Some Scientists Losing Respect and Trust?…No Surprise!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Scientific publishing: The inside track

Members of the US National Academy of Sciences have long enjoyed a privileged path to publication in the body’s prominent house journal. Meet the scientists who use it most heavily.

18 June 2014

Maxwell MacKenzie/National Academy of Sciences

The building for the National Academy of Sciences was completed in 1924 as a “home of science in America”. The academy’s house journal was established a decade earlier, in part, as a home for members’ papers.

In April, the US National Academy of Sciences elected 105 new members to its ranks. Academy membership is one the most prestigious honours for a scientist, and it comes with a tangible perk: members can submit up to four papers per year to the body’s high-profile journal, the venerableProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), through the ‘contributed’ publication track. This unusual process allows authors to choose who will review their paper and how to respond to those reviewers’ comments.

 

 

For many academy members, this privileged path is central to the appeal of PNAS. But to some scientists, it gives the journal the appearance of an old boys’ club. “Sound anachronistic? It is,” wrote biochemist Steve Caplan of the University of Nebraska, Omaha, in a 2011 blogpost that suggested the contributed track could be used as a “dumping ground” for some papers. Editors at the journal have strived to dispel that perception.

With PNAS currently celebrating its centenary, the news team at Naturedecided to examine the contributed track, both to assess its scientific impact and to see which members use it most heavily and why. After analysing a decade’s worth of PNAS papers, we found that only a small number of scientists have used the track at close to the maximum allowable rate. The group includes some of the biggest names in science, and six are past or current members of the journal’s editorial board. These scientists say that the main motivator for using the contributed track is an intense frustration with the peer-review process at other high-profile journals, which they argue has become excessive and laborious.

Our analysis also suggests that the efforts by PNAS to prevent abuse of the contributed track and to boost the quality of papers published by this route are bearing fruit. Although contributed PNASpapers attract fewer citations than those handled through the journal’s standard review process, the gap has narrowed in recent years. “We have worked really hard at this,” says Alan Fersht, a biophysicist at the University of Cambridge, UK, one of PNAS‘s associate editors and a heavy user of the contributed track.

The inside track:Methods for data analysis and full data

A privilege to publish

An inside track to publication for academy members rests deep in PNAS‘s DNA. The journal was established in 1914 with the explicit goal of publishing members’ “more important contributions to research” in addition to “work that appears to a member to be of particular importance”. That remit led to the creation of two publishing tracks: contributed and ‘communicated’ papers (manuscripts sent by non-members to colleagues in the academy, who would shepherd them through review). These two tracks were the only ways to get a paper into PNAS until 1995, when biochemist Nicholas Cozzarelli of the University of California, Berkeley, took over as editor-in-chief and introduced ‘direct submissions’, which are handled more like papers at other journals. Direct submissions must pass an initial screen by a member of the editorial board, after which they are assigned to an independent editor — either an academy member or a guest editor — who organizes peer review.

Expand

Starting in 1972, the journal placed limits on the number of contributed papers that an academy member could submit, and the current annual cap of four was imposed in 1996. Then in 2010, PNASabolished the communicated track, which was already declining in popularity1. Today, more than three-quarters of the papers published in the journal are direct submissions. These papers are much less likely to be accepted than those contributed by academy members. Only 18% of direct submissions were published in 2013, whereas more than 98% of contributed papers were published, according to figures on the journal’s website. (The one caveat is that PNAS has no data on how many papers intended for the contributed track receive negative reviews and never get submitted.)

Despite the impressive acceptance rate for contributed papers, the data collected show that many eligible scientists choose not to submit papers through this track. Of the more than 3,100 academy members who could have used the contributed track between 2004 and 2013, fewer than 1,400 scientists did so. (This might in part reflect where researchers from different fields prefer to publish their work; the academy draws its members from all disciplines, including researchers from fields such as astronomy and mathematics, who rarely send their papers to PNAS.) Most members who used the contributed track did so sparingly: the majority published on average fewer than one contributed paper per year. Only a small group consistently used the track at close to the allowable maximum: from 2004 to 2013, 13 scientists each contributed more than 30 of their own papers. This roster includes some of the best-known people in contemporary science (see ‘Who are the power users?’).

Some of these researchers, such as Solomon Snyder, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, rarely or never publish in PNAS except through the contributed track. But others, including immunologist Tak Mak at the University of Toronto in Canada and cancer researcher Carlo Croce at Ohio State University in Columbus, also regularly send in direct submissions.

Having control over the review process brings advantages. Those who work across disciplinary boundaries say that being able to choose your own reviewers is the best way to ensure that referees actually understand the material. “Chemists have no idea about glycobiology,” says Chi-Huey Wong of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, who studies the chemistry and biology of sugars.

But for others, including Croce, who consistently hits his annual allocation of four contributed papers per year, the track’s appeal boils down to one word: speed. Several of the contributed track’s most regular users say that they have had papers held in limbo for up to two years at Nature, Science orCell while the manuscripts went through multiple reviews and revisions. “In two years, you can be scooped over and over and over,” says Croce.

Science and Nature each provided figures for median time passed between submission and publication for recent papers, which suggest lag times greater than for contributed articles at PNAS.Cell declined to provide figures. However, comparing across journals is difficult because each has different policies on when a revised manuscript is considered a ‘new’ submission.

Still, many of the contributed track’s power users believe that increased competition for space in high-profile journals has allowed editors and reviewers to become more demanding. “Being able to publish four high-profile papers with much less grief than the usual high-prestige journal — that’s worth something,” says Snyder. Some of the power users, including Snyder and Mak, add that the contributed track benefits postdoctoral researchers or students in their laboratories who are searching for jobs and need high-profile publications more quickly than the review time at Nature orScience would allow.

Complaints about nitpicking reviews at Nature and Science go hand-in-hand with the charge that the editors at these journals are in thrall to trendy areas of research. “Very often what seems to be fashionable is not very good science,” says Croce.

Special access

Related stories

More related stories

The problem for most scientists looking to advance their career, however, is that they do not have the option of turning to PNAS‘s contributed track. No wonder, then, that successive editors-in-chief have been dogged by the view that PNAS is a club for academy members. “We want to remove this perception,” says current editor-in-chief Inder Verma, a gene-therapy researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla.

The steady growth of direct submissions bears witness to efforts by Verma and his predecessors to make the journal attractive to scientists who are not academy members (see ‘A changing journal’). “When I was editor, I was very concerned about the abuse of members’ privilege,” says Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley, a former PNAS editor-in-chief, under whose watch communicated papers were abolished (see Nature http://doi.org/d22bqx; 2009). Academy members were consulted on that decision, and it was a popular one — probably because it freed members from having to deal with submission requests from colleagues.

But it would be far more difficult to convince members to give up their own publishing privileges. Even the contributed track’s critics accept that it is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. “I’d just do away with it,” says applied physicist David Weitz of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “But it’s something that many members of the academy have viewed as their prerogative.” Weitz, who sits on the PNAS editorial board, publishes some of his best work in the journal, but has a policy of never using the contributed track. “I don’t want to have a special ‘in’,” he says.

The contributed track’s most enthusiastic users argue that their papers get thoroughly reviewed. “The referees I choose are people I hardly know but who can give the best review of the papers — so I don’t get egg on my face,” says Fersht. “It’s not a free ride,” agrees Mak, who adds that his haul of contributed PNAS papers should be viewed against his high productivity overall. His laboratory published more than 300 original research papers over the same decade. Many of the other power users head similarly productive labs.

“Editors have been dogged by the view that PNAS is a club for academy members”

PNAS has also tried to limit conflicts of interest by barring members from picking recent collaborators to referee their papers. Current rules prohibit members from choosing any scientist they have worked with in the past four years. The journal’s editorial board can also step in to block contributed papers if it feels that members are abusing their privileges, a process that Schekman says took a considerable amount of time and effort during his tenure. Telling big-name scientists — some with egos to match — that their work isn’t up to snuff can be difficult. “We would challenge these papers, and people would take umbrage and personally attack me,” says Schekman. “It was discouraging to have to deal with that, but I was unbowed.” Verma continues the fight, taking a wry view. “Every member of the academy is a legend in their own mind,” he jokes.

As well as providing oversight for the contributed track, the nearly 200-strong PNAS editorial board includes some of the track’s most enthusiastic users. Our analysis shows that almost half of those who contributed more than 30 papers over the past decade are current or former members of the board — including Fersht, Mak and Snyder. These scientists work hard for PNAS: none more so than Snyder, who has organized the review of hundreds of direct-submission papers over the past decade.

Verma is adamant that there is no preferential treatment for those who sit on the journal’s editorial board. Still, he acknowledges that the perk of the contributed track helps to explain how the journal can operate without professional editors. Fersht agrees: “Members are willing to act as editors, and part of it is because they know they are able to publish their own papers.” Verma says that more than 1,200 members of the academy responded to the call to edit one or more papers in 2013, and he argues that collective editing by leading scientists is the journal’s main strength.

But all of that does not quell criticism of the contributed track, and there is evidence that contributed papers have less impact than those reviewed in the usual way. In 2009, psychologist David Rand and evolutionary biologist Thomas Pfeiffer, then both at Harvard University, looked at citations to papers published in PNAS between June 2004 and April 2005. Controlling for factors such as scientific discipline and time elapsed since publication, the pair found that contributed papers were cited less often than direct submissions and communicated papers2. (By the time Rand and Pfeiffer published their analysis, PNAS had already decided to abolish the communicated track.)

Although citations are not the only way to judge the impact of papers, they are the most readily available and widely researched measure. We repeated and extended Rand and Pfeiffer’s analysis, considering papers published from 2004 to 2011. Overall, the conclusion was the same: the difference between citation rates for directly submitted and contributed papers was not large — controlling for other factors such as discipline, contributed papers garnered about 4.5% fewer citations — but it was statistically significant. Nature‘s analysis also suggests that the gap in citation rates between directly submitted and contributed papers has been narrowing, and this does not seem to be because more-recent papers have yet to acquire enough citations for the difference to show.

Viewed in this light, the journal seems to be making progress with its efforts to eliminate the abuse of publishing privileges by academy members. And Verma vows to keep up the pressure. He is now encouraging academy members to list the reviewers for contributed papers, taking the lead by doing so for his own most recent contribution3. Such transparency, he hopes, will hold everyone to rigorous standards.

Verma also wants to eliminate what some scientists see as a vestige of the old communicated track — an option to request a ‘prearranged editor’ from the academy. One in five direct submissions published in 2013 used a prearranged editor, and the acceptance rate for these papers is higher than for other direct submissions. “More and more the playing field will be levelled,” says Verma.

As PNAS marches into its second century, debate about its idiosyncratic publishing mechanisms is sure to continue. But for those who benefit from the journal’s distinctive approach, PNAS‘s quirks are inherent to its appeal. “The last thing we need, I think, is less diversity,” argues Nobel-prizewinning neuroscientist Thomas Südhof of Stanford University in California. “Turning PNAS into a standard journal, in my view, would make it unnecessary.

Aussie’s, Senator Madigan, a rare Species. Called “Honest Politician”.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 Senator Madigan….Wish we had politicians of his caliber, in Ontario!

The Tangled Web: John Madigan Exposes the Greens as a Paid-Up Wind Industry Front

July 11, 2014 by  

John Madigan

The good Senator from Victoria, John “Marshall” Madigan is on fire. Having skewered the former tobacco advertising guru – who claims to be an “expert” on well, just about everything (see our post here) – the Marshall has just launched an Exocet missile at the seedy world of hard-green-left politics and the big corporate interests that fund the Australian Greens.

The Greens have been particularly coy about where the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund their last Federal election campaign (including the rerun of the West Australian Senate election) came from. The key beneficiaries of that fat pile of corporate cash have been lunatics like Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator from South Australia. Sarah set out to crush SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon but, in the result, she was lucky to sneak over the line herself. Nick (a true STT Champion) polled a snicker under 25% in the South Australian Senate race (beating Labor’s vote of 22.7%) – an all-time record for an independent Senator.

But, we digress. Since the launch of Vestas’ “Act on Facts” campaign in June last year it was evident that the Greens “fortunes” had – mysteriously – improved (see this article and see our post here). Since then the Greens have been very keen to “sing” for their supper. Recently, it’s come to light that the billionaire founder of wotif.com, Graeme Wood has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Green’s coffers. And, just like Vestas, is looking to use the Greens to advance his wind farm interests, proving that the Greens truly are the best party money can buy.

Here’s the video of John Madigan’s speech; Hansard (transcript) follows

THE SENATE PROOF OF

ADJOURNMENT
Australian Greens
SPEECH
Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Senator John MADIGAN (Victoria) (19:24) (pdf available here):

These well-known words have been attributed to Shakespeare:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

Why is it when we look at the Greens, at green associated industries and green lobby groups that we find a tangled web? And why is it when so many of us in this place look on the Greens party – our self-righteous, moral-high-ground colleagues with their selective moral outrage – that we are filled with suspicion and distrust? In the next few minutes I would like to ask some questions in the hope that, by doing so, I can shine light into dark corners.

Why is it that the Greens amendment on funding for ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, has almost the exact same wording as the one received from the Motoring Enthusiast Party? Does a senior MEP adviser, Ben Oquist – a former staffer to Christine Milne and Bob Brown, now working for the Australia Institute – have anything to do with this? Why is the Motoring Enthusiast Party so enthusiastic about ARENA all of a sudden? What’s going on here?

And why did an adviser to Senator Muir, Glenn Druery, tell one of my staff that ARENA has no links to the wind industry when information I have since received suggests the opposite? Data given to me by the office of Minister Macfarlane contradicts this.

In fact, in ARENA’S history it has invested in research projects that definitely enable the wind industry, including more than $6 million to Hydro Tasmania for its King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project.

I have been working for three years now for independent and multidisciplinary research into the alleged health impact on residents living near wind farms. Why would Mr Druery mislead us on the issue of ARENA? It does not bode well for someone so new to the Senate, does it?

But the Greens’ tangled web does not stop there. When the Gunns pulp mill was proposed it threw the green movement into a frenzy of opposition.

In 2009, lawyer Vanessa Bleyer – the same Vanessa Bleyer who threatened me with defamation proceedings over comments I made about pro-wind poster boy Professor Simon Chapman – provided Senator Milne with legal advice re the Gunns mill in northern Tasmania. Shortly after that, Wotif entrepreneur Graeme Wood gave a pre-election donation to the Greens – the largest political donation that has ever been given to an Australian political party.

Mr Wood said his support was for ‘environmental reasons’. Incessant protesting saw Gunns eventually go into receivership. Mr Wood, lo and behold, then became one of the purchasers of the Gunns site in 2011 and he announced a proposal to build a wind farm.

Let’s join the dots: the Greens’ militant opposition to the Gunns pulp mill leads to an anti-deforestation green movement protest, which leads to Senator Milne taking legal advice from Vanessa Bleyer representing the Friends of Tamar Valley. Will Mr Wood’s proposed wind farm provide an excellent return on his political investment? Presumably. Does it all make sense?

All I have done is ask the questions about the Greens’ attacks on the Waubra Foundation, the rapidly diminishing social licence for wind farms, the growing number of coalition parliamentarians willing to speak out on job losses and the increase in electricity prices, and the antiwind activists gaining greater credibility and countering the Greens’ agenda sponsored by Mr Wood. Is Mr Wood set to make another enormous profit?

The Danish turbine manufacturer has publicly stated it is funding environmental groups and other organisations. Was this the same organisation that poured large amounts of money into Senator Hanson-Young’s last election campaign? The Greens have spoken loudly about political funding, but my late father always told me to follow the money.
Senator John Madigan (Victoria)

Spider_web_Teruel

 

No Reason to Fear Fracking! Better for us than wind turbines and solar panels!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Seven Facts for Fracking Deniers

By Jeffrey Folks
 

At a recent town hall meeting in Edmond, Oklahoma, local citizens gathered to discuss the possible connection between fracking and increased seismic activity in their area.  According to one published report, members of the audience left “disappointed” that no consensus had been reached linking fracking and seismic activity.  According to the samereport, many in the audience appeared to be “hostile to the oil and gas industry.”  Even in this most oil-friendly of states, it seems, there is a rush to judgment linking fracking to every conceivable sort of damage.

Although fracking has been around for fifty years, only recently have technological advances made its widespread use economically feasible.  Now fracking is reviving the entire American economy by providing efficient fuel for new industries and slashing energy costs for consumers.  By 2015, the U.S. willbegin exporting natural gas, most of it produced by fracking.

No wonder the left is furious.  Anything that promises to restore American greatness drives leftists crazy.  Their dream of global socialism, with America brought down to the bottom of the heap, is at risk, and they have responded by targeting America’s oil and gas industry.

Having tried unsuccessfully to link fracking to groundwater contamination, opponents have turned their attention to the potential link between fracking and earthquake activity.  The problem is, even scientists who normally align with the left now admit that hydraulic fracturing itself does not and cannot cause earthquakes.  The only unresolved question is whether wastewater injection, a byproduct of current fracking procedures, may contribute to increased seismic activity.

 

Clearly, the left is engaged in an all-out effort to smear the oil and gas industry by spreading misinformation and fostering confusion – such as ignoring the difference between fracking itself and wastewater injection.  The intent of this effort is to cripple the U.S. economy by depriving it of an efficient and reliable source of energy.  The ultimate goal, as always, is to strip America of its sovereignty and subject it to the will of a communist world order.  The energy industry stands in the way of this agenda, as does every other industry operating within the free market.

Fracking is now essential to America’s energy security and economic well-being, and thus essential to the liberty of its citizens.  Like all forms of capitalist activity, it must be defended against those who plot to destroy freedom, and the best way to defend it is to separate fact from fiction.

Fact #1: Fracking, in and of itself, does not cause earthquake activity (or, for that matter, groundwater pollution or other harmful effects).

Fact #2: In some locations where fracking has taken place, there has been acoincidental increase in the number of earthquakes.  In other areas where widespread fracking has taken place, no quakes or tremors have been registered.  As authorities stated at the Edmond meeting, there exists no conclusive evidence that fracking causes earthquakes.  It should also be stressed that none of the quakes purportedly linked to fracking have seriously injured human beings or caused major property damage.

Fact #3: Even in those limited areas where earthquake activity has increased, it is impossible to know to what extent seismic activity has increased, since speculation about the connection with fracking has led to the deployment of a larger number of monitoring devices.  According to one prominent geologist, a similar increase in seismic activity may have taken place in Oklahoma in the early 1950s, though an absence of recording devices at that time makes an exact comparison impossible.  The record shows that Oklahoma has a long history of earthquake activity.  While more quakes and tremors are now being recorded, it is certain that a larger number would have been detected in the past if an equal number of monitoring devices had been deployed.

Fact #4: It is alleged that injection wells, used to dispose of fracking liquids deep underground, may be triggering seismic activity.  Most seismologists admit, however, that it is impossible at this time to prove that wastewater injection is the cause of increased earthquake activity.  As scientists study the connection between wastewater disposal and seismic activity, it may be necessary to establish better standards or develop new methods of wastewater disposal.  Energy companies are committed to following best practices in this regard.

These facts contradict the left’s attempts to demonize fracking.  As with the anti-nuclear witch hunt of the 1980s following an accident at Three Mile Island, there is the danger that states and municipalities – or the federal government through the EPA or other agencies – will impose regulations or moratoriums that shut down an important segment of our nation’s energy supply.  Had the anti-nuclear lunacy not swept the country following Three Mile Island in 1979, America would have been a lot better off.  Lost oil and gas production due to a moratorium on fracking (such as Germany has just imposed) would result in even greater harm.

Given the serious implications for U.S. energy independence and economic growth, any discussion of fracking and seismic activity needs to consider three additional facts.

Fact #5: Fracking has led to an increase in domestic oil and gas production and a major reduction in dependence on foreign oil.  Since 2005, U.S. oil production has increased from approximately 5 million to 8 million barrels per day.  Combined with increased fuel efficiency and a slight decline in miles driven, increased domestic oil production has cut dependence on foreign oil in half.  According to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. will become the world’s largest oil producer by 2015.

Fact #6: The oil and gas industry has contributed the lion’s share of job growth since 2008.  According to the American Energy Institute, as of January 2013, jobs in the oil and gas sector had increased by 26.2%, while overall employment in the five-year period had declined by 2.3%.  And unlike most jobs created in the Obama’s years, oil and gas jobs are high-paying.  In 2013, annual earnings for workers in North Dakota’s oil fields averaged $112,000.  Nationally, petroleum engineers averaged between $110,000 and $150,000 annually, with senior engineers and managers earning far more.

Fact #7: Fracking has lowered the cost of natural gas and helped to restrain price increases for oil as well.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency,natural gas prices peaked at $13.42 per mBtu in October 2005.  After fracking became common in the U.S., prices declined to a low of $1.99 per mBtu in April 2012, and they remain low today.  Lower energy prices have reduced costs for homes, schools, businesses, and industries.  At the same time, fracking has generated tens of billions of dollars of new revenue for states and municipalities.

Given these facts, the obvious conclusion is that government should move slowly and deliberately before imposing unnecessary restrictions on fracking, especially in the absence of evidence linking the practice to earthquakes or other ill effects.

Instead of shouting down fracking at town hall meetings, the public needs to be marching in support of this advanced technology.  Otherwise, some other nation – perhaps China or Russia – will eventually surpass us in this vital technology and reap all the rewards that fracking now provides.       

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books on American politics and culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

 
 

The Terrifying Truth About the Faux-Green Agenda! READ THIS!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realize that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a ‘green revolution’ and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas. 

However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:

(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth, 
President of the UN Foundation 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions 
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, 
climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts 
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.” 
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. 
It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.” 
– Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate majority leader

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change is the greatest threat that
human civilization has ever faced.”
– Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new 
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.“
– Barack Obama,
US President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to
slow down global warming before it is too late.”
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change should be seen as the
greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”
– Prince Charles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change makes us all global citizens,
we are truly all in this together.”
– Gordon Brown,
British Prime Minister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change.
Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible.
We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
– Tony Blair,
former British PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are close to a time when all of humankind 
will envision a global agenda that encompasses 
a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the 
causes of poverty and suffering and 
environmental destruction all over the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according 
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is 
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for 
sustainable growth and world development based on global 
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need a new paradigm of development in 
which the environment will be a priority. 
World civilization as we know it will soon end. 
We have very little time and we must act. 
If we can address the environmental problem, 
it will have to be done within a new system, a 
new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, 
the way humankind views the world.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
founder of Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.“
– UN Commission on Global Governance report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well 
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature 
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected 
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” 
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to
be a new form of the ten commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable
global earth community.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present 
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty 
to the international community and beginning to create a 
new system of international environmental governance 
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that 
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order 
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.“
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The alternative to the existing world order can only
emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress. 
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.
Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations,
rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that
sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every 
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.” 
– UN Agenda 21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.“
– from the Earth Charter website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, 
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” 
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism. 
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” 
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the 
industrialized civilizations collapse? 
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.“
– Paul Ehrlich, 
Professor of Population Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same 
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. 
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place 
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and 
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, 
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness 
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, 
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on 
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the 
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath
the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.“
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.” 
–Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.“
– Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, 
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Human beings, as a species, 
have no more value than slugs.” 
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; 
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to 
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many 
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, 
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in 
the number of game animals and the need to adjust 
the cull to the size of the surplus population.” 
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living 
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A total population of 250-300 million people, 
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“One America burdens the earth much more than 
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. 
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival 
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. 
Phasing out the human race will solve every 
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, 
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future. 
Armed with such a faith, we might find 
it possible to resanctify the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and 
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of 
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.“
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth, 
with each other and with the heavens.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on
her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human
species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution….
Our salvation depends upon our ability
to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, 
board member, Planetary Citizens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
– currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves. 
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
– Prof. Michael J. Cohen, 
Ecopsychologist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to 
choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“
– Maurice Strong,
first Secretary General of UNEP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spirit of our planet is stirring! 
The Consciousness of Goddess Earth 
is now rising against all odds, 
in spite of millennia of suppression, 
repression and oppression inflicted on Her 
by a hubristic and misguided humanity. 

The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism 
with psychic and spiritual dimensions. 
With the expansion of the patriarchal religions 
that focused on a male God majestically 
stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the 
Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity 
was repressed and banished into the 
collective unconscious of humanity.“
– Envision Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of
homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his
increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased
Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware
of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the
eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.

Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity
for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and
drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man
is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective
species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere,
as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of
mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and
greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a
compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all
creatures which constitutes Gaia.“
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Gaia: A New Look At Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Ages of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred;
trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev, 
Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…
can be traced to the origins of human civilization….
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
– Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts.
Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”
– Global Education Associates,
The Earth Pledge 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth
in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of
responsibility to self to others and to the planet.“
– Global Alliance for Transforming Education

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth“
– US Student Textbook, 
“Prayer to the Earth”

Don’t Listen to Climate Alarmists. They’re After Your Money!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment


Climate Change Hysteria and the Madness of Crowds

By Charles Battig

Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered the eternal conundrum of competing choices. His “Aye, there’s the rub” nicely summarizes the conflicts inherent in the present socio/political/scientific arena of climate discussions.

Years of relentless doomsday prognostications by a variety of public voices spanning the political-scientific spectrum have found their mark in a gullible and guilt-prone public. There is a Medusa-like quality in the serpentine web of doomsday prophets, including members of the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” and the current White House science advisor, John Holdren. In the U.S., Rachel Carson  proclaimed DDT to be environmental enemy number one, and inspired Al Gore to discover “Inconvenient Truths,” later found to be not so truthful. Al Gore’s contribution to making climate change a co-equal amongst the four horsemen of the apocalypse is matched by M. Mann’sreinterpretation of global temperature history. Repeated refutations of “faulty” science and failed predictions of climate calamities have not deterred these marketers of doom. Cut the head off, yet it lives on.

Sustainability, population control, and redistributive-based social justice were offered as moral justifications for the one-world governance needed to solve one-world problems, as posited by the UK’s Barbara Ward. Answering this “cri de coeur,” the U.N. global bureaucrats crafted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the instrument by which life-sustaining carbon dioxide would be reinvented as the most dangerous threat to the world. Our current Federal government is more certain than ever that “the science is settled,” and that the global climate bears the human stain of excessive consumption of fossil fuels. An unelected Federal agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has assumed the role of guardian of public health via arbitrary edicts regulating all things atmospheric, in addition to all surface waters. Those wishing to pursue independent traditional scientific inquiry and reproducibility of EPA claimed findings have noted an adamant shyness by the EPA in producing the requested original data.

“Fear and loathing” is no longer confined to Las Vegas, but has been turned into a self-hate/guilt propaganda tool by doomsday prophets and fear profiteers.  Humans are carbon — based life forms intertwined in the biological interdependence upon green plant production of oxygen and consumption of carbon dioxide. Thus the guilt stage is set for humans to be declared a living source of this newly-defined carbon pollution, and therefore enemies of mother Earth. According to the Club of Rome: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Population control is the implied remedy.

More recently, a trio of financial market heavyweights has entered the climate change propaganda fray with their “Risky Business” media blitz. Perhaps somewhat jealous of the huge financial profits that Al Gore‘s Generation Investment Management (GIM) made from his doomsday climate predictions and inconvenient truth campaign, these risk experts have their own updated scare story. Business will lead the way, they say: “We believe that American businesses should play an active role in helping the public sector determine how best to react to the risks and costs posed by climate change, and how to set the rules that move the country forward in a new, more sustainable direction.” Trust us, we are from the government has been usurped by a “trust us, we are from business.” These risk experts and their companies have reaped huge financial rewards by profitably defining and pricing risk, and then getting the public to pay insurance premiums to protect itself from the hypothetical risk. The greater the hyped risk, the greater the corporate insurance profit.

Countering this climate doomsday propaganda has been a number of scientistsand independent organizations. Manipulation of the historical temperature record by our own government agencies has been documented. Such revisions serve to make the historical record conform to the political aims and views of our Federal government, that global warming is occurring and is linked to fossil fuel use.  Proliferation of internet access has provided the new open public soap box, independent of traditional media, itself fully in the climate panic mode. Web sites maintained by Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, and Steve Milloy are just a few of many striving to get the unpoliticized science before the public.

In this admittedly truncated history of climate change propaganda and counterargument, there is contained the conundrum originally mentioned. Incomplete climate science, unsubstantiated claims in place of traditional scientific proof, political policy dogma, social equity objectives, and businesses feeding off the largess of government and public fear continue to receive scant criticism in the general media. The public has downgraded its concern with “climate change” when polled, yet it continues to elect politicians dedicated to enacting a governmental cure for climate change. Businesses profit from proclaiming that they are “green.” Renewable is the key word for obtaining government largesse.

For the public at large, scientific truth alone does not trump feelings of environmental guilt and demands that politicians take care of the presumptive problem. Scientific validity in these matters is an essential, but not adequate response to change the public’s emotional concerns for “clean air,” “clean energy,” and a “healthy environment for themselves and their children.”

Economist Julian Simon reflected upon the failure of the news media to report his debunking of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “vanishing farmland scam” in his 1999 book, Hoodwinking the Nation. Most of the rest of the book deals with the conundrum of the public’s propensity to accept “false bad news.” In the intervening 15 years there is little evidence that this peculiar human trait has changed; bad news still sells; bad news still drives charitable public donations.

Even earlier, Charles Mackay provided historical evidence for the peculiar behavior and beliefs of large crowds in his 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It contains an insightful account of the “Tulipomania” craze of the mid-1600s. When considering the current climate change craze, reflect upon Mackay’s observation that: “We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

So perhaps climate change hysteria may yet have to burn itself out much like a disease pandemic. Meanwhile traditional science-backed climate studies will continue to have an uphill fight against the propensities of human nature and the madness of crowds

Why Throw Away More Money, that Taxpayers Don’t Have? Useless!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The PTC extension: More taxpayer dollars for green energy?

Reauthorizing the PTC would put launch a new fleet of wind-powered boondoggles

capewind

July 8, 2014 by ,

This tug-of-war is seen, perhaps most obviously, in the so-called renewable energy field. After Solyndra, and the more than fifty other stimulus-funded Green energy projects that have failed or are circling the drain, the public has grown weary, and wary, of any more spending on Green energy. The money isn’t there to spend, and the motive behind the 2009 rush to push billions of taxpayer dollars out through the Department of Energy has been tainted by corruption and illegal activity.

The Green-energy emphasis was sold as a job creator for unemployed Americans, as a cure for global warming, and as a way to slow a perceived energy shortage. It sounded so positive in the many speeches President Obama gave as a sales pitch to the American public.

Today, Americans know better.

abengoaThey knew about Solyndra—which took over five hundred million dollars and then folded. Thanks in large part to my exposé, many now know about Abengoa and the Solana solar project—which took billions of taxpayer dollars and is now functioning and producing electricity but does so by breaking immigration and labor laws, giving foreigners hiring preference, and stiffing American suppliers.

Watching multiple predictions fail and proponents get rich, Americans instinctively know that the whole global warming agenda doesn’t add up—as evidenced by this week’s International Conference on Climate Change where more than 600 “skeptics” from around the world gathered to discuss real science and policy.

With headlines heralding: “North Dakota has joined the ranks of the few places in the world that produce more than a million barrels of oil per day,” people know there isn’t an energy shortage. And America’s new energy abundance is on top of our rich reserves of coal and uranium that can provide for our electrical needs for centuries to come.

Yet, the White House keeps pushing the Green-energy narrative and, on July 3, 2014, “The Energy Department Just Announced $4 Billion For Projects That Fight Global Warming,” as the headline reads at ThinkProgress.org.

Wind Energy and the Production Tax Credit

Simmering just below the headlines is the push-pull over the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for Wind energy that expired at the end of 2013.

A recent study from the Institute for Energy Research (IER), which examined the state-by-state burden of the PTC, called it “an amazing subsidy” because it can “effectively give a utility a bigger subsidy than the actual market price. It would be as if Uncle Sam allowed car dealers to knock off $60,000 from their tax bill for every $50,000 car they sold. Indeed, the PTC is so generous that it can result in negative wholesale electricity prices.” The “Sharing the Burden of the Wind PTC” report shows which states benefit most from the federal subsidy and which lose.  Texas was the biggest winner, having received $394 million in PTC credits.

Texans might be elated at their good fortune; however, the IER study points out that individual consumers “still lose from the existence of the wind subsidies.” It states: “It’s not as if the IRS takes the population of Texas and divides $394 million among them, evenly. Rather, the wind subsidies are concentrated in the hands of a small group of wind producers.” As a result, wind serves as a tax shelter for large corporations.

On June 26, wind energy proponents—including pages of signatories who benefit financially from the tax credit—sent a letter to the top Congressional leaders urging them to “support the immediate passage of the Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act.”

On the other side, citizens, like Mary Kay Barton of New York, are sending their elected federal representatives letters asking schumerthem not to support a PTC extension as proposed in EXPIRE. She sent a letter to SenatorCharles Schumer (D-NY) and he sent one back to her.

Schumer opens: “Thank you for writing to express your opposition to tax credits, and subsidies for alternative energy. I share your opposition to unsuccessful and unnecessary subsides.”

He then goes into a long paragraph about his effort to put an “end to subsidies for huge oil companies”and brags about being a “cosponsor of S.940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, which would roll back huge subsidies and tax credit for large oil companies.”

Green energy supporters, such as Schumer, like to mix the terms “subsidies” and “tax credits” with “tax deductions”—when they are completely different. A subsidy, or loan guarantee, and tax credit involves taxpayer dollars being doled out—or taxes not collected—to incentivize a favored activity. This is not how America’s oil-and-gas producers are treated. They do, however, receive tax deductions—like any other business—that allow them to write of losses and the cost of doing business against income.

Additionally, as the New York Times, in a story about corporate tax rates, reported last year: “Large oil companies typically pay high rates.”  It shows that the average tax rate among companies is roughly 29%, while “large oil companies” are paying 37% and utility companies that “benefited from the 2009 stimulus bill, which included tax breaks,” have an “overall” rate of 12%.

In response to Barton’s letter about ending the PTC for industrial wind, Schumer continues: “I believe that it is necessary to balance our country’s increasing energy needs with the need to protect the environment. We must also focus on renewable energy and energy conservation in order to meet our growing energy demands. According to one study, if the U.S. increases its efficiency by 2.2% per year, it could reduce foreign oil imports by more than 50%. Such actions would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil but would also safeguard the environment.”

Barton told me: “You’ll note that Senator Schumer still seems to think that subsidies for wind energy (electricity) will somehow ‘reduce foreign imports,’ and then references increasing ‘efficiency’ in response to a letter about inefficient, unreliable wind?” She’s picked up on one of my favorite soapboxes: we could cover every available acre with wind turbines and solar panels and it would do nothing to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” or increase America’s energy independence. Wind and solar produce electricity and, through our coal, natural gas, and uranium supplies, we are already electricity independent. We import oil to fuel our transportation fleet.

As the fight over the PTC points out, wind energy cannot survive without the tax credits.

High Cost, Low Benefit

Wind energy is also more expensive than almost all other electricity sources—only solar is higher. A new study from the Brookings Institute on the “best path to a low-carbon future,” assumes that CO2 emissions are causing climate change and therefore must be reduced. It analyzes the costs and benefits of the most common solutions. The study found: “Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces.”

baseload coal and peak load gas“Wind power,” the study reports, “is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH.” The study puts these additional costs in context: “The average cost of electricity to U.S. consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. This means a new wind plant could at least cost 50% more per KWH to produce electricity, and a new solar plant at least 200% more per KWH, than using coal and gas technologies.” The study concludes: “Renewable incentives that are biased in favor of wind and solar and biased against large-scale hydro, nuclear, and gas combined cycle are a very expensive and inefficient way to reduce CO2 emissions.”

Wind energy proponents cling to the idea that we must reduce fossil fuel use and believe, therefore, that the extra cost is worth it. However, because of the intermittency issues with wind and the reliability demand from the consumer, it requires fully dispatchable back-up power generation. Natural gas is the best form of backup because it can be easily adjusted to produce more or less electricity—however, the constant adjustment required to supplement wind or solar energy results in less efficient use and more CO2 emissions.

I like to explain the preference for natural-gas backups this way. Suppose you are going to cook a hamburger. You can cook it over charcoal or natural gas/propane. To use charcoal, you mound up the charcoal in the grill, soak it in lighter fluid, and toss in a match. You then wait 30 minutes for the coals to get nice and hot. Once hot, you put on your burger and cook it for 5 to 8 minutes. You remove your burger and leave the coals to die down—which could take several hours. On natural gas/propane, you simply turn it on and light the grill. After giving it 5 minutes to heat up, you toss on your burger. When your burger is cooked, you turn off the grill, and it is cool in minutes.

Natural gas is the preferred backup for wind (and solar) energy because, as in the burger example, its production can more easily be increased and decreased to follow the needed output—even though it operates most efficiently at a consistent level. Coal-fueled electricity generation cannot be simply turned up and down.

By way of answering the question: “Why are the costs of wind and solar so much higher, and the benefits not much different from other low-carbon alternatives?” the Brookings study states: “The benefits of reduced emissions from wind and solar are limited because they operate at peak capacity only a fraction of the time.”

It’s Not Just About the Money

If cost issues weren’t enough to make you a wind energy opponent, think of the health issues.

In late June, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) took President Obama up on his “so sue me” challenge and filed a lawsuit over his administration’s modification of the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that now allows wind energy producers a 30- year permit to kill the majestic birds. According to ABC spokesman Bob Johns, “the Obama Administration has gone too far with incentives for the wind industry.” The Washington Times quotes Johns: “Since the 1980s, wind turbines have killed an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 eagles, but the industry has paid only one fine.”

Wind turbines hurt more than birds. On June 16, a Michigan judge agreed with residents who live near the 56-tdeadeagkleurbine Lake Winds facility and who complained of health problems that began just after the turbines began operating. A lawsuit filed on April 1, 2013 argued that noise, vibrations, and flickering lights emanating from Lake Winds were adversely affecting their health.

Cape Wind

Despite these, and other harmful impacts—which include a loss of property values when wind turbines are installed in a neighborhood—and opposition from environmental groups and local fisherman, the Department of Energy has just approved a stimulus-funded $150 million loan guarantee for the controversial Cape Wind project planned to be built in the Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind, scheduled to begin construction in 2015, will be the first utility-scale wind facility in U.S. waters.

Addressing the loan guarantee announcement, the Boston Globe states: “Now, with a large portion of financing in place, regulatory approvals in hand, and most legal challenges resolved, the project has finally reached a threshold where it is likely to get done.” Validating my earlier point of higher cost, the Globe says the two largest utilities in Massachusetts “agreed to purchase a total of 77.5% of the power generated by Cape Wind at a starting price of 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour—well above typical wholesale prices.”   [Remember,  the average 2012 price for elctricity was 9.84 cents per KWH.]

Like other wind energy projects, Cape Wind is dependent on the PTC extension. It is time for everyone who opposes government intervention in markets to contact his or her representatives—as Mary Kay Barton did—and voice opposition to the PTC extension. Call and say: “Stop supporting wind energy. It is an inefficient system that leads to perverse outcomes. The massive expansion of wind energy that we’ve seen in the past six years would not survive on a level playing field.”

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/08/the-ptc-extension-more-taxpayer-dollars-for-green-energy/#sthash.J9wfTx9O.dpuf

Facts That the Climate Alarmists, Would Rather You Didn’t Know!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

 

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word “monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.

The Ice-Cold Truth, about Renewable Energy…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dances with Unicorns.

by Pointman

This is another guest article by one of our regular commenters, Graeme No3. We homo sapiens are a tropical species but for the majority of our estimated 200,000 year existence, we’ve lived on an Earth locked in ice ages, which have always had devastating effects on us. Geologically speaking, we’re still in one but fortunately as of about 10.000 years ago we’re currently enjoying what’s called an interglacial, which in technical terms means a brief interlude when there’s an uptick in global temperatures during an ice age.

Believe it or not, but there have been millions and millions of years in the geological history of the Earth when there was little or no ice around. Life thrived in those intervals. It’s only in ice ages that life around the globe contracts and shrivels.

There is a growing body of opinion that we might be moving out of our interglacial and back into a colder world, perhaps a very much colder one. That’s happened many times before and there’s absolutely nothing to prevent it happening again. Should that turn out to be the case, this article speculates on our total energy unpreparedness for that scenario and the possible geopolitical ramifications of such a global change.

Pointman

—-<0>—

It is a truth rarely acknowledged that a young person with good intentions but no experience will believe in renewable energy. When ignorance thinks it bliss, folly is let run wild. 

Among the expensively educated who have passed from school to university and remain there, faith in ‘carbon free’ electricity is paramount. Among the Chattering Classes the same wishful belief, it cannot be called thinking, is almost universal, and reflected in the output from their favorite media provider, paid for by others. Among these self congratulating circles any thought of electricity beyond the nearest switch is of a sort of nebulous big pond of electricity which is always available. It can be replenished from any source at any time, so moving to renewables is considered easy, and resistance has sinister motives. Murmuring base load is enough to get you classified as an expert.

No one appears to know about the electricity grid on which modern life is based. There is no big pond that can be filled or emptied at leisure, it is all split second timing. Introducing unpredictable and variable generation into this environment is a consequence of hysteria based on an unproven scare campaign. Yet these hysterics daydream of a supply based entirely on “renewables”.  Verily, I say unto you “Unicorns live!”

Try to imagine life without a continuous supply of electricity; it is not called power for nothing. Power to heat or cool your living space, power for the appliances that handle so many mundane living tasks, power to communicate and to entertain around the globe. No electricity means no refrigerator, no microwave, no TV, no washing machine or dryer.  There will be no computer and no telephone; don’t think that because you carry it with you that it will work, as the radios linking the cellular network will need electricity. 

Cooling needs electricity, unless you’ve hired a punkawalla. You may think that heating can be replaced by gas, liquid or solid fuels but have a close look at your system; is that an electric fan? an electric circulating pump? And what is the ignition source for your fire or furnace? Is the timing mechanism dependent on signals through the mains connection? Ask yourself, how would you fare in the depths of winter if there was no electricity for 11 days?

And while you’re in a despondent and fearful mood, those of you with children of appropriate age may as well have a talk to them about The Facts of Life. Don’t mention sex; thanks to the internet and those sites you think they don’t know about, they will have explicit, if warped, knowledge.

No, I refer to the real facts, budgets, bills and debts which they will need to know about in the future. Explain that their mobile phone or pad needs electricity to operate the computers that route the signals AND send you the bill. Explain that debts have to be paid and that unicorns do not leave big bags of money at the bottom of the garden, even for plausible politicians. That generous credit means interest has to be paid as well as the amount borrowed, and borrowing to pay the interest only hastens bankruptcy.

Then comes the hard part. Point out that renewable energy is intermittent and expensive, and replacing 20% of cheap electricity with something costing 4 times as much pushes the whole price up, and ordinary consumer has to pay for that. About this time their eyes will glaze over and they cannot take in any more. They probably won’t believe you but you have done your duty as a parent. Take a break and a well deserved stiff drink. Let them exchange pitying glances; in years to come they may realize that you did know something.

They will need this advice in the near future for the climate is changing. No, the IPCC hasn’t finally got a prediction right! Forget ‘Climate Science’, within 5 years it will have been consigned to the rubbish bin. No, this is the real science. In the last 1,000 years the sun has gone quiet 5 times, and each time the temperature has dropped, agriculture has suffered, and a large portion of the population has died from cold, starvation, plagues or wars.

Don’t look at the pious chants of the eco-loonies as they recite the dogma of Global Warming, or whatever they call it this month, look at the actions of those who know. China has a long history and has been through many changes in the climate. They have never agreed to sign up with the IPCC to destroy their economy. Lately they have started buying up resources and agricultural land and produce in Australasia, Africa and South America.

The industrious ants are filling their larder, while Europe and the USA dance like demented grasshoppers. Russia is building nuclear powered ice breakers and casting eyes on the Ukraine – “the breadbasket of Europe”. They’ve plenty of oil and gas for those who can afford it, and vast pipelines are planned to China. Europe needs those fuels too, but will they be able to afford them when the price goes up again? And what will be Putin’s price?

Countries will need flexibility, financial reserves, political strength and credibility to adapt, yet this is what Europe lacks. For the past 25 years it has embarked on a stupid and destructive policy based on a nebulous threat. In the name of reducing emissions they have wasted hundreds of billions sending their industries abroad while spending even more on social welfare for those unemployed and without a future. And the World’s emissions have soared.

A captive breeding program for unicorns would have achieved as much, been as logical and a good deal cheaper.

California has been following the same road as Europe. Overspending by borrowing, then borrowing to pay the interest on the borrowing. Under stress expect it to declare bankruptcy, but it won’t. It will just be unable to re-pay its debts with anything other that weasel words. The result will be the same; a world-wide financial crisis that will end the US dollar’s time as the reserve currency. That will be bad news for the USA, but otherwise they will suffer less than most, although agriculture will have to move south.

There will be no more orange groves in Florida, but a lot more people fleeing the cold north. The rising population of Texas along with the antagonism against anything or anyone tarred with the “Washington” tag, by the declining populations of the western states may lead the country being split by a Union of the Western States, leaving California and the Eastern states divided. It is unlikely that Mexico will seek to reclaim Los Angeles, because that would mean inheriting the mess.

In North Africa and the Middle East not one country is self-sufficient in food, especially wheat. When the World was warmer in Roman times, Egypt and Libya were the granary of Rome. When times turned cooler and the rain bands shift south, the desert expanded. The Canadian wheat crop will be much reduced, even non-existent, during these cold years, and reduced in many other places, so the price will rise beyond the point that the populace will remain docile. They won’t be able to supply more than a fraction of their population, and their inflexible social order guarantees violent troubles. Only Turkey and Israel have the modernity and flexibility to survive the crisis.  

Europe, too, is doomed. Europe will collapse in on itself. The money, the flexibility to ride out the crisis has been thrown away on a false assumption. The chattering classes may indeed not notice any problems for a while, then pass them off as passing irritations and call for “business as usual.”  But “this time it’s different” we will be told. “World wide trade will ensure a flow of food” will be the assurance, so the supply won’t be inadequate. “Wars are a thing of the past”, will be the claim of fools. “Things aren’t that bad” and “It will all be over by Christmas” will be as true as they were the last time they were used.

The EU will go, and a vast crowd of bureaucrats will gain first hand knowledge of the difficulties of getting employed in a shrinking economy. Their supporters, the Green parties, will be in disarray by their widespread rejection and lacking influence, indeed outlawed in some countries. Nor will they be helped by the fissioning of the various states. Expect Italy to split into north and south; with South Italy overwhelmed with refugees from North Africa (and who can blame them) but law and order broken down. Lombardy will have some of the toughest borders in Europe to deter any thinking of moving north.

The takeover by Nazi-like Golden Dawn in Greece, where they invented xenophobia, will make climate refugees even more desperate to get into what was Spain. The civil wars in there would make it uninviting, with the Basque, Catalans, Galicians and the southern Union (Andalusia and Murcia) all off anybody’s holiday list. France is their only hope, and may their God help them with the mood that the National Front will be in then. A few survivors may be allowed to remain to do the menial, the dirty and the dangerous jobs.

There will be a rising tide of nationalism in Germany, which will frighten its neighbours. The Flemings (Belgium having split under the pressure) will joined with Holland and Denmark (and possibly Norway) in a self-protection league. In the east, Poland and the Baltic states will be casting nervous glances at Russia also, and talking with Finns and the Czechs about history repeating itself.

Turkey will looks very dicey once Israel supplies it with nuclear weapons, as the renewed alliance looks east towards an unstable and threatening Iran. They will hope that the internal troubles there will cause Iran to  disintegrate before the clergy starts a war.

Russia will have a second time of troubles, but there their foresight and the advantages of modern technology will operate in their favour. With plentiful oil and gas supplies they will be able to buy extra food. Life may be tough, but there will be hope and they will draw in on themselves to survive. They certainly won’t want to have anything to do with the Balkans and the troubles there. Panslavia is one thing, Pansuicide is another.

China will struggle along, having foreseen the coming crisis. Enough food can be imported because of their huge financial reserves. Indeed dribbling aid and the reduced american presence will lure more asian countries into the chinese block. That said, the tropical far east will be less affected. The Chinese will patiently gain their revenge as they let Japan slowly die.

India will not threaten China. The continued failure of the monsoon will destroy the population and any resemblance of unity. Pakistan will disappear into murderous chaos, which won’t confined to its original borders. In times of troubles politicians are too prone to think that slaughtering some of their neighbours will act as a pressure relief.

Australia will find it drier north, a help in deterring boat people. A few hundred miles of desert are an effective barrier to those trying walk to a better life uninvited, particularly if well stocked with crocodiles in the waterholes and with venomous snakes lurking in ambush. A thriving agriculture and a much bigger population will be in the well watered south. With a record crop of wheat and record prices, the economy is able to support the many lucky or prescient recent immigrants. 

NZ will be little changed and continue to beat the Aussies at rugby, and occasionally at cricket.

And what of the United Kingdom? Either united or re-united as Scotland won’t long survive on its own in the cold hard world. The upper classes still wonder what has changed. They now take their holidays in the West Indies, where it is still warm, if expensive now that the pound is worth so little. Still, the islands are exciting, if overcrowded, thanks to all those lucky enough to have had grandparents from the West Indies so they could emigrate back there.

The middle classes will be complaining about the cost of everything going up, since the pound lost so much value. The last winter, they moan, was the worst ever. They will envy the luck of their former neighbours who got into Australia before it closed its borders.

The poor will be sullen and despairing. Their life will be grim indeed after the slashing of welfare payments by the Grand Coalition (Cons. & Labour) following the last currency crisis. Tens of thousands will die of cold each winter. The poor never get the best houses. They rarely bother to vote, and increasingly against the coalition government. Surprisingly there may be an upturn in religion, with evangelical churches gaining huge attendances. Some might claim it is all the funerals the masses have attended recently that has brought them back to Christianity, others, more pragmatic, will point to the evangelicals habit of heating their meeting places and the free hot refreshments afterwards.

But the sun will not remain quiescent for long, and warming will start again after several decades. From their lairs in the Himalayas the few remaining believers of AGW will stir. The time is ripe, they will say, and soon the glaciers will dry up as predicted in the sacred books of the IPCC, and the mountain shall split and in great radiance, accompanied by seraphim and cherubim, will the prophet William Connolley appear, riding on a Unicorn. Then, and only then, will we hear the truth.

Yet again they will be wrong.

©Graeme No.3

Aussies Determined To Defeat the Wind Weasel’s Scourge! GO Aussies!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Senator Chris Back: Time to Kill the Mandatory RET

July 10, 2014 by  2 Comments

Chris Back

WA Liberal Senator, Chris Back launched a stinging attack on the wind industry during a speech in the Federal Senate, yesterday. Responding to a cacophony of wind industry rent seeker bleating, Chris has smashed headlong into three of the wind industry’s greatest myths.

The first is that any alteration to the mandatory Renewable Energy Target amounts to “sovereign risk”, for which substantial “compensation” is payable by the Commonwealth to wind farm “investors” who’ll end up losing their shirts.

Now, there’s no doubt that “sovereign risk” rightly springs to mind where a well-braided General in charge of a military junta declares that – henceforth – BP’s oil assets will be treated as property of the (read “his”) State (or tinpot dictatorship, as the case may be), say.

In the last week, the wind industry has been wailing louder than ever about “sovereign risk” and the need to be “compensated” for any change to the mandatory RET; as if Renewable Energy Certificates were some God-given-right. Chris slams that one straight over the long-boundary, based on Parliamentary advice which, funnily enough, reflects what STT has already said on the issue (see our posts here and here).

The next myth is that, despite all the evidence, wind power is driving down retail power prices, with the help of the mandatory RET.

Never mind that South Australia (Australia’s wind power “capital”) – already paying the highest power prices in the world – has just been whacked with a 6% increase in retail power prices. Never mind that Australia enjoyed the lowest power costs in the world less than a decade ago and now pays among the highest (see our post here).

STT made the observation that the wind industry’s “strategy” of claiming that wind power can be delivered at prices equal to or less than conventional generation sources was not just brave it’s “crazy brave”. The obvious retort is that: “if wind power is truly competitive with coal and gas, then it won’t need a mandatory RET or Renewable Energy Certificates anymore” (see our posts here and here and here).

Well, Chris Back has given the obvious retort, congratulating the wind industry on its new-found ability to compete with the big boys and welcoming them to a world where they’ll be free to compete without the unwieldy strictures of the mandatory RET.

The other great wind power myth that copped bucketing by Chris is the wind industry’s wild and unsubstantiated claims concerning CO2 emissions reductions in the electricity sector. Chris made it plain that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, stating that the subsidies provided to wind power have been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement.

Here’s a video of Chris’s speech; Hansard (transcript) follows.

****

****

THE SENATE
PROOF
ADJOURNMENT
SPEECH
Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Senator BACK (Western Australia) (12:45) (pdf available here):

First, I congratulate you on your role as Deputy President. My contribution today continues the discussion that we have had in the last few minutes, and that is the question of the renewable energy target review and whether or not there is a sovereign risk associated with it. I say this because of claims made by representatives of the wind industry, including Infigen Energy’s Mr Miles George, who has been claiming to one and all and anyone who will listen to him that a sovereign risk may arise with the potential scaling back of the renewable energy target. I want to address that today.

It is interesting that a review of the origins of the RET scheme provides a very clear view that the renewable energy industry’s position is self-serving, aiming to reinforce their own self-interest. As we all know, if you are at the races – through you, Mr Deputy President, to Senator Bullock – and there is a horse called Self-Interest running, make sure you have got your money on it, because you will know it is trying. It is interesting that the wind industry is trumpeting two issues in the media. One is that wind power is dropping the wholesale price of electricity and the second is that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If wind is causing the wholesale price of electricity to fall, then it follows that the industry no longer requires subsidy through the RET scheme as renewable energy is therefore cost competitive in the market. The RET is causing prices to rise significantly and it relates to the power purchase agreement, an agreement in which prices are locked in at some $120 per megawatt hour compared with the average wholesale price of $30 to $40 – a factor of some four times. The price set by the PPA, therefore, is paid by retailers irrespective of the wholesale price. The price is passed on, as we know, to retail consumers.

So let us go back to basics. The RET is a government intervention designed to mandate the proportion of electricity generated from selected sources. It was designed to support a policy of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s energy supply coming from renewables by 2020 and, as such, the policy taxes electricity users and, in some cases, non-renewable generators, in order to subsidise selected renewable producers. From it emerges the renewable energy certificate market, where the RECs are issued to power station generators classified as renewable under the act. In that way, RECs have become a form of energy currency as electricity retailers must purchase RECs to cover their liability under the act. These entities, generally electricity retailers, pass the cost of acquiring mandatory certificates on to energy consumers in the form of higher energy tariffs. This effectively becomes a tax on energy consumers.

The interesting exercise is that, after some 13 years of operation – and this is what the coalition government is addressing – it has become clear that the objectives of the act have not been reflected in the outcomes. In fact, they have been ineffective in their objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. Indeed, the Centre for International Economics in their 2013 report generously indicated about 10 per cent of total electricity generation is from renewables; and the Clean Energy Council in 2013 made the observation that the slight increase in renewable generation attributable to the RET was actually greatest from hydroelectricity, not the other forms that have been so vocal.

Turning to the RET review which is underway at the moment, some people, including the Greens, are claiming that this has been an attempt to render ineffective the Climate Change Authority’s 2012 review. But, of course, we all know that there is a two-year mandated review. There is nothing unusual about that two-year mandate. Again mentioning Infigen Energy, it is interesting that in their submission to the current review they question whether there needs to be a two-year review at all. So we come to this figure of the 20 per cent target by 2020. Is it a percentage or is it a number of gigawatt hours?

When this discussion first took place it was believed that the figure of 20 per cent due from renewables by 2020 would account for some 41,000 gigawatt hours. But, as we know, in recent times as a result of manufacturing moving offshore and as a result of other changes in the economy, that figure of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 is probably wrong. More recent estimates, including by ACIL Allen Consulting in their 2013 presentation to the Electricity Users Association of Australia’s conference, suggest that that figure would not be around 41,000 gigs but somewhere around 23,000 – a significantly lower figure.

The case to abolish the renewable energy target is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared with the corresponding reduction, or lack of reduction, in greenhouse gases. We have got to do something before this gallops on to 2031, hurting families, individuals, residences, businesses and governments even more.

I come to the question of sovereign risk, and a key question is: who owns the renewable energy certificates? Are they the property of the Commonwealth? By implementing the act and establishing the RET tax, the Commonwealth created the renewable energy certificates, which are a form of intangible regulatory property for trade by virtue of mandated national consumption levels, upon which all consumers pay an increase in their electricity bills.

If we look at the provisions of the act itself, we can see immediately what the various points of importance are as we look at this question of sovereign risk. At least in theory, firstly, parliament may alter the law at any time, or vary or take away rights and obligations. The parliament has that power within the precepts and concept of the Constitution. Secondly, the act has a phasing clause which provides for periodic review of the RET, which we are undertaking at the moment, and that may result in changes to the scheme. We all know that – it is totally transparent; it has been there from the word go; everyone always knew about it. These are prescribed by section 162 and they will make recommendations consistent with the objectives of the act itself. The RET scheme was never intended to operate as an unchecked subsidy to the renewable electricity providers and it is high time they understood and remembered that. It is most interesting that we would have proponents questioning that a future statutory review of the RET ought to be undertaken every couple of years.

The third point to be made is that, in the 2012 review, the issue of investor confidence was raised as an effort to promote renewable energy investment. Of course, concern with investor confidence is not the same concept as sovereign risk. Indeed, it may be well acknowledged, as it was by the Climate Change Authority in 2012, that investor confidence had to be balanced with other considerations – one of them being the cost to the consumer, families and business. A wide range of views were expressed at that time.

If we look to the review that is underway at the moment, what are the options? The first may be to leave the existing target unchanged at 41,000 gigawatt hours. The second may be to reduce that to what people are saying is the real 20 per cent projected electricity supply demand, and that is the 23,000 gigawatt hours that I have spoken about. This would reduce the potential cost of the scheme, particularly for energy users like us and incumbent generators. The third option might be to increase the target to promote a greater share of renewable energy more quickly and, particularly in light of the CEFC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to make any renewable generation attributable to it and additional to that delivered by the RET, heaven forbid. The fourth might be to repeal it altogether.

In summary, we would have a circumstance in which the reviews will probably result in changes to the rules of the RET scheme. I do not think anybody would be in any doubt about that and, should that occur, it will have an impact on the RET price. The coalition has been sending that signal very clearly for a long time. Nobody needs to be under any doubt or illusion as to where the coalition has stood on this and the contrast with the policies of the Australian Labor Party then in government. The question becomes one of compensation for property acquired by the Commonwealth.

There are some interesting cases, including Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. For those interested, that case seems to reinforce a view that statutory property interests cannot be assumed to be protected by section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, because modification or extinguishment of such a right may not amount to an acquisition of property. Another case was Commonwealth v Tasmania – the Tasmanian dam case. The Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commonwealth case was interesting. The authority was the proposition that mere extinguishment or deprivation of rights in relation to property will not, in and of itself, amount to acquisition. Extinguishment or deprivation may not result in the question of acquisition.

The problem for the renewable energy industry is that, in the case of renewable energy certificates, it would seem that the Commonwealth might not be ‘acquiring’ property or, indeed, ‘extinguishing’ property. The outcome of a review may result in a decrease in the value of the RECs, as could be anticipated, and probably is by those having a punt, but the RECs would not become worthless. They may be worth less, but not worthless. There is, of course, a significant distinction and there is no argument for compensation on that basis.

So what do we define as sovereign risk? As we know, one common definition is: ‘any risk arising on chances of a government failing to make debt repayments or not honouring a loan agreement’. As a result of the global financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund in 2011 expanded the traditional definition of sovereign risk to, broadly, the probability that a country may not pay its debts, and in their view it has been shown to be too narrow. Developments subsequent to that have exposed very complex interactions between fiscal balances, public and private debt, and the financial sector. However, the IMF held discussions in 2012 around the definition of sovereign risk, suggesting that it might be extended, including the government’s role in the resource sector and the imposition of additional unanticipated or unforeseeable regulations on participants.

We have the circumstance where the outcome of the discussions being conducted does not extend to the understanding that is being trumpeted by the renewable energy sector. The reality for the renewable energy industry is that it may be very difficult for them or, indeed, anybody else to argue the concept that sovereign risk in this case is a relevant basis for compensation. They may not be rendered worthless; they may, in fact, be rendered worth less.

Finally, to add some international context to the position that I am advancing, in Europe the renewables scheme is being modified or, in many instances, scrapped and as yet, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no sovereign risk claims have been put forward by the industry.

So I make this point again in conclusion: the wind industry cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that wind power in this case is decreasing or dropping the wholesale price of electricity and, secondly, that the RET will cause the retail price of electricity to fall. If that is indeed the case then there is no cause for that particular aspect of the renewable energy industry to require further subsidy at all, since that renewable energy is cost-competitive in the market. If, indeed, it is cost-competitive in the market then let it live in the marketplace, but let it not be the reason—through its own self-service and self-interest – to see prices being unnecessarily driven up for domestic consumers, for residences, and for small and large businesses.
Senator Chris Back (Western Australia)

Nice work, Chris!

Here’s The Australian’s take on Chris’s speech.

Senator’s case for killing RET
The Australian
Andrew White
10 July 2014

A government senator has rejected claims of sovereign risk caused by the review of the renewable energy target as “weak”, arguing there is a case to abolish an “insidious impost on every electricity consumer”.

Chris Back, the deputy government whip in the Senate, said the RET was a tax on consumers and conventional energy suppliers to subsidise renewable energy providers but had been “all but totally ineffective” in greenhouse gas abatement. The comments from the West Australian Liberal senator are among the strongest yet from the government ahead of a mandated biennial review of the RET that is due to report at the end of the month and are likely to fan industry fears that the government wants to use it to abolish or weaken the scheme.

The country’s biggest infrastructure operator, IFM Investors, and Spanish renewable energy investor Acciona told The Australian this week that $15 billion of fresh investment in renewable energy — mainly wind farms — was on hold because the industry feared the scheme would be scrapped or weakened. Australia’s foreign investment credentials would also be on the line because changes to the scheme could force writedowns on an estimated $20bn already invested in renewable energy that requires a 20-25 year payback period, the investors said.

But Senator Back said that after 13 years the scheme had increased investment in renewables but had not achieved its objective to reduce greenhouse gases. “The case to abolish the RET is driven by its cost to electricity consumers compared to the corresponding reduction (or lack of reduction) in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through its 13-year lifespan,” Senator Back said.
The Australian

Kill the mandatory RET and the wind industry will die in a heartbeat – it’s on life support now.

heart-rate-on-a-screen-EKG-machine

Bailiwick News Archives

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

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

Gerold's Blog

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

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Birds and Blades

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

The New Observer

pcc15dotorg.wordpress.com/

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

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

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem