Events- upcoming!

3 MW Wind Turbines a Threat to Rural Village of Cesme

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Nina Pierpont Warns Against An Entirely Avoidable Turkish Wind Farm Disaster

July 5, 2014 by  

Calvin-Nina001

NINA PIERPONT, M.D., Ph.D.

June 30, 2014
Ms. Esen Fatma Cesme Belediyesi (Municipality)
İnönü Mah. 2001 Sk. No: 2 Çeşme / İZMİR
Turkey

Dear Ms. Kabadayi-Whiting,

I write to you at the request of Madeleine Kura, who tells me the charming, historical town of Cesme is about to have half a dozen 3 MW industrial wind turbines built on the edge of town, a mere 500 m from people’s homes. (I’m told that at least one of the turbines will be 300 m from a school.) Furthermore, all this construction will be in hilly terrain.

Let me explain, clinically, why this is a bad idea. In 2009 I published what was then the definitive study of health effects caused by wind turbine infrasound on people living within 2 km of industrial turbines. The book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (K-Selected Books), included 60 pages of raw data in the form of case histories (using case cross-over studies), demonstrating that living in proximity to wind turbines dys-regulates the inner ear vestibular organs controlling balance, position, and spatial awareness. Effectively, sufferers experience symptoms of sea-sickness, along with several related pathologies.

It turns out all this has been well known since the 1980s, when the US Department of Energy commissioned a report on wind turbine health effects — the report subsequently published by physicist Dr. N D Kelley and his colleagues at the Solar Research Institute in Golden, Colorado, bearing the title, “A Methodology for Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise Generation,” Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, v. 104 (May 1982), pp. 112-120.

In this paper we have presented evidence to support the hypothesis that one of the major causal agents responsible for the annoyance of nearby residents by wind turbine noise is the excitation of highly resonant structural and air volume modes by the coherent, low-frequency sound radiated by large wind turbines.

Further, there is evidence that the strong resonances found in the acoustic pressure field within rooms [in people’s homes] . . . indicates a coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances at 5, 12, and 17-25 Hz, resulting in a sensation of whole-body vibration (p. 120).

I discovered the same thing in my research. What Kelly et al. refer to as a “sensation of whole-body vibration,” I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD): “The internal quivering, vibration, or pulsation and the associated complex of agitation, anxiety, alarm, irritability, tachycardia, nausea, and sleep disturbance together make up what I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD)” (“Wind Turbine Syndrome,” p. 59).

Five years later, Dr. Kelley gave a follow-up paper at the Windpower ‘87 Conference & Exposition in San Francisco, titled “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions.” Just so you understand the terminology, “emissions” means “noise & vibration.” And the term “low frequency” includes infrasound. And the antiseptic phrase “community annoyance” is code for Wind Turbine Syndrome — except the name had not been coined in1987. (I created it decades later.) Kelley’s research once again had been funded by the US Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093.

We electronically simulated three interior environments resulting from low-frequency acoustical loads radiated from both individual turbines and groups of upwind and downwind turbines. . . .

Experience with wind turbines has shown that it is possible . . . for low-frequency acoustic noise radiated from the turbine rotor to interact with residential structures of nearby communities and annoy the occupants. . . .

The modern wind turbine radiates its peak sound power (energy) in the very low frequency range, typically between 1 and 10 Hz [i.e., infrasound]. . . .

Our experience with the low-frequency noise emissions from a single, 2 MW MOD-1 wind turbine demonstrated that . . . it was possible to cause annoyance within homes in the surrounding community with relatively low levels of LF-range [low frequency range] acoustic noise. An extensive investigation of the MOD-1 situation revealed that this annoyance was the result of a coupling of the turbine’s impulsive low-frequency acoustic energy into the structures of some of the surrounding homes. This often created an annoyance environment that was frequently confined to within the home itself (p. 1, emphasis in original).

I am attaching a copy of Kelley’s 1987 paper.

Besides my research, which pretty much duplicates Kelley’s, there is the work of Dr. Alec Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology in the School of Medicine at Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri), where he is director of the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory. Professor Salt is a highly respected neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear disorders and in particular the mysteries of the cochlea.

Prof. Salt’s research dovetails with mine and with Dr. Kelley’s. For many years, acousticians and noise engineers have vigorously maintained that “if you can’t hear it, it can’t hurt you.” That is to say in the case of wind turbines, “If you can’t hear the low-frequency noise in the infrasound range, it can’t hurt you.” (lnfrasound, by definition, is noise below the hearing threshold, typically pegged at 20 Hz and lower. People feel infrasound in various parts of the body, though typically they cannot hear it.) In any case, Professor Salt and his colleagues have demonstrated conclusively, definitively, that infrasound does in fact disturb the very fine hair cells of the cochlea.

With this discovery, one of the main arguments advanced by the wind energy industry — namely, that wind turbine infrasound was too low to be harmful to people, since they could not hear it — was demolished. Prof. Salt has proven that, “If you can’t hear it, it can still harm you.”

This past winter, Professor Salt and his colleague, Professor Lichtenhan, published “How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People?” Acoustics Today, v. 10 (Winter 2014), pp. 20-28. The following is a lengthy excerpt:

The essence of the current debate is that on one hand you have the well-funded wind industry (1) advocating that infrasound be ignored because the measured levels are below the threshold of human hearing, allowing noise levels to be adequately documented through A-weighted sound measurements; (2) dismissing the possibility that any variants of wind turbine syndrome exist (Pierpont 2009) even when physicians (e.g., Steven D. Rauch, M.D. at Harvard Medical School) cannot otherwise explain some patients’ symptoms; and (3) arguing that it is unnecessary to separate wind turbines and homes based on prevailing sound levels.

On the other hand, you have many people who claim to be so distressed by the effects of wind turbine noise that they cannot tolerate living in their homes. Some move away, either at financial loss or bought-out by the turbine operators. Others live with the discomfort, often requiring medical therapies to deal with their symptoms. Some, even members of the same family, may be unaffected. Below is a description of the disturbance experienced by a woman in Europe we received a few weeks ago as part of an unsolicited e-mail.

From the moment that the turbines began working, I experienced vertigo-like symptoms on an ongoing basis. In many respects, what I am experiencing now is actually worse than the ‘dizziness’ I have previously experienced, as the associated nausea is much more intense. For me the pulsating, humming, noise that the turbines emit is the predominant sound that I hear and that really seems to affect me.

While the Chief Scientist [the person who came to take sound measurements in her house] undertaking the measurement informed me that he was aware of the low frequency hum the turbines produced (he lives close to a wind farm himself, and had recorded the humming noise levels indoors in his own home) he advised that I could tune this noise out and that any adverse symptoms I was experiencing were simply psychosomatic. . . .

Given the knowledge that the ear responds to low frequency sounds and infrasound, we knew that comparisons with benign sources were invalid and the logic to A-weight sound measurements was deeply flawed scientifically. . .

From this understanding we conclude that very low frequency sounds and infrasound, at levels well below those that are heard, readily stimulate the cochlea. Low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines can therefore stimulate the ear at levels well below those that are heard. . . .

No one has ever evaluated whether tympanostomy tubes alleviate the symptoms of those living near wind turbines. From the patient’s perspective, this may be preferable to moving out of their homes or using medical treatments for vertigo, nausea, and/or sleep disturbance. The results of such treatment, whether positive, negative, would likely have considerable scientific influence on the wind turbine noise debate. . . .

Another concern that must be dealt with is the development of wind turbine noise measurements that have clinical relevance. The use of A-weighting must be reassessed as it is based on insensitive, Inner Hair Cell (IHC)-mediated hearing and grossly misrepresents inner ear stimulation generated by the noise. In the scientific domain, A-weighting sound measurements would be unacceptable when many elements of the ear exhibit a higher sensitivity than hearing. The wind industry should be held to the same high standards. Full-spectrum monitoring, which has been adopted in some reports, is essential. . . .

Given the present evidence, it seems risky at best to continue the current gamble that infrasound stimulation of the ear stays confined to the ear and has no other effects on the body. For this to be true, all the mechanisms we have outlined (low frequency-induced amplitude modulation, low frequency sound-induced endolymph volume changes, infrasound stimulation of type II afferent nerves, infrasound exacerbation of noise-induced damage and direct infrasound stimulation of vestibular organs) would have to be insignificant. We know this is highly unlikely and we anticipate novel findings in the coming years that will influence the debate.

I suspect you are beginning to get a clear picture of the problem — and why I’m writing to you.

The typical symptoms of what is now known worldwide as Wind Turbine Syndrome are: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus (ringing or buzzing in the ears), ear pressure, dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, light-headedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.). nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (rapid heart rate), irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise when awake or asleep.

Does everybody living near wind turbines experience Wind Turbine Syndrome? By no means! What I discovered is that people with (a) motion sensitivity, (b) migraine disorder, (c) the elderly (50 years and older), (d) inner ear damage, and (e) autistic children and adults — all these are at statistically significant high risk.

The solution is simple: industrial wind turbines must be set back, well away from people’s homes, schools, places of work, and anywhere else people regularly congregate. In my 2009 report, I recommended a minimum setback of 2 km in level terrain. Studies done around the world since then have persuaded me that 2 km is not sufficient, especially in hilly or mountainous terrain — as with Cesme. In Cesme’s case, setbacks should be more in the order of 5 km or greater.

Hence my alarm when notified by Ms. Kura that Cesme is considering 500 m (or less) setbacks. This is wholly inadequate. I guarantee that, unless the setbacks are increased substantially, there will be numerous victims of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

There’s more. Dr. Salt referred to Dr. Steven Rauch, above. Dr. Rauch, a physician, is the Medical Director of Harvard Medical School’s renowned Clinical Balance and Vestibular Center, part of the Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary. Dr. Rauch was recently interviewed by The New Republic:

Dr. Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS [Wind Turbine Syndrome] is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTS suffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test for either condition but “Nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim” (“Big Wind Is Better Than Big Oil, But Just as Bad at P.R.,” by Alex Halperin in The New Republic, June 16, 2014).

Dr. Rauch made a similar statement to ABC News last fall.

I met with Dr. Rauch in Cambridge, Mass., several years ago. He has read my “Wind Turbine Syndrome” book. You’re welcome to contact him for his clinical opinion. Notice, he actually treats WTS victims, and furthermore his specialty is neuro-otology — precisely the clinical specialty appropriate to WTS, since WTS is mainly a vestibular disorder. (You might consider Dr. Rauch the “pope” of vestibular disease.)

Shifting gears, a group of mechanical engineers at the University of Minnesota recently mapped the airflow turbulence patterns of a 2.5 MW wind turbine. Their technique was ingenious: “A large searchlight with custom reflecting optics generated a two-dimensional light sheet next to the 130-m-tall wind turbine for illuminating the snow particles in a 36-m-wide by 36-m-high area.” They literally mapped the vortices being hurled off the turbine blades, using a blizzard (!) as a kind of background screen. Visit this website to see and savor the dramatic results. http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/new-study-uses-blizzard-measure-wind-turbine-airflow  Click open the video and notice the pulsed pressure waves from the blades — punching holes, as it were, in the swirling snow. You can watch the video on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHl_0s4qqUY.

Think of volleys of acoustic artillery, much of it in the low frequency and infrasound range. Imagine the residents of Cesme being bombarded by this day and night.

You are looking at the huge, pulsed, sound pressure waves responsible for Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Ms. Kura tells me the turbines destined for Cesme are 3 MW. Several years ago, the noted Danish noise engineer, Professor Henrik Moller at Aalborg University, published a paper titled “Low-Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 129, no. 6 (June 2011), pp. 3727-3744. Moller and his colleague, Christian Sejer Pedersen, demonstrated that “the larger the turbine, the ongreater the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) produced.” The following is the abstract of their paper:

As wind turbines get larger, worries have emerged that the turbine noise would move down in frequency and that the low-frequency noise would cause annoyance for the neighbors. The noise emission from 48 wind turbines with nominal electric power up to 3.6 MW is analyzed and discussed.

The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (2 MW), and the difference is statistically significant. The difference can also be expressed as a downward shift of the spectrum of approximately one-third of an octave.

A further shift of similar size is suggested for future turbines in the 10 MW range.

Due to the air absorption, the higher low-frequency content becomes even more pronounced when sound pressure levels in relevant neighbor distances are considered.

Even when A-weighted levels are considered, a substantial part of the noise is at low frequencies and, for several of the investigated large turbines, the one-third octave band with the highest level is at or below 250 Hz.

It is thus beyond any doubt that the low-frequency part of the spectrum plays an important role in the noise at the neighbors.

Given all of the above, you can see why I am concerned for the residents of Cesme.

A final word. The clinical literature, including publications by the World Health Organization on health effects from infrasound exposure, typically use the word that Dr. Kelley used in his reports to the US Department of Energy — “annoyance.” It’s really not an appropriate word. It vastly understates the sickness caused by infrasound exposure. (A mosquito bite is an annoyance. Wind turbine infrasound, on the other hand, triggers a debilitating cascade of illnesses whose features I enumerated, above.)

In medicine, we clinicians are morally bound to exercise what’s called the “precautionary principle.” That is, if we don’t know for certain that a procedure is harmless, we are obliged to exercise extreme caution in performing the procedure, in this instance building industrial wind turbines — which are well-known to produce impulsive (i.e., amplitude-modulated) infrasound — near people’s homes. This is, after all, common sense.

For decades, the wind industry flatly denied their turbines produced infrasound. It took monumental efforts by people like me to debunk this fallacy. Wind industry advocates likewise argued that only downwind turbines created noise, that is, low-frequency noise. Dr. Kelley and his research team effectively debunked that falsehood, in the articles referred to above. Finally, the wind industry clung to the fiction that, “If you can’t hear it, it can’t hurt you.” Professor Salt deflated that one.

It’s time to recognize that the global wind industry has hidden behind a series of (what turned out to be) falsehoods. Their untruths have been exposed and corrected in the published clinical and scientific literature, as shown above.

There is no excuse for building wind turbines in proximity to people’s homes.

Sincerely,

Nina Pierpont, M.D.*, Ph.D.**
*M.D. from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
**Ph.D. from Princeton University in Population Biology/Evolutionary Biology/Ecology
***B.A. (Biology, with honors), Yale University

For a pdf version of the letter click here.

To find out what Neil Kelley’s research was all about see our posts hereand here and here.

For an insight into Prof Alec Salt’s work see this video.

And, for a taste of what the good people of Çeşme will get to suffer if this disaster is realised, see our post here.

Cesme Turkey

India knows Greenpeace is Not a Positive Influence in Their Country!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

INDIA MAY TAKE ACTION AGAINST GREENPEACE AND ITS ‘NEGATIVE IMPACT’ ON DEVELOPMENT

 
by  4 Jul 2014
 

The government of India’s new pro-business Prime Minister Narendra Modi looks set to act against Greenpeace and other foreign-backed NGOs after an intelligence report found their anti-industry campaigns were “negatively impacting economic development.”

The intelligence report, first disclosed in the Indian Express last month, claims the negative impact of the NGOs’ role on GDP growth to be two to three per cent per annum. It accuses Greenpeace of “contravening laws to change the dynamics of India’s energy mix” and “mounted massive efforts to take down India’s coal fired power plants and coal mining activity.”

According to the Indian Express, while several NGOs are named in the report as being involved in “agitations against nuclear power plants, uranium mines, coal-fired power plants, farm biotechnology, mega industrial projects, hydroelectric plants and extractive industries,” the main international NGO singled out for criticism is Greenpeace.

It says Greenpeace has been “actively aided and led by foreign activists visiting India.”

Now the environmentalist organisation says it fears a clamp-down. “The government is adopting scare tactics,” Suhas Chakma, director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights, told the UK Guardian. “It wants to ensure that nobody comes in the way of big projects.

An anti-nuclear campaigner, Achin Vinaik, said: “We are fearful that this is a kind of witch hunt with longer term implications to repress all kinds of popular struggles.”

IN 2000, Vanaik was awarded the Sean McBride International Peace Prize, a prize named for a former Chief of Staff and Director of Intelligence for the IRA.

In a statement published in the Times of India, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties described the intelligence report as an attempt to “intimidate, slander, throttle and terrorise the voice of various citizens’ groups, NGOs and individuals,” who raise issues relating to human right violations.

 

 

Obama Doesn’t Care About Reducing CO2….he Wants to Reduce the American’s Standard of Living….Dramatically!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Message to the President: data shows ‘CO2 Reduction is Futile’

Posted on July 4, 2014 by 

The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2013 shows that China and the developing world is laughing at your position, Mr. President.

Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3]. These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.

clip_image002

The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.

Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.

clip_image004

Similarly the CO2 output per head is declining in the developed world whereas it is accelerating the developing world.

In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions clear: in essence he said[4]:

“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.

clip_image006

The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual western Nation”.

This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:

image

 

clip_image009

These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2013:

§ There is stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies since 1980.

§ The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[5]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[6] [7].

§ CO2 emissions from the developed economies rejecting action on CO2 have hardly grown since 2005.

§ The European Union (27) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~14% since 2005.

However:

§ CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now a third larger than the developed world’s CO2 emissions.

§ there has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[8].

§ China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as demand grows.

§ India has accelerating emissions[9], growing from a low base by +63% since 2005. India too is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as 25% of its population still has no access to electric power.

§ there is inexorable emissions growth from the Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +30% since 2005.

So any CO2 emissions reduction achieved by the Developed Nations will be entirely negated by the increases in CO2 emissions from Developing Nations.

clip_image011

However probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the emissions/head for the various nation groups.

§ The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions/head by ~16% since 2005. Much of the recent downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies.

§ The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation.

§ Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head by ~1% since 2005.

§ China’s CO2 emissions/head have increased ~11 fold since 1965. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2006. China’s emissions / head at 7.0 tonnes / head are now approaching the level of the EU(27) nations.

§ India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially with increased use of coal for electricity generation[10].

§ The eight rapidly developing nations have shown consistent growth from a low base in 1965 at 5.6 times. They exceeded the world average CO2 emissions level in 1997.

§ The Rest of the World (~160 Nations), 36% of world population, have grown CO2 emissions consistently but only by 2.6 times since 1965, this group will be the likely origin of major future emissions growth as they strive for better standards of living.

§ Overall average world-wide emissions/head have remained relatively steady but with early growth in the decade from 1965. It amounts to 1.6 times since 1965.

clip_image013

When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises:

§ Chinese CO2 emissions at 7.01mt/head for its 1.3 billion population are already ~43% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.

§ At 5.5mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.

§ China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009 and are now 22% higher.

§ The UK at 7.2mt/head is now only ~48% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~3% higher than China. So China is likely to overtake the UK in the near future.

§ Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~49% higher than China. Germany’s emissions/head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate them for the “possibly irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.

This must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis should not be tenable.

If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results particularly from France show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was CEO of RWE Innogy, the major German windpower supplier, he had pioneered Germany’s significant advances in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.

Previously Professor Vahrenholt had fully accepted the IPCC as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, with his scientific background as chemist, he re-examined IPCC reports in detail. He found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions. Accordingly he has now entirely revised his position.

Professor Vahrenholt’s diagram below is from his July 2012 lecture at the Royal Society[11] [12], it shows the miniscule impact of the enormously costly efforts at decarbonisation in Germany, (die Energiewende), in comparison with the inevitable escalation of CO2 emissions from the rest of the world.

clip_image015

The underdeveloped nations are bound to become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuels to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity.

The futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany becomes clear. German actions with increasing risks to its energy security and the growing risk to the German economy as its manufacturing industries seek more congenial energy / business environments, could only ever reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions by ~150,000,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2030.

clip_image017

That would only amount to ~1/100 of the concomitant growth in other CO2 emissions from the developing world. According to Bjorn Lomborg the $100billion German investment in solar power alone, not including other renewable investments, can only reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100[13].

This point is re-emphasised above, by cross comparing the annual growth in emissions from China and India with the full annual emissions from key European countries. Chinese CO2 emissions growth in some years can exceed the total UK and French emissions level and even approach the German level on occasions.

Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for our continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his Royal society lecture:

“This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”

“It’s not mankind creating climate. It’s the sun: stupid.”

Professor Varhenholt and his colleague Sebastian Luening have now published a best seller in Germany “Die Kalte Sonne”, the book now released in English as

“The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”[14].

[1] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k

[5] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html

[6]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html

[7] http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001

[8] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries

[9] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-

[10] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-invokes-right-to-grow-to-tell-rich-nations-of-its-stand-on-future-climate-change-negotiations/articleshow/36724848.cms

[11] http://www.thegwpf.org/vahrenholt-lecture/

[12] http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vahrenholt-2012-annual-gwpf-lecture.pdf

[13] http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours

[14] http://notrickszone.com

Thankfully, our Feds are Not as Stupid, as the Prov. Liberals would like….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Kelly McParland: Joe Oliver channels Jim Flaherty in telling Ontario to quit whining and solve its own budget problems

Kelly McParland | July 3, 2014 | Last Updated: Jul 3 10:41 AM ET

Minister of Finance Joe Oliver: not buying what Ontario is selling

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick,   
Minister of Finance Joe Oliver: not buying what Ontario is selling.

When the late Jim Flaherty was finance minister, he got a certain joy from taking pot shots at Ontario’s economy, which he felt was badly managed under a series of Liberal governments.

In a 2012 speech he said the province had “no one to blame but themselves” for their troubles, and complained that “Ontario’s spending mismanagement is a problem for the entire country.”

“I would hope that they’re able to manage their spending better than they have been able to do over the past eight or nine years of government.”

He had plenty of justification for his taunts. Under his direction, the federal budget was well on the way to being balanced, while Ontario couldn’t seem to get a handle on its much-smaller shortfall,  for all the bold talk from Queen’s Park.  At the time of Flaherty’s address, Ontario expected a deficit of more than $12 billion, but was promising to bring it down. Two years later, it is still expecting a deficit of more than $12 billion and is still promising to bring it down.

Ontario debt rating outlook cut to negative by Moody’s

Moody’s credit rating agency changed the outlook on Ontario’s debt rating Wednesday to negative from stable, citing concerns about the province’s ability to eliminate a $12.5 billion deficit by 2017-18 as scheduled.

“After several years of weak to moderate economic growth, and higher than previously anticipated deficits projected for the next two years, the province is facing a greater challenge to return to balanced outcomes than previously anticipated,” Moody’s Investors Service said in a statement.

The change in outlook affects approximately $250 billion in debt securities, Moody’s said as it reaffirmed Ontario’s Aa2 ratings.

The ratings agency didn’t wait for the Liberals to introduce their budget July 14 before lowering the outlook to negative, but Premier Kathleen Wynne has said it will be identical to the May 1 fiscal plan that was rejected by the opposition parties, triggering the June 12 election.

It was reported that the Prime Minister’s Office eventually intervened and suggested Mr. Flaherty put a sock in it. His successor, Joe Oliver, lacks Mr. Flaherty’s brashness, but also seems to have been freed of the sock. In an article in the Financial PostThursday, Mr. Oliver suggests, in the politest of terms, that the new government of Kathleen Wynne has no one but itself to blame for the mess it’s made of its economy, and should stop bleating at Ottawa to come to its rescue.

In response to complaints from Ms. Wynne and her Finance Minister, Charles Sousa, that Ontario has somehow been shortchanged – a charge they’ve used to divert attention from their ongoing borrowing binge – Mr. Oliver dismissed their charge as “both false and sad…. False because it is contradicted by the facts and sad because Ontario used to take pride in being a contributor to Confederation and now is squabbling for a greater piece of the pie.”

Money for Ontario under the three main federal transfer programs have all increased dramatically since the Harper government took office in 2006; a 76% hike overall, to a record $19.2 billion, he said. Of that, $2 billion is under the equalization program,  which is designed to help less prosperous provinces, which Ontario didn’t used to be.

“As the engine of the Canadian economy, Ontario had never collected Equalization money until 2009,” Oliver notes  sharply. “The year before, Premier Dalton McGuinty argued it was time to kill the program, which Ontario was paying into. Now that it is a ‘have-not’ province receiving equalization funds, the Ontario government has changed its tune and wants more.”

The finance minister’s rebuke appeared the same day Moody’s debt rating agency cut the outlook on Ontario’s debt to negative, a reflection of its inability to get a handle on its finances.  The move was long forecast, particularly after Mr. Sousa unveiled a big-spending budget in May in an effort to stave off an election.  The election took place anyway, producing a surprising majority for the Liberals, indicating Ontarians are unaccountably sanguine about the state of the economy even as professional watchdogs like Moody’s grow increasingly alarmed.

The heart of the problem is the Liberal pledge to reduce the deficit to zero by 2017-18.  Even with interest rates near historic lows, this year’s $12.5 billion deficit is  25% higher than forecast, and Ms. Wynne was unable to explain how it could be eliminated in three years other than to suggest the economy would grow thanks to government “investment.” Ontario already spends almost 10% of its revenue financing the debt. And that will only grow if Moody’s follows up its warning with a downgrade, making borrowing pricier. Signalling how little it thinks of Liberal promises, the agency didn’t even wait for Mr. Sousa to re-introduce his budget to deliver its verdict.

Related

Ontarians voted for a fairy tale in June, and already the tale is unraveling. After pouring millions into efforts to get Wynne re-elected, Ontario teachers are already building a strike campaign in anticipation of a walkout in the fall. Mr. Sousa can’t possibly cut costs without reducing public service jobs, which represent the majority of provincial spending. If he doesn’t cut costs, a downgrade is inevitable. If he does cut jobs he’s following exactly the line proposed by the Conservatives during the campaign, when they were denounced by the Liberals as heartless beasts.

Oh well. You make your bed. Mr. Sousa and Ms. Wynne will no doubt continue to insist their troubles are all caused by those other heartless Tories, the ones in Ottawa, despite the $20 billion they’ve been getting. It’s going to wear pretty thin, though, over the next four years.

National Post

Wind Company, Forced to Act Responsibly, Pulls Out of Project….Yaaayyyy!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Developer pulls out of planned Indiana wind farm

1:34 PM, Jul 4, 2014
4 hours ago 
 
Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

TIPTON, Ind. – A developer has withdrawn plans for a wind farm in central Indiana.

Colorado-based juwi Wind announced Thursday it is giving up plans to erect 94 wind turbines in a rural area northwest of Tipton. Tipton is 35 miles north of Indianapolis.

The company sued the Tipton County zoning board nearly a year ago, claiming the board overreached its authority by increasing the distance wind turbines had to be from property lines and requiring a plan to protect property values for landowners in the area who weren’t taking part in the development.

The Kokomo Tribune reports (http://bit.ly/1qW90D4 ) that juwi said the stipulations effectively made the $300 million project impossible.

The future of the lawsuit is unclear.

——

Information from: Kokomo Tribune, http://www.ktonline.com

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This m

A License to Kill…Certainly goes against everything “sustainable” or “green”!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

Obama grants wind industry permit to kill eagles, ruffling more than feathers

 Obama administration says no prosecution for…
By cutting a company a break to promote wind energy, the Obama administration may have opened a can of worms.

 

On Eagles' wings: Solomon, a 14-year-old golden eagle, is unable to fly or survive in the wild because his wing was severed by a wind turbine. Despite a 1940 protection act, a California wind energy generator will not be penalized for killing a limited number of eagles.On Eagles’ wings: Solomon, a 14-year-old golden eagle, is unable to fly or survive in the wild because his wing was severed by a wind turbine. Despite a 1940 protection act, a California wind energy generator will not be penalized for killing a limited number of eagles.

By Valerie Richardson

–

The Washington Times

Wednesday, July 2, 2014            (AP Photo/Noah Berger) (Associated Press photographs)

The Interior Department’s decision to extend by sixfold the permit period prompted Mr. Sandoval to create a video game, “Greed Energy Kills,” which depicts cartoon birds and bats trying to avoid turbines.

Wind farms typically feature clusters of turbines that can rise as high as a 30-story building, with whirling rotors that can reach more than 150 mph at the tips of the blades. Eagles scanning the ground below for a meal often do not see the danger until it is too late.

The conservancy lawsuit cites the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which provides fines and jail time for those who kill eagles on purpose or by accident. The law even prohibits possession of eagle feathers, talons and beaks.

In 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service added a provision to the 1940 law allowing permits for eagle kills when they are incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as construction or transportation projects.

Since the 1980s, wind turbines have killed an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 eagles, but the industry has paid only one fine, Mr. Johns said.

“If you or I get caught with an eagle feather, we’ve got some serious explaining to do. We’re going to pay a hefty fine,” said Mr. Johns. “There’s no exception noted in the law for the wind industry. The notion that somehow they’re entitled when the law doesn’t provide for it is ridiculous.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/california-grants-wind-industry-permit-to-kills-ea/?page=2#ixzz36RnPOX00 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Communities Forced to Fight in Court, but the Court is Heavily Biased!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

WIND TURBINES

Lambton County council backs request to participate in second environmental review tribunal hearing 

By Barbara Simpson, Sarnia Observer

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 

 

Lambton County may join a second legal battle brewing over the development of another industrial wind farm in its boundaries.

County council voted Wednesday in favour of joining a potential environmental review tribunal hearing in the event the Ministry of the Environment approves Suncor’s 46-turbine Cedar Point Wind project set for Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township.

This move would mark the county’s second time participating as a party before the environmental review tribunal.

The county is currently participating in a tribunal hearing over NextEra Energy’s 92-turbine Jericho Wind Energy project. The tribunal must find serious harm could be caused to human or environmental health before it can overturn the project’s MOE approval.

Deputy Warden Bev MacDougall lauded county solicitor David Cribbs’ efforts representing council and county ratepayers at the Jericho hearing.

Despite the costs and risks associated with the county’s participation, she said its voice needs to be heard and its approach needs to be consistent in dealing with industrial wind farms.

“I believe if you go to the first (hearing) with all the work and all the preparation, it will prepare you for the second one,” she said.

Over the course of 18 wind turbine tribunal hearings, none of the parties have received cost awards, according to a letter from Keith Watson, president of We’re Against Industrial Turbines – Plympton-Wyoming (WAIT-PW).

In the letter, Watson called for county council to decide on becoming a party in a potential Cedar Point appeal at this time because the MOE approval could come when county council isn’t regularly meeting over the summer.

WAIT-PW member Audrey Broer applauded council’s backing of the possible appeal.

“They are the first county in Ontario that said, ‘We are an unwilling host and we stand by that.’”

barbara.simpson@sunmedia.ca

I wouldn’t Lend the Ontario Liberals a nickel. Soon, nobody will!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Moody’s issues warning about Ontario’s growing deficit

ADRIAN MORROW

TORONTO — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jul. 02 2014, 8:26 PM EDT

On the eve of a Throne Speech outlining Premier Kathleen Wynne’s plan for her new majority mandate, Moody’s has issued a stark warning on Ontario’s growing deficit.

The bond rating agency has changed its outlook on the province to “negative,” cautioning its credit rating could be downgraded if it doesn’t show progress either cutting spending or hiking revenues. In a note late Wednesday, Moody’s said it was concerned by the Liberals’ plan to miss interim targets for erasing red ink.

The province is pledging to balance the books in three years, but will run a far larger deficit this year than originally projected.

“The expected path to balance and stabilization of the debt burden, in our opinion, faces greater challenges than before,” Michael Yake, Moody’s lead analyst for Ontario, said in a statement.

A senior government source said the Speech – to be delivered by Lieutenant-Governor David Onley but written by Ms. Wynne’s office – will provide further details on Treasury Board President Deb Matthews’s plan to find savings. It will promise to govern “from the activist centre” and put “evidence before ideology,” balancing Ms. Wynne’s massive policy agenda with the need to erase the deficit.

The address will also announce a trade mission to China this fall, the source said, Ms. Wynne’s first overseas trip since becoming Premier a year and a half ago.

Ms. Wynne won the June 12 election in large part by rallying voters opposed to former Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s plan for aggressive budget cutting, which included a promise to slash 100,000 public-sector jobs.

MPPs gathered Wednesday for the first time since the vote. They re-elected Liberal Dave Levac as Speaker over four other candidates – fellow Liberal Shafiq Qaadri, PC Rick Nicholls, and New Democrats Paul Miller and Cheri DiNovo – after three ballots.

He promised to take an even-handed approach in the often-fractious assembly: “It’s like a steam pipe: If you squeeze it too much, it blows up. So you let off a little at a time.”

The PCs, meanwhile, chose veteran MPP Jim Wilson as interim leader. In a disarmingly frank scrum with reporters, he said the party must break from the divisive policies of the past.

“Let’s not be attacking people. We’ve been attacking people for a decade,” Mr. Wilson said. “There’s no need to pick on particular groups.”

He also promised a more collegial leadership style. The 100,000 job cut plan, he said, was foisted on caucus with no consultation.

“We shot ourselves in the foot in the last election and we’ve got to stop doing that,” he said. “We’ve had a period, about a decade, where caucus has felt badly disenfranchised.”

Mr. Wilson, a former health and energy minister under premier Mike Harris, defeated Chief Whip John Yakabuski and maverick MPP Randy Hillier for the interim post. He will stay in place until a permanent leader is chosen.

The legislature, on the whole, had an unusually relaxed, collegial feel Wednesday. MPPs from all sides walked across the floor to mingle while ballots were counted in the race for Speaker. Ms. Wynne made the rounds of newly elected members, introducing herself and greeting each personally. At one point, Mr. Yakabuski even sat down on the Liberal front bench as he chatted amiably with a group of cabinet ministers.

 

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.