hide Nothing, and Then There’s the Gov’t!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Breaking EPA’s climate sciences secrecy barriers

FOIA request seeks hidden data and analyses that agency claims back up its climate rulings

milloy-v-epa

Can you imagine telling the IRS you don’t need to complete all their forms or provide records to back up your claim for a tax refund? Or saying your company’s assurances that its medical products are safe and effective should satisfy the FDA? Especially if some of your data don’t actually support your claims – or you “can’t find” key data, research and other records, because your hard drive conveniently crashed? But, you tell them, people you paid to review your information said it’s accurate, so there’s no problem.

Do you suppose the government would accept your assurance that there’s “not a smidgen” of corruption, error or doubt – perhaps because 97% of your close colleagues agree with you? Or that your actions affect only a small amount of tax money, or a small number of customers – so the agencies shouldn’t worry?

If you were the Environmental Protection Agency, White House-operated US Global Change Research Program and their participating agencies (NOAA, NASA, NSF, etc.), you’d get away with all of that.

Using billions of our tax dollars, these government entities fund the research they use, select research that supports their regulatory agenda (while ignoring studies that do not), and handpick the “independent” experts who peer-review the research. As a recent analysis reveals, the agencies also give “significant financial support” to United Nations and other organizations that prepare computer models and other assessments. They then use the results to justify regulations that will cost countless billions of dollars and affect the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of every American.

EPA utilized this clever maneuver to determine that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases “endanger” public health and welfare. It then devised devious reports, including national climate change assessments – and expensive, punitive regulations to control emissions of those gases from vehicles, electrical generating plants and countless other sources.

At the very least, you would expect that this supposedly “scientific” review process – and the data and studies involved in it – should be subject to rigorous, least-discretionary standards designed to ensure their quality, integrity, credibility and reliability, as well as truly independent expert review. Indeed they are.

The Information Quality Act of 2000 and subsequent Office of Management and Budget guidelines require that all federal agencies ensure and maximize “the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information disseminated by Federal agencies.” The rules also call for proper peer review of all “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific assessments,” particularly if they could be used as the basis for regulatory action. Finally, they direct federal agencies to provide adequate administrative mechanisms enabling affected parties to review agency failures to respond to requests for correction or reconsideration of the scientific information.

EPA and other agencies apparently think these rules are burdensome, inconvenient, and a threat to their independence and regulatory agenda. They routinely ignore the rules, and resist attempts by outside experts to gain access to data and studies. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said she intends to “protect” them from people and organizations she decides “are not qualified to analyze” the materials.

Thus EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviews the agency’s CO2 and pollution data, studies and conclusions – for which EPA has paid CASAC’s 15 members $180.8 million since 2000. The American Lung Association has received $24.7 million in EPA grants over the past 15 years and $43 million overall via a total of 591 federal grants, for applauding and promoting government agency decisions. Big Green foundations bankrolled the ALA with an additional $76 million, under 2,806 grants.

These payoffs raise serious questions about EPA, CASAC and ALA integrity and credibility.

Meanwhile, real stakeholders – families and companies that will be severely impacted by the rules, and organizations and experts trying to protect their interests – are systematically denied access to data, studies, scientific assessments and other information. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. EPA stonewalls and slow-walks FOIA requests and denies requests for correction and reconsideration. One lawyer who’s filed FOIA cases since 1978 says the Obama Administration is bar-none “the worst” in history on transparency. Even members of Congress get nowhere, resulting in testy confrontations with Ms. McCarthy and other EPA officials.

The stakes are high, particularly in view of the Obama EPA’s war on coal mining, coal-fired power plants, businesses and industries that require reliable, affordable electricity – and families, communities and entire states whose jobs, health and welfare will suffer under this anti-fossil fuel agenda. States that mine and use coal will be bludgeoned. Because they pay a larger portion of their incomes on energy and food, elderly, minority and poor families are especially vulnerable and will suffer greatly.

That is why the House of Representatives is moving forward on the Secret Science Reform Act. It is why the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development is again filing new FOIA requests with EPA and other agencies that are hiding their junk science, manipulating laws and strangling our economy.

The agencies’ benefit-cost analyses are equally deceptive. EPA claims its latest coal-fueled power plant rules (requiring an impossible 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030) would bring $30 billion in “climate benefits” versus $7.3 billion in costs. Even the left-leaning Brookings Institution has trashed the agency’s analysis – pointing out that the low-balled costs will be paid by American taxpayers, consumers, businesses and workers, whereas the highly conjectural benefits will be accrued globally.

That violates President Clinton’s 1993 Executive Order 12688, which requires that agencies “assess both the costs and benefits” of a proposed regulation, and adopt it “only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits … justify its costs.” EO 12866 specifies that only benefits to US citizens be counted. Once that’s done, the EPA benefits plummet to between $2.1 billion and $6.9 billion. That means its kill-coal rules costAmericans $400 million to $4.8 billion more than the clearly inflated benefits, using EPA’s own numbers.

Moreover, the US Chamber of Commerce calculates that the regulations will actually penalize the United States $51 billion. Energy analyst Roger Bezdek estimates that the benefits of using carbon-based fuels outweigh any hypothesized “social costs of carbon” by orders of magnitude: 50-to-1 (using the inflated SCC of $36/ton of CO2 concocted by EPA and other federal agencies in 2013) – and 500-to-1 (using the equally arbitrary $22/ton estimate that they cooked up in 2010).

Even more intolerable, these punitive EPA rules will have virtually no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, because China, India, Germany and other countries will continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels. They will likewise have no effect on global temperatures, even accepting the Obama/EPA/IPCC notion that carbon dioxide is now the primary cause of climate change. Even EPA models acknowledge that its rules will prevent an undetectable 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.032 deg F) of total global warming in 100 years!

Fortunately, the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA does not have the authority to rewrite federal laws to serve its power-grabbing agendas. FOIA requests seeking disclosure of EPA records that could reveal a rigged climate science peer review process – and legal actions under the Information Quality Act seeking correction of resultant data corruption – could compel courts to reconsider their all-too-common practice of deferring to “agency discretion” on scientific and regulatory matters. That clearly scares these federales.

The feds have become accustomed to saying “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.” The prospect of having to share their data, methodologies and research with experts outside their closed circle of regulators, collaborators and eco-activists almost makes them soil their shorts.

Bright sunlight has always been the best disinfectant for mold, slime and corruption. With America’s economy, international competitiveness, jobs, health and welfare at stake, we need that sunlight now.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.cfact.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Lawrence Kogan is CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (www.ITSSD.org).

UK Government Intends to Lead It’s Citizens Into Poverty…Sounds familiar!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Households face higher bills to cover

£250 billion cost of upgrading UK’s

crumbling roads, railways and utilities

and poor will be hit hardest, MPs warn

  • Most costs will be passed on to consumers through higher bills
  • Projects costing more than £375billion planned for the next 15 years 
  • ‘No one seems to be sticking up for the consumers in all this,’ said committee chair Margaret Hodge 

By RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS

PUBLISHED: 09:31 GMT, 1 July 2014 

Major energy, water and transport projects have all been planned over the next 15 years, but no regulator or government department has worked out whether households will be able to pay for them, they said.

 Energy and water bills have been rising considerably faster than wages in recent years and this trend is likely to continue, the Commons Public Accounts Committee warned.

Forking out: Upgrading Britain’s energy, road and rail infrastructure will cost billions over the next couple of decades

 But although pressure on cash-strapped families is likely to continue ‘no one seems to be sticking up for the consumers in all this,’ the committee’s chair Margaret Hodge said.

 The MPs urged government to step in to assess whether consumers can afford years of rising bills under plans to modernise Britain’s infrastructure.

The Treasury is planning to splash out more than £375billion to replace old assets that don’t comply with EU regulation, to support economic growth and prepare for the needs of a growing population.

As much as two-thirds of this investment will be taken on by private companies, but paid for by consumers through utility bills and user charges such as rail fares.

This is likely to lead to higher household bills, hitting poorest families hardest as they spend a higher proportion of their incomes on bills.

Energy bills alone are predicted to be 18 per cent higher in real terms in 2030 than in 2013, MPs warned.

‘Energy and water bills have risen considerably faster than incomes in recent years, and high levels of new investment in infrastructure mean that bills and charges are likely to continue to rise significantly,’ the MPs said.

 The report said that ‘no one in Government is taking responsibility for assessing the overall impact of this investment on consumer bills and whether consumers will be able to afford to pay’.

The cross-party committee said the Treasury should ensure that an assessment of the long-term affordability of bills is carried out.

Margaret Hodge added: ‘Currently, consumers rely solely on Government and regulators to protect their interests. But it doesn’t take much nous to work out that this is going to have a tough impact on the consumer.

‘This is of particular concern given that the poorest households are hit hardest by increases in bills. Poorer households spend more of their incomes on household bills relative to richer households, meaning that funding infrastructure through bills is more regressive than doing so through taxation.

Warning: MPs said household bills will have to rise to pay for the planned infrastructure projects

‘We are calling for the Treasury to produce and publish an assessment of the long-term affordability of bills across the sectors. They need to establish with departments and regulators who is responsible for what in each sector when it comes to assessing the long-term affordability of bills, and pull all the information together.

‘Crucially, they need to assess the combined impact of increased bills on different household types, including those households most vulnerable to price rises.’

The Commons Public Accounts Committee also warned that uncertainty caused by Government policies could potentially add to rising energy bills, with investment in new power stations being delayed and a ‘lack of urgency’ in replacing coal-fired plants.

The MPs heard there was planning consent for 15 gigawatts of gas-powered electricity generation but ‘investors are not going ahead due to a combination of unfavourable market prices for gas and electricity, and lack of certainty with regard to the Government’s electricity market reforms’.

The Committee said: ‘There is a challenge to the adequacy of supply which is made more difficult by current market interventions. There appears to be a lack of urgency in DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) when so much of our coal fired plants are being decommissioned before the end of 2015.’

The MPs said Energy Secretary Ed Davey’s department ‘needs to act quickly to give certainty and unlock much needed energy investment or the consequences for consumer bills will be worsened’.

A DECC spokesman said: ‘We’re preventing the predicted energy crunch by turning round a legacy of underinvestment and neglect. We have put reforms in place to drive up to £100billion of private sector investment in electricity between now and 2020 with £45billion invested already.

‘If we do not take action now, we are at risk of becoming over-reliant on expensive imported gas and demand for electricity could double by 2050.

‘Our analysis shows that household energy bills in 2020 are expected to be, on average, around £166 lower as a result of policies than they would have been without policies.’

Holding to account: Chair Margaret Hodge said no one was looking out for the consumer

Holding to account: Chair Margaret Hodge said no one was looking out for the consumer

 A Treasury spokesman said: ‘The country will pay a heavy price if we don’t invest in the infrastructure essential for our future.

‘The National Infrastructure Plan provides unprecedented certainty about what those investments are and making sure they are built in a way that delivers value for consumers and taxpayers is at the centre of it. The analysis in the PAC report fails to make a proper assessment of this.

‘We uphold a robust independent regulatory regime with powers to ensure the interests of consumers are properly protected, including the establishment of a new Competition and Markets Authority this year.

‘We are cutting taxes and have taken targeted action to reduce bills. At the last Autumn Statement alone we announced a series of steps which are saving the average household around £50 on their energy bills, and a cap on rail fare increases saving quarter of a million annual season ticket holders an average of £25 this year.

‘It is only because of the Government’s credible economic plan that we have been able both to invest in infrastructure and take action on bills. The single biggest risk now would be abandoning that plan – which would mean worse infrastructure, higher bills, and a weaker economy.’

But Richard Lloyd, executive director of consumer group Which?, said that the government has not gone far enough to ensure that costs are being kept down. ‘Despite calls from Which?, the NAO and the PAC, the Government has still not published an affordability assessment of the impact on consumer bills of infrastructure costs or made a convincing case that these are being kept under tight enough control,’ he said.

‘Today’s findings show why it’s vital that the Government and regulators get a tighter grip on the massive costs that are being passed on to household bills. We need to see rigorous, independent scrutiny to ensure that these costs are affordable and provide value for money for consumers.’

Lenar Whitney calls Global Warming, “the Greatest Deception in the History of Mankind!”

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment
by  27 Jun 2014

Republican Congressional Candidate Lenar Whitney released a video

Friday calling global warming “the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”

While announcing her candidacy for the 6th Congressional District in Louisiana, Whitney called global warming a “hoax.” The video is a response to those she describes as “liberals in the lamestream media” who “became unglued and attacked me immediately.”

—

—

Calling Al Gore and other liberal politicians pushing global warming “delusional,” Whitney reminds viewers that “The earth has done nothing but get colder each year since the film’s release.”

Whitney then goes on to cite a litany of other scientific facts to rebut and mock global warming believers, including President Obama, whom she calls “foolish” for blaming his lousy economy on warming.

“Last summer,” Whitney reminds, “Antarctica reached the coldest temperature in recorded history. There’s record sheet ice and a 60% rise of ice in the Arctic Sea.”

Using compelling video and a relentless musical score matched only by Whitney’s relentless list of facts, the candidate, who is proud of being described as “one of the most conservative members of the Louisiana Legislature,” rebuts global warming alarmists point by scientific point before reminding voters of the thousands of hacked emails that proved the Climate Research Center of East Anglia “falsified data.”

The video closes with Whitney making a case for developing America’s energy resources and blasts global warming alarmists for using this hoax as a fear tactic to give the federal government control over every aspect of our lives.

Global Warming Alarmists, have Some Bitter Pills to Swallow!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Forget Global Cooling Predictions…It’s Already Happening!

Global Temperature Falling More Than A Decade!

By P Gosselin on 30. Juni 2014

Climate scientists on both sides of the debate agree on one thing: the earth’s surface and atmosphere have (unexpectedly) stopped warming; there’s been no temperature increase in over 17 years and counting.

While global warming scientists insist the pause is only temporary and that warming will resume in earnest sometime in the future (once the missing heat comes out of hiding), other scientists are very skeptical. Today a growing number of distinguished scientists all over the globe believe the earth will be cooling due to the forces of natural cycles that have recently come into play.

Yet as many scientists are making forecasts of cooling, there’s one fact that seems to have escaped them: the datasets of the world’s leading climate data institutes clearly show that planetary cooling is already taking place and has been happening for over a decade.

2002_Cooling

Chart source: www.woodfortrees.org.

Danish solar scientist Henrik Svensmark recently declared: “Global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning.” The cold reality, however, is that the cooling actually started 12 years ago!

There are more signs other than temperature readings that show global cooling is in full swing. Antarctica has just set a new record positive sea ice anomaly. Global sea ice has been mostly above average for a year and half, flying in the face of stunned scientists who warned just 5 years ago that the Arctic could soon be ice-free in the summertime. Moreover Asia, Europe and North America have been hard hit by a string of unexpectedly harsh winters.

So how cold is it going to get and for how long?

Although a large number of scientists agree on cooling, they differ widely on how much and for how long.

Geologist and climate researcher Sebastian Lüning of Germany in a just released video forecasts a global cooling of 0.2° by 2030, before it starts to warm up again. However, many scientists see this as too mild of a forecast. Russian solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov, for example, predicts another Little Ice Age by 2055. Also Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory claims we “could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.”

Long list of experts

At his Climate Depot website, Marc Morano has a list of a number of renowned scientists who believe the data are clear on what’s ahead.

Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns that “global cooling is almost a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more. The Australian Astronomical Society warns of global cooling as the sun’s activity “significantly diminishes”.

The reason for the cooling? Scientists agree that it’s natural solar and oceanic cycles overpowering the overhyped effects of greenhouse trace-gas CO2.

 

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/30/forget-global-cooling-predictions-its-already-happening-global-temperature-falling-more-than-a-decade/#sthash.iiRucSUK.dpuf

Clive Palmer Triggers the Warmist’s Scream!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Anguished cries in the global warming debate.

Anguished cries in the global warming debate.

TWO sentences neatly and completely capture the total irrationality and sheer, raging religious fervour of the global warming true, true believers.

They both came as deep primeval screams in delayed reaction to Clive Palmer’s climate change twostep with Mr Climate Hysteria himself, the man who used to be the next president of the US, until he found religion and fortune could be combined in very convenient climate untruths, Al Gore.

The initial reaction of true believers was one of almost euphoric rapture. Al and Clive had seemingly united to defeat the Climate Anti-Christ Abbott; Julia Gillard’s carbon tax and Gaia would be saved.

Nowhere was this reaction more extensive or ecstatic than at Climate Central Downunder, The Age. The paper revelled in the Anti-Christ’s coming discomfort.

Then as the truth sunk in that Gore had merely given cover to Palmer’s continued support for axing the tax, the scream erupted in The Age’s editorial on Friday. It included a delicious, utterly, if utterly unintentionally, revealing sentence.

The editorial noted that under the Palmer plan, while the scaffolding of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), would remain in place, the scheme would have no effect.

That’s actually not so, as we won’t even get that “scaffolding”. But returning to The Age, its lament was that such a scheme would have no effect because there’d be no price on carbon until Australia’s major trading partners implemented their own schemes.

Then the sentence: “That might occur next year, next decade, or never.”

A rational sentient human being would have then said; exactly, and thank you Clive. For there is absolutely no point in Australia going down the aggressive ETS path, cutting our emissions of carbon dioxide, unless precisely our major trading partners were doing the same.

To argue otherwise is to argue for Australia to unilaterally hurt both its industries and its citizens, to send industries and jobs to ‘our major trading partners,’ for absolutely no point. Our pain would have not the slightest effect on the global or even the local climate.

That lamenting sentence is so revealing; that to The Age rationality has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It is all about religious fervour.

Quite irrespective of what the world does, quite irrespective of whether our CO2 cuts would achieve anything at all, we have to cut; we have to flagellate like a 12th century penitent, to exculpate our sins, to pay penance to Gaia.

The sentence is deeply revealing on another level. For The Age is also admitting that in its collective hearts of hearts, it really knows that the operative word in that sentence is ”never”.

Despite all the increasingly desperate propaganda nonsense pumped out that everyone else is taking big steps to cut emissions, and we are so laggard — including of course by The Age itself — the truth is the exact opposite.

Let a few more years run out, and apart from even more evidence that the planet, as opposed presumably to Gaia, ain’t warming as predicted, the emptiness of that claim will become almost undeniable.

And in its deepest, most inchoate scream, The Age is telling us that it just can’t bear that prospect.

The second primeval scream of pain and inchoate anger at Palmer assuaging the Climate Anti-Christ came from David Llewellyn-Smith on his MacroBusiness Blog.

Now LSD as we’ll call him, projects as at least a moderately intelligent human being. Yet he could come out with such a sentence, and more particularly one word, reveals an irrationality and stupidity so fundamental that it can only be explained by a religious belief. And a belief so fervent that a blinding curtain of rage isolates his brain.

LSD expressed sarcastic surprise that a hugely wealthy mining magnate would rubber stamp the end of a carbon price costing him millions of dollars per year for “tipping filth into the atmosphere”. Filth? FILTH?

Does LSD walk around all day in total self-hatred for doing exactly the same thing, pumping out his own filth with every exhaling breath?

Does he awake in complete despair every morning, at the prospect of another totally unavoidable day of exhaling filth? How many times a day does he flagellate himself, penitent-style if figuratively, or perhaps even literally?

For this is all we are talking about, whether it is Palmer’s business emissions or their shared personal emissions. CO2. Carbon dioxide. Plant food. The basis of life on Earth. And nothing else.

No, despite the best efforts of a battalion of modern day Goebbelian wannabes, from Gillard down, none of this — carbon tax or ETS — is about real pollution.

That’s the dirty bits of grit that used to come out of both power stations and home hearths and killed thousands, and will continue to kill thousands if people like The Age, LSD & Co succeed in denying Africa modern, clean, coal-fired power stations that would stop them relying on burning wood and dung.

Lamentably, the way pollution has been able to be attached to CO2 — presumably in time we’ll start renaming heavy rain as ‘water pollution’ — seems to have succeeded with people like LSD.

So when he thinks — more accurately, emotes — about emissions, cognitive dissonance, the disease of the modern intelligentsia, kicks in and he sees in his minds-eye, those dirty bits of grit, the ‘filth’ of modern civilisation.

So there you have it; the religion of global warming in two sentences.

No matter what anyone does, we must cut in self-flagellation for our sins against Gaia.

The self-hatred flowing from the original sin of personal exhalation of CO2 “filth” makes for even more aggressive warriors against business emissions of that same “filth”.

Originally published as Palmer triggers warmest screamCOMMENTS

Farmers in Sweden, Too Smart to Fall for Climate Alarmist B.S.!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Swedish farmers have doubts about climatologists

June 27, 2014 – 06:10

Farmers rely more on their own experiences with changing weather than on climatologists who have no agricultural experience, according to Swedish research.

By: Georg Mathisen

Climatologists are not often found in the Swedish countryside. So farmers have their doubts about climate predictions. (Photo: Microstock)

Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing because of the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide humankind pumps into our fragile atmosphere. But many farmers – at least Swedish ones – have experienced mild winters and shifting weather before and are hesitant about trusting the scientists.

Surprised

The researcher who discovered the degree of scepticism among farmers was surprised by her findings.  Therese Asplund, who recently presented her PhD thesis at Linköping University, was initially looking into how agricultural magazines covered climate change.

Asplund found after studying ten years of issues of the two agricultural sector periodicalsATL and Land Lantbruk that they present climate change as scientifically confirmed, a real problem.

But her research took an unexpected direction when she started interviewing farmers in focus groups about climate issues.

Asplund had prepared a long list of questions about how the farmers live with the threat of climate change and what they plan to do to cope with the subsequent climate challenges. The conversations took a different course:

“They explained that they didn’t quite believe in climate changes,” she says. “Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities.”

Used to changes

The climate of course has previously gone through natural spells, and the farmers tend to think in terms of their experiences in recent decades.

“Many have a lot of experience, for instance they recall the mild winters of the 1960s,” explains Asplund.

The farmers also distrust climatologists partly on the grounds of what they perceive of as too much concurrence.

“They think information about climate change is too uniform. Credibility would increase if more contrary perspectives were presented,” she says.

Office science

And above all: They think climatologists lack the experience they have living in keeping with the soil, weather and growth seasons.

The climate of course has previously gone through natural spells, and the farmers tend to think in terms of their experiences in recent decades. (Photo: Mary Evans Picture)

“Climate researchers also are given less credence by farmers because they think the scientists draw their conclusions from theoretical analyses rather than practical experience,” says Asplund.

She finds it hard to say how climatologists can make use of the farmers’ experiences:

“For the research of a scientifically trained climatologist, the opinions of farmers might not be all that essential.  But that does not necessarily make their views irrelevant. For a sociological approach to climate research the farmers’ opinions are highly relevant, on a par with those of other social groups,” asserts Asplund.

Information is not enough

She is concerned about understanding disparate ways of thinking and responding with regard to climate issues.

“With insufficient knowledge, we risk believing that information will readily alter human perceptions and behaviour. The example of climate communication in Swedish agriculture shows what challenges a climatological point of departure for communication can encounter,” says Asplund.

After talking with focus groups all over Sweden, she thinks that information alone cannot change attitudes and behaviour – no matter how well rooted it is in empirical science.

Does this mean it is harder than thought to get Swedish farmers to engage in climate-friendly agriculture? The researcher says both “yes” and “no”.

It will be hard as long as the implementation of improvements is voluntary. But in the discussions the farmers signal that they can adapt – if not to physical climate changes, at least to climate policy decisions. Thus it should be no harder to get them to adjust to climate measures as to other political mandates.

But there is one proviso: “This is a resistance to decrees which they think undermine competitive Swedish agricultural production,” says Therese Asplund.

————

Greenpeace has Become a Corrupt Organization, that Promotes Alarmism!

/ 1957chev / 6 Comments


Greenpeace In Decline Like The AGW Scam

They Support

by Tory Aardvark

 

Dr Patrick Moore “They have a whole fleet of ships, pretending the $32 million Rainbow Warrior III is powered by the wind when it has two large diesel engines for propulsion. I like to joke that when we first sailed against US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska we did not have a nuclear weapon on board." Dr Patrick Moore “They have a whole fleet of ships, pretending the $32 million Rainbow Warrior III is powered by the wind when it has two large diesel engines for propulsion. I like to joke that when we first sailed against US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska we did not have a nuclear weapon on board.”

Things have not been going well for environmental NGO Greenpeace in the last few months, there was the insanely stupid attempt to interfere with Gazprom operations in the Arctic, which led to the Arctic 30 enjoying the hospitality of the Russian penal system for a few months. Greenpeace also lost a ship, the Arctic Sunrise which is still impounded in the Russian port of Murmansk, and likely to be there until it rusts away and sinks, or ends life as a towed target for the Russian Navy.

In the words of Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore “I’d like to think that Greenpeace left me, rather than the other way round. I became a sensible environmentalist. Greenpeace became increasingly senseless.”

Greenpeace apart from being increasingly senseless have also been caught losing millions in donations by failed currency trading, been labelled as a threat to national economic security, and one of their top executives has been caught out hypocritically commuting by air from Luxembourg to Amsterdam.

All this makes for very bad publicity for Greenpeace:

“Greenpeace has been careful to cultivate an image as intrepid defenders of the environment,” editorializes Der Spiegel, a major German newspaper. “Calling themselves the rainbow warriors, activists hang from factory chimneys, throw themselves in front of whaling ships or risk jail time in Russia by calling attention to the plight of the Arctic.”

“Now, another activity has been added: playing the financial markets,” Der Spiegel adds. “For an organization almost entirely financed by donations, the revelation is a PR disaster, endangering from one day to the next the greatest asset Greenpeace possesses: its credibility.”

Even that organ of left wing biased climate change propaganda the UK Guardian has turned against Greenpeace:

The Guardian, a left-wing newspaper, has been especially critical of Greenpeace lately. The paper even obtained internal documents detailing the disarray within Greenpeace International.

A November 2013 document obtained by the Guardian shows that Greenpeace’s executive team was for years fully aware of major problems within the group’s finance department.

“[The] international finance function at GPI [Greenpeace International] has faced internal team and management problems for several years and the situation did not improve during 2013 despite efforts and support,” says the Greenpeace document.

India’s Intelligence Bureau has come to the conclusion that Greenpeace is a threat to the countries national economic security:

The Indian Express reports that the Intelligence Bureau submitted a report to the prime minister’s office saying Greenpeace was “negatively impacting economic development” through political activism and its anti-fossil fuels agenda. The reports says that Greenpeace activities have reduced the country’s GDP by 2 to 3 percent a year.

The report mentioned other activist groups, but singled out Greenpeace for trying to “change the dynamics of India’s energy mix” and orchestrating “massive efforts to take down India’s coal fired power plants and coal mining activity.”

“It is assessed to be posing a potential threat to national economic security… growing exponentially in terms of reach, impact, volunteers and media influence,” the report warns of Greenpeace, adding the group is finding “ways to create obstacles in India’s energy plans” and to “pressure India to use only renewable energy.”

It is not just in India, but other countries as well there seems to be a shift towards curtailing the activities of Green NGO’s, in Tasmania the politicians want to remove charitable status from Green NGOs and give the status to real charities:

The government is being pressed to alter the charitable status of environmental groups after a Liberal MP successfully argued to his party that the groups are not “real charities” like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army.

A motion introduced by MP Andrew Nikolic to the Liberal federal council called for environmental groups to be stripped of charitable rights, such as the ability to receive tax-deductible donations.

Nikolic, the federal member for the Tasmanian electorate of Bass, said the groups should not be subsidised for political activism, some of it which he claimed was illegal. The conference motion passed the motion unanimously.

The news of Greenpeace’s massive loss of donations currency trading was soon followed by the revelations that Greenpeace’s international program director Pascal Husting was regularly taking the plane from his home in Luxembourg to the office in Amsterdam:

The UK Telegraph noted that Greenpeace actively campaigns against “the growth in aviation,” which the group says “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change.”

“Each round-trip commute Mr Husting makes would generate 142kg of carbon dioxide emissions,” reports the Telegraph. “That implies that over the past two years his commuting may have been responsible for 7.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions — the equivalent of consuming 17 barrels of oil.”

None of these antics have done much to bolster Greenpeace’s declining credibility with its life blood, the millions of people who make the small donations that keep Greenpeace functioning, instead they have been shown to be nothing more than one of those duplicitous  corporations the environmentalists so love to despise.

Scottish Government Rejects Appeals for 2 Wind Projects….Sanity Returning?

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Shawpark & Brunta Hill wind farm appeals rejected

Despite an appeal by PNE Wind UK, two proposed wind farms in the Scottish Borders have been rejected by the Scottish Government.

Wind Farm Appeals Rejected - Westruther 

The planned wind farms at Shawpark near Stow  and Brunta Hill near Westruther (with a total of 17 turbines) was initially rejected by Scottish Borders Council. PNE Wind UK, as expected, declined to accept this ruling and raised an appeal knowing that the odds were in their favour as, historically, most appeals have been upheld.

This time, however, the result of the Scottish Government reporter’s examination has been the ruling that the plans for both schemes have been turned down.

Councillors refused the Brunta Hill development due to its “significant and unacceptable” impact on the area and, fortunately, the Scottish Government has agreed the wind farm locations were inconsistent with the local development plan.

Commenting on behalf of PNE Wind UK, Gemma Hamilton project development manager, said the company was “extremely disappointed” by the decision.

At least this section of the Borders can still lay claim to having the Southern Upland Way as a tourist attraction…………… Rather than the Southern Turbine Way that exists to the west.  I am very happy to see that these wind farms have been refused along with the other recent refusals in the Borders but I have to ask why there have been no successes of this kind in Dumfries and Galloway.  Is it that D&G are too far away from Edinburgh and not on any of the scenic access routes to the capitol?  Answers on a postcard please………………….

Those Brilliant Aussies, Deliver the Final Death Blow to the Wind Industry!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Industry Doomed as Smokin’ Joe Hockey Shuts Down CEFC Lending for Wind Farms

June 29, 2014 by  Leave a Comment

gore and palmer

Having killed the “carbon” tax in an eye-blink – a business killing and family punishing $23 a tonne tax on carbon dioxide gas – Clive Palmer vowed to use his ability to block legislation proposed by the Coalition in the Senate to prevent any changes to the mandatory Renewable Energy Target; and the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Retaining the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the mandatory RET makes no sense for a political party which helped to kill the “carbon” tax because of the punishment it caused to businesses and households through spiralling power bills. Since big Clive’s announcement, The Australian has produced a plethora of articles to much the same effect.

For our overseas followers, Clive’s 3 PUP Senators – plus their ally, Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts’ Party – are able to block any legislation put up by the Coalition in the Senate, where Labor and the Greens oppose it; or, conversely, to side with the Coalition and get legislation passed where Labor and the Greens choose to block it, with the support of 2 of the cross-benchers, like John Madigan and Nick Xenophon. That leaves Palmer with the ability to throw his considerable weight against or behind Coalition backed legislation. On that matrix, with Palmer’s support, any attempt to kill the CEFC – a Green/Labor created renewables slush fund – is bound to fail.

But – in politics – there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Treasurer, Joe Hockey and Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann had planned to sell off the CEFC to the private finance sector. The loans written by the CEFC amount to assets on its books which could be sold, at a price, to any financial institution ready to take on the risk. No doubt, the sale price would be at a considerable discount to the current face value of the loans, but Hockey and Cormann apparently took the view that it was better that some other sucker take the risk; rather than leave the Australian taxpayer exposed to the CEFC’s reckless approach to lending. A sale would have also prevented any further risk exposure.

Big Clive’s declaration that he would prevent the abolition of the CEFC has thrown a spanner in the works; but only briefly. Hockey and Cormann have identified that the Coalition has the power to direct the CEFC to lend to certain types of projects and, more importantly, to prevent it from lending to others.

Hockey has already declared his hatred of “utterly offensive” wind farms and is hip to the fact that wind power is inefficient, insanely expensive and fails in its principal claim of reducing CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here).

No prizes, then, for guessing which “renewable” generation source won’t be getting any more funds from the CEFC. Here’s The Australian on the Hockey/Cormann wind farm attack.

Direct action to benefit from Clean Energy Finance Corporation funds
The Australian
Sid Maher
28 June 2014

THE Clean Energy Finance Corporation is likely to be directed away from lending to wind farms in favour of programs that support the Coalition’s “direct action” plan such as energy-efficiency schemes and leasing for solar hot water systems.

In the wake of Clive Palmer’s declaration this week that his senators will vote to retain the CEFC, it has emerged that Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have the power to alter the CEFC’s investment mandate without parliament being able to reverse the move.

Senior government sources have told The Weekend Australian the CEFC could be instructed to favour direct action-style programs such as providing leasing for households to install solar hot water systems and for energy-efficiency programs instead of wind farms. Twenty-two per cent of the CEFC’s loans in its first year were for wind projects.

The likely change of direction for the CEFC comes as funding for the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, the centrepiece of the Coalition’s direct-action policy, was contained in an appropriation bill that passed both houses of parliament this week.

However, the mechanism for distributing the funds is contained in amendments to the Carbon Farming Initiative, which is yet to pass the Senate.

Government sources remain hopeful of having the bill passed, despite Mr Palmer’s announcement that he would not support direct action because it was a “waste of money’’.

If direct action is blocked, with the money already allocated in an appropriation bill, an alternative plan is to distribute money to the states for carbon abatement programs under Section 96 of the Constitution.

Under Section 96, the federal government is able to provide tied grants to the states.

This would enable direct-action funding to be paid to the states for programs addressing energy efficiency, boosting soil carbon initiatives and increasing the take up of solar hot water systems.

In the wake of Mr Palmer’s announcement this week that he would support the abolition of the carbon tax, it is likely to be abolished either on July 14 or soon after.

The Palmer United Party leader’s call for an emissions trading scheme rated at zero appears doomed after failing to gain government support.

Mr Palmer is also backing the retention of the CEFC and the Climate Change Authority and will not support changes to the Renewable Energy Target before 2016 – after the next election is due.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Thursday split the CEFC repeal bill from the main body of the carbon tax repeal bills. The former appears set to be debated by the Senate after the main carbon tax repeal bills.

Under the legislation establishing the CEFC, the Treasurer and Finance Minister can provide direction on matters of risk and return, eligibility criteria for investments, allocation of investments between different types of clean-energy technologies, the types of financial instruments that may be invested in and “broad operational matters’’.

While the government can alter the investment mandate of the CEFC, existing legislation guarantees the CEFC the ability to write up to $10 billion in loans over the next five years.

The CEFC legislation allows the corporation to write $2bn of loans every year and, if it fails to reach the ceiling, the unused portion can be carried over to the next year.

As the political debate over its future has raged, the CEFC has written to all sides of parliament, including the crossbench senators, arguing its case for survival. It has also had meetings with MPs on its operations.

While the government can change the investment mandate, its ability to change the CEFC board, whose members have been given five-year terms, is limited.

Since it began operating from July last year, the CEFC has written $700 million in loans and has mobilised more than $1.8bn of private sector investment, for a total of $2.5bn in projects.

It argues its abolition would cost the government $100m a year in lost revenue.
The Australian

STT hears that Al Gore’s presence on the podium alongside Clive Palmer last week was orchestrated (and paid for) by our favourite whipping boys over at Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown) – Gore’s “stunned-fish-out-of water” performance was heralded by Infigen’s spin masters as a propaganda coup.

After the Gore/Palmer circus of the bizarre died down – the wind industry and its parasites were crowing about their “political masterstroke” in having Palmer announce his support for the mandatory RET and the CEFC.

Talk about your all-time backfires.

The Hockey/Cormann manoeuvre could well be the killer blow we’ve been looking for.

It’s other peoples’ money that started the great wind power fraud; and its depriving wind power outfits of access to other peoples’ money that will end it.

The CEFC represents the ONLY source of funds available to wind farm developers.

Wind power outfits have been unable to obtain funds from commercial lenders, simply because retailers stopped signing Power Purchase Agreements over 18 months ago (see our post here).

In the absence of a PPA, a wind farm developer has nothing to offer by way of valuable security for their loan with a bank: commercial banks will simply not lend in the absence of the security provided by a long-term (15-25 year) PPA. That, rather significant, detail has never troubled the CEFC, which is prepared to lend on unsecured terms at rates far below those which would be demanded by commercial banks lending on the same terms (see our post here).

By preventing the CEFC from lending to wind power outfits, the Coalition have virtually guaranteed that no new wind farms will be built in the foreseeable future; at least where the wind power outfits involved do not hold a PPA.

Now that’s a “coup”!

Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann

 

Faux-green Eco-fanatics are bad for our Environment, and everything in it!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Never-Ending Green Disasters.

Newton’s 3rd law of motion, if applied to bureaucracy, would state: “Whenever politicians attempt to force change on a market, the long-big-govtterm results will be equal and opposite to those intended”.

This law explains the never-ending Green energy policy disasters.

Greens have long pretended to be guardians of wild natural places, but their legislative promotion of ethanol biofuel has resulted in massive clearance of tropical forests for palm oil, sugar cane and soy beans.  Their policies have also managed to covert cheap food into expensive motor fuel and degraded land devoted to bush, pastures or crops into mono-cultures of corn for bio-fuel. This has wasted water, increased world hunger and corrupted the political process for zero climate benefits.

Greens also pretend to be protectors of wildlife and habitat but their force-feeding of wind power has uglified wild places and disturbed peaceful neighbourhoods with noisy windmills and networks of access roads and transmission lines. These whirling bird-choppers kill thousands of raptors and bats without attracting the penalties that would be applied heavily to any other energy producers – all this damage to produce trivial amounts of intermittent, expensive and blackout-prone electricity supplies.

Greens have long waged a vicious war on coal, but their parallel war on nuclear power and the predictably intermittent performance of wind/solar energy has forced power generators to turn to hydro-carbon gases to backup green power. But Greens have also made war on shale-gas fracking – this has left countries like Germany with no option but to return to reliable economical coal, or increase their usage of Russian gas and French nuclear power. Their war on coal has lifted world coal usage to a 44 year high.

Greens also say they support renewable energy, but they oppose any expansion of hydro-power, the best renewable energy option. For example, they scuppered the Gordon-below-Franklin hydro-electric project, which would have given Tasmania everlasting cheap green electricity. But they never mention their awkward secret – the Basslink under-sea cable goes to Loy Yang power station in Victoria and allows Tasmania to import coal-powered electricity from the mainland.

Robbie Burns warned us over 200 years ago:

“The best laid schemes of Mice and Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”