Posts Tagged ‘ carbon pollution ’

Return to Sender


Via reader Carpe Jugulum who emails simply with a smile…

Very related.

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.

BS


Global warming BS has really been doing the rounds lately, hasn’t it?

Green’s leader Bob Brown wants to get his hands on the media… well media that doesn’t toe his BS line, anyway.

Labor apparatchiks GetUP! is coming to Julia’s rescue by offering her a forum tonight. Yes, much better to have it tightly controlled than be going into any shopping centres again!

Speaking of that carbon tax, the inevitable scamming has begun.

Here’s a squiz into Malcolm Turnbull’s possible motivations behind an ETS (I think you may know already). Tsk, tsk, Malcolm.

And over in the States, come September, our American friends are going to be subjected to 24 hours of non-stop BS in Al Gore’s latest brainwashing effort.

Finally, in non climate-related BS, how come it’s costing the UK 53 times less than Australia to deliver high speed broadband?

H/T All the fine folks here.

What do you think about the carbon tax?


Someone posed that question on /b/, and within an hour, here came the answers.

Note: Some of the language is crude, the screenshot may take a while to load, following some of the conversations may be difficult, not quite all of the debate could be captured due to file size limitations, however most of it was.

Click on the image under the fold.

Continue reading

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 🙄 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.

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

No Carbon Tax Rally (updated)


With a big thanks to reader and commenter Sean of Deer Park who was generous enough to email a whole bunch of piccies of the No Carbon (DIOXIDE!) Tax Rally outside PM Julia Gillard’s electoral office today.

And thanks for taking the time to give an account of the event (see below the fold).

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: