Author: Jo

Australia : Inundation Nation (3)

Post author By Jo
Post date February 8, 2011
No Comments on Australia : Inundation Nation (3)

Received by e-mail from Australia
__________________________________________________________

18 January 2011

Hi Jo,

Thanks for this. The thoughts and prayers of […] friends are much appreciated.

Yes, the flooding across huge swathes of eastern Australia ([Queensland], [New South Wales], Victoria, Tasmania) has been terrible. The sheer scale of it is hard to comprehend. It hasn’t affected the areas of New South Wales where my family lives. We are, however, experiencing a very sticky and rainy Summer.

Queensland

Three quarters of the state of Queensland, an enormous area, has been declared a disaster zone. Major population centres, including Brisbane, Bundaberg and Toowoomba have been affected, as well as various towns.

Horribly, in the Lockyer Valley, a sudden tide of water swept people to their deaths. Some 20 people have died across the state and there are still about ten missing.

The impact on farmers from the floods is severe. Mining has also been affected – including coal export – which has been talked about in the media largely without irony.

The [Queensland] Premier has announced a commission of inquiry into the disaster, and has launched a flood appeal. Emergency funding packages are being made available to people affected. A flood recovery taskforce has been established.

It has been terrible, but at the same time I have been struck throughout how relatively well equipped Australia is to cope with such circumstances – in contrast, for example, to Brazil and Pakistan.

I am also glad to see how communities come together and support each other. I pray for such coming together before – not just after – the fact in the face of the challenge of climate change.

Victoria

Dozens of towns in Victoria have also been flooded. The town of Horsham, on the Wimmera River, has seen its largest ever recorded flood.

As for Queensland, emergency funding, a flood appeal, and a recovery taskforce have been established. As far as I am aware, there have as yet been no deaths in Victoria.

The Churches’ Responses

Churches across the country are offering support to flood affected communities.

To read about various appeals and statements, see :-

https://www.ncca.org.au/

For an account of ecumenical cooperation, see :-

https://www.journeyonline.com.au/showArticle.php?articleId=2657

[…] might also be interested to see a flood liturgy and intercessory prayers which were written by members of the Uniting Church […] :-

https://www.journeyonline.com.au/showArticle.php?articleId=2654.

The intercessory prayer says :-

“Creator God,
We pray for all those in farms, small towns, and cities in Australia whose lives have been disrupted and whose dreams have been dashed by the floods that have devastated the country.
We pray for those who have lost their homes, their cars, their treasured possessions, their crops, their animals, and their livelihoods. It is a terrible thing to be homeless and helpless.
Be with and sustain those whose entire world has been torn apart and washed away.
Assuage their fears and be patient with their anger.
Grant them patience and hope that eventually they can rebuild their lives and start afresh.
We are grateful to the emergency flood workers and all those who were heroes in helping those in distress during the floods.
May they continue their missions of mercy.
Be with those who are caring for flood victims that their compassion and presence will be life-sustaining.
May they continue their missions of mercy.
We are thankful for those who serve others and provide us all with the inspiration to do the same.
We are sending love, peace, strength, and courage to all our brothers and sisters in Australia.
May this nightmare end shortly.
May healing begin swiftly.”

It is too soon to estimate the damage bill, and the crisis is ongoing, but I have heard figures of up to [AUD] $20 billion.

See the following article about the links between climate change and the flooding : https://www.climateactioncentre.org/floodsclimatechange.

What seems clear is that higher ocean temperatures result in increased evaporation, increasing the amount of rain in this current La Nina cycle that is affecting eastern Australia.

This flooding comes on the back of severe drought, and in the middle of a consultation process in the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan – a national plan of management for the huge Murray-Darling river system, which runs through [Queensland], [New South Wales], [Australian Capital Territory], Victoria and South Australia.

The Murray Darling Basin has been overexploited and placed under severe stress – stress that may be temporarily abated with flooding but which will inevitably return.

Peace and love,

_________________________________________________________

Energy Change Energy Revival Solar Sunrise The Power of Intention

Shallow Waters versus SunShot

Post author By Jo
Post date February 7, 2011
No Comments on Shallow Waters versus SunShot

https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/21827

“07 February 2011 : Energy Department Launches SunShot Initiative for Solar Power : The U.S. Department of Energy announced an initiative that aims to reduce the total costs of photovoltaic solar energy systems by about 75% over the next decade.”

“If successful, the so-called SunShot initiative would help make large scale solar cost-competitive with other forms of energy – without subsidies – by 2020.”

“…The SunShot program builds on the legacy of President Kennedy’s 1960s “moon shot” goal, which laid out a plan to regain the country’s lead in the space race and land a man on the moon. The program aims to aggressively drive innovations in the ways that solar systems are conceived, designed, manufactured and installed.”

“”America is in a world race to produce cost-effective, quality photovoltaics. The SunShot initiative will spur American innovations to reduce the costs of solar energy and re-establish U.S. global leadership in this growing industry,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu…”

Be Prepared Big Picture British Sea Power Burning Money Carbon Commodities Carbon Taxatious Corporate Pressure Cost Effective Direction of Travel Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Low Carbon Life Major Shift Marvellous Wonderful Methane Management Money Sings Oil Change Optimistic Generation Peace not War Peak Emissions Peak Energy Peak Oil Political Nightmare Public Relations Renewable Resource Social Change Solar Sunrise Stirring Stuff Wind of Fortune Zero Net

Glimpsing the Future

Can we glimpse the future of energy ?

Ambient, sustainable energy is all around us, and sooner or
later we will find the ways to make use of it for the good of all.

The following is an appropriately edited transcript of a
conversation on the Claverton Energy Research Group
forum online, and was written by Nick Balmer, a consultant
in renewable energy.
__________________________________________________________

…The huge scale of the possible changes for all concerned is
causing all of the current Titans in the [energy] industry to deploy
the full force of the media [and their] PR [public relations] in an
attempt to manipulate the public and policy towards their own way
of thinking, or in such a way as to protect their own vested interests.

The great thing is that these issues are being aired out in the open,
and groups like [Claverton Energy Research Group forum] allow
people with knowledge of these affairs to debate these issues openly.

The big problem is that each of us has only a very detailed
understanding of some small fraction of the total issue.

Most of the public and government only has a very slight knowledge
of the total issue, and has had only limited access to ways to find out
in detail what is going on.

As Egypt is demonstrating today, everybody now has a voice and as
Wikileaks shows, sooner or later everything will come out into the
open.

All of us are struggling to come to terms with this explosion of
access to knowledge.

It is quite clear that lots of bubbles are being burst as a result of
the Global Financial implosion and the huge expansion in available
knowledge.

Just as banking and property has been shown to be an unaffordable
Ponzi scheme and to be vastly over-inflated, UK energy policy is now
coming under huge scrutiny.

We can now compare our energy systems with other countries.

Due to the huge geological accident of fate, since the 1700’s in coal,
and 1970’s in oil and gas, we have been extremely fortunate in being
able to live way beyond the lifestyle standards of most of the World.

We have not had to adapt.

Other countries that didn’t have this advantage had to change over
recent decades.

Places like Denmark, Austria, Germany [and so on] have made huge
changes because they had less energy from fossil resources.

Now we have reached the peak or crunch point, we find ourselves well
behind those countries that had to adapt earlier.

Everybody is concentrating on the Capital cost of deploying per
MW [megawatt] and overlooks the cost of fuels.

The cost of fuels over time is massively more important than the
CAPEX [capital expenditure on investment].

So even if windfarms cost 20 times per MW or GW [gigawatt] more to
build than nuclear or coal or gas, in the scheme of things,
[wind power] is always going to win, because the fuel is free and
unlimited for centuries to come.

Similarly [solar power technologies], or even more effective,
household insulation and cutting energy use.

And yet the media and government are blinded by the barrage of PR
and media from the energy vested interests who are working with
every muscle to stop this coming out into the open.

I often meet financiers in my work trying to promote and support AD
[anaerobic digestion of biological waste for the production of
renewable methane], biomass, solar and wind projects.

I am always struggling to prove to them that I have an offtake [return
on investment] and the fuel supply. This is often really hard to do
[but] I only have to do this for seven to 12 years to make my business
cases stack up.

I was really depressed at the end of one such presentation and
discussion, when one broadly sympathetic banker who had turned me
down said that he was having even worse problems with largescale
energy projects.

How do you predict the price and supply of coal forward for 25 years
or more ?

It has jumped 17% in recent months.

How do you prove that you are going to have offtake for huge power
stations in future years ?

Demand dropped 8% in 2009.

How do you raise the equity or debt for a billion [pound] project when
banks don’t want to lend more than £30 million each ? Imagine how
many banks that would take ?

We have reached a tipping point in our economy, sustainability and
future outlook.

Yes, the existing mega-power companies are fighting as hard as
Mubarak today to hold onto power, but they represent the past just
as surely as he does.

Those companies can rejuvenate themselves, unlike the Egyptian
President.

If they don’t, there are an increasingly large number of smaller and
more active players coming into the market.

The average household pays somewhere around £1,300 a year for
its heating and lighting.

The companies that come forward with a way to do that for £1,000 is
going to capture the market very quickly.

I have friends in Austria who only pay 65 Euros for services that I
pay £1,400 for.

They do this through insulation, triple glazing, solar and biomass energy.

Most [UK] households have less than £400 per year discretionary
disposable income. This prevents them making changes to their houses
they desperately want and know they need to make. This can
drop their energy demands hugely.

If somebody can unlock that Gordian Knot the benefits would be
enormous as there are something like 27 million households.

At a time when household debt is at an all-time high, incomes are
shrinking, and 40% live on ether government salaries, state
pensions or benefits.

Energy is a very high part of these households’ outgoings – if you
pay £1,300 a year and your house only brings in £11,000 to £20,000
per year.

A 50% increase in the £1,300 could bring great distress, and
possibly even civil unrest here.

The increases fossil power [companies] need to make their systems
bankable will increase energy bills. This will feed straight through into
government liabilities because 40% of us live on government payouts.

If government can drop the cost of heating and lighting quite easily
by £100 to £500 per household per year while at the same time
provide employment for hundreds of thousands of White Van men
cutting energy uses, doesn’t this make far more sense than building
unsustainable power stations that will have to be [bankrolled] by the
government, who will then have to buy back electricity at a price our
communities cannot stand ?

Project a similar calculation onto transport fuels and you get even
greater problems.

At $80 a barrel [of oil] industry is shrinking and relatively few
renewable fuel business cases work. At $100 a barrel most renewable
fuels can compete.

At $120 a barrel almost any alternative beats oil, and that is before
you start to look at issues like fuel security and the environment.

Although the battle is one of David and Goliath, or the Dinosaur and
those early mammals, between the new energy industries and the
existing vested energy industries, [it] has only one outcome.

It is only a matter of the co-lateral damage along the way.

Like Mubarak, it is clear they must go. Are they going to go
gracefully, or are they going to smash the place up first ?

Nick Balmer
Renewable Energy Consultant

Bee Prepared Climate Change Climate Chaos Coal Hell Global Singeing Global Warming Protest & Survive Regulatory Ultimatum Resource Curse Social Change Social Chaos

The True Cost of Coal

Image Credit : Amelia Gregory

London Rising Tide presents…The Beehive Design Collective’s – ‘The True Cost of Coal’

DATE – Thursday 10th Feb, 2011
TIME – 7.30pm – late – with refreshments after the presentation
LOCATION – London Action Resource Centre : 62 Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel, London, E1 1ES

‘The True Cost of Coal’ will take you on an interactive visual tour of the connections between coal mining, climate change, the ever-expanding capitalist economy, and the struggle for justice in local communities affected by the coal industry around the world.

‘The True Cost of Coal’ is a recently completed project by the Beehive Collective (part of the Rising Tide North America Collective), who create portable murals of collaboratively produced illustrations that tell an engaging and disturbing story.

Learn how the artwork is created by the collective and how they use their posters to run community workshop and for storytelling. The True Cost of Coal poster they have produced is quite staggering – check it out at :-

https://www.beehivecollective.org/english/coal.htm

Their visually stunning, large scale Black + White graphics depict social justice and raising ecological consciousness in an unusual and highly creative way.

Come along to find out more at LARC, 7.30pm, Thurs 10th Feb.

For more information on London Rising Tide :-
https://www.londonrisingtide.org.uk

London Rising Tide
c/o 62 Fieldgate Street, London E1 1ES
Telephone: 07708 794665

https://www.facebook.com/people/Rising-Tide-UK/515246801

Please share your art with the Art Not Oil project :-
https://www.artnotoil.org.uk

See also the Camp for Climate Action site :-
https://www.climatecamp.org.uk
https://www.networkforclimateaction.org.uk

Climate Indymedia :-
https://climateimc.org

Indymedia London :-
https://london.indymedia.org/

Image Credit : Minimouse

Be Prepared Big Picture Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Disturbing Trends Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Environmental Howzat Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Growth Paradigm Incalculable Disaster Marine Gas Methane Madness Methane Management Neverending Disaster No Pressure Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Obamawatch Oil Change Peak Energy Peak Oil Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Resource Curse Social Change Unconventional Foul Unnatural Gas

American Full Spectrum Dominance

Post author By Jo
Post date February 5, 2011
No Comments on American Full Spectrum Dominance

The documentary evidence shows that America’s business interests often outweigh its political progress. Yet it’s perhaps more concerning that, increasingly, corporate America is at risk of damaging good environmental governance.

With all the talk of free markets in international trade, the Coalition Government in the United Kingdom has felt the pressure to open up the back door to American energy businesses, whose highly-paid sales representatives in slick suits want us to buy their dirty energy projects – just take a look at the upcoming UK Energy Bill and its proposals for Electricity Market Reform.

American companies seem poised to sweep in and take all our public non-subsidy “support” for building new nuclear power plants. Viewers of a sensitive political disposition should look away now as this is a Wikileak :-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305283/UK-RAMPING-UP-ON-NUCLEAR-POWER-BUT-CHALLENGES-REMAIN.html

The country that brought you the engineering industry that brought you the giant Gulf of Mexico giant oil spill now wants to bring you unsafe deepwater drilling in Britain’s Continental Shelf – and the UK’s new Energy Bill would let them do that without demonstrating any learning from the BP April 2010 fiasco :-

https://act.greenpeace.org.uk/ea-campaign/…

There’s lots of talk in the energy sector and the financial markets about the American shale gas miracle “gamechanger” and how it can be replicated in Europe and across the world, and not enough discussion about the environmental dangers :-

https://www.tyndall.ac.uk/shalegasreport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12190810

It’s good to talk about local environmental damage from “unconventional” gas, but what’s not being discussed so widely is that these “new” resources of Natural Gas aren’t really very green, and neither are the “traditional” resources – in some cases they’re not much better than coal :-

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-benefits-natural-gas-overstated

https://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/natural-gas-clean_n_813750.html

We know that the Americans always seek to protect the interests of American-owned businesses – and we know they do that for the best of intentions – to keep America wealthy (except it’s really only a few people in America that have any wealth, but anyway…)

Yet I think there should be a limit to how far we have to bend over backwards to accommodate their needs for economic recovery.

To export all their dirty energy technology to Europe is just not helpful, and I think we should say no, no, no.

Tags America, USA

Advancing Africa Be Prepared Big Picture Burning Money Conflict of Interest Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Economic Implosion Energy Change Energy Insecurity Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Money Sings Peace not War Political Nightmare Resource Curse Screaming Panic Social Change Social Chaos

Who Planned Pipeline Attack ?

Post author By Jo
Post date February 5, 2011
No Comments on Who Planned Pipeline Attack ?

[ UPDATE 3 : Israel has said it has already prepared for just such an Egyptian disruption scenario, and won’t suffer from shortages of gas… https://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=206940 ]

[ UPDATE 2 : The Jerusalem Post says that it was reported that explosives were detonated at the terminal… https://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=206940. Why does the Jerusalem Post article contain a history of gas production in the region ? Part of the gas that comes through Egypt has come from Gazan wells https://www.joabbess.com/2010/08/01/natural-gaza-3/. If that supply fails, then countries round about will have to buy their gas from Israel’s new wells… Israel will probably blame Iran for the Egyptian gas terminal explosion https://blogs.forbes.com/christopherhelman/2011/02/05/egypt-pipeline-explosion-cuts-gas-supply-to-israel/. Apparently the gas supply to Israel may not have been damaged https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-05/egypt-gas-pipeline-feeding-israel-explodes-in-sinai-desert-arabiya-says.html, but they’ve turned the taps off anyway, as a precautionary measure https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crisis-in-egypt/pipeline-blast-in-egypt-shuts-off-gas-flow-to-jordan-israel/article1895902/?cmpid=rss1 ]

[ UPDATE : We now learn it was not an attack after all… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8305962/Egypt-crisis-Sinai-explosion-blamed-on-gas-leak.html. Notice the propaganda – we are reminded in the video report that there may be dark fundamentalist forces at work, even whilst being told that this was not in fact the case.]

An unidentified group has taken advantage of all the turmoil in Egypt, gone undercover, and attacked a gas pipeline, which means that supplies to politically moderate Jordan (and the more hardline Syria) will be cut off.

Who planned this ? It’s probably too early to say, but I can think of several possible answers to the question, and none of them are pretty.

https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5huw-ts1Q5jlhNQ2IOUlli6gjl5gw?docId=CNG.36fe9f8bbc762c3ed9f469e5f80934c5.8f1

“Saboteurs attack Egypt gas pipeline to Jordan”

https://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFJOE71407020110205

“Jordan gas supplies to be halted a week after blast”

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704843304576125510103424894.html

“Egypt Gas Pipeline Attacked”

https://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/05/egypt.pipeline/?hpt=T2

“Gas pipeline to Jordan, Syria set ablaze in Egypt…Unless the pipe is repaired quickly, it could become a big problem for Jordan, a country already spending heavily in fuel subsidies, a Jordanian senior official said….”

Big Picture Burning Money Corporate Pressure Cost Effective Energy Change Energy Revival Financiers of the Apocalypse Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Growth Paradigm Major Shift Money Sings Obamawatch Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Sustainable Deferment Wind of Fortune

Fossil Fuel Aid

Video Credit : Peter Sinclair

Creating a level playing field for Renewable Energy by removing Fossil Fuel subsidies is an excellent idea, as mooted by the International Energy Agency :-

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1802530/iea-reveals-fossil-fuel-subsidies-usd550bn

“IEA reveals fossil fuel subsidies top $550bn : Report warns kick-backs for fossil fuels are skewing energy markets and holding back renewables investment : By Andrew Donoghue 08 June 2010 : The global fossil fuel industry currently enjoys subsidies worth more than $550bn (£382bn) a year, according to a major new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that will increase pressure on world leaders to phase out fossil fuel subsidies ahead of a crucial meeting of the G20 group of nations later this month. The research, which was released at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Busan, South Korea over the weekend, reveals fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $557bn in 2008 – up from $342bn in 2007. Enormous subsidies are skewing energy markets and inhibiting the uptake of more sustainable energy sources, the IEA warned. “The IEA analysis highlights that the price signal from subsidy phase-out would provide an incentive to use energy more efficiently, and trigger switching from fossil fuels to other fuels that emit fewer GHGs,” the report said…”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html

“Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables, Study Shows : By Alex Morales – 29 July 2010 : Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said. Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008. “One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. “This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables.”…”

Here are some relevant documents :-

https://www.iea.org/weo/docs/second_joint_report.pdf
https://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/G20_Subsidy_Joint_Report.pdf
https://www.iea.org/papers/2002/reforming.pdf
https://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/weo1999.pdf

Barack Obama and the G20 first made a serious call for the removal of Fossil Fuel subsidies back in 2009 :-

https://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/26/us-g20-energy-idUSTRE58O18U20090926

“G20 agrees on phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies : 25 September 2009 : The world’s largest economies agreed on Friday to phase out subsidies for oil and other carbon dioxide-spewing fossil fuels in the “medium term” as part of efforts to combat global warming. But Group of 20 leaders at a two-day summit meeting here did not advance discussions about financial aid for developing nations dealing with climate change, exacerbating concerns that U.N. talks to form a new climate pact are in peril. Some $300 billion a year is spent worldwide to subsidize fuel prices, boosting demand in many nations by keeping prices artificially low and, thus, leading to more emissions. The agreement — backed by all of the G20 including Russia, India and China — was a victory for U.S. President Barack Obama, whose credentials for fighting climate change have been marred by dimming prospects that the U.S. Senate will pass a bill to reduce emissions before the December U.N. meeting…”

Seems like it’s a done deal…apart from an issue that should never be forgotten in all global negotiations : economic development.

India, for example, has a policy to keep down the price of diesel fuel – a strategy to promote economic development. They won’t be ready to cut subsidies :-

https://www.sify.com/news/diesel-subsidy-withdrawal-unaffordable-says-minister-news-national-lcesEkcgeee.html

“Diesel subsidy withdrawal unaffordable, says minister : 04 February 2011 : New Delhi: India cannot afford to withdraw the subsidy on diesel and it has to continue till poverty disappears from the country, union Minister for New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah said on Friday. Speaking at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit here, Abdullah said India gives a lot of subsidy on diesel and, if withdrawn, it will only increase inflation. ‘Diesel subsidy has to continue till poverty disappears from the country,’ he said while reacting to Canadian parliamentarian Stephane Dion’s appeal to phase out diesel subsidy…”

The Americans and the Europeans calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies could be interpreted as a lever to block the economic development of the Global South – as much of the price-fixing is conducted by developing nations.

It could be argued that the United States and “her allies” want to retain economic dominance – what better way than blocking economic progress in the Global South and making it appear to be a Climate Change measure ?

In addition, much of the financial support for energy projects in the Global South is indirectly awarded to the fossil fuel industry via the international aid cash coming from developed nations and the international agencies. And the fossil fuel producers and engineering companies are not going to be willing to let that source of revenue dry up.

If international aid for energy projects gets stopped, so does a lot of economic development until “technology transfer” of Renewable Energy can be ramped up :-

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6836112.ece

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/world-bank-criticised-over-power-station

Before they came to power in the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party were strongly behind the proposals to stop international development loans going on dirty energy projects :-

https://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/…

“23 November 2009 : Andrew Mitchell: Ending Labour’s support for polluting energy projects : …we must end the use of the Export Credit Guarantee Department to promote ‘dirty’ fossil fuel power stations around the world, and instead make it a champion of green technology…”

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1803148/conservatives-pledge-stop-uk-fossil-fuel-subsidies

This promise has not been kept, according to the Jubilee Debt Campaign :-

https://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/…

“Lord Green told: Britain’s exports must stop harming people and planet : 24 January 2011 : New report details string of ‘dodgy deals’ at export support body : As new Trade Minister Stephen Green embarks on a national tour to promote British exports, Jubilee Debt Campaign warns that Britain’s export support body is not up to the job : A report released by the organisation today exposes a history of backing projects by large corporations in a handful of controversial sectors. The projects have led to human rights abuses, environmental destruction and corruption in the developing world, and often failed to deliver even on their stated aims. Britain’s export promotion body, the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), has also undermined Britain’s international development goals by leaving countries like Kenya, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan with £2 billion of debts from failed export deals – 96% of Third World Debt ‘owed’ to the UK today…The Coalition government has failed to act on its pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies through the ECGD, despite taking action to beef up the Department’s role…”

The key global development question remains – is cutting fossil fuel subsidies yet another (underhand) way of reducing international aid budgets ?

To deflect criticism, the spotlight will probably be turned on countries like Iran :-

Image Credit : International Energy Agency

https://www.globe-net.com/articles/2010/june/8/getting-the-prices-right-cutting-subsidies-could-save-billions-.aspx?sub=12

“Getting the Prices Right – Cutting Subsidies Could Save Billions : 8 June 2010 : Global fossil fuel consumption subsidies in 2008 were much higher than previously estimated and totalled USD557 billion, according to IEA analysis…The IEA has undertaken an extensive survey to identify countries that offer subsidies that reduce prices of fossil fuels below levels that would prevail in an undistorted market, thus leading to higher levels of consumption than would occur in their absence. The survey identified 37 countries and it is estimated that these represent over 95% of global subsidized fossil‐fuel consumption…The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008. This represents a big increase from $342 bn in 2007…Since 2008, a number of countries – including China, Russia, India and Indonesia – have made notable reforms to bring their domestic energy prices in line with world prices…The country with the highest subsidies in 2008 was Iran at $101 billion, or around a third of the country’s annual central budget. Chronic under‐pricing of domestic energy in Iran has resulted in enormous subsidies and a major burden on the economy that is forcing reliance on imports of refined products. Iran’s leadership came to agreement in 2010 on a sweeping plan for energy subsidy reform; however, steep economic, political and social hurdles will need to be overcome if Iran is to realize lasting reform…”

Obama says we have to drop fossil fuel subsidies. The next thing you know, the inaccuracies start flying :-

https://climateprogress.org/2011/02/04/manchin-coal-subsidies%E2%80%99/

“Manchin claims coal “doesn’t get a penny of subsidies” : In fact, the industry gets trillions of pennies : 4 February 2011 : Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the newest member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, claimed today that the coal industry doesn’t receive any government subsidies, unlike every other form of energy. Brad Johnson debunks this absurd claim…”

Climate Damages Corporate Pressure Protest & Survive

Tim DeChristopher : Peaceful Uprising

Post author By Jo
Post date February 4, 2011
No Comments on Tim DeChristopher : Peaceful Uprising

Tim DeChristopher goes to court this month for blocking the sale of wilderness land to the oil and gas industry for fossil fuel exploitation.

He’s inviting people to sing songs of peaceful uprising in support.

Here’s a short series of footage which explains some of his journey :-

https://solveclimatenews.com/video/seven-talks-tim-dechristopher-1-making-activist

https://solveclimatenews.com/video/seven-talks-tim-dechristopher-2-crashing-oil-gas-auction

https://solveclimatenews.com/video/seven-talks-tim-dechristopher-3-consequences

You can keep up with him via Twitter :-

https://twitter.com/dechristopher

Energy Change Energy Revival Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles

Nuclear Coincidence ?

Image Credit : go_greener_oz

4am Tuesday morning, the Sizewell B nuclear power plant is shut down due to engineering safety concerns.

7am Wednesday morning, anti-nuclear power protestors block the entrance to the power plant.

Coincidence ? Precautionary ?

Meanwhile, the nuclear power industry is trying to make the case that nuclear power can be flexible :-

https://www.nuclearinst-ygn.com/magazine.htm

“Volume 5, Issue 6 Contents:… Track 2 Article by Laurent Pouret, Nigel Buttery and Bill Nuttall ‘Is nuclear power inflexible?’-38 minutes…”

Theoretically, a nuclear reactor or electricity generator can be partly shut down relatively quickly, and relatively safely.

But is it really flexible in all respects ?

If a nuclear power generator has to “load follow”, and operate flexibly, the price of the power produced will be higher – because most of the costs of nuclear electricity generation are fixed over time.

For this reason, most nuclear reactors are run as “baseload” – kept in operation all the time.

In France they operate some of their nuclear power plants “flexibly”, but it’s not clear how expensive this makes the power – the nuclear electricity industry is financially supported by the government in France, although opinion varies as to how much :-

https://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry

“All countries face similar issues related to accident risk, radioactive waste management, and plant financing. All have adopted a range of subsidies that attempt to make the new plants appear financially viable, though some countries, such as France and China, do not publish enough information to get a good handle on how big the public support really is…”

If the United Kingdom were to convince energy companies that investing in new nuclear power in the country would be financially advantageous for them, then would nuclear electricity prevent the development of genuinely flexible renewable energy systems ?

It has to be borne in mind that the currently proposed 10, no, 11, no, 8, well, however many new nuclear plants, are only a replacement programme for the nuclear power stations that must be decommissioned in the next 15 years due to safety concerns. They wouldn’t give us anything better than we have now, and sometimes, right now, generation management can be a mess if big generators fail suddenly :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/28/power.cuts

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/28/britishenergygroupbusiness

Now would be a great time to abandon the really-rather-inflexible-and-expensive nuclear power in favour of developing genuinely responsive constantly low-cost tidal, marine and wind resources in the UK.

A lot of people agree with this idea, it seems :-

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/8816197.Nuclear_power_station_petition_hits_10_000_signatures/

“Nuclear power station petition hits 10,000 signatures : 9:20am Thursday 27th January 2011 : CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans for a new nuclear power station in Bradwell have got 10,000 people to sign a petition against the plans. The petition, led by West Mersea pressure group Banng (Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group), will be passed to MP Charles Hendry, minister for energy at the department of energy and climate change in London on Tuesday…”

The Coalition Government have made it clear that there will be no (overt) subsidies for Nuclear Power, although there’s a little loophole in their proposals for the Energy Bill :-

https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/legislation/energybill/1014-energy-bill-2010-ia-green-deal.pdf

“Enabling investment in low carbon energy supplies… 26. The proposals in the Bill will amend the existing powers in the Energy Act 2008 that allow the Secretary of State to modify a nuclear operator’s Funded Decommissioning Programme. The proposed amendments will provide an enabling power that will allow the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement at the time a Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP) is approved that will set out the manner in which he will exercise his powers to modify an FDP in accordance with the principle of securing prudent provision. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the Secretary of State’s powers to protect the taxpayer and the operator’s need for clarity over how those powers will be exercised…”

There’s also a bit of a loophole in the Coalition Government’s Electricity Market Reform proposals :-

https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Consultations/emr/1041-electricity-market-reform-condoc.pdf

See pages 4 to 8 – the “Executive Summary” – and remember, where you see the expression “low carbon technologies”, or “low carbon generation”, that concept includes nuclear power.

And Sizewell B ? Still offline :-

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizwell_nuclear_power_station_still_offline_1_792548

Nuclear power plants. If we can’t rely on them, why do we want them ?

And if they’re not very safe, why don’t we focus on things that are ?

Climate Change Global Warming Media

Pearce : The Gloom Bubble

Fred Pearce attempted to lighten the nation’s mood with a jolly little piece about how Climate Change sceptics and scientists are trying to resolve their differences, in a Short Sharp Science piece this week :-

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html

Pearce clearly wanted to bring good news and pierce the gloom over continued attacks on Climate Change scientists from the Internet sceptic “community” (which includes a real climate scientist, Judith Curry, pictured smirking above).

However, he appears to have put his foot squarely in his mouth, by recounting what others have now strongly disputed, almost everywhere to near universal disquiet :-

https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php

“Fred Pearce is going down the David Rose road publishing fabricated quotes. Gavin Schmidt in a letter to New Scientist (so far unpublished there) writes…”

https://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/through-glass-darkly.html

“Eli a trusting sort of bunny, likes to believe everyone, but favors cutting the cards. Porky Pearce over at Nude Scientist is taking a shellacking for, as they say, making it up. Gavin might even get a few bob out of it if he were Monckton Minded, but as for now all we have is Dr. Schmidt’s (still unpublished as we go to press) letter sent to the editors…”

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/

“As many of you may be aware, a conference was arranged purportedly to “bridge the gap” between mainstream climate scientists and the so-called “skeptics.” Fred Pearce reported in an article for NewScientist that Gavin Schmidt had declined the invitation to attend because the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. Quoting from the article: “But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.” This isn’t a misquote — it’s just a fabrication. Schmidt has sent a letter to NewScientist objecting to someone making up such a story…”

https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fred-pearce-at-new-scientist-making-stuff-up/

“In a recent article in New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce decided to make up a quote by Dr. Gavin Schmidt. Read on to see Gavin’s letter to New Scientist that correct’s Pearce’s Journalism 101 mistake…”

https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/02/porky_pearce.php

“Fred Pearce seems to have made a bit of a career out of being rubbish recently, but has now stooped to just making things up (or, just possibly, that good old journo standby, being so clueless as to what you’re talking about that your paraphrases are so inaccurate as to descend into lies). Anyway, Pearce’s current lies are in the Newt Scientist where he says the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. Gavin, of course, said no such thing…”

https://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fred-pearce-is-still-a-rubbish-journalist/

“When last we left Pearce, he was enthusiastically attempting mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on the vile, rotting corpse of “He said; She said “journalism”” that has long wreaked havoc on public understanding of climate. Checking in, we now find Pearce has sunk to just making statements up and attributing them to people without their knowledge or consent. Specifically NASA GISS researcher (and RealClimate blogger) Gavin Schmidt…”

What with New Scientist carrying a pseudo-article that is actually an advertisement for Statoil, I think I might nearly be at the point where I cancel my subscription, unless Fred Pearce stands down from having control of environmental reporting or editorial functions at the magazine.

Climate Change Media

You Won’t Sue The Children of the Revolution

Post author By Jo
Post date February 3, 2011
No Comments on You Won’t Sue The Children of the Revolution

I’m not a litigious sort, but I think I’m justified in getting a bit peeved if people report me inaccurately. And an apology would be nice, too.

So, Peter Sissons, do you need to humbly beg my forgiveness on bended knee with some nice flowering plants, a voucher for a party of five at a nice vegan restaurant and a donation to my favourite charity ? :-

https://www.joabbess.com/2011/01/25/whine-to-the-daily-mail/

https://www.joabbess.com/2011/01/26/how-would-you-have-phrased-it/

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Lucy McGirr, Daily Mail
Sent: 03 February 2011 18:36:06
To: jo abbess

Dear Jo

Please see the below email for your attention from Charles Garside, Assistant Editor.

With best regards

Lucy McGirr
PA to Charles Garside
Assistant Editor, Daily Mail

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Ms Abbess

You will understand that the article we published is from Peter Sissons’ new book, which was published on 2 February.

Perhaps you need to contact him at his publisher Biteback Publishing.

I note that you do not offer a statement on what you say is wrong with his recollection, however as you will see, we have already appended a short letter from Roger Harrabin to the article.

If you would like to offer a short statement of your own, we would consider adding that subject to the Editor’s agreement.

Yours sincerely

Charles A Garside
Assistant Editor

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Lucy,

Thank you for your response to my request for a minor correction.

I received another response from the Daily Mail to which I have already replied and published here, and you may edit the information at this link as being a personal response from me to your original article :-

https://www.joabbess.com/2011/02/03/whine-to-the-daily-mail-2/

I consider the original Daily Mail article published online to be inaccurate. If Peter Sissons has included the story of my correspondence with Roger Harrabin in his book in the way it was reported in your online article, it is unfortunate and unhelpful that he did not fully research it before publication.

I assume you have the contact details for Biteback Publishing, in which case I would be grateful to hear from you how I may get in touch with them to request clarification of the actual content of the book, if it contains information or reports about me.

I may reasonably expect them to offer an errata slip in each book, I suppose, and I’d quite happily co-write one with Roger Harrabin if he wishes.

Thanks,

Ms J. Abbess

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Climate Change Media

Whine to the Daily Mail (2)

Post author By Jo
Post date February 3, 2011
No Comments on Whine to the Daily Mail (2)

It seems that my polite and innocent request to the Daily Mail has had a positive response. Hurrah for good manners, say I ! :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Editorial, Daily Mail online
To: jo abbess
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:54:35 +0000
Subject: RE: Request for a minor correction

Hi Jo,

Thank you for your email. We have removed your name from the article.

Best wishes,

MailOnline

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

There remains the small problem that the original article has been copied and plastered all over the Interweb, so although my name has been “desmirched” (the opposite of besmirched) at the Daily Mail, I am still instantly name-able by a simple act of Go Ogling.

So, anyway, I decided to try being nice and polite and a bit insistent again, to try to get at least a recognition that the original story was somewhat unresearched.

That way, if anyone researches the story in future, at least the Daily Mail – the source – has corrected it.

See what you think (see below) :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: jo abbess
Sent: 03 February 2011 19:39:12
To: Editorial, Daily Mail online

3rd February 2011

Dear Daily Mail,

Thank you for letting me know today that you have removed my name from the online article “The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent”, which I believe was originally published online on 25th January 2011.

It’s awfully decent of you to do this, and since you’ve taken the trouble to reply to me and change the piece, I wonder, would you consider a further slight revision ?

Even though you’ve removed my name from the article, it’s been linked all over the Internet, and so it would be great if you would consider rectifying a couple of pesky inaccuracies.

As the “green activist” you mention, in Spring 2008, I was perturbed by the idea that Climate Change sceptics would capitalise on the dubious headline of an article by Roger Harrabin – a headline he probably didn’t write – and I engaged him in an e-mail exchange asking him to change his piece.

However, he wasn’t “berated” by me – so please can you remove this emotive term. It was a respectful e-mail exchange, although I was feeling a bit miffed, which showed. As you well know, Roger Harrabin is a professional journalist, and handled my complaint calmly and collectedly.

You published, “the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by the activist, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics.” I think this is plainly contrived, and I would like the claim to be dropped.

He may correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I understand it, Roger Harrabin only made minor changes to the story, and later made further minor changes to the story, to better reflect the evidence from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

It’s possible he may have considered modifying the tone of the piece because of my intervention, yet he did not change any material facts, nor did he change the flavour of the story. He certainly didn’t change it just because I asked him to. He knows better than to react to a correspondent in a huff.

You published, “This exchange went round the world in no time, spread by the jubilant activist.” That is not how I remember the turn of events. “Jubilant” is quite the wrong interpretation, and it was Climate Change sceptics in Australia who spread the story.

They cherrypicked certain parts of the e-mail exchange and made false accusations against Roger Harrabin and myself.

The Climate Change sceptics claimed that the e-mail exchange was “proof” of journalistic malpractice, which it wasn’t. Even publishing the exchange online in full didn’t manage to defend the integrity of both parties.

It would be really sportsmanlike of you if you would apologise to Roger Harrabin for repeating “our story” without fact-checking, and if you could please accept his entirely accurate version of his side of the story, which has been in the public domain for over two years.

I’m grateful that you can consider corrections to your publications, as we all know only true stories are sensational.

Yours sincerely,

Ms J. Abbess

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Coal Hell Global Warming

Mini Hockey Sticks (5)

This new data shows unequivocal evidence of a statistically significant rising trend…

…in the last 12 months of Future Front Month C contracts for ICE Brent Crude Petroleum Oil.

It looks surprisingly similar to the last 60 years of global average temperatures, except the trend in temperatures is steeper :-

Most people looking at the rising price of Brent Crude would be able to work out that there are driving forces.

Surely there cannot be anybody left in the room who believes the global temperature record doesn’t have an underlying driving force (or several) ?

And what does the price of a gallon of gasoline have to do with Climate Change ?

Rapid changes in the price of fossil fuel energy will make it virtually impossible to control the use of fossil fuel energy using special economic policy instruments such as taxes, levies, or quota systems – the changing cost of “conventional” energy resources will completely obscure the signal of carbon pricing or renewable energy incentives :-

https://www.joabbess.com/2011/02/02/market-tinkering/

Economic incentives may not be the way to lower carbon emissions so… :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/30/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

…we may have to resort to brute regulation :-

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1929547/mps-urge-government-ban-coal-fired-power-stations

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ban-on-growth-of-coal-power/story-e6frea6u-1225966126453
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/ban-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-nsw/story-e6freuzi-1225878660822

https://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/837

Goodbye carrot world. Say hello to the urgent sticks of necessity.

…Meanwhile, the popular movement against coal is growing…

https://burycoal.com/blog/why-bury-coal/

https://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-coal-industry-fumes-revokes.html

https://www.ilovemountains.org/

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/Coal-free-tour/

Big Picture Carbon Capture Carbon Commodities Carbon Taxatious Coal Hell Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Cost Effective Economic Implosion Energy Change Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Green Investment Green Power Growth Paradigm Low Carbon Life Major Shift Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Wind of Fortune

Market Tinkering

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government in the United Kingdom have several competing interests to juggle when it comes to the electricity generation industry.

Any proposed tinkering in the electricity market will need to show it still promotes competition (even though new entrants will probably complain they can’t compete in auctions), even as it guarantees safe and stable power supplies, even as it needs to make sure consumers don’t get ripped off.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change have published a clearly-written consultation document on their proposals for an Electricity Market Reform (EMR), detailing various methods of intervening to ensure long-term objectives on carbon emissions and energy security :-

https://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/emr/emr.aspx

I’ve been reading some really helpful commentary on the system-wide effects of these proposals :-

https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Consultations/emr/1043-emr-analysis-policy-options.pdf

https://www.parliamentarybrief.com/2011/01/thumbs-up-a-little-early-for-that-mr-huhne#all

So far, my conclusion is that the net effect of these proposals will be to make the electricity generators feel secure about future earnings.

I’m not convinced that anything I’ve read so far will help energy supply companies feel willing to leap the expensive investment hurdle to ensure the UK gets new low carbon power plants.

I’m not even sure if the carbon and power pricing described will deter companies from dirty power generation and direct them towards new low carbon investment.

When I happened on the levelised cost of power in the main DECC analysis document, I came to a very pragmatic conclusion :-

https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Consultations/emr/1041-electricity-market-reform-condoc.pdf

Figure 2 (see top) shows that FOAK (first of a kind) new nuclear reactor plant designs (which is what we are told we will be getting in the UK) are probably going to yield similar unit electricity price values to Onshore Wind Power and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant using Natural Gas feedstock.

My question is : why do we need to intervene with the electricity market to incentivise low carbon generation if the cheapest technologies are the low carbon options anyway ? (Yes, I’ve deliberately forgotten to discuss Carbon Capture and Storage).

My second question is : are the financial instruments proposed for the electricity market simply a sop to the electricity generators to leverage investment in new and efficient low carbon power stations ? Come and invest in new power generation in Great Britain and see your earnings stable (or rising) !

And my third question is this : don’t the NIMBY campaigns against Onshore Wind Power realise their success means that the overall cost of electricity to the consumers will rise significantly as wind power has to move offshore ?

My conclusion is : it would be far cheaper simply to instruct the largely publicly owned banks to make investment finance available, but only for low carbon technologies and forget about trying to maintain the facade of a free market.

Power supply is virtually a monopoly – and the State is bound to maintain supply – DECC have even got proposals on the table in their main Energy Bill to buy up any power companies that fail…yet another bailout !

Be Prepared Big Picture Burning Money Carbon Commodities Carbon Rationing Carbon Taxatious Climate Change Climate Chaos Climate Damages Cost Effective Disturbing Trends Energy Change Energy Revival Extreme Weather Floodstorm Global Warming Green Investment Green Power Incalculable Disaster Major Shift Near-Natural Disaster Neverending Disaster Rainstorm Social Chaos

Australia : Inundation Nation (2)

Post author By Jo
Post date February 1, 2011
No Comments on Australia : Inundation Nation (2)

The key question tonight in Queensland is : how safe can we make the house before morning ?

The second key question that should tonight be asked in Queensland Australia is : are the damages from Climate Change likely to be more expensive than changing our energy sources to stop it ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12294834

“27 January 2011 : Australia floods: PM Julia Gillard unveils new tax : Julia Gillard announces the details of the new tax : Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a new tax to help pay for devastating floods that she says will cost A$5.6bn ($5.6bn; £3.5bn) in reconstruction. Ms Gillard said the 12-month tax, starting from 1 July, would be levied on those earning A$50,000 or more, and those affected by floods would not pay. “We should not put off to tomorrow what we are able to do today,” she said…”

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/gillard-warms-to-permanent-disaster-fund-20110131-1ab4z.html

“Gillard warms to permanent disaster fund : Phillip Coorey : February 1, 2011 : THE Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is prepared to entertain the idea of a permanent natural disaster fund if it helps win the support of key independents in both houses. But she is not prepared to bend on the details of her one-off $1.8 billion levy to help with flood reparations in Queensland. As negotiations began with independents yesterday before the legislation for the flood measures is tabled in Parliament next week, Ms Gillard would not rule out a permanent fund. ”We’re happy to have a conversation about the longer term,” she said. But the floods, she said, were ”an extraordinary circumstance which requires a response in the short term”…”

Climate Change Global Warming

Monckton On His High Court Horse

Post author By Jo
Post date February 1, 2011
22 Comments on Monckton On His High Court Horse

[ UPDATE : Some of the propagandists of the Climategate non-scandal, an event, you may recall, that involved the purloining and publication of thousands of private e-mails, have complained that I published their private e-mail addresses…Oh, such delicious irony ! ]

Monckton’s on his High Court horse, doo dah, doo dah…. yes The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, christen-named Christopher has had it with the BBC. Really had it. You can almost visualise cartoon steam exploding from his auricles, imagine a purple brow with veins a-popping.

And in the process of winging off a torrent of what feel like huffy-puffy blow-your-house-down e-mails, he has managed to send one to me, possibly by mistake, but who knows, really ? I mean, who really knows what is going on in his Viscountnesses’ mind ? Why has he not succumbed to the inevitable and graciously bowed out from the theatre of contention and meekly joined the Glorious House of Scientific Consensus ?

Let’s repeat it one more time – Climate Change is real and it’s happening now. The mid-range projection for average Global Warming is a rise of around about three degrees Celsius, which will be significant in its impacts on habitats around the world, and at the current three quarters of a degree is already causing major disruptions to rainfall and weather patterns and de-stabilisation of the frozen regions, with knock-on effects for plant and animal life and agriculture, as recognised and evidenced by all the world’s leading science academies.

Discounting a wide range of possible positive feedbacks, global warming to a first order calculation from basic Physics will be somewhat over one degree Celsius for a doubling of Carbon Dioxide; and then in addition, about the same again for the increased atmospheric water vapour, a direct result of the initial Carbon Dioxide-induced warming.

Christopher Monckton, is, in my view, wrong to assert that Climate Sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases is low, when the basic Physics contradicts him.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley)
Sent: 31 January 2011 20:40:47
Re: BBC 4
To: Rupert Wyndham
(R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group);
John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Actually it’s a boorish hatchet job of the traditional BBC kind, but I sued them and made them cut it by half an hour and alter or remove some 16 downright errors and unfairnesses in the programme. Pleasingly, they’re going to have to pay quite a large chunk of the court costs (though I’m going to have to pay some too, because although the Beeb had promised me a right of reply their promise meant nothing either to them or to the High Court). – M of B

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

—–Original Message—–
From: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group)
To: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; Hans Schreuder (Tech Know); David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 4:50 pm
Subject: BBC 4

John

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Monckton is the star turn tonight from 2200-2300 hrs. There’s the usual weasel worded lead-in within the pages of the Radio Times as, indeed, there was for last week’s Horizon. It’s also interesting to see the BBC going into contortions not to abandon the party line – note, Horizon for warmistas was at peak time (2100 hrs), but this evening’s ‘off message’ contribution is slotted an hour ahead, when Corporation spin doctors no doubt expect that fewer people will access it, by then very sensibly preferring instead their mug of Horlicks and an electric blanket. The BBC will, of course, laud the exercise as a conspicuous example of its vaunted impartiality.

It is noteable too that JS in the RT, whoever that turkey may be, states that: “The film’s impossible task is to be rigorous enough to unpick his arguments without giving sceptics the impression that any criticism is just part of the conspiracy.” Climategate in mind, with this as just a Freudian slip? What say you?

Well, on this subject if not his Petri dishes, you, I and many another could unpick Sir Paul Nurse faster than a puppy could a bog roll.

With him and his cronies ’tis but a matter of being able to read ‘FRAUD’, writ large in neon lights. In the case of attempting to unpick Monckton, one might just have to undergo the inconvenient preliminary of actually acquiring a little knowledge.

Anyway, I’ll record it. It’ll not say anything that’s unfamiliar, but it will, nonetheless, do so effectively and well. Plainly, JS is bothered,

as well he might be, given the evidence of crass ignorance.

ATB

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Christopher Monckton
Sent: 31 January 2011 19:52:46
To: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group), John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor), Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry);, Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce \n (Journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming. It is trivially correct to say that the climate object’s only method of losing heat is by radiation to outer space: however, if some of that heat is retained in the atmosphere, radiating here via the quantum resonance in CO2 molecules rather than radiating harmlessly out to space, warming will of course result. I have already set out, in the simplest terms, the half-page of not particularly difficult undergrad physical math that establishes the fact and magnitude of the greenhouse effect in the whole atmosphere. I sent it to Siddons some time ago, but he remains unconvinced by what is proven mathematics.

The question, therefore, is not whether our adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, but how much warming will result. This is the central scientific question in the “global warming” debate. Broadly speaking, climate scientists who address that question by measurement and observation tend to favor low climate sensitivity (i.e. not much warming); those who address it by modeling lean toward high climate sensitivity. My own most recent calculations, currently under peer review, suggest lowish climate sensitivity, with the IPCC having perhaps exaggerated it by double (this is a rather more cautious estimate of the exaggeration than that of many climate scientists). Remove even a twofold exaggeration and the climate “problem” vanishes. Where science is proven, one should adhere to it unless there is evidence that the proof is wrong. Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

—–Original Message—–
From: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know)
To: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group); John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Oh Dear!

Even more luke-warmers will be borne from this man’s incorrect views of reality.

Has he read the latest papers on the extra cooling that is the only logical effect that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Is he aware yet that his beloved “climate forcing parameter” is a phantasma like phlogiston ever was?

He has all the formulae but they are meaningless if the computed parameter does not exist in reality.

When oh when will they learn to add one plus one and make two, not 2.2 or even 3 ….?

Little wonder than that this man is heralded by the BBC as the “voice of climate scepticism” – it suits them well as his arguments are easy pickings.

We’ve tried in vain to make him see where he goes wrong. States that the “only debate in town is the degree of warming” when the harsh reality is that no warming at all can come from adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.

Consider just these few words by Alan Siddons:
Surrounded by a vacuum, the earth has only one means of losing heat: by radiation. Gosh, could it be that radiating CO2 assists that process?
Ever considered that the vacuum of space has no temperature and is in fact the best possible insulator we could wish for? Earth does not need a blanket to keep it warm, never mind the electric blanket that the beloved “greenhouse effect” is concocted to deliver us.

Our atmosphere in toto always acts as a cooling mechanism and as a delaying cooling mechanism when the sun doesn’t shine on it.

We’d be a darn side warmer if we had no “greenhouse gases” to help radiate solar heat away into the vacuum of space.

Best regards,

Hans Schreuder
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Bad Science Emissions Impossible Science Rules Scientific Fallacy The Data

Netting It

Post author By Jo
Post date January 30, 2011
1 Comment on Netting It

Christopher Booker and James Delingpole made common cause this weekend in opposition to the BBC 2 Horizon documentary “Science under Attack” that featured Paul Nurse :-

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074031/sir-paul-nurses-big-boo-boo/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html#dsq-content

The Daily Telegraph commentators appear not to understand the Global Carbon Cycle, and how this has been disturbed by mankind’s activities – principally burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees.

There is ongoing exchange between the soil and the air and the plants and the air, and the seas and the air, and so on; but the key Carbon Dioxide fact is that it is building up in the sky.

It’s not the gross figures that count, it’s the net.

The net is the amount that gets left in the air when all the absorption and emissions processes from the Carbon Sinks and the Carbon Sources have nearly cancelled each other out :-

In the Horizon programme the observation is made that mankind’s Carbon Dioxide emission production comes to around 7 gigatonnes a year. By contrast, volcanoes “popping off” and the oceans contribute only about 1 gigatonne – obviously, that’s net, not gross.

The amount of Carbon Dioxide exchanged in both directions between air and seas is much larger :-

Booker claims that the programme was a “misrepresentation”. Delingpole claims that Paul Nurse has demonstrated “really basic, idiot’s-level mistakes about “climate science””.

Amusingly for me, neither of them appear to suspect they could be barking up the wrong creek with the wrong paddle.

Be Prepared Big Picture Carbon Capture Carbon Taxatious Cost Effective Energy Change Energy Revival Engineering Marvel Fossilised Fuels Geogingerneering Major Shift Regulatory Ultimatum Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow

Polar Bear Co-Option

My print copy of New Scientist magazine slithers through the letterbox in its biodegradable plastic sheath and plops weightily on the doormat. Hours later I pick it up, and it crinkles with the promise of lots of juicy new information. What I’m not prepared for is the disappointment of the sell-out on the inside of the front cover :-

“Win a trip to the high Arctic and the deep sea : Ever wanted to see polar bears and whales in their natural habitats ? Or how about visiting the sea floor ? Here’s your chance : New Scientist has teamed up with Statoil, the global energy company, to offer one lucky winner and a guest the trip of a lifetime – to sail around the Svalbard archipelago inside the Arctic Circle, home to polar bears and whales, and to fly to the giant Troll platform, where you will visit the bottom of the North Sea. To win this amazing prize all you have to do is tell us, in no more than 100 words, which engineering project you think will have the greatest impact on human life in the next 30 years, and why. To find out more and to enter the competition go to www.newscientist.com/engineeringgreats. The closing date for entries is 2 March 2011.”

A large part of the page is taken up with a photograph of a polar bear, a poster child for Climate Change.

The implication-by-association is that Statoil want to protect the environment. But what’s their real business ? Shipping large quantities of Natural Gas – not exactly zero carbon fuel.

Not only that, but pages 10 and 11 of the magazine are an “advertising feature” on behalf of Statoil. The infommercial is in exactly the same style and typeface as the rest of the magazine, which I think is plain deceptive. Perhaps it is there to make sure that people entering the prize competition nominate Statoil’s technology as the “engineering great” for the future. That’s a bit rich. In one fell swoop the global energy industry have co-opted not only polar bears but the New Scientist magazine into the bargain !

The “advertising feature” features Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which is what Statoil is famous for with their Sleipner facility, where they inject excess Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from Natural Gas back into the field to store it. The “advertising feature” attempts to sell the “good idea” of CCS, but cleverly injects a bit of “balance” to take the reader along with it.

“…The conclusion so far is that the CO2 is safely stored…It’s not possible to be 100 per cent certain about this…”

I would have thought that if it’s not 100% locked down that some people might be quite unsure about relying on it. But anyway. It appears that the European Union and several other key players really believe in CCS technology, and are willing to put public funds into it :-

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/implementation_plan_2010_2012_eii_ccs.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/initiatives_en.htm

The only way that any business would buy into CCS would be if there is a carbon price differential implemented – as CCS adds costs to everything :-

“…Statoil made the choice to lock up the field’s CO2 for good business reasons: the Norwegian government would have levied a tax of $50 for every tonne of CO2 it emitted…”

But fitting CCS to power plants is going to be a lot different than the Sleipner project :-

“…Then there is the question of whether the technique can be extended to CO2 produced by combustion, in particular from fossil-fuel power stations…handling flue gases from power plants is going to require significant extra cost…”

So what kind of carbon price would support Carbon Capture and Storage ? $80 per tonne ? $120 per tonne ? That’s the kind of money our leaders are willing to shell out from tax revenues to support the continued burning of coal to make electricity. Wouldn’t it be better, more cost effective, to put the money into Renewable Energy technologies and just stop burning coal ? After all, coal could get a lot more pricey in the next few years :-

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-chinese-coal-monster-running-out-of-puff-2010-11

If I were in charge, I would recommend that nobody builds any new coal-fired power stations, and that we start a phase of withdrawal from coal-burning for power generation, forget about Carbon Capture and Storage and put the public money into financing the development of Biogas, BioSyngas and Renewable Hydrogen – zero carbon gas products that could replace Natural Gas and coal entirely.

Climate Change Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Revival Global Warming

Everything’s going to be just fine

Post author By Jo
Post date January 27, 2011
1 Comment on Everything’s going to be just fine

Image Credit : Ulla Norup Milbrath

Really, we can all relax.

We already have all the Renewable Energy technologies we need to power the whole world without a single molecule of carbon dioxide being pumped into the warming sky.

The wildcat growth in clean energy is exploding out of the record books, and we can reach and easily surpass our tough greenhouse targets, all by 2030.

https://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029784-54.html

https://www.fastcompany.com/1721388/study-100-renewable-energy-for-world-in-40-years-yes-only-our-doubts-in-the-way

The catch ? We do need to convince a number of key energy players to shift gear, and that may take a little effort and time.

There are also changes that can be useful demand-side as well as supply-side :-

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20037-efficiency-could-cut-world-energy-use-over-70-per-cent.html

We can do it if we adopt Engineering Development Goals :-

https://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/environment/Population

Climate Change Emissions Impossible Global Warming Green Power Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Social Change

Values, Schmalues

Image Credit : Climate Safety

As an experiment with the notion of “common values”, I recently sat in a cinema with a bunch of my fellow citizens and inhaled the film “The King’s Speech”.

They laughed with the jokes (as in fact I did, right on cue), mourned with the pain (which gave me cause for reflection, too); and gave a huge round of applause at the end.

And you know what, I could have been swept along and joined them, apart from one observation.

The triumph of the central character over his physical disability, the applause he received, both at the time and in the cinema, this was all whilst giving a message that the country was about to commence widescale violence towards another country – the declaration of war.

Everybody was cheering for war. I couldn’t join in.

It is to the good memory of David Fleming that I recommend you read his last published work, co-written with Transition Towns’ Shaun Chamberlin, “Tradable Energy Quotas : A Policy Framework for Peak Oil and Climate Change” :-

https://teqs.net/report/

Amidst all the psycho-sociological arguments being waged by political theorists and campaigny people about changing peoples’ values, and whether that’s right/useful or not, one plain fact should emerge like a tree to clutch in a flash flood – people respond to rules.

If the rules of the game are that we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, and everybody, including the energy production companies, are required to play a significant role, this fact alone establishes “common cause” and creates a framework for action.

Although the Climate Change Act is the law – a piece of legislation – it has yet to be fleshed out. Until it becomes clear what the exact policies, measures and instruments will be, agreed and implemented, there will continue to be massive amounts of flailing and flapping about, scepticism, recalcitrance, dogma and complaining.

When it becomes clear what the framework for the energy industry, big business and social provision will be, then people will knuckle down and accept the inevitable.

I’m not arguing for eco-fascism – far from it. Mistakes in policy are all too possible, and so strong engagement is required, far beyond the token democracy we are currently permitted to take part in. Taking part in a government consultation on energy and carbon emissions is about as effective as waving a placard in the direction of Downing Street, except you don’t run the risk of getting arrested for it.

The only thing the public are currently permitted to do is cut their own domestic emissions. They’re not allowed to have a say about what business or government do about emissions.

Yet despite this complete absence of public involvement, there are signs of progress. Once we have managed to fight our way through the windstorm of nonsensical technological “fixes” that are worse than useless; once we have some educated people in the Government and the Civil Service – education on matters of engineering rather than humanities; then we can start to see sense from the top.

Urgent request from the floor : please can the Government and industry please stop alienating people with calls for consumers to change their behaviour. It’s producing resistance, and that is a threat to progress on reducing emissions.

What do I think about changing values ? I don’t believe “we” should try to change values or behaviour. That amounts to manipulation in my view.

Wind of Fortune

Just keep spinning

You can’t keep a good idea down.

It worked for Renaissance Europe, and it will work for us, now, too.

Bait & Switch Emissions Impossible

Buying Our Love

Of all the pointless exercises in all the world…

It seems we are cheap buys.

https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/press-news/Mayor-backs-bid-for-a-Low-Carbon-London.shtml

“…Low Carbon London would provide the vital information link, matching models of the electricity distribution network of the future with real customer behaviour, and finding the best ways of empowering customers to reduce their electricity consumption and carbon emissions. Working directly with London communities and businesses, EDF Energy Networks would seek to help them learn how to manage their electricity demand…”

So…what precisely is EdF going to do to lower their own carbon emissions, and stop burning coal ?

And why do we continue to allow the coal-burning power companies to tell us to cut our carbon emissions ?

Behaviour Changeling Climate Change Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Dead End Emissions Impossible Media Money Sings Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Social Change Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Voluntary Behaviour Change Vote Loser

James Hansen’s Hate Mail

Image Credit : Earth Beat Radio

New Year, new hate campaign against Climate Change scientists :-

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

“Singing in the Rain : 26 January 2011 : In the past 2 – 3 weels I received a deluge of nasty-language messages saying that I should be fired, deported, run over, etc. Such a sudden burst of malice seems unlikely to be spontaneous.”

“Perhaps recent articles and internet stories provided stimulation, e.g., an article by Pat Michaels in the Washington Times and a statement by Richard S. Courtney on a blog. Michaels distorts the facts and uses quotes out of context. The Courtney statement […] mischaracterizes my testimony.”

“…The essence of my testimony, in both trials, was that the evidence for human-caused climate change is clear. I emphasized that the UK government, the fossil fuel industry, and the utility EON were aware of the effect of continued coal-burning on the future of young people. But instead of addressing the problem effectively, they engaged in greenwash…”

Over at MediaLens, the two (three) Davids are blanking the “every little bit helps” approach :-

“Focusing on personal consumption, and each of us ‘doing our bit’, is what we mean by the ‘debate’ being stuck on square one.”

Asking the general public to kindly remember to switch off their lights has had about as much impact as a light dusting of sugar. Looks pretty, but causes coughing fits when eating the cake.

I can’t wait for their comments on Climate Week :-

https://www.climateweek.com/

“One week to show how we can combat climate change…inspiring millions to act.”

Supported by David Cameron ! Sponsored by Tesco (owners of a very large and unnecessary carbon footprint) !

A zero carbon supermarket ? I really cannot believe it :-

https://www.greenweblog.net/2010/02/03/tesco-opens-world%E2%80%99s-first-zero-carbon-supermarket/

Note in the following that Tesco don’t intend to carbon label their transport systems, warehousing or stores – only the products that consumers buy :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/tesco-carbon-labels