UK’s Guardian, Talks About the Left’s Faux-Green Agenda!

UK Guardian Admits That Climate Change Is A Left Wing Agenda

After years of being told, contrary to all the available evidence,  that Climate Alarmism was embraced by all political spectruns, the UK Guardian now admits that the right have a problem with it.

The repeal last week of Australia’s ill conceived Carbon Tax has had the Big Green propaganda machine running around in circles trying to perform a damage limitation exercise.

The warming alarmists, Green rent seekers and crony capitalists know there is more bad news coming for their sacred Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) and Carbon taxes, New Zealand is likely to dump its ETS, one of oldest ETS in the world. South Korea is also getting cold feet about its ETS with the deputy Prime Minister Choi Kyung-hwan saying his country’s ETS was “flawed in many ways“.

The warming alarmist industry have always maintained that the irrational fear of CO2 was embraced by all political spectrums, though as time has gone by this particular Green Lie, like so many other Green lies that have come before and after it, has been shown to be just that, a lie.

The UK Guardian in a strong piece of wish projection journalism, by Gaia’s representative on Planet Earth, Damian “Head of Environment” Carrington now admit that the right have a problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Writing about Owen Paterson’s departure from the UK Government, and the subsequent interview Paterson gave to the Daily Telegraph Carrington really the describes the worsening problems awaiting the Greens belief systems:

When the foundation of your world view is crumbling under the weight of inconvenient truths, you can do one of two things: revise your world view or descend into paranoia.

Oh the irony.

The problem is that every government and science academy on the planet agree that climate change is a dangerous problem caused by fossil fuel burning and that emissions must be slashed quickly. Given the choice between accepting this reality and the socialist masterplan that Paterson and his ilk believe is inextricably tied to it, they opt for the less torturous mental path of denial.

Every government and science academy? Really?

So Australia has not dumped its Carbon Tax?

Canada has not walked away from Kyoto II?

Poland, Russia, Japan, India, Brazil the list of countries that will not commit economic suicide with UN Agenda 21 is growing, but when your science is based on consensus, and not observed empirical evidence, then every no longer means, all, it really means a few. Though in a rare moment of Green success Afghanistan has signed up for Kyoto II.

In this parallel universe, Paterson can praise prime ministers Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada for their courage in tackling the green conspiracy.

The secret of lying Damian is to be consistent and tell the same story, in one paragraph you say every government, then two paragraphs later you show that at least two governments do not agree, makes a bit of a mockery of every don’t you think?

Then there the endless stream of death threats that Paterson received:

 

I soon realized that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight.

 

Greenpeace have a history of making violent threats to those that stand in the way of the Green Dream, back in 2010 there was Gene for India who embarrassed Greenpeace with his “We know where you live” post on their web site.

Wind Turbines Get a “License to Kill”! Obscene!

Wind Power Slaughter: ex-USFWS Agent Speaks Out by Kajm
PART 1:

Wind Power Slaughter: ex-USFWS Agent Speaks Out on Shiloh IV (California)

 

“It has been well known that Shiloh’s wind turbines have slaughtered protected birds species for years. These fatalities have gone largely undocumented due to the wind industry’s practices of rigging their reports and handing them to the unquestioning USFWS.… [Now] comments submitted by two USFWS retired special agents who spent their careers protecting migratory birds and making cases against other energy companies … [have] a lot to say about the Shiloh five-year eagle killing permit.”

The Shiloh IV Wind Project, located in the Montezuma foothills in California, has received an unprecedented permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing it to kill eagles, hawks, peregrine falcons, owls and songs birds while not being subjected to the normal prohibitions afforded under the federal conservation laws. This company now gets a free pass from federal prosecution under the Bald and Eagle and Protection Act and the Migratory Treaty Act.

No other energy company has the liberty to kill birds so indiscriminately while remaining above the law!

The mitigation for this eagle-kill permit was the fixing of a few power poles by the PG&E. Yet PG&E has already been retrofitting poles in this area consistent with its Avian Protection Plan,and if the retrofitting of more power poles was needed the FWS cold have enforced this just as they have for 35 years with other utility companies. Now the FWS and EPA are accepting fraudulent data to trade the slaughter of eagles as if they were carbon credits. It is truly disgraceful.

This permit will allow for the deaths of five golden or bald eagles over a five-year period without the wind farm’s operators being penalized. Everyone has to understand that Shiloh IV is only part of this large wind resource area. All the other sections in this WIND resource area will also be killing eagles and other highly protected species.  

 

It has been well known that Shiloh’s wind turbines have slaughtered protected bird species for years. These fatalities have gone largely undocumented due to the wind industry’s practices of rigging their reports and handing them to the USFWS, which never  questioned them. I submitted blistering comments on the company’s Environmental Assessment  reports, which were nothing more than several hundred pages of monotony and misdirection, if not outright deception.

The simple truth is that all Shiloh’s turbines have been killing off golden eagles and, most likely, has already been killing bald eagles (unreported)  living in the region.  This killing of eagles has been happening for decades as supported by eagle surveys. Also not disclosed to the public is that bald eagles, which have been utilizing riparian habitat in the nearby Sacramento River delta, will probably make up the majority eagle kills at this project in the future.

With regards to the comments in favor of a kill permit for Shiloh Wind Power, I wasn’t surprised that many were filed by those that were financially connected to the company. For several years I’d heard that there was dissention within the USFWS against the use of wind power, but had never had any direct contact with anyone from the agency. I understood that USFWS personnel speaking out against the highly politicized issue of wind power would be putting their own careers at risk.

Recently however, I learned that there were comments submitted by two USFWS retired special agents who spent their careers protecting migratory birds and making cases against other energy companies whose activities resulted in eagle and other migratory bird fatalities. Sam Jojola and Lucinda Schroeder have a lot to say about the Shiloh five-year eagle killing permit.

Sam Jojola Letter

Mr. Wiegand,

I have always been impressed with your honest and candid approach on the devastating impacts to avian wildlife and particularly eagles and other raptors in our country. I am a former Special Agent with FWS/LE and appreciate all your valiant efforts to address the political cowardice by Washington bureaucrats when it comes to the wind industry and impacts of our priceless wildlife resources.

He went on to tell me that he and another former agent (Lucinda Schroeder)  had submitted comments against this permit.

I was thankful for the support, and I wanted to know more about his background. And low and behold, Sam Jojola had twenty-three years of field experience, with both short and long term covert operations in federal wildlife law enforcement. Through his years of service, Sam garnered specialized knowledge and experience in targeting international wildlife smugglers with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Branch of Special Operations.

He has extensive experience in surveillance, interviewing and interrogation techniques, recruiting and controlling informants. He developed expertise in collecting and analyzing intelligence, orchestrating raids, execution of arrest and search warrants, grand jury, trial preparation, as well as evidence collecting and preservation. All the skills anyone would need to investigate the wind industry.

Sam Jojola also has a great love for our vanishing wildlife. Like growing numbers of Americans, Sam is not happy with the wind industry, nor does he consider this industry to be any shade of  “green.” In his Comments  (page 177) regarding the Shiloh IV eagle killing permits, Sam shared some of his wisdom on the wind industry and the path our society is taking.

Here are some of Sam Jojola’s Shiloh IV comments:

“The cost of continuing to allow the wind industry to kill Golden Eagles, other raptors and migratory birds for over two (2) decades has been and is too high for the current benefit that wind power provides. The Altamont facility has proven that.”

“I am appalled that anyone is considering a five (5) year programmatic take permit for Shiloh IV given the historical track record of the wind industry’s impact to avian populations elsewhere. How arrogant to consider a long term permit after untold millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent for decades on eagle conservation in the Western U.S.”

“The wind industry needs to be more proactive instead of griping that buildings, cars, and cats are killing more migratory birds. They have had over 2 decades to address these eagle mortalities with meaningful solutions. Buildings, cars and cats usually don’t kill eagles and don’t exploit taxpayer subsidies.”

“These types of permits would allow the industry to continuously justify and allow untold numbers of golden eagles to be legally taken without fear of prosecution. “

“It opens the door to add numbers of eagle deaths to the permit in the future. It would also open up the arguments from electrical utility companies, mining, oil and gas exploration and others who have been prosecuted that the wind industry is getting favorable treatment. Something is wrong with that concept.”

“Why bother with a permit at all? Wind power facilities in California already kill golden eagles and have done so for decades without a permit and no accountability without a single prosecution.”

“Who will monitor this and other forthcoming permits for years to come? Certainly not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office of Law Enforcement which has been historically neglected for decades with only 218 Special Agents nationwide as of 2013, the same number they had in 1978. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement was once the “Division of Law Enforcement”. With dwindling numbers they will soon be able to fit into a room or smaller. “

“Leaders need to hire a reasonable amount of agents that is commensurate with the exponentially expanding world of wildlife crime and ecological impacts to our wildlife.”

“Why are higher up officials so quick to “mitigate” wildlife loses? Where were they and where are they now when more FWS/LE Special Agents are needed?”

“Why are bureaucrats in Washington D.C. so quick to issue a permit to a project that represents an industry that has several decades of documented violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Act and watch the Office of Law Enforcement languish with such low numbers of Special Agents now and historically?”

“In the really big picture, we are wasting too much money with tax funded subsidies for the current wind turbine technology. The expansion should be slower given the historical impacts to avian wildlife. Our government needs to focus more on what is happening globally with wildlife and the ecosystem. It is all we have.”

“A recent study reports that U.S. taxpayers are paying 12 billion dollars annually for wind power subsidies. What a racket at the expense of wildlife resources and taxpayer money. How beneficial could that be given those figures?”

“Try putting some wind turbines off the coast of Malibu, Miami Beach, or the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, etc., and see what happens if it is so beneficial. The public would really scrutinize those subsidies and tax credits then.”

“The wind power industry has been treated differently since the 1980’s in California, particularly the Altamont Pass wind facility which has wreaked havoc on Golden Eagle and other raptor populations since then without a single prosecution when they didn’t even have a permit to do so. Oil and gas, including petroleum, electric power corporations, and gold and silver mining operations have all been investigated and prosecuted over decades and these industries have made valiant efforts to curtail migratory bird deaths, much to their credit.”

“Wind power needs to do much more than report bird deaths.  Reporting and monitoring bird deaths for years is almost less than doing nothing at all.”

“We do need to explore the wind industry and its long term benefits. Doing it right with exploring meaningful technology to address the migratory bird deaths will actually create more jobs for our country.”

The official response to Sam Jojola from the FWS was generic, cold, and inappropriate.   When you think about it this is actually quite understandable since, given the chance, FWS agents like Sam Jojola and Lucinda Schroder could bring the wind industry it’s knees overnight for their hidden slaughter to protected species.

– See more at: www.masterresource.org/2014/07…

——-

Greenpeace….they’re NOT green, and they’ve got nothing to do with peace!

Greenpeace showcases its anti-human side

Greenpeace activist confirms every negative story you’ve ever read about this activist group

Guest blog by Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen at Heartland ICCC9

It was a surreal experience. As the Heartland Institute’s hugely successful Ninth International Conference on Climate Change ended, I agreed to let Greenpeace activist Connor Gibson interview me.

I’d just given a presentation on Big Green’s lethal agenda, describing how “dangerous manmade climate change” is just one of many mantras invoked by the Deep Ecology movement to advance an agenda that is anti-energy, anti-people, and opposed to modern economies, technologies and civilizations. As readers of my book and articles know, thisunaccountable movement inflicts lethal consequences on millions of people every year – the result of malaria, malnutrition, lung and intestinal diseases, and other afflictions of rampant poverty imposed or perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable eco-imperialists.

“I read your book,” he told me, and attended some of the talks by globally renowned experts on climate, weather, species extinction, human health and other topics. If so, he obviously hadn’t listened, or had simply chosen to ignore every fact and explanation presented, as not in accord with his ideologies. That would certainly include the keynote address by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, explaining how he left the organization over its increasingly bizarre, irrational and inhumane attitudes and actions.

Gibson’s “interview” quickly became a prosecutorial interrogation, marked by ignorance or denial of basic facts and repeated interruptions to contest my observations. He insisted that hurricanes are more frequent and devastating than ever before (though not one Category 3 or higher ‘cane has made US landfall in eight-plus years, breaking a century-long record, as a panel discussion I had chaired that day made clear); wildfires are worsening (though their number and acres burned are down significantly, and could be driven lower via more intelligent forest management and fire suppression policies); and rising seas will soon drown coastal communities (hardly likely at the current rate of seven inches per century).

He likewise denied the 18-year pause in global warming, even though the IPCC and other alarmists have finally admitted it is real. My references to conference participants and the exhaustive NIPCC report were met with claims that it had not been peer-reviewed. Perhaps not by the closed circle of well-funded IPCC scientists, bureaucrats and activists who rubberstamp one another’s work – while refusing to share data and methodologies, allow outside experts to review their work products, attend Heartland conferences, or debate NIPCC scientists in any forum. (Alarmists know their data, claims, conclusions and economy-killing demands cannot withstand scrutiny.) However, the NIPCC reports and the studies they laboriously analyze and summarize were fully peer-reviewed by numerous scientists.

(Alarmists say twenty years of warming proves Earth is at a “tipping point” for runaway climate chaos, requiring the end of fossil fuels. They say the subsequent 18 years of no warming, and even a slight cooling, is irrelevant and meaningless. Whom do you believe, they ask? Us alarmists and our computer models, or a bunch of “fringe” scientists who cite actual temperature and other evidence?)

After twenty minutes, Gibson got to his real issue: money. Where does CFACT get its funding? The Koch brothers and ExxonMobil? That would be nice, to compliment the cash that Exxon gives to radical green groups. But no, they don’t support us. My mention of Chesapeake Energy’s $26 million to the Sierra Club, to fund anti-coal campaigns, did force him to admit this is a problem for Big Green’s social responsibility mantra. But when I noted Tom Steyer’s billions from hedge fund investments in coal mines and power plants, Gibson insisted that this money was second-hand and thus pure – whereas Koch money was earned directly (via producing energy and creating jobs) and thus was tainted by “self-interest.”

That “ethical” distinction without a difference would also apply, I suppose, to the tens of millions of dollars that Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Fund have received from fat-cat liberal foundations that are heavily invested in fossil fuel and other corporate securities.

Gibson also brought up his organization’s attempted 2003 anti-chemicals rally in New Jersey’s Liberty Park. The event turned into a resounding protest against Greenpeace, when scores of black and Hispanic demonstrators from the Congress of Racial Equality completely flummoxed the Rainbow Warriors with stilt walkers, bongo drums and chants of “Hey hey Greenpeace, what do you say? How many children did you kill today?” He dropped his inquisition when I pointed out that I’m a life-member of CORE.

Connor arrest, Two years after visiting the tar sands: Arrested in front of the White House to protest the tar sands Keystone XL pipeline, a project President Obama (or Mitt Romney) may well still approve. August, 2

Indeed, what Gibson really did not want to discuss were the destructive, even lethal effects of Greenpeace policies and campaigns. Some 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking, which results in widespread lung diseases that kill two to four million people every year. No electricity also means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals, which means virulent intestinal diseases kill another two million annually.

Worldwide, some two billion people still live in malaria-infested areas, 500 million get the disease every year, and nearly a million die. A primary reason is their inability to acquire insecticides to kill mosquitoes and DDT to keep the flying killers out of homes. Another billion people face malnutrition and Vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness and death in children. In fact, eight million children have died from Vitamin A deficiency since Golden Rice was invented and made available at no charge to poor farmers.

But the Rainbow Warriors and other callous eco-imperialists wage well-funded campaigns against Golden Rice, insecticides and DDT, and coal-fired, gas-fueled, hydroelectric and nuclear power generation – perpetuating poverty, malnutrition, disease, misery and death. To them, a planet free from the wildly conjectural and exaggerated dangers of these technologies is far more important than the billions of lives improved and millions of lives saved by them. It is a vicious war on dark-skinned women and children, who die in the greatest numbers from malaria, lung infections, malnutrition and severe diarrhea.

Greenpeace actions are akin to denying chemotherapy to cancer patients or antibiotics to pneumonia sufferers. Their anti-technology campaigns are eco-manslaughter and should no longer be tolerated.

Personally, I cannot imagine life without modern technologies. I can’t imagine living in electricity-free, disease-ridden, malnourished, polluted poor nation squalor. As my grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.”

But of course, Gibson has an air-conditioned malaria-free home, fine food, access to affordable, reliable electricity and transportation, a refrigerator, video camera and cell phone. He would never give them up, nor would I ask him to. However, some of my African friends would gladly let him “enjoy” a few months in a state-of-the-art, mosquito-infested hut, rely solely on a bed net, drink parasite-infested water, breathe polluted smoke from cooking fires, and walk miles to a clinic when he gets malaria, TB or dysentery – hoping the nurse has some non-fake medicines to treat him. I’d gladly help make the arrangements.

Financially motivated innovators, entrepreneurs and companies have worked wonders to improve and save the lives of billions. Yes, there have been accidents, some of which have killed hundreds of people or thousands of animals. However, the real killers are governments and anti-technology nonprofit activist corporations. Their death tolls are in the millions – via wars and through misguided or intentional policies that institute or perpetuate starvation and disease from denial of food and life-saving technologies.

Gibson is a bright guy. Perhaps one day he will understand all of this, hopefully before the death toll rises much higher. To that end, he and his alarmist colleagues would profit mightily from reading my Eco-Imperialism book and new report Three Faces of Sustainability; the new book About Face: Why the world needs more carbon dioxide; and several recent studies: Climate Change Reconsidered: Physical ScienceCCR: Biological Impacts, andClimate Catastrophe: A superstorm for global warming research.

Countless jobs, living standards and lives hang in the balance. The eco-imperialist crimes against humanity must end.

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.

NO Surprise, When a Windweasel Lies! or…Liar Liar, Turbines on Fire

Wind turbine blaze scandal

  • Thu, 17 Jul 2014
 

10 times more catch fire than reported

Up to 120 wind turbines catch fire annually, according to the journal of Fire Safety Science. This is 10 times the number reported by the industry, The figures, compiled by engineers at Imperial College London and the University of Edinburgh, make fire the second-largest cause of accidents after blade failure.

The researchers claim that out of 200,000 turbines around the world, 117 fires take place annually, many more than the 12 reported by wind farm companies.

Each wind turbine costs more than £2 million and generates an estimated income of more than £500,000 per year.Any loss or downtime of these valuable assets makes the industry less viable and productive.

Dr Guillermo Rein of Imperial’s department of mechanical engineering, said: ‘Fires are a problem for the industry, impacting on energy production, economic output and emitting toxic fumes.

‘This could cast a shadow over the industry’s green credentials.
‘Worryingly our report shows that fire may be a bigger problem than what is currently reported. Our research outlines a number of strategies that can be adopted by the industry to make these turbines safer and more fire resistant in the future.’

Wind turbines catch fire because highly flammable materials such as hydraulic oil and plastics are in close proximity to machinery and electrical wires.

These can ignite a fire if they overheat or are faulty. Lots of oxygen, in the form of high winds, can quickly fan a fire inside a turbine, the research showed.

It contradicts the findings of a report into the wind industry, commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive in 2013, which concluded that the safety risks associated with wind turbines are very low.

The wind industry last night questioned the validity of the new research.
Chris Streatfeild, of Renewable UK which represents wind firms, told the Mail Online: ‘The industry would challenge a number of the assumptions made in the report, including the questionable reliability of the data sources and a failure to understand the safety and integrity standards for fire safety that are standard practice in any large wind turbine.

‘Wind turbines are designed to international standards to meet mandatory health and safety standards including fire safety risks.
‘The industry remains committed to promoting a safe environment for its workers and the public, and no member of the public has ever been injured by a wind turbine in the UK.’

 

Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/536981/wind-turbine-blaze-scandal#q5ETdeRb7BlzmDT4.99

No Cost/Benefit Analysis? NO Wind Turbines!

Blowing Our Dollars in the Wind


Wind energy produces costly, intermittent, unpredictable electricity. But Government subsidies and mandates have encouraged a massive gamble on wind investments in Australia – over $7 billion has already been spent and another $30 billion is proposed. This expenditure is justified by the claim that by using wind energy there will be less carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere which will help to prevent dangerous global warming.

Incredibly, this claim is not supported by any credible cost-benefit analysis – a searching enquiry is well overdue. Here is a summary of things that should be included in the analysis.

Firstly, no one knows how much global warming is related to carbon dioxide and how much is due to natural variability. However, the historical record shows that carbon dioxide it is not the most important factor, and no one knows whether climate feedbacks are positive or negative. Also, in many ways, the biosphere and humanity would benefit from more warmth, carbon dioxide and moisture in the atmosphere.

However, let’s assume that reducing man’s production of carbon dioxide is a sensible goal and consider whether wind power is likely to achieve it. To do this we need to look at the whole life cycle of a wind tower.

Wind turbines are not just big simple windmills – they are massive complex machines whose manufacture and construction consume much energy and many expensive materials.  These include steel for the tower, concrete for the footings, fibre glass for the nacelle, rare metals for the electro-magnets, steel and copper for the machinery, high quality lubricating oils for the gears, fibre glass or aluminium for the blades, titanium and other materials for weather-proof paints, copper, aluminium and steel for the transmission lines and support towers, and gravel for the access roads.

There is a long production chain for each of these materials. Mining and mineral extraction rely on diesel power for mobile equipment and electrical power for haulage, hoisting, crushing, grinding, milling, smelting, refining. These processes need 24/7 reliable electric power which, in Australia, is most likely to come from coal.

These raw materials then have to be transported to many specialised manufacturing plants, again using large quantities of energy, generating more carbon dioxide.

Then comes the construction phase, starting with building a network of access roads, clearance of transmission routes, and excavation of the massive footings for the towers. Almost all of this energy will come from diesel fuel, with increased production of carbon dioxide. Moreover, every bit of land cleared results in the production of carbon dioxide as the plant material dozed out of the way rots or is burnt, and the exposed soil loses its humus to oxidation.

Once the turbine starts operating, the many towers, transmission lines and access roads need more maintenance and repair than a traditional power plant that produces concentrated energy from one small plot of land using a small number of huge, well-tested, well protected machines. Turbines usually operate in windy, exposed, isolated locations. Blades need to be cleaned using large specialised cranes; towers and machinery need regular inspection and maintenance; and mobile equipment and manpower needs to be on standby for lightning strikes, fires or accidents. All of these activities require diesel powered equipment which produces more carbon dioxide.

Even when they do produce energy, wind towers often produce it at time when demand is low – at night for example. There is no benefit in this unwanted production, but it is usually counted as saving carbon fuels.

Every wind farm also needs backup power to cover the +65% of wind generating capacity that is lost because the wind is not blowing, or blowing such a gale that the turbines have to shut down.

In Australia, most backup is provided by coal or gas plants which are forced to operate intermittently to offset the erratic winds. Coal plants and many gas plants cannot switch on and off quickly but must maintain steam pressure and “spinning reserve” in order to swing in quickly when the fickle wind drops. This causes grid instability and increases the carbon dioxide produced per unit of electricity. This waste should be debited to the wind farm that caused it.

Wind turbines also consume energy from the grid when they are idle – for lubrication, heating, cooling, lights, metering, hydraulic brakes, energising the electro-magnets, even to keep the blades turning lazily (to prevent warping) and to maintain line voltage when there is no wind. A one-month study of the Wonthaggi wind farm in Australia found that the facility consumed more electricity than it produced for 16% of the period studied. A detailed study in USA showed that 8.3% of total wind energy produced was consumed by the towers themselves. This is not usually counted in the carbon equation.

The service life of wind towers is far shorter than traditional power plants. Already many European wind farms have reached the end of their life and contractors are now gearing up for a new boom in the wind farm demolition and scrap removal business. This phase is likely to pose dangers for the environment and require much diesel powered equipment producing yet more carbon dioxide.

Most estimates of carbon dioxide “saved” by using wind power look solely at the carbon dioxide that would be produced by a coal-fired station producing the rated capacity of the wind turbine. They generally ignore all the other ways in which wind power increases carbon energy usage, and they ignore the fact that wind farms seldom produce name-plate capacity.

When all the above factors are taken into account over the life of the wind turbine, only a very few turbines in good wind locations are likely to save any carbon dioxide. Most will be either break-even or carbon-negative – the massive investment in wind may achieve zero climate “benefits” at great cost.

Entrepreneurs or consumers who choose wind power should be free to do so but taxpayers and electricity consumers should not be forced to subsidise their choices for questionable reasons. People who claim climate sainthood for wind energy should be required to prove this by detailed life-of-project analysis before getting legislative support and subsidies.

Otherwise we are just blowing our dollars in the wind.
 

 

A Bit of Factual Information on the Topic of Fracking!

Seldon declaims on the issue of earthquakes and fracking

When I read recently so many stupid claims of fracking causing earthquakes, I could not resist asking my favorite FAVORIIIITE PETROLEUM ENGINEER, Seldon Graham, to comment.

 

Seldon was doing frackin when the frackin wasn’t even on the radar.

Back in the 50s.

I can’t tell you how much I respect Sel, WW II soldier, field promoted to officer, West Point, Korea, petrol engineer, attorney.

So might I put up his brief but insightful discussion?

For the leftist Denton newspaper– you might ask leftist? But every newspaper must be assumed to be leftist, with the isolated exceptions like the Washington Times.

Here’s Sel:

Seismographs Cause Earthquakes
Seismographs cause earthquakes. A scientific study has proven it. The
following are observations from a study entitled “Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes
coincident with activity associated with natural gas production,” by Cliff Frohlich
and Eric Potter of the University of Texas and Chris Hayward and Brian Stump of
Southern Methodist University (SMU). The study is at: . It could just as well have been
entitled “Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes coincident with Obama Administration.”
SMU scientists set out six seismographs south of the Dallas-Fort Worth
airport terminal from November 9, 2008 to January 2, 2009. Eleven miniearthquakes
were recorded which had a magnitude too small to be picked up by the
U.S. Geological Service (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC).
Thus, these seismographs caused earthquakes which were undetected by the NEIC.
These tiny earthquakes should be called earth quivers instead of quakes.
They were at a mean depth of 4.8 kilometers. (Don’t these scientists know that oil
and gas terminology uses the American measurement of feet?) This mean depth is
at 15,748 feet below the surface of the earth.
The suspected villain was a nearby salt water disposal (SWD) well and was
not the 54 gas wells that had been fractured, as shown on Figure 8. This is
important to remember. There was no indication that fracturing of natural gas
wells had anything to do with earthquakes. The SWD well was injecting salt water
from 10,752 feet to 13,729 feet, more than two thousand feet shallower than the
mean depth of the eleven earthquivers. There is no theory given as to how this
separation of rock was overcome in order to cause an earth quiver.
Strangely, according to Figure 2, the eleven earthquivers were along the
county line rather than along a nearby fault line of unstated depth. Was Dallas
County rubbing against Tarrant County? The authors did not try to explain this
phenomenon.
Even the “sonic booms” of October 31, 2008 and May 16, 2009 which
caused this earthquake study were not over 3.3 magnitude on the Richter scale. An
earthquake up to 3.9 magnitude very rarely causes damage.
1
The authors state at the end of the study, “There are thousands of injection
wells in Texas, the vast majority of which [emphasis added] produce no felt or
instrumentally recorded seismicity.” Absent data that there is a single incident of
an injection well producing felt or recorded seismicity, that statement is deceptive
and misleading. Injection wells do not produce earthquakes, not even earthquivers.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr.
Legion of Honor Member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
(512) 452-4000
4713 Palisade Drive
Austin, Texas 78731-4516

Hey Ho, the Carbon Tax Witch is Dead…. Yaaayyy!!!!

Finally! Carbon Tax Gone – Australia gets rid of a price on carbon

As of today, Australia no longer has the most expensive “carbon” price in the world. The voters didn’t ask for a tax in 2010,  but it was forced on them in 2011. They rejected it wholeheartedly in 2013 but it still has taken months to start unwinding this completely pointless piece of symbolism which aimed to change the weather. The machinery of democracy may be slow, but this is a win for voters.

11:15am EST today: The Australian Senate passes the carbon tax repeal bill.

“Australia has become the first country in the world to abolish a price on carbon, with the Senate passing the Abbott government’s repeal bills 39 votes to 32. SMH

Now we need to turn off the tap to all the other green gravy rent-seekers who ignore the evidence.

h/t Matthew

Other news services are starting to cover this.  All the cross-benchers except Nick Xenophon (who was absent) voted for the repeal. Labor and the Greens opposed it. News.com

Soon big companies will stop paying a penalty on carbon emissions, currently just over $25 a tonne, ending Australia’s most controversial policy implementation since the 2003 decision to join the Iraq invasion.

Labor dragged out the final debate stages with questions about the Palmer United Party’s amendment to ensure price cuts from the carbon tax repeal are passed fully onto consumers and businesses. The Greens took a similar line of questioning and quizzed the finance minister about the government’s promised $550 saving for households from the repeal of the carbon tax.

On the question of $550 per household per year — just as it was impossible to know exactly how much more everything cost with a carbon tax, it will be impossible to know exactly how much less we will have to pay, and it will take months for savings to be passed through the supply lines. And billions of dollars wasted will never be recovered.

 

 
 

Aussies Axe the Carbon Tax! Finally! It’s Gone!

Carbontax_tombstoneAn ill-fated foray that never made much sense

Guest opinion by Phillip Hutchings

With perhaps a few more grandstanding shenanigans in our Federal Senate this week, Australia’s two-year experiment with a Carbon Tax will soon end. Legislation to kill the tax, which was brought in by the left-leaning Labor-Greens coalition in mid-2012, is now being finalised by our one year-old conservative Government.

 

That carbon tax has cost three prime ministerships, confused the voting population, and achieved pretty much nothing. Other market dynamics have been far more important in changing Australia’s greenhouse emissions, yet it’s politically insensitive to mention them.

The sanctimoniousness of such a tax in Australia is breathtaking. We are an energy heavy-weight, the world’s largest exporter of coal. Soon we will also be the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. At the same time as our Labor prime ministers were being successively culled by infighting over the carbon tax, the world’s biggest oil & gas companies were directing more than two-thirds of global investment in LNG production into Australia, the biggest investment boom ever in this country.

We are an economy built on the world’s hunger for fossil fuels. Yet with our gas and coal sources being either offshore or in remote locations, these vital export industries are mostly hidden from Australian voters.

The carbon tax itself was a lightweight. The theory underlying a carbon tax is to provide a long term price signal to drive a change in the industrial and consumer behaviour. On this score, the Australian tax was doomed to failure. After all, politically it had to appeal to the latte-sipping lefties, but without affecting their wallets.

The outcome – a watered-down policy that was all noise and no effect.

To minimise the economic fall-out, the Labor-Green Government limited the carbon tax to large industrial emitters (more than 25,000 CO2e/yr). Road transport and agriculture was exempt. Put together, that meant only about 185 companies in Australia’s US$ 1.5 trillion economy had to comply. And even those few were only lightly touched.

Industries which are “trade exposed” such as cement or aluminium smelting were mostly excused. They got either 66% or 94.5% of their carbon cost covered by the award of free units.

Just over one-third of Australia’s carbon emissions come from coal-fired electricity generators. And the dirtiest electricity comes from the aging brown-coal plants in Victoria – with almost double the emissions of modern gas-fired plants. Yet being located in a Labor-voting union heartland, they too got off lightly with the first half of their emissions effectively carbon- tax free. Nice.

None of which gave much incentive at all for carbon reduction. It’s hard to see any evidence at all of industries making long term investments in lower carbon-emitting factories or generating plants.

The domestic airlines got slugged with an extra 6 c/litre fuel excise, surely as crude a carbon tax as you can get. How was that supposed to reduce emissions? Yep, sure, aircraft fleets get renewed over time, and you bet, fuel efficiency is a factor when selecting alternative aircraft. But a surcharge on fuel itself was not going to change Qantas’ emissions.

So as a policy instrument, Australia’s carbon tax was never going to change emissions itself. It was a neutered program, raising Government revenue but not effective in changing behaviour.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image0024.png?w=640

Source – Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2013 Australia’s National Greenhouse Account

Yet, Australia’s greenhouse emissions have been declining for almost eight years. After decades of steady increase, that pause in carbon emissions since 2007 is striking. And it started six years before the carbon tax was implemented. It’s pretty easy to find the main reason for that – a steady fall in national electricity consumption. Latest figures show that Australia’s electricity use is at the lowest level since 2006. And with three-quarters of Australia’s electricity coming from carbon-intensive coal-fired sources, the fall in electricity use has led directly to a pause in carbon emissions.

But what caused Australian consumers to wind back their power use over the past eight years? Simple price elasticity, that’s what. There’s been huge investment in the network, the poles and wires to deliver (as opposed to generate) electricity. In most states, that led to a doubling of retail electricity prices. And yes, consumers did respond to that price signal, changing from electrical profligacy to parsimony. Nothing to do with the carbon tax, it was the regulated electricity supply industry recouping their capital investment.

What did we learn from this? The theory behind a carbon tax works fine – provide a price signal, and the consumer responds. It’s just that in this case, it was nothing to do with the carbon tax and all to do with regulated utilities doubling power prices as they caught up on network investment.

Here’s another little perverse change. Some years ago, I helped a fledgling gas producer negotiate a long term gas sales contract for electricity generation. The customer was a state Government-owned electricity generator, then setting up a new flagship and clean gas-fired generation plant. That helped shift the state’s generation sources ten years ago away from dirty coal, and into cleaner gas.

Yet earlier this year, that generator announced the closure of its gas generation in favour of dirtier coal generation. The reason? With three large export LNG plants now being commissioned for export, that gas is worth more for sale to China than for powering my fridge. In effect, a state Government snubbed its nose at the intent, let alone the price signal, from the Federal carbon tax.

So as a policy instrument, Australia’s carbon tax has been a failure. It never could have worked. And politically, it’s been a graveyard. Let’s hope politicians and bureaucrats from more enlightened jurisdictions study it and learn.

Australia’s carbon tax – no wonder it’s about to be buried.

Climate Alarmism is a Fraudulent scam! Read this!

Two Simple Questions for Al Gore

By Joe Bastardi · Jul. 16, 2014
 

Al Gore is at it again. He was just in Australia (he should hire Weatherbell.com to help him avoid the “Gore effect” – Brisbane recorded its coldest temperature in 103 years during his stay) and told BBC, “This [climate change] is the biggest crisis our civilization faces.”

A statement like that, which echoes much of what State Secretary John Kerry says, is very serious indeed, so perhaps Al Gore should answer a couple of basic questions.

Some points first. CO2 in the atmosphere is portrayed in proportions that distort it in the same way a picture of an ant under a microscope would distort its size in relation to the environment around it.

A pretty intimidating creature.

Next, CO2 has no linkage with the globe temperature in the geological time scale, nor in recent times (as the Pacific started to cool, so did temperatures), as plainly seen in the charts below.

Left is CO2 vs. temps, middle: model busts, and right: closeups of latest temps

The CO2 graphics are on a scale similar to showing an ant under a microscope and then claiming these monster creatures are taking over earth. The correct scale of CO2, since it is measured in parts per million, is to show it on a scale from zero to a million instead of the way it is portrayed most commonly, which makes it look like increases can take over the world. It is 400 parts permillion total and increases 1.8 parts per million a year. Since it is impossible to create a chart like that in millions, and CO2 would not show up anyway because its contribution is so small, I will try to be more realistic. It looks more like the following chart in relation to the total atmosphere. In this case, I will use the graphic of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere (.04%).

Another way of putting it: Here is Beaver Stadium at Penn. State filled to capacity with 107,000 people.

The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to picking 43 people out of 107,000. The yearly increase from the U.S.: ¼ to 1/3 person to that crowd.

Consider this: The yearly increase in the level of CO2 from all sources is 1.8 ppm. (ppm = parts per million). There are arguments as to how much of this is due to man. To make sure that I give my opponents the benefit of a doubt, I will assume all of that increase is because of man.

Now remember, the heat capacity of the atmosphere is only 1/1000th of the ocean’s. That means when we are talking man’s input of CO2 into the entire planetary climate system, the fact is the part we put into the air only has 1/100th of the greenhouse gas effect, the primary one being water vapor. Water vapor makes up just 4% of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere only has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean. Common sense reasoning shows that the effect of CO2 has to be boxed in by all this. But let’s continue, shall we?

The EPA estimates that the U.S. contributes about 1/5th of the CO2 man emits, which would be .20 x 1.8 ppm, or .36 (that’s point 36) ppm. I am not going to use smaller estimates of the U.S. contribution, which are as low as 10%. As I said, I am assuming all the increase is from man, which is also arguable. But I want to consider the worst case scenario.

So let’s keep this short and sweet. Two question for Mr. Gore:

1.) What is the perfect temperature for the planet?

2.) Do you really believe that the U.S.‘ contribution of .36 parts per million of CO2 has any provably measurable effect on weather/climate?

Joe Bastardi 

A Light at the End the Tunnel, for Americans!

Checkmate, ObamaCare

imageThe collision is unavoidable. Barack’s pathological narcissism will ultimately face the fierce, direct opposition of the political best interests of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, most House Democrats and virtually all Senate Democrats in 2014 and 2016. These two massive, ideological forces will rip apart the Democrat Party and badly weaken the mainstream media’s corrosive influence in America. The widespread toxicity of ObamaCare will impact all federal elections, driving the majority of office seeking Democrats to choose self-preservation and party-preservation over saving Obama’s personal legacy.

Checkmate. America wins.

The expanding nightmare of ObamaCare, with policy cancellation victims exceeding five million in 2013, will explode to an estimated one hundred and twenty million policy cancellation victims in 2014. The mounting political pressure on all politicians to reverse and repeal the wealth evaporating impact of Obama’s healthcare tyranny is absolutely unavoidable. Within one month of the disastrous, public debut of the “Affordable” Care Act, thirty-nine Democrats (approximately 20 percent of all House Democrats) swiftly turned their back on Barack’s legacy legislation.

Thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama recently exercising the “nuclear option” in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats need only cast 51 Senate votes to repeal ObamaCare in January, 2015. This repeal vote will happen. And Obama will veto this effort, attempting to spin the vote as an egregious assault on his legacy. He will also enlist his fellow travelers to decry this bi-partisan Senate repeal effort as further evidence that America is an inherently racist nation. Desperation is all that remains. He will fail as even his media cheerleaders capitulate to reality.

Not Iran, immigration reform nor gun control diversions will wag this dog from biting Obama and the Democrat party in their rear ends.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem