Posts Tagged ‘ carbon dioxide ’

Must be that global warming…


Of course it’s just weather, however.

While winter is a distant memory for most Americans, it continues unabated in Anchorage, Alaska — where a new bout of precipitation this weekend helped the city break its record for seasonal snowfall, at more than 133 inches (3.38 meters).

In fact, if there actually were some global warming (we haven’t seen any in 15 years), you might see some happier natives.

“Okay…now the records broken [it stood for 57 years - bing], could you please make the snow go away??!!”

Can’t blame whoever said that. Usually Alaska sees an average of around 60 inches or a full one and a half metres less snow over the long winter season.

And no wonder with news like that, we’re seeing the following.

Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement’s leading proponents has admitted.

Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Consensus, eh? Well, James. Perhaps people’s growing scepticism maybe, just maybe has something to do with that consensus and your their years of grossly exaggerated computer model BS fear-mongering that time has allowed us to check out.

And boy oh boy have there been some whoppers, such as these by Australia’s own government-funded $180,000 per year part time Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery.

Keeping it on the home front, it could be that folks became a little more cynical when the weather was used by a government that can’t balance the books as an excuse to impose a giant new tax on everyone.

Snakes selling snake oil [updated]


What a conjob.

Bjorn Lomborg:

AUSTRALIA’S carbon tax is being sold to the public with government-funded ads in which representatives from renewable energy companies make the case for the government policy.

Their arguments range from, “it’s got to be better to put wind turbines up”, to “other countries around the world are doing it”. One cites the example of Germany, which has led the world in subsidising solar panels.

Yes, Germany has spent more than $75 billion on inefficient solar technology delivering a mere 0.1 per cent of its total energy supply. And this will postpone global warming by how much? A whole seven hours by the end of the century.

The ads give the impression that solar and wind are ready to take over from fossil fuels. Yet, even in a very optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2035, solar and energy will contribute only about 1.6 per cent of global energy.

Read on.

Fancy that. The very people who will benefit the most from Julia’s carbon (dioxide!) tax via subsidies (read: your tax dollars taken from you and given to someone else) are the very people spruiking it.

How convenient.

UPDATE

Not content with silencing An Inconvenient Media, the Greens are now calling for boycotts of anyone who opposes their plans. Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we just put a star on their shopfronts and sleeves, Bob?

UPDATE

Bjorn Lomborg on the radio with Ross Greenwood discussing the carbon (dioxide!) tax.

A greener Earth


You naughty little essential trace gas, CO2!

A new study in Scienceexpress (Science magazine’s pre-paper-publication outlet) by Yude Pan of the U.S. Forest Service and colleagues finds that the net carbon sink in terrestrial forest systems across the globe has been expanding, taking up ever more carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere.

Rocket science: more nasty CO2 in the atmosphere – and Gaia doesn’t care whether it’s natual or man-made – leads to more (and bigger) vegetation.

Shouldn’t the alarmists be praising human CO2 emissions?

H/T Benny Peiser

Meanwhile, the BBC decides promoting The Agenda is more important than promoting facts and the scientific method.

One BBC executive, who has read the report, said: “It is about recognising when the debate has moved on beyond whether a theory is true or not, and on to what we do about it.”

That’s not science. That’s propaganda.

BTW, not just terrestrial plants of course…

Face-off


What a mess.

Global warming…climate change… dangerous climate change… carbon pollution… clean energy future

A reminder: Thorium energy


Thorium reactors would do far more to cut emissions (if that’s what you’re so concerned about) than any kind of carbon tax. It’s decades old proven technology and what’s really interesting is that it barely receives a mention from either side in the public “debate” we’re having.

YouTube “thorium” for more comprehensive videos.

Perhaps when PM Gillard mentions China as a beacon of environmentalism :roll: she’s conveniently omitting the steps China has taken towards implementing Thorium technology.

Thorium is one of the five abundant, long-lived, naturally-occurring radioactive elements in the Earth’s crust. The others are potassium, radon, radium, and uranium. There are several other naturally-occurring radioactive elements but they are rare and/or have short half-lifes.

But don’t worry. Thorium reactors won’t cause a zombie apocalypse.

However, thorium is much different than uranium when used as a nuclear fuel. It is not fissile; meaning it cannot go “critical” and generate a nuclear chain reaction. It must undergo neutron bombardment to produce a radionuclide that can sustain a nuclear reaction.

There are other significant advantages to the use of thorium in nuclear reactors. The raw material, thorium, is much more abundant than uranium and emits only low-level alpha particles. It has one isotope and therefore, does not require an enrichment cycle to be used as fuel. It is many times more energy efficient than uranium.

A thorium reactor produces no plutonium that can be made into atomic weapons and less longer-lived radionuclides than a uranium-based reactor. Because there is no chain reaction, there is no chance of a meltdown. Nuclear waste from past operations that contain fissile uranium and plutonium can be used as start-up fuel.

Read on.

Then there’s this from The Guardian’s eco page. It explains that Thorium reactors are safe, cheap, and produce the abundant energy that renewables simply can’t.

We worry about the environmental effects of mining and processing uranium. But thorium is far more abundant than uranium and is being mined already in the search for rare-earth minerals for renewable energy generators. Thus we don’t need new mining for LFTRs—actually much less—and we can use thorium highly efficiently.

Despite the many potential benefits, as things stand, generating energy from thorium remains unproven although R&D projects are being pursued in France, China and India.

The argument against?

China, Russia, France and the US are also pursuing the technology, while India’s department of atomic energy and the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are jointly funding five UK research programmes into it.

There is a significant sticking point to the promotion of thorium as the ‘great green hope’ of clean energy production: it remains unproven on a commercial scale. While it has been around since the 1950s (and an experimental 10MW LFTR did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology – theoretical.

As opposed to renewables where it already has been proven they don’t cut the mustard when it comes to powering our cities.

Well, of course they would


If not done, this won’t just drive up prices in Australia but also all the countries Aussie steel is exported to.

UNION leader Paul Howes has called for the steel industry to be exempted from a carbon tax to ensure its survival, as Greens leader Bob Brown conceded the tax was likely to put Australians out of work.

Thanks Bob, no really…

And not surprisingly, former treasurer (you know, the one that kept our budget in surplus) Peter Costello had a few unsurprising words to say on the carbon (dioxide) tax himself.

Mr Costello has officially been awarded the companion of the Order of Australia for service to parliament and his policies in tax, foreign investment, superannuation and corporate regulation.

Mr Costello used the opportunity to criticise the federal government’s plan to introduce a carbon tax saying after the ceremony it’d make life harder for Australian families.

And all for 0.00005 Celcius.

*shakes head*

Australia’s great carbon rip-off


Economics professor, Sinclair Davidson states what our government won’t – the bleeding obvious.

On the ABC’s Insiders yesterday, Finance Minister Penny Wong said: “This is not a tax that people pay; this is a tax that polluters pay.” That sounds all very reassuring, until we remember that Treasury thinks that household expenditure will go up by $860 per year for a $30 a tonne carbon tax.

What many people don’t know is that the carbon tax will have to be much more than $30 a tonne to be effective.

As both Leigh and Wong know the argument that only the big polluters will pay is nonsense, some might say dishonest. There are two points to remember. It is household demand for goods and services that gives rise to carbon pollution. In any event big polluters will simply pass on the cost to their customers. So we know the carbon tax will be paid out of the household budget through higher prices and in some cases job losses.

The reality is that while big polluters will have to pay money to government , the burden will fall on people.

Meanwhile, Alan Jones reckons enough’s enough and it’s time for another election. Hear, hear!

Remember, how much will Australia’s carbon (dioxide!) tax affect global temperatures? By 0.00005 Celcius.

More No Carbon Tax Rally photos


With a huge thanks to Magsx2 for sending these on; this tax – on carbon dioxide, not carbon – is still to be introduced, and there’s no use going quiet just because of some shrill MSM media.

And remember, folks, there’s an additional rally planned for Sydney, Hyde Park, 10:30 am on this Saturday, April 2nd.

UPDATE

Via Tim Andrews at Menzies House:

And this on a day where Carbon Tax Chief Salesman, palaeontologist Tim Flannery, admitted on radio [link here - bingbing] that, even if the entire world shut down all its carbon emmissions tomorrow, it would take a thousand years for the effects to be felt.

Caution: Extremists! warning. Violent fossils await!

Continue reading

Prime Minister Witchiepoo


Reader Sean emails (link added):

Dude… I was reading Blair’s blog before about Gillard and her crazy laugh. Spot’s comment, for some reason, reminded me of WitchiePoo.

Harsh? Perhaps. Or is it more of a case of this?

Oi, Julia: if you’re so convinced of your carbon (dioxide!) tax grab, why not take up Andrew Bolt’s offer for a love-in? But be nice and quit the cackling, mmmkay?

BTW, what will it cost? What will it do?

What our “carbon” tax might look like


Via emails between yours truly and J.M. Heinrichs; it could well be implemented just by taxing our fuel sources. After all, that’s what they did in Canada even though it’s technically a tax on CO2 over there, too(emphases are mine).

Bing:

I’m still trying to wrap my dumb head around the carbon tax you guys have in Canadia and make a post of it.

JM explains the rationale but makes it sound like he’s all for it (more on that later):

Ignore the whole discussion over whether carbon is good or bad, or does it really exist. The goal is to establish a tax which will influence (read ‘control’) fossil fuel consumption, with the aim of reducing that consumption to zero as soon as possible.
Carbon is the substance which provides a metric with which that consumption can be measured. Plus it is buried in the fuel prior to burning (and thus hidden), but becomes a separable, visible, and measurable substance in the exhaust duct. Controlling fuel consumption directly is fraught with difficulties due to heat or lack there of, electricity or lack there of, etc. Carbon as the by-product of interest is one step removed and thus less immediately visible, and by putting controls on it, you now can control the fuel burning; and the lack of heat/electricity is an unavoidable effect of controlling the carbon.

Putting the tax on is not a problem, and indeed is a moral imperative, but a straight tax would not be progressive; it would not impact primarily the rich who deserve to pay and who have the unencumbered finances with which to pay. Rather the poor and unfortunate lower class persons would be ‘hurt’ by bearing an unfair portion of the tax. Thus the various measures to bring in the tax at a low level and increase it over time, which has it ‘sneak up’ on the rich so that they will not take measures to avoid paying their fair share.

The tax itself is not supposed to be a financial measure to feed the government coffers; that would be a bad thing. It is intended to teach people that they can do with less, by charging them more and creating a marketplace based on civic virtue development. Thus the majority of the initial tax received is cycled back into the community via rebates to the less well-off. As the tax rises on each ton of carbon produced, the additional amounts can be directed at funding important initiatives which will further reduce fossil fuel consumption. One problem is that the tax as currently constituted is for fuel consumed by combustion. Facilities which process petroleum into products such as plastics are taxed only on the fuel they burn. This is of course unfair, and measures are being pushed to ensure all petroleum use it treated as if it was combustion only.

In the end, we will be paying a market price for carbon, financing good things in the community and using less poisonous oily stuff.

A confused bingers (JM’s a Greenie??!):

Is that your rationale, their rationale, or both?

It appears it’s going to be considerably different in Australia. The tax our PM wants wouldn’t be taxing fuel, and actually won’t be taxing carbon, even though it’s being touted as a “carbon tax”. The one we’re getting will be a tax, by the ton, on carbon dioxide. Industries will have to caluculate how many tons of CO2 was expelled in their manufacturing process and pay accordingly (about $26 a ton is the figure being bandied about). Naturally, those extra costs will be passed onto the consumer and we will have to pay more for everything whilst not doing a damn thing to save the planet. This is especially bad for our coal power plants and the extra taxes they would have to pay would make them inviable. My folks in Oz are already paying about four times more for electricity than I do in Korea – electricty that comes from Australian coal ironically enough (and yes, I know, there’s much less infrastructure costs for it here).

Also, our mining and farming industries will get concessions so you have to wonder just how much less CO2 Australia will actually release into the atmosphere (even though the amount we do currently is extremely negligible [1.5% of 0.002% of the atmosphere]).

I really don’t like what you guys seem to have in Canada, either. A car’s catalytic converter prevents most carbon going out the exhaust. I’d rather governments offer more incentives and cash for R&D projects into wind, solar, geothermal and especially fusion and thorium even though ultimately, this should be up to the private sector. Plus it’s in the car manufacturers’ best interests to make their cars more fuel efficient, and government doesn’t necessarily have to be too involved in that one.

Plus, in light of the media hype surrounding the Fukashima plants in Japan, no-one will probably ever go more nuclear for a while, although there are a few new plants in the US which are still to the best of my knowledge being built (well, the parts for them are – in Korea), and I haven’t heard anything about Korea scaling back its push to be a world leader in the development and export of nuclear power technology.

I don’t see an unlimited future for using petrol in our cars, but a tax isn’t the right way to go about it. Taxing the rich more because “they can afford it” and giving more to the poor kills incentive and smacks of socialist wealth redistribution which historically doesn’t really work that well in the long run.

As a general rule of thumb, I’m against big government. They haven’t worked in the past so why should they work in the present or the future?

JM:

I understand what you are saying, but I suggest that by the time the legislation is written, the tax will be calculated in terms of fuel consumed. Our tax is officially based on CO2 emissions, but for convenience, applied to the fuel price. And $25 per tonne is the current tariff only; the progs want a tax in the area of $200. Plus no concessions. Check my links, because regardless what your pols might say, our setup is likely to become yours.

Nucs- in the short term perhaps but the rational types are already kicking back quite hard.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/fukushima_update_tuesday/

Cars- we are at the mercy of the Numbnuts in California. They do their special things and we end up follow obediently behind. Should we try something different, they are upset and whimper about WTO actions.

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1056760_2011-nissan-leaf-leaves-owners-stranded-what-really-happened

Here I start getting really worried!

But to reiterate in other words, are you for or against the carbon tax you guys have in Canada?

James

I would have thought you’d be against it.

JM assures the blogosphere:

I’m sorry; I’m against it. Along with anything else remotely associated with ‘green policies’. Better use of resources, greater efficiencies, less pollution, reduced waste I can support; but the anti-normative attempts to revise society and its behaviours do not meet with my approbation. And I don’t like them.

Bing:

Phew!

Your initial blurb had me a bit worried, hence me asking was it your rationale, theirs, or both!

Don’t scare people like that!!!

LULZ. Anyway, yeah, a tax on fuel sources when all’s said and done, perhaps.

More:

There is supposed to be a rebate for qualified persons, but apparently I do not qualify, Likewise, neither do my parents. At present, the tax is at a level ($20/tonne) that businesses are possibly burying in their various costs, but the plans are that the tax begin to increase to the ‘fair level’ ($30/tonne). The progs want it to go to $200.

Apparently, according to one supporter: “… the tax has been more than matched by tax cuts and credits – in 2008 and 2009, the tax raised $846 million, and the cuts and credits for taxpayers totaled almost $1.1 billion.”

From the wishful thinking do-gooders:
1. http://www.policynote.ca/fair-and-effective-carbon-pricing/
2. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/fair-and-effective-carbon-pricing

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2011/02/CCPA-BC_Fair_Effective_Carbon_SUMMARY_0.pdf

3. http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/carbon-tax-fact-sheet-sept14.pdf
4. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/workingcarbontax mediocre show-and-tell

“Beginning July 1, 2008, the new Climate Action Credit will provide lower-income British Columbians a payment of $100 per adult and $30 per child per year — increasing by 5 per cent in 2009 and possibly more in future years ($395 million over three years).”
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/backgrounders/backgrounder_carbon_tax.htm
Which I have not seen.

Basically, it’s there and it’s functioning, although I have yet to feel it directly. However, I have not noticed any of the promised ameliorative actions. And the progs want blood.

How?


No jobs to go overseas due to Julia’s carbon scheme… How? With magic fairy dust? Oh, she won’t allow it.

JULIA Gillard has promised she will not allow jobs in heavily polluting trade-exposed industries to go overseas under her emissions pricing regime, and declared that this year may be the nation’s last chance to strike a deal on a carbon price.

So, if we can hold out another eight months or so…

There will be no clown tax…


Seano, good stuff.

Hair on a bridge


Via reader and commenter Sean of Deer Park on the Intertubes, we see yet another good analogy of just how bad Australia’s dirty, yucky, immoral and well, just plain naughty carbon pollution really is.

Author unknown:

Subject: Food for thought about getting taxed even more for someone else’s carbon! Do not have to be engineer to understand.

Let’s put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would
be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realise the insignificance of carbon
dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and maybe they
will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand
to gain by the ETS.

Here’s a practical way to understand the PM’s Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the
atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what the
PM calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by the PM.
It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers ’till its 1
kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that the PM says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.
We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the
world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Just 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Just 5% of that is man-made carbon dioxide. Yes, just 0.002% of the atmosphere is “our” carbon dioxide. And Australia only produces at best 1.5% of that 0.002%.

BTW, with any luck, come Sunday, there should be some nice piccies of the rally outside Julia Gillard’s Werribee office this Saturday.

Thanks, mate.

Obama’s green jobs fail


And it cost ‘em over a trillion dollars last year.

…A partial list from the report shows the stalled or delayed proposals included 22 nuclear projects, 1 nuclear disposal site, 21 transmission projects, 38 gas and platform projects and 111 coal projects… [and] renewable energy isn’t exempt from the slowdowns either. Included are 140 renewable energy projects, notably 89 wind, four wave, 10 solar, seven hydropower, 29 ethanol/biomass and one geothermal project.

Speaking of green jobs… 3.7 real jobs are being lost for every 1 green job created over in the UK. Similar cases have been reported in Spain and elsewhere.

Oh yes, and why not give this pearler another run…

AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD: Yes.

AB: Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB: That’s right. You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature? Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. It’s 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.

AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You don’t know the cost. Do you know the result?

JD: I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB: So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?

JD: Sorry, can you just pass that by me again? You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB: If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?

JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?

AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what I’m curious about; that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You don’t know what it costs. And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD: Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB: Well what’s your modelling? That’s the one that everyone’s quoting. What’s your modelling?

JD: Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits. In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies. In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

Yep, they don’t know how much or even what it will do.

Remember, just 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Just 5% of that is man-made carbon dioxide. Yes, just 0.002% of the atmosphere is “our” carbon dioxide. And Australia only produces at best 1.5% of that 0.002%.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: