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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: