[ YouTube Credit : The link to the video above comes thanks to the endeavours of that most fair and balanced individual James "no net global warming since 1998" Delingpole. "No net global warming since 1998" ? James ! You're quoting Pat Michaels, but did he perhaps make that up ? Or was it something that Christopher Monckton might have made up ? ]

The BBC puts the blame on Climate Change – almost – in a report on the Russian heatwave-wildfire disaster.

But they just can’t bring themselves to admit it as an organisation – and put the claims into the mouths of others – using quotation marks in the headline (‘partly to blame’) and ascribing the opinion to “researchers”, the “UK Met Office” and “experts” :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10919460

“10 August 2010 : Climate change ‘partly to blame’ for sweltering Moscow : By Katia Moskvitch : Science reporter, BBC News : Global climate change is partly to blame for the abnormally hot and dry weather in Moscow, cloaked in a haze of smoke from wildfires, say researchers. The UK Met Office said there are likely to be more extreme high temperatures in the future. Experts from the environmental group WWF Russia have also linked climate change and hot weather to raging wildfires around the Russian capital. Meteorologists say severe conditions may linger for several more days…”

Well, I’ve got a bit of a question to pose – it might not be possible to ascribe the current weather conditions in Russia (and Pakistan and China and and and…) to Climate Change, statistically. I mean no one weather event can be said to have been caused 100% by Climate Change. But would these extreme weather events have happened without Climate Change ?

That is by far the most important question to ask, and Michael Tobis does just that :-

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/08/moscow-doesnt-believe-in-this.html

“…Are the current events in Russia “because of” “global warming”? To put the question in slightly more formal terms, are we now looking at something that is no longer a “loading the dice” situation but is a “this would, practically certainly, not have happened without human interference” situation? Can we phrase it more formally? “Is the average time between persistent anomalies on this scale anywhere on earth in the undisturbed holocene climate much greater than a human lifetime?” In other words, is this so weird we would NEVER expect to see it at all?…”

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph is more certain :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7937269/Pakistan-floods-Climate-change-experts-say-global-warming-could-be-the-cause.html

“Pakistan floods: Climate change experts say global warming could be the cause : The world weather crisis that is causing floods in Pakistan, wildfires in Russia and landslides in China is evidence that global warming predictions are correct, according to climate change experts. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, Published: 10 Aug 2010 : Almost 14 million people have been affected by the torrential rains in Pakistan, making it a more serious humanitarian disaster than the South Asian tsunami and recent earthquakes in Kashmir and Haiti combined. The disaster was driven by a ‘supercharged jet stream’ that has also caused floods in China and a prolonged heatwave in Russia. It comes after flash floods in France and Eastern Europe killed more than 30 people over the summer. Experts from the United Nations (UN) and universities around the world said the recent “extreme weather events” prove global warming is already happening. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-president of the body set up by the UN to monitor global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the ‘dramatic’ weather patterns are consistent with changes in the climate caused by mankind. “These are events which reproduce and intensify in a climate disturbed by greenhouse gas pollution,” he said. “Extreme events are one of the ways in which climatic changes become dramatically visible.”…”

Meanwhile, back in never-ever-a-problem-land :-

For some years now, Peak Oilmen (and women) have been trying to draw attention to the problems with the subsiding gushers in Saudi Arabia.

The Oil Drum, who confidently assert they know everything to cast accurate future projections for oil production, say that Saudi Arabia peaked in 2005 :-

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5154

Apparently the wells are pumping more water than crude these days.

We can hold these claims in one hand, and in the other, the claims of those who say that Saudi Arabia as part of OPEC is trying to restrict the flow in order to raise the prices.

That argument is somewhat tenuous given the rapid rise and fall (and rise) of prices over the last 24 months, and the fact that Saudi oil sells on the open markets, not in private deals.

What signs can we espy that might indicate that change is coming ?

Three very interesting phenomena have been in the news this week, that look a little unrelated to the question of peak oil, but are highly correlated.

1. The United States of America imported much less Saudi Arabian oil just recently :-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/us-imports-of-saudi-oil-d_n_345865.html

2. China is about to buy more oil from Saudi Arabia than ever :-

http://www.reuters.com/article/energySector/idUSPEK16668720091103

3. Prince Hassan of Jordan is involved with the DESERTEC solar power project to bring energy from the desert to Europe :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8337735.stm

I would like to make a couple of reasonable leaps about this.

a. Saudi Arabia must surely know that the oil wells are drying out.

b. Saudi Arabia must by now be convinced that Carbon Credits could reduce profits from selling their remaining oil.

c. Saudi Arabia will join in with this desert solar project (or one very similiar) in the extremely near future, openly, although for now it’s all a bit hush hush.

You see, the sun shines bright over the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Iraq, Iran, and many countries that end in -stan.

And it won’t be of any use to try to export solar power to America, when there’s such a large Renewable Energy market in Europe.

Sooner or later, Saudi Arabia will realise it can cut a better deal with Europe over solar power, than it can with America over oil.

I’m sure Saudi Arabia has a view about how much longer America can justify fighting pseudo-wars in the Middle East just in order to retain the rights for oil contracts.

Saudi will jump. I’m sure of that. Into the arms of Europe.

We should then see an end to wars of resources in the Middle East, as the Muslim world starts to work in harmony with the Christian world and the Jewish world over power supplies shared to our mutual benefit – wind power from the north compensating for sunset over the sands.

All energy will eventually be denominated in Euro instead of Dollars.

Goodbye America. And goodnight.

This anti-sense meme from Classical (Neoliberal, Chicago School) Economics boils down to a perception problem. The obvious reason why Renewable Energy technologies are not already widely in use is due to the first-mover problem – it takes time to establish and roll out new technologies. People just don’t like change. And they have to get over the “investment bump” – spending the money to install new technologies.

The other obvious reason why Renewable Energy technologies are not already widely in use is that the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear industries have been supported with generous helpings of State support. And they’ve spent some of their profits on disinformation campaigns about Renewable Energy technologies – so much so that humble town councils around Great Britain believe that wind turbines are rubbish and refuse to have them on their patch.

But let me tell you this : the only future for Energy is Green.

And the only returns on investment that anyone will be able to make in Energy will be in Renewables.

OK, so I’m not an IFA (Independent Financial Adviser), but I can tell you which way the wind is blowing in terms of Carbon pricing.

Sooner or later, it will become unprofitable to emit Carbon Dioxide, even if you sell Energy from that activity.

The Fossil Fuel companies will go bust if they don’t change course.

Sooner or later, the world will agree on Carbon caps that stick, and reductions in emissions that will be regulated, legislated and monitored.

Why am I sure of this ? I’ve read enough of the Climate Change science, the actual physical evidence, that I am convinced that the only course of action is strong curtailment of Carbon Dioxide emissions from economic activity – which means Energy supply activity.

Oh yes, we will also need to curb our Methane emissions, and do a number of other things as well, but Carbon Dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas to control, reducing its accumulation in the air.

But don’t worry. Even though there is a lot of Energy investment that we will all have to pay for over the next 30 years, it will work out cheaper overall.

Why is that ? Well, first off, wind, wave and solar power is free. I mean, the kit to harness it needs to be paid for, but the power is uncosted. Free fuel ! I hear people cry. Free fuel, forever.

Secondly, Renewables are more sustainable than other Energy resources : there is no bottom-of-the-well problem with Wind Power; there is no danger that the Sun will stop shining until it dies about X billion years hence; the seas will keep washing over the shores.

Third of all, Renewables do not damage the local environment where they are installed, to any great degree. Yes people moan about bird strike on turbines, peat removal for wind turbine siting and so on and so on. But the scale of these impacts is so much less than the use of Fossil Fuels – oil spilling into the oceans on a constant basis; or Coal – poisoning the environment with mercury, dioxins and ash.

Fourth : practically all Renewable Energy technology equipment can be recycled – sparing us from “resource constraints” on building the kit to deploy in the field. We could power the whole world from a small part of the Sahara desert, according to the calculations, so that’s not so much metal and glass, is it ? We’ve covered an area the size of the whole Sahara with cities of metal, concrete and glass in the past.

Actually, it is that good, and people are already doing it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=desertec-555-billion-renewable-ener-2009-11
“November 2, 2009 : DESERTEC $555 Billion Renewable Energy Project Moving Forward : The huge project to build a $555 billion renewable energy “ belt ” in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, funded largely by German companies, moved another step forward a few days ago.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec
“Solar power from Sahara a step closer : The German-led Desertec
initiative believes it can deliver power to Europe as early as 2015″

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8337735.stm
“Sahara Sun ‘to help power Europe’”

An uplifting, positive plan to green the world’s energy, composed by two Marks, one Delucchi, one Jacobson, both in American academia, yet not dreamers; their practical brains fully switched on and their souls engaged.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html

“A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030″ contains some excellent mythbusting material as well as practical proposals for turning over all our Energy supply to truly sustainable sources.

A full-colour PDF is available online :-

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf