Institute for Energy Research Exposes the Wind Power Fraud!

December 10, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Institute for Energy Research Takes the Scalpel to the Great Wind Power Fraud

December 10, 2014 by stopthesethings

As time goes by, the number of crack energy market experts joining the effort to bring the great wind power fraud to its inevitable denouement – and the quality of their work directed at that fine and noble task – has increased exponentially.

The American “Institute for Energy Research” has just released a brilliant piece of analysis (pdf available here) that tips an enormous bucket on each and every one of the vacuous claims made by the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers about the “merits” of wind power.

We’ve picked the eyes out of the (very substantial) paper and summarised its key points below – but we recommend you take time to digest the whole study for the range of topics covered, its attention to detail and carefully crafted arguments – all thoroughly supported and well referenced.

The study also includes a solid section on the adverse effects of wind turbines on human health, the slaughter of millions of birds and bats and the toxic mountains of sludge generated during the manufacture of turbines, which we haven’t included in our summary below – providing another good reason to read the whole study.

The study has direct application to the wind industry rort in Australia: just substitute “Canberra” for “Washington”; the “Clean Energy Council” for the “American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)”; and substitute “Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Renewable Energy Certificate (REC)” for “Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the Production Tax Credit (PTC)”.

The Case Against the Wind Production Tax Credit
Institute for Energy Research
November 2014

Executive Summary

The federal wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is a substantial subsidy that has provided the wind industry billions of taxpayer dollars and is working to harm reliable, affordable sources of electricity generation such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The PTC was first enacted in 1992 as a temporary measure to bolster the wind industry. From 1992 through today, it has been extended seven times. In its current form, the PTC provides owners of wind facilities a subsidy of $23 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated for the facility’s first 10 years of operation.

The PTC technically expired at the end of calendar year 2013, but new facilities will still qualify through 2015 under new, expanded conditions. A new two-year extension, as is contemplated in a bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, would cost American taxpayers more than $13 billion. For context, that amounts to 4.8 million families’ entire federal tax bill in a single year – or enough to buy the entire Mongolian economy and still have more than a billion dollars left over.

This report offers hard facts about the PTC. Another extension of the PTC would:

Give tax breaks to politically well-connected investors at the expense of taxpayers
Increase the overall cost of electricity
Threaten the reliability of America’s power grid
Destroy more jobs than it creates
Stifle innovation in energy technologies
Provide a handout to a large, mature industry
Add to a tangled web of over 80 different federal programs supporting wind power
Do nothing to advance the environmental goals it was designed to address

In sum, the PTC is one of the most egregious subsidies that the federal government provides.

Introduction

The wind industry in the U.S. benefits from many federal programs intended to make wind-generated electricity competitive with other sources. Chief among these federal programs is the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). The PTC was first enacted in 1992 and has since been extended seven times. In its current form, the PTC provides owners of wind facilities a subsidy of $23 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated for the facility’s first 10 years of operation. To put the size of the subsidy in perspective, prices in wholesale electricity markets typically hover around $50 per megawatt-hour.

Most recently, the PTC was extended in January 2013 and expired at the end of that year. In the last extension bill, however, Congress expanded the qualification criteria to include facilities that had commenced construction by the end of 2013 instead of requiring that facilities be complete.

The change in language enabled the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to expand eligibility to projects that had not initiated physical construction but had merely secured financing, including many facilities that began or will begin operation between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016.

As a result, taxpayers will be on the hook for PTC payments through the year 2025.

In April 2014, the Senate Finance Committee approved an $85 billion extension of roughly 60 expired tax provisions commonly referred to as “tax extenders.” The bill includes a two-year extension of the PTC — a retroactive extension for 2014 and a new extension through 2015. The PTC extension in the Senate bill would cost American taxpayers more than $13 billion over the next ten years.

The House has taken a piecemeal approach to the expiring tax provisions and has not put forward an extension of the PTC. During the current lame-duck session to close out the 113th Congress, passing a tax extenderspackage will be a top priority.

In a final push to include the PTC in the coming tax legislation, wind industry lobbyists such as the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) will likely repeat a variety of well-worn arguments about why the PTC should be extended for the eighth time.

The PTC was never intended to be permanent, and even AWEA has recognized that the PTC should end soon.

If Congress chooses not to extend the PTC during the lame-duck session, the result will be a gradual 10-year phase-out of PTC payments, and new eligibility for the PTC will likely remain closed after 2015.

The Case Against the PTC

The PTC Puts Wealthy, Politically-Connected Investors Before American Families and Taxpayers

Average Taxpayers Shoulder the Burden of the PTC

The Senate Finance Committee estimates that a two-year extension of the wind PTC would constitute a tax expenditure of $13.35 billion, an enormous implicit transfer from the general taxpayers to the wind industry and its financial partners over ten years.

For scale, that’s enough to pay 124 million Americans’ average monthly electricity bill for a whole month. Alternatively, this is the same as the total tax bill of 4.8 million families with median incomes for a single year.

The PTC Raises the Cost of Electricity

Supporters of the wind PTC argue that new wind turbines are the cheapest way to generate electricity and to replace the rapidly retiring fleet of coal-fired power plants.

However, adding wind power to the grid raises the total cost of delivering electricity in two important ways. First, wind is a more expensive source of electricity than new natural gas-fired power plants, or existing coal plants, nuclear facilities, and hydroelectric plants.

Second, the unreliable nature of wind power imposes new costs on the grid and hurts current sources of electricity generation.

The High Cost of Wind Power

PTC advocates often cite the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) to argue that wind energy is cheaper than alternatives. LCOE is an estimate of the cost of electricity from new electricity generators produced by both the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

This method, however, fails to measure the true cost of wind energy on the grid for three main reasons: 1) Comparing the levelized cost of electricity from natural gas, coal, or nuclear to wind is an apples to oranges comparison, 2) LCOE ignores the low cost of existing sources of generation, and 3) the LCOE for wind power is based on unrealistic assumptions.

Comparing the cost of electricity from intermittent wind (a non-dispatchable source) to sources that can be controlled (dispatchable sources) is an apples-to-oranges comparison because there is a lot of value to being able to rely on electricity sources to help keep the lights on. Here’s how EIA explains this issue:

Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

Despite EIA’s words of caution about directly comparing reliable sources and intermittent sources, frequently people make the comparison. The way to make an apples to apples comparison between wind and natural gas, coal, or nuclear would be to include the cost of backup power with other wind costs to make a valid direct comparison.

To the second point, most levelized cost calculations focus on the costs of new generation. It does not provide a useful comparison of the cost of existing coal, gas, and nuclear plants against wind power. Even if the EIA’s estimate of wind power’s LCOE — around $80 per MWh — is assumed to be accurate, wind cannot supply electricity as cheaply as current wholesale electricity prices, which hover around $50 per MWh.

These low wholesale prices reflect the low cost of providing electricity using the existing infrastructure of natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants.

Further, a recent IER study shows that the EIA makes many questionable assumptions in formulating its LCOE for wind power. Using more realistic assumptions, the IER study found the following:

While expenses faced by wind project developers are an important element of the overall cost of wind power, addition of wind power to the power grid involves a number of other costs. If a more reasonable estimate of the installed cost of capital is $88 per MWh and operating costs are $21 per MWh, we can estimate a reasonable LCOE for wind power near $109 per MWh rather than NREL’s estimate of $72 — a more than 50 percent increase. [emphasis added]

A study by George Taylor and Tom Tanton found that, when factoring in a 20-year lifespan for wind turbines and a lack of subsidies, wind power costs $101 per MWh. When backup generation is accounted for, the cost goes up to $149-$153.

Levelized cost estimates don’t incorporate the full costs of long-distance transmission associated with wind power.

Because high-quality wind resources are often located far away from places where people use electricity, wind power is more expensive to transmit than conventional sources that can be sited closer to demand. The costly transmission investments needed to bring wind power to the grid factor into electricity rates and frequently translate into higher rates for customers.

According to Berkeley Labs researchers, transmission expenses range from $0 to $79 per MWh — the median cost being around $15 per MWh.

One example of the high cost of new transmission projects is the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone in Texas (CREZ). This electricity transmission project linked the large wind facilities in west Texas to the population centers in east Texas. The CREZ project cost nearly $7 billion.

Lastly, the cost of building new wind facilities and new transmission lines to get the electricity from the windy areas to the population centers of the United States also creates additional costs because total U.S. electricity generation has not increased in nearly 10 years.

This lack of an increase in electricity generation means that adding new sources to the generation system is duplicative in many cases.

The PTC Imposes New Costs on the Grid

In Germany, despite more than two decades of subsidies, solar and wind power only accounted for 11 percent of overall electricity generation in 2011. As the German government began pursuing aggressive green energy targets by closing reliable power plants, electricity costs dramatically increased.

The levelized cost of electricity focuses on each source of electricity on its own (one at a time). As such, it fails to reflect the costs that wind imposes on other components of the power grid, including other sources of generation. In addition to the long distance between the best wind resources and population centers, the inherent variability and unpredictability of wind power necessitates additional (backup) generation resources.

We can see how adding more and more wind power to the energy mix has played out in the real world. Electricity prices are high and rising in countries that have aggressive policies subsidizing wind, like Germany, Spain, and Canada. It’s the same story in many of the largest wind-producing states in the U.S.

In Germany, despite more than two decades of subsidies, solar and wind power only accounted for 11 percent of overall electricity generation in 2011. As the German government began pursuing aggressive green energy targets by closing reliable power plants, electricity costs dramatically increased. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S.

Due to theses price increases, as many as 800,000 citizens have been unable to pay their electricity bills and have had their power cut off. The situation has gotten so out of hand that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned of consumer backlash if the government fails to contain energy costs.

Also, German industries such as BASF are curtailing investments in Germany as a result of the country’s energy policies.

In the U.S., many states that have seen the greatest increases in wind power have also seen prices rise. In fact, with the exception of Oklahoma, every one of the top ten wind power states has had electricity prices increase by at least 14 percent. Given that this rise is five times faster than the national average, it is a trend that cannot be ignored by policymakers.

The chart below from the U.S. EIA highlights the rapidly increasing electricity prices in Europe as compared to the U.S. The EIA explains that regulatory structures, taxes, and investment in renewable energy technologies influence electricity price.

In Spain, a program to subsidize renewable energy began in 2000 and was expanded in 2008. One consequence of these policies has been a large increase in rates — electricity prices have risen by more than 90 percent in the last 6 years.

A similar story has unfolded in Canada, where government-subsidized wind power provides just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power, but accounts for about 20 percent of the cost of electricity.

Given that this rise is five times faster than the national average, it is a trend that cannot be ignored by policymakers.

Simply put, the framework used by wind PTC proponents to demonstrate the “low” price of wind power does not reflect reality. While we can see how wind power increases electricity prices, perhaps more concerning are its effects on grid reliability.

The PTC Threatens Power Grid Reliability

Subsidizing wind power on a per-megawatt basis threatens the reliability of our electric grid. The stability of the U.S. power system depends on the ability of electricity suppliers to match demand second by second, every day. Because wind power depends on the weather (and there is still no cost-effective way to store electricity for times when the wind isn’t blowing), wind energy is not capable of continuously meeting demand.

Wind power also tends to be more available at night, when demand is low. Despite the low value of electricity overnight, the PTC gives wind developers the same tax credit to produce electricity at night as it does to produce it during times when electricity is the most valuable.

This means that wind generators are not concerned about trying to produce electricity when demand is high and electricity is available, but rather to produce as much electricity as possible whenever the wind is blowing regardless of whether the electricity is needed or not. The unreliable nature of wind power, fueled by the PTC, threatens the reliability of our electric grid because it makes it more difficult to balance supply and demand. The PTC also makes affordable and reliable electricity sources less economical by allowing wind producers to pay utilities to take their power.

Wind production tends to peak in the spring and the fall, when the need for energy is at its lowest, and it decreases in the winter and summer when heating and cooling needs drive up electricity use. The same problem occurs on a day-to-day basis: more wind energy is produced at night, when power demand is down, than during peak hours during the day. This directly threatens grid reliability: at times when demand for power is low, the grid is flooded with excess of wind generated power which forces base load plants running on coal and natural gas to operate at inefficient levels. Plants running at these inefficient levels produce far more CO2 emissions than they normally do, which offsets much of the reduction in CO2 emissions to which wind power might lead.

A 2011 report from BENTEK Energy revealed that any decreases in CO2 levels resulting from wind power were negligible in size or economically impractical.

Wind Energy Cannot Keep the Lights On

In order to supply electricity when people demand it, some power plants have to be ready to quickly increase and decrease production to match consumer demand in real time. To accomplish this feat, different plants provide varying amounts of power at different times of the day. Wind power does not fill any of the roles below because it is not “dispatchable” (a grid operator cannot “turn on” a wind facility because its output depends entirely on weather conditions).

There are three types of power plants:

Baseload plants are those which provide consistent power in an efficient and cost-effective manner, handling electricity demand at all times of the day or night. These plants are usually coal-fired or nuclear-powered.
Intermediate load plants, such as combined cycle natural gas facilities, can ramp up and down in a relatively efficient way depending on electricity demand, but they are most efficient when they operate for extended periods.
Peak load plants, which are usually simple cycle natural gas or oil-burning plants, are even more flexible and can increase or decrease output very quickly, but they operate less efficiently than baseload or intermediate generators.

Wind power only produces electricity when the wind is blowing, so these other sources of electricity have to back it up to satisfy demand. When demand is low and winds are high, reliable power plants are sometimes forced to back off, as wind turbines generate unneeded power. It is inefficient for any plant to ramp up and down more than is needed to meet demand.

Instead of helping utilities match supply and demand, wind makes it more difficult to operate the grid reliably.

The PTC Destroys More Jobs than it Creates

The question isn’t whether the PTC “creates jobs” — it’s whether it creates more jobs than it takes away from the rest of the economy.

The wind PTC does not create jobs on net, compared to an alternative policy in which the federal government refrains from using the tax code to pick winners and losers.

Although the American Wind Energy Association claims that failing to reauthorize the tax credit would “kill jobs,” the money used to subsidize those jobs comes from taxpayers, not from thin air.

Rather than arbitrarily limiting tax credits to wind producers, generally returning the money to taxpayers would have “created jobs” as well — jobs that produce goods and services that Americans actually want. As we have pointed out:

At the end of last year [2012], the federal wind production tax credit was extended for another year. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this one-year extension of the PTC would cost $12.1 billion. The American Wind Energy Association, the lobby for the wind industry, claims that 37,000 jobs would have been lost if the PTC was not extended. This means that each job “saved” cost the U.S. Treasury $327,000. While the PTC…might “create” some identifiable jobs, they do not create jobs “on net.” The money to pay for the…PTC, has to come from somewhere. In other words, if taxpayers had been able to keep the money instead of it going to subsidies, the taxpayers would have spent the money and that spending would have created other jobs. [Emphasis added]

The question isn’t whether the PTC “creates jobs” — it’s whether it creates more jobs than it takes away from the rest of the economy.

In Spain, for example, where the government pushed “green energy subsidies” aggressively, 2.2 jobs were lost for every “green job” that the subsidies supported.

For the reasons above, it is completely disingenuous for AWEA to sell the PTC as a job creator.

The PTC Never Protected an “Infant” Industry

Modern wind turbines have been used for electricity generation more than 125 years, and the wind PTC has existed since 1992. In 1995, wind expert Paul Gipe wrote about the wind industry’s maturity in his book Wind Energy Comes of Age:

Although wind energy suffered severe growing pains and struggled through a stormy adolescence during the 1980s, it has matured. Wind energy is now ready to take its place alongside fossil and nuclear fuels as a conventional source of electricity.

Gipe is not alone in arguing that the wind industry is mature. Senator Chuck Grassley, the original author of the PTC, stated in 2003 that “we’re going to have to [subsidize wind] for at least another five years, maybe for 10 years. Sometime we’re going to reach that point where it’s competitive.” Senator Grassley’s statement was eleven years after the PTC was enacted. Now, eleven years after that, the Senate is grappling over Grassley’s recent addition of a two-year extension of the PTC to a broader tax extenders package.

According to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, installed wind turbine capacity increased 3,705 percent from 1997 to 2013, jumping from 1,611 MW to 61,292 MW. If the wind industry was mature before it saw such rapid growth, why does it still need the PTC now?

A 2012 study by David Dismukes, professor, associate executive director, and director of Policy Analysis at the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University, notes that wind energy is far from an “infant industry”:

Contrary to popular rhetoric, the wind industry is not an “infant industry” in need of continued training wheels, but one that is comprised of 50,000 megawatts (“MWs”) of nameplate capacity, representing close to a five-fold increase since 2006 and a 1,300 percent increase in riskier merchant wind over the last ten years. [Emphasis added]

The “infant industry” rationale for supporting wind power thus has little basis in reality.

If AWEA is correct when it says, “Wind power in good wind resource areas is now very cost-competitive with any other new generating plant,” then there is no need to continue propping up the wind industry with taxpayer subsidies. If AWEA is wrong, and the wind industry still isn’t competitive after twenty-two years of heavy subsidies, then the PTC amounts to a failed experiment and a waste of taxpayer funds.

Federal Support for Renewables Increased through “Stimulus” Package

The Energy Information Administration conducted a renewable energy subsidy analysis for FY2007 to FY2011 and found that federal support for renewables increased by 108 percent. This increase was mainly because of the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which was meant to “stimulate” the economy during the worst part of the recession. Specifically, the amount of federal subsidy money available to the wind industry skyrocketed to $4.99 billion.

Rather than replace other federal and state subsidies for wind power, this surge in the amount of federal financing available merely added to the total. Much of the ARRA stimulus money for wind came from the Treasury through Section 1603 of the law.

The Section 1603 program provided grants equal to 30 per cent of the cost of a renewable energy project to developers. The program expired on December 31, 2011. Today, no new projects can take advantage of this subsidy, but projects that were initiated before 2011 can still garner funding from this program, if the project is completed by December 31, 2016.

In FY 2010, wind was subsidized more heavily per unit of energy production than coal, natural gas, nuclear power, geothermal, and hydropower. Only solar energy received more subsidies than wind.

In FY 2010, wind received $52.68 per MWh. Despite generating the majority of U.S. electricity for that year, coal only received $0.64 per MWh, and natural gas and petroleum liquids received only $0.63 per MWh.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Wind is frequently promoted as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But wind does not generate much in the way of carbon dioxide emission reductions. Energy expert Robert Bryce explained:

The American Wind Energy Association claims that wind energy reduced U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 million tons in 2012. That sounds significant. But consider this: global emissions of that gas totaled 34.5 billion tons in 2012. Thus, the 60,000 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity in the United States reduced global carbon dioxide emissions by about two-tenths of 1 percent. That’s a fart in a hurricane. [Emphasis added]

Thus, even if AWEA is correct in its CO2 reduction estimates, wind power has no appreciable impact on global CO2 emissions. In fact, contrary to AWEA’s claims, wind can also actually increase emissions. A study by the United Kingdom-based research group Civitas, for example, explains:

Wind-power … requires conventional back-up plants to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency) … This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity. In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [Emphasis added]

That is, because wind power relies on backup electricity from coal-fired or natural gas-fired plants when the wind isn’t blowing, we have to take into account CO2 emissions from the backup generation. The Civitas study reveals that CO2 emissions from these plants are especially high when used in a backup capacity — combined cycle natural gas plants operating without wind on the grid would emit less CO2.

Conclusion

We can do better. We shouldn’t pursue an energy strategy that subsidizes unreliable sources of power while simultaneously cracking down on reliable sources with new regulations from the EPA.

It is well past time for Washington to take the training wheels off of the wind industry and let it chart its own course. The federal wind production tax credit has propped up the wind industry for 22 years — on top of dozens of other federal and state policies designed to support wind — yet industry lobbyists claim it still needs help.

Two decades after the PTC was first enacted, wind-generated electricity comprises less than 5 percent of our total supply. At the same time, wind power has contributed little to the environmental and energy security goals it was meant to address. Unfortunately, the PTC is a very effective way to accomplish at least one thing: wasting American taxpayers’ money.

We can do better. We shouldn’t pursue an energy strategy that subsidizes unreliable sources of power while simultaneously cracking down on reliable sources with new regulations from the EPA. Wind energy can’t deliver reliable power because, even after two decades of a tax credit, it still relies on random weather patterns to generate electricity. Subsidizing today’s wind industry does nothing to solve wind power’s fundamental reliability problem.

Furthermore, far from being a “job creator,” the PTC is a net jobs loser. Even if the industry does add some jobs to the economy, those jobs come at the expense of other jobs in industries that would create new value for customers. We should not follow the example of Spain, where 2.2 jobs were lost for every “green job” created.

The PTC cannot be justified on environmental grounds, either. The U.S. is already outpacing the rest of the world in terms of CO2 reductions, largely because of innovations in natural gas rather than because of wind power. Wind turbines also kill a staggering amount of protected birds and bats and have negative health effects on nearby residents.

The costs of the PTC overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Lawmakers should prioritize American households over wind industry lobbyists.

Institute for Energy Research
November 2014

The cost of the PTC to American taxpayers – at a mere US$23 (currently AUD$27.65) per MWh – is a modest snip compared to the expected cost to all Australian power consumers of its Australian equivalent – the Renewable Energy Certificate (the “REC” aka the “LGC”).

While RECs are currently trading at $32, from 2017 – when the annual figure for the LRET starts to increase dramatically – RECs will be worth at least as much as the mandated shortfall charge of $65 per MWh.

The total renewable energy target between 2014 and 2031 is 603,100 GWh, which converts to 603.1 million MWh (1 GW = 1,000 MW). In order for the target to be met, 603.1 million RECs have be purchased and surrendered over the next 17 years: 1 REC is issued for every MWh of renewable energy dispatched to the grid. The REC is a Federal Tax on all Australian electricity consumers.

The cost of subsiding the wind industry through the REC Tax is born entirely by Australian power consumers. As Origin Energy chief executive Grant King correctly put it earlier this year:

“[T]he subsidy is the REC, and the REC certificate is acquitted at the retail level and is included in the retail price of electricity”.

It’s power consumers that get lumped with the “retail price of electricity” and, therefore, the cost of the REC subsidy to wind power outfits.

Even at the current REC price of $32, the amount to be added to power consumers’ bills will hit $18 billion. However, beyond 2017 (when the annual LRET target ratchets up from 27.2 million MWh to 41 million MWh and the $65 per MWh shortfall charge starts to bite) the REC price will almost certainly reach $65 and, due to the tax benefit attached to purchasing RECs, is likely to exceed $90.

Between 2014 and 2031, with a REC price of $65, the cost of the REC Tax to power consumers (and the value of the subsidy to wind power outfits) will approach $40 billion – with RECs at $90, the cost of the REC Tax/Subsidy balloons to over $54 billion (see our post here).

This massive stream of subsidies for wind power is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the Commonwealth; and stands as a regressive tax/subsidy grab by stealth, which hits the poorest and most vulnerable; struggling businesses; energy intensive industries; and cash-strapped families the hardest – with absolutely NO measurable economic or environmental benefit in return.

Precisely as the Institute for Energy Research concludes: “The costs of the PTC overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Lawmakers should prioritize American households over wind industry lobbyists.”

Adapted for Australian circumstances that conclusion reads:

“The costs of the mandatory LRET overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. The Coalition and the Senate Cross-Benchers should prioritize Australian households over Infigen, Pac Hydro, et al; wind industry lobbyists, like the Clean Energy Council, the Australia Institute, Union Super Funds; and every other parasite and rent-seeker out to profit from the greatest rort of all time.”

The insane and pointless costs of the mandatory LRET are little more than a form of economic and social self-flagellation.

The LRET (like the PTC) is simply unsustainable. Any policy that is unsustainable will either fail under its own steam; or its creators will eventually be forced to scrap it.

STT hears that Tony Abbott is acutely aware that the mandatory LRET is an entirely flawed piece of public policy; and is nothing more than an out of control industry subsidy scheme.

As such, it represents a ticking political time-bomb for a government that doesn’t need anymore grief from an angry proletariat. And boy, the proletariat are going to be angry when they find out that under the mandatory LRET they’re being lined up to pay $50 billion in REC Tax – to be transferred as a direct subsidy to wind power outfits and added to their power bills – over the next 17 years.

For Tony Abbott to have any hope of a second term in government, the mandatory LRET must go now.

Wind Turbines DO Destroy Property Values….

December 10, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind farm property value study should not have been published: Queens prof

by ottawawindconcerns

You may have seen the Canadian Press story that surfaced on Sunday and Mondayabout a study done by a University of Guelph agricultural economics teacher, which was published in the Journal of Agricultural Economics. While the headlines said wind turbines caused NO effect on property value, the real study said otherwise: the co-authors noted that they had very little data, that expired listings (houses listed for sale that never sold) were not included, and neither were sales not on the open market, such as the properties purchased by wind power developers.

So the situation was: very few sales, houses not selling at all, and some houses that did sell changed hands many times. What’s wrong with that picture?

Well, plenty. Here’s a letter to the editor of the journal that published the study, released today. Too bad the damage has been done by the headline writers.

Letter to the Editors of Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics:

The paper by Vyn and McCullough (2014) should not have been published in its current form as the results are being misinterpreted and highly publicized in the press and in radio broadcasts. The core issue is the lack of power in the statistical tests, a problem partially acknowledged by the authors but then dismissed by their focusing attention on tests for the sensitivity of their model specification. The article appears to encourage the misinterpretation of its statistical findings.

Out of the 5414 sales, only 79 post-turbine sales are of properties within a 5 kilometer radius and the rest are within a 50 kilometer radius. The diversity of the houses in the sample is very large as indicated by their price range of ten thousand to two million dollars and by the relatively low R-squares (0.57) in the hedonic regressions. Given the small number of properties that may have been adversely affected and the great diversity of properties in the sample, it is not at all surprising that the regressions yield no ‘statistically significant’ results. The shortage of observations on properties close to the turbines cannot be overcome by extensive sensitivity testing of model form. The problem is with the lack of data not with model form and focusing on the form tends to obfuscate the issue.

The authors do recognize the data problem: “Unfortunately, there are relatively few observations in the post-turbine periods that are in close proximity to turbines” (p 375) and “Hence, these numbers of observations are likely too few to detect significant effects, which represents a major limitation of this analysis” (p 387). But there are three problems that should have been picked up and corrected through the peer review and editorial decision process.

First, the authors conclude:

“The empirical results generated by the hedonic models, using three different measures to account for disamenity effects, suggest that these turbines have not impacted the value of surrounding properties” (p 388). This is wrong for two reasons. First they could not discern an impact which is different from not having an impact. Second, they misuse the term ‘value’. If you have a choice between two identical properties, identical in all respects except that one is close to a turbine while the other is not and if you choose the far one, then the turbine has an effect on the value of the property. This hypothetical example tests the paper’s hypothesis using common sense rather than a statistical measure.

Second, the authors claim:

“The findings of this paper will provide evidence that may help to resolve the controversy that exists in Ontario regarding the impacts of wind turbines on property values” (p 369) and then proceed to do all they can to make a non-finding appear important and repeat the general statement that they found no significant impact. They correctly said in the CBC interview this morning that their study did not find a statistically significant price effect but the public and reporters, not being familiar with statistical terms interpret this as saying that there was no price effect. Not finding a statistically significant impact due to a data shortage does not mean that there was no significant (i.e. important) impact. This distinction was not made clear enough in the paper nor in the follow up interviews and newspaper articles.

Third, the reviewers and finally the editors should have insisted on the power of the statistical tests to be calculated and reported. I understand that editors in the major health science journals insist on this as their readers, doctors and other clinicians, are not always aware of statistical fine-points but they need to be fully aware of the qualifications before using the results to change their practice. Given the potential impact a misinterpretation of the findings could generate, the test of the power should be reported even in the abstract. The reader should be told how big an impact would have to be before it can be detected by a statistical test with this number of observations. Had the price of properties near the turbines been 10 percent lower than they actually were, would the model have yielded a statistically significant finding of a price decrease at say the 0.05 probability level? What about a 20 percent decrease, would it have been ‘statistically significant’? Answers to this type of question would have been easy to produce and far more relevant that sensitivity tests of the model form.

The paper deals with an important issue that can have serious policy implications affecting the wellbeing of many people. The results can affect the location of wind turbine farms and the compensation claims of affected parties. Incorrect information or interpretations can be very hard to correct. In such cases, it is the journal editors’ responsibility to ensure that results are presented in a manner that, at the very least, does not encourage the misinterpretation of the findings.

Sincerely,

Andrejs Skaburskis, Professor Emeritus

North American Editor: Urban Studies,

School of Urban and Regional Planning,

Queen’s University,

Kingston Ontario, Canada

Leftards Lament New New Republic Owner Doesn’t Want Them To Lose Money

December 8, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Love to see a Liberal Rag, Infighting!

suyts space

Someone call a waa-ambulance!!!

For those who may be wondering why I’ve written another post about an obscure magazine no one reads, I’m doing this because I enjoy the leftards’ tears.

If you’ve ever read TNR, then, you, too, are probably enjoying their tears. It is, or was, the epitome of leftarded psuedo-intellectual condescension. The angst against hard-working average Americans oozed from their pages as puss from a festering sore.

Well, as it turns out, no one read the damned thing. The new owner wants them to be a viable medium. Well, they’re crying. They’ve written a statement crying about this. It’s funny.

TNR veterans protest Hughes’ ‘destruction’
Three former editors of The New Republic — Hendrik Hertzberg, Peter Beinart and Andrew Sullivan — have joined more than a dozen of their fellow TNR veterans in protesting the “destruction” of the magazine at the hands of owner Chris Hughes.
“As…

View original post 562 more words

Climate Change Scam is NOT Fooling Smart Citizens! STOP Fear Mongering!

December 8, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UN POLL REVEALS: GLOBAL POPULATION NOT CONVINCED BY CLIMATE CHANGE SCAREMONGERING

by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS 7 Dec 2014

A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/tWatts Up With That). Conversely, every single demographic placed “a good education” at the top.

The poll is being conducted by the United Nations as part of a program to find out what people across the world want to see action on. Participants are offered a choice of sixteen policy issues, which also include “a good education”, “Political freedoms”, “Protecting forests, rivers and oceans”, and “Equality between men and women”.

6,654,216 people have taken part in the My World survey so far (launched last March, it is remaining open until next year). Across almost every demographic, “Action taken on climate change” was rated 16 / 16.

The only exceptions are amongst those aged 46 and above, who placed “Phone andinternet access” at the bottom of their lists of priorities, and those living within moreaffluent regions of the world. Across the whole of Africa and Asia climate change rated last, but Europe, Oceania and the Americas promoted the issue to around half way up the table.

In the US it ranked 10^th, whilst in the UK it was placed 9^th. Both countries put “a good education” in the top spot. Votes can be submitted online, via mobile phone, or in some countries via offline ballots. Researchers are also heading to places where internet access is not available to survey populations in person.

At the time the project was launched, Claire Melamed, Head of Growth at the Poverty and Inequality Programme at the Overseas Development Institute said “We are collecting an incredibly rich source of information about what people want. We’re able to look at what men want, what women want, what people of different ages want, how the choices people are making vary in all kinds of different ways. We can look at particularly what some of the poorest people think and compare that with richer people in their own countries.”

Willis Eschenbach, commenting on the Watts Up With That blog said “People are not as stupid as their leaders think. Folks know what’s important and what’s trivial in their lives, and trying to control the climate is definitely in the latter group.”

Faux-Green EPA is Not a Friend of the People….

December 7, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

EPA CO2 rules will make make people poorer — and then kill them

Posted on December 6, 2014 by JunkScience.com

Statistician Stan Young shows how the real costs and imaginary benefits of the EPA CO2 rule are a deadly combination.

Are there mortality co-benefits to the Clean Power Plan? It depends.
S. Stanley Young, genetree@bellsouth.net

Some years ago, I listened to a series of lectures on finance. The professor would ask a rhetorical question, pause to give you some time to think, and then, moreoften than not, answer his question with, “It depends.” Are there mortality co-benefits to the Clean Power Plan? Is mercury coming from power plants leading to deaths? Well, it depends.

So, rhetorically, is an increase in CO2 a bad thing? There is good and bad in everything. Well, for plants an increase in CO2 is a good thing. They grow faster. They convert CO2 into more food and fiber. They give off more oxygen, which is good for humans. Plants appear to be CO2 starved.

It is argued that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and an increase in CO2 will raise temperatures, ice will melt, sea levels will rise, and coastal area will flood, etc. It depends. In theory yes, in reality, maybe. But a lot of other events must be orchestrated simultaneously. Obviously, that senerio depends on other things as, for the last 18 years, CO2 has continued to go up and temperatures have not. So it depends on other factors, solar radiance, water vapor, El Nino, sun spots, cosmic rays, earth presession, etc., just what the professor said.

So suppose ambient temperatures do go up a few degrees. On balance, is that bad for humans? The evidence is overwhelming that warmer is better for humans. One or two examples are instructive. First, Cox et al., (2013) with the title, “Warmer is healthier: Effects on mortality rates of changes in average fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and temperatures in 100 U.S. cities.” To quote from the a Young1 Means CIs bstract of that paper, “Increases in average daily temperatures appear to signiﬁcantly reduce average daily mortality rates, as expected from previous research.” Here is their plot of daily mortality rate versus Max temperature. It is clear that as the maximum temperature in a city goes up, mortality goes down. So if the net effect of increasing CO2 is increasing temperature, there should be a reduction in deaths.

I have a very large California data set. The data covers eight air basins and the years 2000 to 2012. There are over 37,000 exposure days and over two million deaths. The data forLos Angeles for the year 2007 is typical.

The number of Heart or Lung deaths for people 65 and older are given on the left, y-axis. The moving 21-day median number of deaths are given with blue diamonds as time marches to the right. Deaths are high during the winter, when temperatures are lower; the number of deaths are lower during the summer, when the temperatures are higher. These plots are typical. It is known that higher temperatures are associated with lower deaths.

A purported co-benefit of lower CO2 is that there will be lower levels of PM2.5. (PM2.5 is not chemically defined, but is partially made up of combustion products.) It is widely believed that lower levels of PM2.5 will lead to fewer deaths. Here is what Cox et al. (2013) have to say, “Unexpectedly, reductions in PM2.5 do not appear to cause any reductions in mortality rates.” And here is their supporting figure below.

Chay et al. (2003) looked at a reduction in air pollution due to the Clean Air Act. Counties out of compliance were given stricter air pollution reduction goals. This action by the EPA created a so called natural experiment, Craig et al. (2012). The EPA selected counties did reduce air pollution levels, but there was no reduction in deaths after adjustments for covariates. Chay et al. (2003) say, “We ﬁnd that regulatory status is associated with large reductions in TSPs pollution but has little association with reductions in either adult or elderly mortality.” So Cox et al. (2013) confirm the finding of Chay et al. (2003) that a reduction in PM2.5 does not lead to a reduction in deaths. Young and Xia (2013) found no assocation of PM2.5 with longevity in western US. Enstrom (2005) and many others have found no association of chronic deaths with PM2.5 in California.

Many claim an assocation of air pollution with deaths, acute and chronic. How can the two sets of claims be understood? Well, it depends. Greven et al. (2011) say in their abstract, “… we derive a Poisson regression model and estimate two regression coefﬁcients: the “global” coefﬁcient that measures the association between national trends in pollution and mortality; and the “local” coefﬁcient, derived from space by time variation, that measures the association between location-speciﬁc trends in pollution and mortality adjusted by the national trends. …Results based on the global coefﬁcient indicate a large increase in the national life expectancy for reductions in the yearly national average of PM2.5. However, this coefﬁcient based on national trends in PM2.5 and mortality is likely to be confounded by other variables trending on the national level. Confounding of the local coefﬁcient by unmeasured factors is less likely, although it cannot be ruled out. Based on the local coefﬁcient alone, we are not able to demonstrate any change in life expectancy for a reduction in PM2.5.” (Italics mine) In plain words, associations measured from location to location, which are likely to be affected by differences in covariates, show an association. Examination of trends within locations, which are less likely to be affected by covariates, show no association. In short, the claims made depend on how well covariates are taken into account. When they are taken into account, Chay et al. (2003), Greven et al. (2011), Cox et al. (2013), Young (2014), there is no association of air pollution with deaths. Chay controls for multiple economic factors. Greven controls for location. Cox controls for temperature. Young controls for time and geography.

Note well: The analysis of Young (2014) uses a moving median within a location (air basin). This analysis is much less likely to be affected by covariates. This analysis finds no assocation of air pollution (PM2.5 or ozone) with deaths. Several figures are instructive. The figures are for LA, but are typical for the other California air basins. First ozone:

The figures were constructed as follows. From the daily death total was subtracted a 21-day moving median. This calculation corrects for the time trend in the data. From the daily air pollution level the 21-day moving median for the air pollution was subtracted. The daily death “deviation” was plotted against the pollution “deviation”. If air pollution was causing deaths, then the density in these three figures should go from lower left to upper right. To examine if previous air pollution, e.g. yesterday or the day before, was associated with current deaths, lags of 0, 1, and 2 days were used, hence the three figures. Plots like these were computed for all eight air basins; the figures for LA are typical. Next we give the same sort of figures, but for PM2.5. Again, LA.

Again, the density is concentrated at zero PM2.5 and zero deaths, and, the important point, there is no tilt of the density from lower left to upper right. And again the plots for LA are typical of the other seven air basins.

Can we say more? Many authors have noted “geographic heterogeneity”, the measured effect of air pollution is not the same in different locations. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of geographic heterogeneity. See for example, Krewski et al. (2000), Smith et al. (2009), Greven et al. (2011) and Young and Xia (2013). Multiple authors have not found any association of air pollution with acute deaths in California, Krewski et al. (2000), Smith et al. (2009), Young and Xia (2013) and Jarrett et al. (2013). Enstrom (2005) found no association with chronic deaths in California. A careful consideration of of this “geographic heterogeneity” is a key to understanding why it is unlikely that air pollution is causing deaths. Given that geographic heterogeneity exists, how should it be interpreted? First, statistical practice says that if interaction exists, then average effects often are misleading. Any recommendations should be for specific situations. In the words of the finance professor, it depends. In this case it makes no sense to regulate air pollution in California more severely than current regulations.

We can consider the question of interactions of air pollution with geography more deeply. Greven et al. (2011) state in their abstract, “Based on the local coefficient alone, we are not able to demonstrate any change in life expectancy for a reduction in PM2.5.” and they go on to say differences in locations (geographic heterogeneity) is most likely due to differences in covariates, e.g. age distributions, income, smoking. Indeed when Chay et al. (2003) corrected their analysis for an extensive list of covariates, they found no effect of the EPA intervention to reduce air pollution.

There is empirical evidence and a logical case that air pollution is (most likely) not causally related to acute deaths. Heart attacks and stroke were recently removed as a possible etiology, Milojevic et al. (2014).

Economics on the back of an envelope

The EPA claims saving 6,600 deaths per year due to CPP. They value each death at nine million dollars giving a co-benefit of $59.4B. But analysis that takes covariates into consideration finds no excess deaths due to ozone or PM2.5. The $59.4B co-benefit is the result of flawed analysis. And what is the cost of the regulation? The EPA says CPP is the most costly regulation it has considered and puts the cost at up to $90B/yr. The National Manufacturers Association puts the cost at $270B/yr, $900/person/year in 2020.

Consider Figure 4b of Young and Xia (2013). The data used in this figure is that used in Pope, Ezzati, and Dockery (2009) and was kindly provided by Arden Pope III. Change in income and air pollution from ~1980 to ~2000 wasused. Income in thousands of dollars increase over that time period, but differed in magnitude from city to city, the x-axis. Life expectancy increased as well, y-axis. The general trend is very clear, increased income is associated with increased life expectancy. The income-life expectancy relationship is well-known. See the dramatic video by Hans Rosling (2010). To the extent that regulations are expensive, they should move people down and left in this figure with life expectancy less than it would have been. For example, $900 less income is expected to reduce life expectancy by two months.

So, do you want the EPA CPP regulations to extend your life not at all, costing you $900/yr or do you want to have use of your own money and save two months of your life? It depends. EPA decides or you decide.

Summary

Increased CO2 is good for plants as plants grow better with increased CO2.
Increases in temperature, however caused, are good for humans as they are less likely to die.
The science literature, when covariates are controlled, is on the side that increased ozone and PM2.5 are not associated with increased deaths.
On balance, the costs of reducing CO2, PM2.5 and ozone are expected to lead to reduced life expectancy.

Torturing Residents With Wind Turbine Noise!

December 6, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK Plan to Ban Noisy Wind Farms

December 6, 2014 by stopthesethings

Noisy wind farms face ban as ministers launch review into ‘annoying’sound levels
The Telegraph
Emily Godsen
30 November 2014

Exclusive: Energy department commissions review into disturbance from turbine noise in order to decide when annoyance becomes unacceptable

Noisy wind farms that disturb local communities could be banned, after ministers launched an unprecedented review into the annoyance they cause.

In the first official admission that wind turbine noise can adversely affect local residents, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has commissioned an independent investigation to assess the levels of sound wind farms produce and the extent of disturbance caused as a result.

Experts from the Institute of Acoustics will conduct the research next year, the Telegraph has learnt, and ministers across Government will then use the data to decide at which point the annoyance officially becomes “unacceptable”.

The review is likely to lead to tighter planning guidance for new wind farms and could force existing wind farm operators to restrict their turbines’ operation to stay within the limits.

It is also likely to open the door to claims for compensation by residents subjected to noise above the official nuisance threshold.

Many residents living near wind farms have complained of noise disturbance, while studies have linked wind turbine noise to poor sleep and mental health.

As well as the routine “swishing” noise of the blades spinning, turbines can sometimes produce “thumping” noises when sudden variations in the wind speed cause the blades to stall.

Current planning guidance limits the swishing noise to 43 decibels at night-time for the nearest property but does not deal with the thumping noises, which are a deeper pitch and can be heard at 40 decibels a kilometre away from the turbine.

Residents near some wind farms have likened the noise to a cement-mixer or a shoe stuck in a tumble-dryer.

A source said the new review would consider all types of turbine noise. “Everything is on the table,” they said.

Developers could be forced to use software to adjust the angle of the blades to prevent the thumping being caused at an unacceptably annoying level.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “This review should empower local people to stop disruptive wind farms and make sure local authorities have all the information they need before giving a planning application the green light.”

The review is expected to be completed by June. While the Institute of Acoustics will independently draw up the index of noise annoyance, the decision over what will be deemed an acceptable threshold will be a political decision for the next Government.

The Conservatives have already pledged an effective ban on new onshore wind farms if they win the election, by ending subsidies for those projects that do not already have planning permission. They have also pledged that all future onshore wind farm planning decisions would be determined by local authorities, instead of large projects being deemed nationally significant.

Matthew Hancock, the Conservative energy minister, said: “It’s important that we maximize the potential of domestic energy resources but we must do this in a responsible way. We cannot jeopardize our green and pleasant land.”

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, has heavily criticized the Conservative plan to ban onshore wind, arguing it would push up consumer bills by forcing the UK to build more expensive types of renewable technologies such as offshore turbines to hit green targets.

Wind industry body Renewable UK said it had already conducted extensive research into the extent of the thumping problem – known as Other Amplitude Modulation – and had devised the ways of tackling it.

Independent research published by the lobby group late last year had helped “to pinpoint when, where and how this sound varies”, Gemma Grimes, the group’s Director of Onshore Renewables said.

“We found that this can be addressed by using computer software to adjust the way turbines operate, changing the angle of the blades to minimize the sound levels.

“We’re hoping that this will now be incorporated within the Institute of Acoustics’ existing Good Practice Guidance document,” she said.

But she said she did not believe the existing guidance on swishing noises would or should be changed. “In this [Institute of Acoustics] guidance, which they published last summer, there was no question of changing the current noise limits, which are rightly very stringent, so we wouldn’t expect any alteration in that when they update the current document,” she said.
The Telegraph

Ever noticed how it’s only the wind industry, its parasites and spin-masters that use the terms “swoosh” and “swishing” to describe the noise produced by their giant fans?

Language abuse like that goes hand-in-glove with the same kind of corporate subterfuge that has given us lines about the noise from turbines being quieter than a refrigerator 500m away and as soothing as waves lapping on a moonlit beach (see our post here).

Funny, though, that those forced to live anywhere near these things never talk about “swishing” and, instead, use a raft of terms pulled from the darker reaches of our lexicon: “roaring”; “thumping”; “grinding”; “whining” – and phrases like “a truck rumbling down the road but never arriving”; “a jet plane overhead that never lands”; and – as appears in the piece above: “a cement-mixer” or “a shoe stuck in a tumble-dryer”.

It’s like the wind industry’s spruikers have never spent a night trying desperately to sleep anywhere near their masters’ monsters. Funny about that, too.

To give them a clue – and to help you decide on whether it’s the impacted neighbours’ choice of language that better describes the racket – here’s a couple of videos of these things in action. Take a listen and see what you think:

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/2189e6d8-9736-44e1-9d8f-c2b41473d799

STT particularly loves the second video – where a wind power outfit’s lawyer is telling a planning panel that “noise isn’t going to be an issue of concern” and compares the noise that would be produced by his client’s turbines with “a quiet library” and “an average home”. Hmmm …

STT also loves the claims by wind industry spin kings, Renewable UK that – when it comes to the thumping noise complained of by neighbours – like the Bob the Builder – it can fix most everything. Which begs the question, why is the “thumping” noise a problem at all?

But the argument about “fixing” the “thumping” noise is a typical red-herring response to the real and underlying problem: the incessant (and, therefore, grindingly annoying) nature of the low-frequency noise and infrasound emitted – where the former is audible and the latter isn’t, but operates on the auditory and other sensory systems to disturb sleep; with both combining to cause long-term sleep deprivation and other adverse health effects, as crack Professor Alec Salt explains in simple terms in this video – and as covered in our post here.

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/2679c3be-4b60-49cb-9923-fd24e9a26627

Windweasels Will Resort to Bribery, When All Else Fails….

December 5, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK Wind Industry Turns to Bribery as it Fails to “Win Brit’s Hearts & Minds”

December 5, 2014 by stopthesethings 1 Comment

Ministers accused of trying to ‘buy off’ local discontent on wind farms
Western Morning News
Phil Goodwin
12 October 2014

Landscape campaigners have described the latest Government moves tohelp communities obtain financial benefits from wind farms as a guide to bribery.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has set out new standards for wind energy schemes to work with local communities.

The guidance, written by the industry body Regen South West, focuses on how communities can best obtain and use cash funds of up to £5,000 per megawatt (MW).

Opponents of turbines say windfalls under the new rules – worth £1.1 million over the life cycle of a large project up for decision in Cornwall later this month – are simply designed to “buy off” local discontent.

Campaign group Cornwall Protect said the only way the Government can achieve its renewable energy targets is to “extend the gravy train beyond developers and landowners to communities”.

Spokesman Danny Mageean said there was a danger that so-called community leaders may be keen to win “brownie points” even if they live “at the other end of the village”.

“I live five hundred metres from a 77-metre turbine so I know the problems, and I don’t think giving our parish council a few thousand would compensate for the devaluing of our property and the noise,” he added.

Ministers unveiled a raft of measures last year in response to growing anger in the rural Conservative heartlands at turbines and solar farms.

The new guidance was billed as giving more protection to the landscape and a stronger voice to locals who opposed unpopular renewable energy schemes.

In addition, the recommended community benefit package in England was increased fivefold from £1,000 per MW of installed capacity to £5,000 per MW.

DECC has published the guidance on how wind schemes should work with communities, calling for partnerships between the two.

It gives examples of different ways in which funds and other investments by developers have been used by local groups, from the provision of care services to mountain bike trails.

The guidance is expected to be followed shortly be a community “right to invest” in new renewable energy projects that will also apply to solar schemes.

Jodie Giles, communities project manager at Regen South West, authors of the document, said “We are delighted that more communities are getting involved with sustainable energy, and in particular onshore wind projects – one of the most efficient and cost effective renewables technologies available.”

Examples of how benefits have been used will soon be recorded on DECC’s new community benefits register for England.

This month, a decision will be made on plans for one of the biggest wind farms in the region – 11 turbines producing 25MW at Week St Mary in Cornwall.

Developers Good Energy are proposing a fund of £2,000 per MW, totalling more than £44,000 a year for the life of the project, available to people living within three miles of the plant.

A local electricity tariff scheme is also proposed, offering discount for locals living within the three-mile radius who sign up to receive electricity from the scheme.

The firm is also exploring the possibility of the community owning one of the turbines.

Bob Barfoot, a member of the CPRE in Devon and a planning expert who has helped prepare a report from the group Communities Against Rural Exploitation (CARE) for the planning meeting on October 23, said community benefits cannot be taken into account by councillors.

He says this point has been made by a number of planning inspectors in recent appeals, including a decision this June to uphold the refusal of a 77-metre turbine at Ladock.

In dismissing the appeal, planning inspector Paul Jackson said plans to generate about a third of the parish’s annual electricity demand were “a laudable aim”

“However, as planning permission for the scheme was refused on landscape and visual amenity grounds, which remain the main concerns, it is unclear how the intended community benefits could make it acceptable,” he added.

Environment campaigner Jeremy Varcoe, of North Cornwall, said it was wrong to lavish cash on the girl guides rather than affected locals.

“What’s so unfair is the money goes to people not affected – rather than those whose lives are blighted by the turbines – it is little more than a bribe to the local parish or town council,” he added.

“It is a dishonest device to buy off the increasing resentment among people who are against these developments. Strictly speaking community benefits are not a material planning consideration but there is no doubt that the promise of large amounts of money has affected the decision of committees and council case officers.”
Western Morning News

As community and political opposition to the great wind power fraud rolls and builds across the world, the charge that opponents are red-necked climate change deniers, infected with a dose of Not In My Backyard syndrome, starts to ring hollow.

Sprinkling a little cash – like confetti at a wedding – isn’t going to overcome the fact that anyone with an interest in the roll-out of giant fans – which obviously includes those in impacted and threatened communities – is alive to the scale and scope of the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time (see our post here).

The level of anger is palpable and has already erupted with community defenders toppling MET masts in Scotland (see our post here); and sabotaging turbines and construction equipment in Ontario (see our post here).

True it is that everyone has a “price”. But not everyone is ready to sell their souls.

Aussies Determined to Expose the Great Wind Power Fraud! Go Senator Leyonhjelm!

December 4, 2014December 4, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Alan Jones interviews David Leyonhjelm on the Senate’s Inquiry Into the Great Wind Power Fraud & Cross-Bench LRET Plan

December 4, 2014 by stopthesethings 2 Comments

The wind industry in Australia is in full-scale panic because the Senate’s cross-benchers (who hold the balance of power in the Upper House) have won Coalition support for their Inquiry into the great wind power fraud: which will turn a (long-overdue) blowtorch on the biggest rort in Australian history (see our post here).

Adding to the wind industry’s mounting woes is the fact that the cross-benchers have also put together a plan that will put the wind industry out of its misery, by elevating the place of “old” hydro power and small-scale solar – especially “stand alone solar” in remote locations – under the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET): both “old” hydro and small-scale solar are perversely excluded from the LRET (the plan is available here).

The vast bulk of hydro capacity was built pre-1998 and is, therefore, ineligible to participate – a matter that has Tasmanian Senator, Jacqui Lambie seeing red (see our posts here and here). For a run down on the Inquiry and the cross-benchers’ plan see our post here.

STT hears that the cross-bench plan is with Tony Abbott’s office and has already won the PM’s tick of approval.

The Inquiry and the plan has been pushed along by cross-bench Senator, David Leyonhelm, who appears in this recent interview with Alan Jones on 2GB.

Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.

Alan Jones AO: A couple of weeks ago I interviewed Dr Jay Tibbetts – you might recall is an American. A medicical adviser to the Brown County Health Department in Wisconsin. He attacked the Australian Medical Association, who quite disgracefully, but not surprisingly given that the leadership of that mob now is hopelessly of the left. And the AMA virtually arguing that there was no problem with these sub-audibleinfra-sound emitted by wind turbines. And Doctor Tibbetts cited endless international evidence in relation to the health risks posed by the low-frequency noise that wind turbines generate.

Well that interview lead to an email that I received this week from eastern Europe. Amazingly they had heard my interview, on the Internet with Doctor Tibbetts in relation to what I call the lunacy of wind farms and the sleep deprivation that they cause and my email correspondent said “I just wanted to tell you how much we appreciated your excellent interview and your courage to do it. I know how risky this is. My emailer said he posted the interview on his website and it went ballistic. And I’m told, he says it’s spreading from Austria to Germany, and Finland and Ireland and Poland and many other countries. My emailer said ‘I can guarantee you that all people in Europe, especially in Germany were like crazy and spread your interview like crazy when they got it on my Facebook page.

Well people are waking up to the lies and deceit peddled by governments and renewable energy companies all over the world. There is a report this week by AGL energy of all outfits who found that non-solar households are paying hidden subsidies and more than $200 million a year, here in Australia to households who have solar roofing panels. Now we know that this wind power-solar power are driving up the cost of what you pay for electricity and what business pays. And the AGL Chief economist Paul Simshauser, said the problem of wealth transfers to renewable energy sources was increasing. In other words to prop up renewable energy, you the taxpayer have money taken out of your pocket and that, in billions of dollars, goes to renewable energy companies. Most of them foreign companies.

Now people increasingly can’t hack this. We’re told 650 electricity customers are complaining to their retailer every day about electricity prices. The Australian Energy Regulator’s annual report found disconnections have surged and more than 237,000 New South Wales households, one in seven customers, has complained to their provider about pricing in the financial year ended 30 June this year.

Now we are spending billions of dollars on wind energy. It accounts for less than 2% of power generation in China, 3% in America. And this whole renewable energy thing is completely out of control. Wind power costs up to $214 per megawatt hour, coal $78 to $91. If the renewable energy mob want a set of rules that would be simple – then go ahead with your wind farm but don’t ask for taxpayers’ money. How can wind turbine companies buy off a farmer for $10,000 a turbine and then that same company be subsidised by the taxpayers? Who are you.

I have spoken to so many people, but one of them is Andrew Gardiner in Napthine’s electorate. He’s running for election this Saturday, the Premier of Victoria. Next to 140 turbines, 150 metres high, 56m blades – the biggest monsters in the southern hemisphere, some are 90 m from his property. Eight of them, 1.7 km from his home. And he’s been bullied and intimidated by AGL. I repeat – coal-fired power $78-91 a megawatt hour wind power, up to $214 per megawatt hour and solar power, over $400 a megawatt hour.

And here you’ve got this Gullen Range wind farm near Goulburn, which breaks nearly every rule that governed its application to operate. But don’t worry, it’s foreign owned. Would you believe Canberra, were meant to be spending 17,000 million dollars (17 billion), erecting between 7000 and 10,000 of these wind turbines. Yet Germany are pushing ahead with new coal-fired electricity plants because political and public concern there is increasing over the cost of energy. China is building a new coal fired power station every 10 days every year. And remember when I spoke to Angus Taylor, the new member for Hume, turbines in his electorate enjoys subsidies to $500,000,000 to a $billion a year.

Well David Leyonhjelm is a New South Wales Senator, representing the Liberal Democrats and along with Senators Madigan, Day, Xenophon and Back, David Leyonhjelm succeeded in establishing, has succeeded in establishing – and this will put a few noses out of joint – a Senate inquiry into wind turbines. This will blow the whole show open. It was a narrow vote. Because you see people like Mcfarlane, the Energy Minister, they’re in bed with wind companies. 33 to 32. The inquiry will be known as The Select Committee on Wind Turbines. It will investigate regulatory governance, or lack of it, over wind turbines, their economic impact, which can only be negative. It will examine on household power prices of wind power, we know that. The implementation of planning processes which as you can see with Gullen Range, are ignored. The integrity of national wind farm guidelines – they have none. The impact of wind turbines on firefighting – that’s another story altogether – and crop management. And the committee will have the power to send for and examine people and documents. And it will report its proceedings from time to time and make interim recommendations and it will report by June 24 next year. This is a very pioneering and important initiative and not before time.

Senator David Leyonhjelm is on the line. Senator, good morning.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Good morning Alan.

Alan Jones AO: Just before we go down to the guts of this, I note the notice paper and it tells us that the inquiry will look into ‘the role and capacity of the National Health & Medical Research Council in providing guidance to state and territory authorities’ and ‘the effect that wind towers have on fauna and aerial operations around wind turbines’. I couldn’t find any where in the terms of reference of the inquiry an investigation into the health impact of these wind turbines. Is that on your agenda?

Senator David Leyonhjelm: It’s on our agenda and there is another item there that says ‘Any related matter’. So it certainly we’ll be taking that into account. The only thing is we – the emphasis of this inquiry is towards the other matters, more than health, because there have been two inquiries into health already. The problem with it is they’ve been ignored pretty much.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: We didn’t think – we will be going over that ground, we will be looking at that again – but there are a lot of additional complaints about wind farms. They are, I don’t know where they all are, all but certainly some of them are extremely noxious neighbours. And we are receiving just so many complaints about them.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely, I am to. I have a file that I couldn’t jump over here too. Incidentally, as you would be aware there is an election here on Saturday, this opposition leader, fellow, Andrews, the Labor leader, is promising to reduce the mandatory buffer zone between properties and wind farms if he wins the election. I mean it is currently 2 km the exclusion zone, which is not enough, he’s promised to reduce it to 1 km.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: It’s amazing. And, you know that reflects the way we did this committee. We knew that there’s significant support for wind farms on both sides of the house. And what we did was a little bit sneaky to be quite frank. We’ve called it a ‘select committee’, so it’s not a reference to an existing standing committee, which are dominated by Labor and the government, so this is basically a cross-bench inquiry. There are seven official members of the committee, plus we can co-opt more, other participating members. It’s only two from the government one from Labor, one from the Greens, and three from the cross-bench. And plus, we can bring in other participating cross-bench members if if we wish to.

Alan Jones AO: But see you’re raising a very valid point here because the public feel that they’ve got nowhere to turn because both Labor and the Coalition are in bed with this mob.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Yes, well that’s the point. That’s why we said this that it’s not going to be appropriate for it to go to an existing committee, because the cross-bench doesn’t have much say on those.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely. You see I have said many times – I am talking to Senator David Leyonhjelm from New South Wales – I’ve said many times David, that you can’t release a drug onto the market unless all the likely consequences from the drug are subjected to rigourous scrutiny. So how could you build wind farmers, or approve coal seam gas extraction, without providing the answers to the very legitimate questions about health and the impact on individuals that these things have.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Yes. You can never answer every single question and science is an endless pursuit, but there are some just glaring questions why, for example, does the Gullen Range wind farm, where they have put these things almost 200m away from where they’re supposed to be, and then said ‘well, we’re a renewable energy company we can do whatever we like’. And then the Clean Energy Regulator hands over money to them with no accounting.

Alan Jones AO: Thank God for you. Thank God for you. They should be stopped in their tracks now. They are in breach of the consent application, they should be stopped, shouldn’t they?

Senator David Leyonhjelm: We hear lots of stories, where because they are renewable energy, they think they’re above the law. They don’t think they have to comply with planning guidelines and directions and so forth.

Alan Jones AO: This bloke’s a breath of fresh air.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: We are not even satisfied those guidelines are particularly comprehensive and thorough anyway.

Alan Jones AO: Or stringent, no. You have said, just for the benefit of my listeners, and I’ll just get you to comment on some of the quotes that you’re on the record as having uttered. “The dramatic surge in power bills has been major factor in the decline of our manufacturing sector and the loss of thousands of jobs. In little more than 10 years, the Renewable Energy Target has rocketed Australia from almost the cheapest to the most expensive electricity in the world”. They are your words.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Yes. Well in fact that brings me to another subject where also the cross-bench is also are trying to do something constructive with the government on this Renewable Energy Target. As you probably know, Labor and the government stopped negotiating a week or so back and now, it’s in our court. We are working on a plan – there’s been some media reports on it in the last couple of days. We are working on a plan in whcih we will address this issue of high prices of electricity, unachievable energy target, the penalty rates kicking in, all that sort of nonsense.

Alan Jones AO: Well you said in August, ‘The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show in the five years to June 2012, Australian retail electricity prices rose by 72%, with even higher increases in Melbourne and Sydney’. You said, ‘Senators and MPs, however, don’t need to worry about whether staying warm in chilly Canberra may send them broke. Perhaps if they had to pay for their own heating and air-conditioning in Parliament House it would concentrate their minds on the important discussion we need to have about the future of the Renewable Energy Target’. Good on you.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Well, it’s tragic. You know there are people who are suffering, genuinely suffering from energy poverty. They cannot turn on their heaters during the winter. They suffer in the cold just because they cannot afford their electricity bills. So they’re frightened of receiving a bill that they can’t afford to pay.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely. You … yes it is tragic. You quote a report from the accounting firm Deloittes, showing the Renewable Energy Target will “stifle the economy, cost jobs, and drive up prices and is a very inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. Now Terry McCrann years ago told me David, on this program, if you want to decarbonise the Australian economy, you’re writing a national suicide note. And I mean that you’re the only people focusing on this issue.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Yes, well somebody has to. I’m really encouraged, that the government acknowledges the problem, I just don’t like the solution, or the politics of the solution. The renewable energy industry has an awful lot of supporters. And it’s a nice warm thing motherhood type stuff to support renewable energy.

Alan Jones AO: And have you ever noticed, when any of the MPs retires from Parliament they go and get jobs with them. Hey hey? Oh, Mr Mcfarlane will be lining one up right now. He won’t be standing at the next election don’t worry. I mean you said, and this is true, ‘the net effect of this subsidy, renewable energy subsidies, is to hand an additional 17 billion dollars of our money to these companies over 15 years for no measurable environmental benefit.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Yes that’s right. And it’s worse than that, I mean it’s having negative effects. In fact one of the aspects of the inquiry is to actually determine what is the energy and emission output – input and output from a whole of life. So, from the point when these turbines are made and they run, through to the other end when they are dismantled and thrown on the scrap heap – what’s the net energy and emission output.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely

Senator David Leyonhjelm: I have a sneaky suspicion that a bit like the Prius car it’s not the right direction.

Alan Jones AO: Absolutely. Finally – and we could go on forever on the things that you’ve said. And it’s very encouraging that someone at least is taking this cause up. But you’ve said, “It is undisputed that the wind generation industry is not viable anywhere in the world without government or customer subsidies”, you said “It’s just government-mandated corporate welfare”.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: That’s exactly right – they’re just not viable without subsidies.

Alan Jones AO: Keep at it – keep at it my friend. Keep at it. You’re the hope of the side.

Senator David Leyonhjelm: Alright – thanks Alan.

Alan Jones AO: Well done, there he is. Senator David Leyonhjelm. A major senate inquiry into this whole rubbish of renewable energy and wind power.
2GB

Result! Coalition slashes funds to UN climate scroungers

December 2, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Brilliant….Keep slashing away, till all the waste is gone!

Australian Climate Madness

Snouts out of the trough

It’s a drop in the ocean, to be sure, but at least it is in the right direction. The ABC, naturally, is inconsolable:

The Federal Government has slashed funding to a key United Nations environment agency by more than 80 per cent, stunning environmental groups ahead of a global climate change summit in Peru.
The ABC has learned the Government cut $4 million from the UN Environment Program (UNEP), which provides advice on environmental policies and climate change negotiations.
“Whether it’s air pollution, whether it’s ozone depleting substances, what’s happening in the world’s oceans, the conservation of biodiversity – for a relatively small amount, Australia benefits from leveraging well over $500 million in contributions that other countries make,” UNEP’s executive director Achim Steiner said.
Australia was due to contribute around $1.2 million this year, but has only offered $200,000.
Over the next four years…

View original post 16 more words

What the Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know!

December 1, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide

ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE

Written by Dr Vincent Gray on 29 Nov 2014

Early chemical measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere have been suppressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Chapter 1 of the IPCC Fourth Report (1), entitled “Historical overview of Climate Change Science” makes no mention of any early measurements.

Weart (2) in his “History of the Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect” also makes no mention of them.

Yet Beck (3) has provided an annotated list with links to internet access of almost 200 references to peer reviewed academic scientific journal articles containing some 40,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide by chemical methods between 1800 and 1960. Comprehensive data sets in more than 390 papers were ignored despite contributions from prominent scientists like Robert Bunsen, Konrad Roentgen, and J S Haldane or the Nobel Prize winners August Krogh and Otto Warburg.

The earliest listed publication in 1800, and others from 1809-1816, are by Theodore de Saussure. He was the son of Horace-Benedict de Saussure, who invented the Hot Box (which resembled a greenhouse) which was the basis of the theory of the climate developed by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1822 and 1824 which is claimed to have originated the greenhouse effect. Yet the measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide by de Saussure’s son are completely ignored.

Other early references by Letts and Blake 1802 and 1719-15 from The Royal Dublin Society give an additional list of early measurements.

Beck (4-5) has published several summaries and commentaries on the early measurements and include an argument with Ralph Keeling (6).

Most of the early measurements were from Northern Europe. Beck considered that the earliest measurements were subject to various errors but the widespread use of more reliable equipment, particularly the Pettenkoffer titrimetric method in 1812 led to high accuracy, with a maximum 3% error reducing to 1% for the data of Henrik Lundegardh (1920–26).

The measurements selected by Beck were from rural areas or the periphery of towns, under comparable conditions of a height of approx. 2 m above ground at a site distant from potential industrial contamination. They showed a variation with time of day, of season, and of wind speed and direction, making it difficult to derive a local average, There were frequent measurements of concentrations higher than those reported as background concentrations by NOAA at present.

These measurements were carried out by real people with proper instruments in a large number of localities. They give a much better appreciation of variability and change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the period than the deductions from gas trapped in ice cores which are from unrepresentative locations and subject to much uncertainty (7).

In 1958 Charles Keeling, introduced a new technique for the accurate measurement of atmospheric CO2 using cryogenic condensation of air samples followed by NDIR spectroscopic analysis against a reference gas, using manometric calibration. Subsequently, this technique was adopted as an analytical standard for CO2 determination throughout the world, including by the World Meteorological Association.

The climate models sponsored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are based on the belief that the global climate has a “balanced“ energy which is only changed by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These gases are assumed to be well-mixed so that their concentration, all over the world, is a constant at any one particular time, increasing only with human emissions.

In order to support this theory Keeling at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,“discovered” that there was an almost consistent “background” concentration of carbon dioxide which could be identified from suitable sites and shown to increase with carbon dioxide emissions, which could be considered to apply globally.

The procedure required to identify this background is described in some detail by Tans and Thoning (8) for the observatory at Mauna Loa.

Measurements whose standard deviation fell below a specified minimum were rejected. On average, over the entire record, there are 13.6 retained hours per day with background CO2. The rest were rejected as “noise”.

Beck (9) has discussed the Mauna Loa measurements. Comparison between old wet chemical and new physical methods in 1958 and 1967 on sea and land give a difference of about +10 ppm for the new procedure.

A similar procedure has been described for New Zealand (10).

At Baring Head maritime well mixed air masses come from the Southerly direction, and a baseline event is normally defined as one in which the local wind direction is from the South and the standard deviation of minute-by-minute CO2 concentrations is <<0 .1=”” 6=”” font=”” for=”” hours.=”” more=”” or=”” ppmv=””>

This “background” concentration is supposed to be well-mixed and to be unaffected by sources and sinks.

Yet the oceans are themselves contaminated with sources and sinks. (11)

The region around Mauna Loa includes areas with CO2 emissions, and much of the rest is a sink. It is understandable how difficult it is to get a sufficiently constant sample.

In order to claim that there is such a thing as a background CO2 it has been necessary to ensure that all measurements everywhere in the world are made from samples from over the oceans. Measurements over land surfaces have been comprehensively discouraged.

Yet the greenhouse effect is about emissions, namely “contamination” It is crazy, to take all this trouble to make measurements which do not involve the emitted gases themselves, but only a small fraction that is considered to be well-mixed, then to claim that it is these background figures which apply to the entire atmosphere.

This map shows that actual local concentrations of carbon dioxide are greatest over the
three large industrial areas. Since the supposed greenhouse effect is dependent on the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration, this means that above these areas the effect of increases is negligible or zero and the main supposed effects are on the areas with low current concentrations.

But this map does not tell the whole story.

Satellite measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have recently improved with the Atmospheric Infra Red Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua level 3 satellite, which is able to provide monthly figures for mid troposphere concentrations.

The AIRS NASA map14 for July 2009 which shows average CO2 concentration in the mid troposphere for July 2009 is in Figure 3.

This shows that for the mid troposphere regions the high emissions from the industrial countries are circulated, by the atmosphere, so that they are no longer above the regions of emission. Since this is a time as well as a column average the actual carbon dioxide concentration at any small region in the atmosphere is changing all the time and an overall figure above a particular place on the earth is continuously varying and currently unpredictable.

It also means that measurements taken just above the earth’s surface do not provide a fair guide to the influence of carbon dioxide at that place on the surface.

So carbon dioxide is not well-mixed in the atmosphere and the overall global models are no longer relevant.

NASA has even provided an animated video (14) based on a model of what they think happens. It shows that actual carbon dioxide concentrations vary with time and level everywhere in the atmosphere. The new OC-2 satellite promises to make individual time- and level-based measurements. (15) A global model is no longer relevant.

At least carbon dioxide can be shown to be beneficial. (16)

It is worth quoting the abstract of the paper by Randall et al 2013:

Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.

REFERENCES:

1 .Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather, 2007: Historical Overview of Climate Change. In:Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

2 Weart S 2011, The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S1.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

3. Beck, E-G, CO2 1800-1960 Historical References, Chemical Methodshttp://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2literature1800-1960.pdf

4 Beck, E-G, 2007.180 Years of Atmospheric Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, Energy and Environment 18 259-281.

5 Beck E-G Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf

6 Keeling R. Comment + reply from author on “180 Years of atmospheric CO2gas analysis by chemical methods by”by Ernst-Georg Beck,Energy and Environment, Vol. 18(2), 259-282, 2007.

7 Jaworowski, Z. 2007. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Swindle of Our Time. EIR Science (March), 38-55.

8 Pieter Tans and Kirk Thoning. How we measure background CO2 at Mauna Loa http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.pdf9 Beck E-G 50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa. Energy and Environment 19 No. 7 2008.

10 Manning M R, A.J. Gomez, and K.P. Pohl Trendshttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/baring.html.

11 Takahashi T et al., 1999 Deep-Sea Research II 49 (2002) 1601–1622 Global sea–air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effectshttp://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~csweeney/papers/taka2002.pdf

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm

12 EDGAR Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Researchhttp://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CO2.php .

13 Climate Change Indicators http://scentofpine.org/indicators/

14 NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth’s CO2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

15 Orbiting Carbon Observatory OCO-2 http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

16 Randall J. Donohue, Michael L. Roderick, Tim R. McVicar, Graham D. Farquhar. Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; DOI:10.1002/grl.50563

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!