What follows is a simple commented list of links to various articles, reports and video's that I have read and viewed since mid November. These articles and reports centre around the Copenhagen summit, climate change, the scientific process, the famous hockey stick graph, the Leaked UEA CRU Emails, the failures of new technology, replacements energy supplies, the fallacy of perpetual growth, the fallacy of Cap and Trade and the winners and losers of Copenhagen.
If you want to avoid reading through my commentary please go to the bottom of the page where you will find a list of links that I hope you will find interesting and hopefully infuriating.
Carbon Footprints and Golden Handshakes
What is the message we should draw from Copenhagen? Controlling CO2 Emissions? Or defining the relationship between the rich and the poor in the post carbon world? Was this the headline? Delegates Do Their Bit to Save The Planet In Historic Internet Summit? A willingness to play by the same rules? I don't think so. In Pepe Escobar's piece in the Asian Times, 'Hopenhagen's Durty Secret' he highlights the hypocrisy on show:
"Stretch limo from KyotoThe level of real debate in this country is shamefully low. We blindly accept the fact that this is going on without a comment. Not even a word from Swampy and his pals. People have been so conditioned that they don't make the connection between stated intention and actions-- Private Jet-Stretch Limo-Copenhagen-Agreement-on- CO2. We do not question the behavior, apparently they have a different CO2 account from the rest of us. Still what chance against the drip drip drip of constant propagandizing advertising- in the UK. The applauds will be loud for agreement in Copenhagen, but why? The Times educational supplements Martin Cohen explains it in his article 'Beyond Debate' :
Congested by 1,200 stretch limos (and only five electric cars) and 140 private jets serving the real VIPs among the 15,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders gorging on rows of sustainable foie gras (plus free sex - courtesy of Copenhagen's 1,400-strong sex worker's union; talk about carbon dating ..."
"Social scientists call it "cascade theory": the idea is that information cascades down the side of an "informational pyramid", like a waterfall. It is easier for people, if they do not have either the ability or the interest to find out for themselves, to adopt the views of others. This is, without doubt, a useful social instinct. As it has been put, cascade theory reconciles "herd behaviour" with rational choice, because it is often rational for individuals to rely on information passed on to them by others.In the west, or at least in Europe we feel smug when we compare our carbon footprint with China, but how smug should we be? Is it our wonderful technology? Is our care for the planet? Or all due to our low energy bulbs? Or is it something else? On the 8th December in the UK House of Lords Lord Turnbull commented:
Unfortunately, it is less rational to follow wrong information, and that is what can often happen. We find people cascading uselessly - like so many wildebeest fleeing a non-existent lion - in so many everyday ways. A lot of economic activity and business behaviour, including management fads, the adoption of new technologies and innovations, not to mention the vexed issues of health and safety regulation, reflect exactly this tendency of the herd to follow poor information."
"Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK’s carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation’s carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world’s largest emitter. The embedded carbon calculation is, I accept, far more complicated, but it is far more honest.How commited is Al Gore, the superstar of green? According to Drew Johnson and the Tennessee centre for policy research Not much. (Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth )
"Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. "If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
According to Mark Braly of renewableenergy.com. its the money spinner of the centuary.
Jim Rogers, Duke Energy's outspoken CEO, recently told a Wall Street Journal conference in Santa Barbara that the advocates of auctioning are an "unholy trinity": politicians with "visions of sugar plum and earmarks" dancing, carbon traders looking for an auction-led explosion of their business; and "radical environmentalists who want to punish anybody who uses coal."If your a supporter of Action Against Global Climate Change, Now do you understand where this is really going? Write and tell me I'm wrong.
CO2 Not The Devil
E.P.A. Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules
"WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States."
Whatever the American EPA (See (See The Carlin Report) may announce, CO2 is not a pollutant in the common sense of the word, if it were the EPA should then have to declare the same for Oxygen which in comparison is positively dangerous. Oxygen assists combustion thus is a potentially lethal threat to wooden houses and via Oxidisation, also destroys steel bridges and cars. Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, suggests that CO2 is strongly linked to rising temperatures but even this is not a proven fact in some senses. It seems that Gore may have understated the inconvenient truth of CO2 lag time. Eleven other inconvenient truths were identified in the British High Court ruling on the films distribution in schools. which states that:
The decision by the British Government to distribute Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film. In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.The court ruled:
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.Click For a Full Transcript of the 2007 Case
ScienceBits says:
It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores. This is of course chaff to cover the fact that when CO2 and temperature are measured with the same cores, or when carefully comparing different cores, a lag of typically several hundred years is found to be present, if the quality and resolution permit.CO2 Science Says:
This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988).So CO2 may be response to raised temperatures on earth due to cyclical earth wobbles, elliptical orbits and anomalies in sunspot activity rather than the other way around.
According to the recent International Conference on climate change held in New York in March 2009. Delegates pointed to a consistent cycle of warm and cool periods lasting 27 years that exactly fits the pattern of recorded temperatures. The Belfast Telegraph reported in a article titled Pouring cold water on Global Warming
Nearly ten years into the 21 century it is clear that the UN IPCC computer models have gone badly astray. The IPCC models have predicted a one degree increase in global temperature by 2011 with further large temperature rises to 2100. Yet there has been no warming since 1998 with a one degree cooling this year being the largest global temperature change ever recorded. Nasa satellite imagery from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has confirmed that the Pacific Ocean has switched from the warm mode it has been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period.
The Hockey sticks, And Hacks
Now we come to the case of the famous 'Hockey Stick Diagram' showing rising levels of CO2 in conjunction with rising temperature.
McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".Another item of importance that was touched upon in the same article was the validity of the algorithms used in the computer program that was written to produce the Hockey stick diagram in the first place. While during my own education in programming I was introduced to the maxim, garbage in garbage out I was told very little about Cherry Picked Data In, Hockey Stick Out or as it seems Random Data In Hockey Stick Out. Still if its all about getting results then the programmer certainly did a good job. The Article states:
"The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it."The UK's Telegraph had this to say (While referring to the Leaked UEA Emails and Documents) in their article 'Climate Change: This is The Worst Scientific Scandal Of Our Genaration':
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
"In 1995 a senior researcher into early climate told David Deming, a climate researcher, that “we have to abolish the medieval warm period” (Deming, 2005). Not “we need to re-examine the temperature record of the past millennium”, but “we have to abolish the medieval warm period.”
See Also But Not Least Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data Lots of info plus graphs and comment.The existence of a prolonged warm period so recently in the Earth’s climate history was making it impossible for the environmental extremists driving the “global warming” scare to convince the world’s policymakers that today’s comparatively temperate temperatures were anything to worry about. The “hockey stick”, therefore, was a deliberate attempt to falsify the true climate record"
The Hacked Emails also show that some scientists who are trying to prove the case for AGW are having trouble with their climate models
It seems that conveniently the UEA, after a freedom of information act request found that they had thrown away the raw data on which the climate models used by the IPCC were based. The Times Online reports in Climate Change Data Dumped. the article comments:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.One Reader commented:
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
Joe Horner wrote:"Dear Inland Revenue, I enclose my latest accounts. Please note that I accidentally destroyed all the original invoices but I promise they were all entered correctly. Honest"
Truely unbelievable!
Even George Monbiot took the allegations seriously enough as he writes article in the Guardian: Global Warming Rigged? here's the email I need to see: He Says:
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad (LOOK BAD THEY ARE BAD!). There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.Wiki leaks goes further and says in an article CRU emails reveal a worrying pattern of bad behaviour
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
"Much has been made of an email by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, where he says: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The word “trick” doesn’t suggest anything untoward, rather being somewhat clever about some technique. “Hide” could be a problem.......It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”.......the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals. "The Washington Post comments on the Emails in the article: In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"Take this from report in Geophysical Research Letters Online A strong bout of natural cooling in 2008 That confirms Phil Jones admission that global mean temparatures have fallen:
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.'
"A precipitous drop in North American temperature in 2008, commingled with a decade-long fall in global mean temperatures, are generating opinions contrary to the inferences drawn from the science of climate change."However they do get back on message in the last few sentances when they say:
"The implication is that the pace of North American warming is likely to resume in coming years, and that climate is unlikely embarking upon a prolonged cooling."So when Phil Jones wrote: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant" in 2005 would he think that 10 years of data was significant? How many years would be significant? Maybe only the years of increasing global temperatures?
One funny little thing I came across by Proffessor Dr Knorr from the University of Bristol about CO2 Absorption Remains Steady since 1850, it state amongst other things that:
"According to a study performed by a team at University of Bristol U.K. led by Dr Wolfgang Knorr, the changes in the airborne fraction of CO2 has remained virtually unchanged since 1850 at 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade. That would be an amount without statistical distinction from zeroI love the bit about "this author will draw no conclusions", He obviously enjoys his work at Bristol University, But he does make a wonderful little observation about "computer generated models" and the distinction to be made with "Empirical data". Steady on Old Boy.
This author will draw no conclusions except to state that the use of computer generated models appears to be only as good as the data used to program the software. The use of empirical data would seem to be of much greater usefulness in trying to develop programs and restrictive patterns of energy use which will be in effect for many decades."
See Also: The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition Are we feeling warmer yet?
Watch Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick and the genesis of Climate Gate
Part 1
Part 2
The Cloak and Dagger World Of climate Change
Also from the Man who brought you the presentation to the national Academy of Sciences 2006 is a wonderful piece from climateaudit.com that managed to miss the main stream news headlines entitled: Met Office/CRU Finds the Mole by Steve McIntyre on July 28th, 2009
"More news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.As I see it someone wants to roll out the cold war again, in an article in the Telegraph (December 7th) "Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?" it points the finger of blame on the Hackers in the Kremlin. Apparently according to the Telegraph, Big Oil is trying to pour cold water on the Copenhagen talks, How original. But as the above makes it rather clear, Seems like its an inside job old boy. On the http://newschoolsecurity.com in an article called Hackers treated as credible sources of information (D’oh!) one of the reader commentators pointed out:
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."
McIntyre has just recently been denied in his appeal of the rejection of his most recent FOI. http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/Hum, I dare say that in the days that follow (today is 8th December) we may see a few more references to 'Russia and big oil interests'.
Putting these together, plus imminent start of the Copenhagen Climate Summit…
… it doesn’t take a detective genius to see that the current data breach/theft/leak is probably just a continuation of this on-going war between these parties. It’s also likely that the same “mole” is also responsible or involved in this breach.
RUSSIAN BLACK HATS, MY ASS!
Is NASA is getting into the same act?
Al Gore's Flat Earth Society
Recently Al Gore and others have referred to the ‘handful of scientists’ who deny global warming as ‘Flat-Earthers’ and akin to those who believe that the moon landings were faked on a film lot in Arizona but this again is far from the truth as the following statement from the US Senate Committee on Environment and public works minority report testifies.
U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC."
Not only are the UN IPCC ignoring many Scientists who have related interests and expertise in the areas of climate but are also ignoring economists. According to Prof. Ross McKitrick University of Guelph Submission to UK House of Lords Inquiry into Aspects of the Economics of Climate Change the UN IPCC :
"could no longer claim to have the participation of mainstream professional economists after 1995.......This has led to a growing body of criticism of the IPCC’s handling of economic issues. The SRESReport does not use conventional economic modeling to produce what would normally be called “forecasts” or “projections”. They call their outputs “storylines” and “scenarios” and emphasize that they are speculative, yet at the same time they market the results as “predictions."See Also: Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.” Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. March 2,2006
Please visit and Download all of the presentations from many leading scientists in Climate change theory from the Heartland Institute. The simple fact is that many scientists question the data and methods of AGW Scientist and that is a natural behaviour for them. While they certainly have something worthwhile to say on the subject they have been very much ignored by the mainstream media. But worse than just being ignored is being hounded as Michel Chossudovsky says in Global Warming: "Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy"
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen (See Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence., Global Research, 7 April 2007)
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Roll on the Big Money Boys
The fact that global temperatures have begun to level since 1998 (as illistrated in the CRU Hacked Emails), sea levels remained steady going up and down, Polar Bears thrive and the IPCC climate models are for the want of a better phrase, 'not entirely true' means nothing to 'The Science'. Whatever the arguments now reality will simply have to conform to the hypothesis. Mike Dumke's observes in his blog entitled 'Climate Change legislation: If the big money guys want it, it's probably going to happen'
"......there are increasing signs that Congress will be compelled to enact some kind of carbon cap-and-trade law soon. The most significant is that lots of rich guys think they can make money off it.....Yesterday JPMorgan Chase, one of the last giant American banks, announced plans to buy an Irish company called EcoSecurities that specializes in the carbon offset and carbon trading business. Last year JPMorgan acquired Climate Care, another company that specializes in carbon offsets. As Reuters reports, most other major banking firms—including Bank of America / Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs—have also invested in the markets for carbon offsets....Why are they getting into the business? Not because they want to save the planet (though hopefully they do). They obviously think it's going to make them big money..."See Also: (UN Infects Science with the Cancer of Global Warming Edward F.Blick PhD )
See Also: (FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)
According to the [The Investor.com] Al Gore Stands to make a fortune out of Cap and Trade:
"Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is. When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some......He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood."It seems it is yet another opportunity to shuffle the numbers to maintain control of the game. About Copenhagen Pepe Escobar's piece in the Asian Times, 'Hopenhagen's Durty Secret says:
Then, early this week, the "secret" text of a draft proposal for the final political agreement that should be signed by everyone - including US President Barack Obama - at the end of the summit on December 18 was leaked. And Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the Group of 77 plus China, went on overdrive, "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal." China and India are obviously, resolutely against the "secret" text.According the Guardian in Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations
So this is what the wealthy North is basically concocting, according to the South - to "destroy both the UN convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol", in the words of Di-Aping. Kyoto is the only global agreement so far that legally obliges the North to reduce gas emissions. Now the North wants a shady "green fund" to be run by a secretive board, which in the end would translate into the World Bank and a consortium of non-UN agencies. In sum: the North got away with polluting of the planet for decades, but the South has to be regulated.
"But the representatives of developing nations felt betrayed by the intent of the proposals in the draft.
"This text destroys both the UN convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. This is aimed at producing a new treaty, a new legal initiative that throws away the basis of [differing] obligations between the poorest and most wealthy nations in the world," said Di-Aping.
The existing treaty is the only global agreement that legally obliges rich countries to reduce their emissions.
Di-Aping is one of the most outspoken of developing country leaders, at once charming and radical.
What the west had failed to grasp, he said, was the very deep hurt that had been growing steadily since the climate negotiations were effectively taken over by heads of state and were conducted outside the UN, the only forum in which poor countries feel they are equally represented.
The text is now likely to be withdrawn because of its reception by China, India and many other developing countries. It suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week."
What we are talking about are restrictions on development for the emerging nations and far higher energy costs for the rest of the world. While many Eco Warriors may feel this is a price worth paying why ever do they wish to enrich the very corporations who brought us the biggest financial crisis the world has ever known. In an article entitled 'Climate Change Bill to Heat up Senate' states the following
"House Republicans—argue that the bill is no more than a national energy tax that would, in fact, cause the economy to shed more jobs rather than gain them. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, clearly lays out much of the opposition's view in a column published by Reuters, highlighting issues such as the lack of technology to meet the would-be requirements under the legislation: "Meeting these standards now is technologically impossible without radically reducing our standards of living, but Congress is hoping that technology will magically appear as needed." As well as the effect it would have on businesses: "Not only does the bill penalize American firms through higher costs, it gives firms a financial incentive to move abroad through 'offsets,' activities that supposedly lower carbon emissions elsewhere."However, if the emerging world is bribed at Copenhagen as planned at previous meetings six months ago it will not either make up for the losses caused by the conditionalities levied on the poor or create benefits that people in the rich sponsoring countries hoped for. But it will revive the Neo Liberal Stranglehold that looked so shaky a few years back.
Climate meetings in Bangkok and Barcelona in the run up to Copenhagen have also drawn significant attendance from senior World Bank officials. "Whilst the Bank is trying hard to publicly play down its role, it is actually lobbying behind the scenes for a central role in future climate finance through its bilateral negotiations with developed and developing countries," said Kit Vaughan of WWF-UK. "This does not play well with many of the G77 and developing countries that want finance to be entirely under the authority of the UN COP and for these decisions to be made by the COP in December."IIn the midst of the worst Recession 60 years the US and the UK's plan to pledge billions in teaser loans for the south. Climate Chief Yvo de Boer in an interview for Routers entitled UN Climate Chief Seeks 10bn Rich Nation Pledge he said the following:
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. environmental chief called on rich nations on Thursday to pledge $10 billion a year for three years at next month's Copenhagen summit to help poor states begin to tackle the impact of climate change. Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told a news conference that was a short-term figure and that in 10 or 20 years hundreds of billions of dollars would be needed annually to cope with global warming."
Big Bangs for your buck and Barack's Biggest Bets
Barack Obama Bets The Farm in$4 Trillion Poker Game
"What he (Obama) unveiled last week was one of the most audacious agendas announced by a new president. He declared his intention not just to pump trillions of dollars into a short-term rescue for the economy, but also to press ahead with enormously costly plans to trigger a green industrial revolution.....What has begun to trouble some even within his own party is that Mr Obama's pledge to spend the US out of recession, while slashing the budget deficit to $533 billion within four years, already looks recklessly optimistic."Obama wants to bring the world back to the way it was before the crash but that cannot happen again or at least shouldn't. James Howard Kunstler puts it this way in his article Courting Convulsion
"The main "historic circumstance" mandating these changes goes under the heading of "peak oil." We've come to the end of our ability in this world to increase energy inputs to the global economy. The routine "growth" in industrial activity and production that has been the basis of our financial arrangements for 200-odd years is no longer possible. Offsetting this decline in oil energy "input" with "alt.energy" is a dangerous fantasy because it distracts us from the urgent task of making new arrangements for trade, food production, et cetera - the very things that would provide jobs and social roles for our citizens in the future
Recycling From Cradle To Grave- Just As Long As Its Quick, Or We Gotta Shift Those Microwave Ovens
The industrialized recycling systems are another testament to stupidity, a solution to a problem caused by our lock step connection to the virtues of perpetual growth. We feel virtuous when we throw our metal into the metal container and our glass into the glass container and so on but largely speaking recycling is most wasteful and largely unnecessary, it is costly in energy and time and by its nature destroys something that with some work, or non at all could remain serviceable for many years. If a jar is a jar then let it stay a jar don't smash it, transport it, melt it and make another jar out of it, buy loose and refill the 'STORAGE JAR'. After all we don't throw away our petrol tanks when they are empty! Multiply this action by a million and you save a million jar transporting units of energy and a million jar melting units of energy and re manufacturing units and so on. In the House of Lords December 8th Lord Giddens remarked:I have objections to the form of the report, which essentially uses an additive or wedge approach. You get a certain proportion from this technology, a certain proportion from that technology, a certain proportion from this one, a certain proportion from lifestyle change, and so forth. The main problem is that the implications of each of these for all the others are not properly traced out. For example, new forms of taxation are mentioned at many places; they have to be put together and their overall implications assessed. If you recognise that we are talking about transformative change, you have to look at this holistically; you have to look at the impact of everything on everything else. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Stern, thinks-he may disagree-but it seems to me that even though the term "low-carbon economy" is readily bandied around, we do not really know what it will look like. We need to do a lot more intellectual work on it. It cannot possibly be an economy of the sort we have now, just with some renewable technologies grafted on. These sorts of transformations are pretty profound and therefore have implications for everything -employment, welfare, fiscal systems, skills training, and so forth. I see a huge task for economic, social and political theory in trying to work out what an overall low-carbon economy would be and how it would relate to active industrial policy, because it is plain that we must move back to that.Herman Daly Festschirft in a article named Socially Sustainable Economics puts the economic case very well when he says:
"When the economist’s real economy grows, it indeed allows to pay back some or all the debt, when it does not grow enough, debts are defaulted. The mountain of debt had grown in 2008 much beyond what the increases in GDP could pay back. The situation was financially not sustainable. But the GDP itself was not ecologically sustainable. Down below, in the basement and foundations of the economic building, underneath the economists’ real economy, there is the third level: the ecological economists’ real-real economy, the flows of energy and materials (carried by trucks and ships). Their growth depends partly on economic factors (types of markets, prices) and in part from physical limits. At present, there are not only resource limits but also conspicuous sink limits. Climate change is caused mainly by of the excessive burning of fossil fuels.
The Tyranny Of The Greedy and The Stupid
George Monbiot said on the 14th December in an article on Copenhagen titled 'This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity'
"While economies grow, social justice is unnecessary, as lives can be improved without redistribution. While economies grow, people need not confront their elites. While economies grow, we can keep buying our way out of trouble. But, like the bankers, we stave off trouble today only by multiplying it tomorrow. Through economic growth we are borrowing time at punitive rates of interest. It ensures that any cuts agreed at Copenhagen will eventually be outstripped. Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet."Oil and gas have played key roles in the production of fertilizers, pesticides the powering of agricultural machinery and the green revolution. The green revolution is the enabling factor behind exponential rates of growth in populations. Exponential growth rates of this magnitude are by and large a key problem of modern society. Where do we take such a problem? How do we, fine green liberals, decide when who and how to limit population growth? By denial?
The powers plan a re-invigoration of exactly the same economic model that just rolled over and died, only this time under banner of the green agenda. So we build a few windmills and put some solar panels on our houses. But for those of you who believe the green energy growth economy is some kind of plug and play exercise, think on this for a moment. [New York times]
"In 1973, oil accounted for 46 percent of the world's total energy consumption; by 2005, its share had declined to 35 percent. But oil remains well ahead of other energy sources: coal meets 25 percent of the world's energy needs, natural gas is next with a market share of 20 percent, and nuclear power meets 6 percent of the planet's energy needs."
So that's a staggering 86% of our current energy consumption still arrives at the plug face curtisy of oil, gas and coal. So far, 14% is tidal, wind, solar, bio fuel, and little geothermal. How do we make up the shortfall? As an exercise I invite you to find out just how much a solar panel/wind turbine system would cost, then when you get it installed, see how long you can run your washing machine and dishwasher before the diesel generator kicks in or you start drawing power from the grid. (and we expect the poor to adopt this technology?) Here's another fact, a 4Kw solar panel will cost about £5000 on which you'll be lucky to generate enough power to boil less than two kettles of water. So we can carry on as we always have in some futuristic scenario gaily boiling kettles of water and feeling smug? No, We can't, if 'WE' can barely afford to go green, spare a thought to the majority of the world who can barely afford a kettle. Financing the vast capital projects needed in what I would term the 'green tack on technology model' is more than risky. Green revolution technologies remain immature and unproven. We may build the energy solution equivalent of the music CD or MP3 but equally we may build the equivalent of the 8-track cartridge player. On this subject Lord Reay makes the point in the House Of Lord on the 8th December when he remarked:"Wind farms also eat up capital that should be spent on more appropriate efforts to resolve our looming energy crisis. In this regard, the chief executive of Ofgem had some ominous words for MPs last week when he told them that the major energy companies now had serious capital constraints and that the United Kingdom was in danger of losing its position as a prime place for energy investment. We do not live in a world in which we can afford to waste vast sums on the wrong priorities."Our ability to secure the energy effects our ability to act so while building one’s new eco- paradise on what remains of our fossil fuel inheritance we have to be sure it’s the right kind of paradise beforehand. The paradise of the bankers maybe a very different from the paradise of our choice, theirs would be full of debt and interest payments. Given what we now know about the kind of people who led us to the current catastrophe, how confident do you feel about our chances, once they get their hand on our future. Solutions exist to bridge the energy gaps but I think the REAL solutions will not be of a kind that will please our governments or our current system of commerce. That is why we need to be proactive in the process and develop and demonstrate our own solutions rather than leave the job to others as we have to date. GET INVOLVED WRITE A LETTER, Do Something!
Fred Hoyle warned us:
It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)
In the Hirsch Report Hirsch observes that preparation for any kind of energy transformation (for whatever reason) needs to take place twenty years before the event if we are to avoid economic and social problems. The longer we ignore the problem by miss-reporting Key oil figures , miss-interpreting the nature of our problems, the more difficult the road to our solutions will become. While we would all like to think that our current selection of clean sources of energy are the 'Magic Bullet', a range of problems needs to be resolved before we can be confident of our energy future. Today's alternatives suffer from problems of transportability, storage, intermittent supply, uneconomic production, need vast infrastructures to implement or are still in the development stage and remain unproven.
Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today. It plans to invest more in biofuels which environmental groups blame for driving up food prices and deforestation.
Disappointment as watchdog rules biofuels are not sustainable Major fuel suppliers are continuing to fail government targets to supply biofuels that meet environmental standards, according to new figures released by the Renewable Fuels Agency, writes James Cartledge. The figures came yesterday, the day after the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against the US ethanol industry for placing adverts into UK newspapers claiming that biofuels were a "sustainable" alternative to oil-based fuels.
Are biofuels sustainable? The EU perspective On 21 January 2008 the UK Government's Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published its report on the inquiry 'Are biofuels sustainable?' [1]. Their short answer, which has since been echoed by a wave of media coverage and environmental group campaigning, was a resounding 'No'.
New Hope for Hydrogen Storage September 10th, 2009 (No Working production models yet then!) There are some serious disadvantages if we are going to use hydrogen in its current form. Transportation fuels should be lightweight to maintain overall fuel efficiency and pack high energy content into a small volume. It’s sad that right now under normal conditions, pure hydrogen exhibits a low energy density per unit volume. It is a technical challenge for its use in vehicles which can traverse 300 miles or more on a single fuel tank. This yardstick is set by DOE.
Use wind to power up hydrogen economy, urges expert it is estimated that Wales will need thousands more turbines to even get close to hitting this target, alongside developing more reliable tidal stream fields. Wind’s critics are numerous and claim such turbines are unreliable, unsightly and uneconomic. It is certainly true that they are dependent on the weather, they do incur the wrath of local opponents on grounds of environmental blight and they are controversially funded by public subsidy through a tax on our electricity bills. No matter how it is dressed up by wind’s supporters, this form of energy has performed miserably when we have endured energy intensive periods such as the cold snap in February and the mid-summer hot spell. Both were high-pressure periods. While Britain shivered in the heaviest snowfall for 20 years Britain’s wind farms supplied a risible 0.3% of electricity demand
Friday, May 08, 2009 Death of the Hydrogen Economy Obama's budget puts hydrogen fuel-cell research out of its misery--almost. By Kevin Bullis A government program to help develop hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles--a hallmark of the Bush administration--has been almost completely wiped out in the Obama administration's proposed budget.
Could Cheap Algae Oil Power Our Energy Future?
Although algae is currently the most energy-dense biofuel source, the cost of producing algae oil is prohibitively expensive. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the biofuel would cost around $8 per gallon at the pump. Other experts have even projected prices of more than $50 per gallon because of inefficient production and harvesting methods."While we would all like to discover the perfect energy solution it may still be some way off and as we research and develop economic and environmentally sound solutions it may be best on all accounts to create efficiencies using the fuels we already have on the infrastructure we know works. In 2008 the UK government insisted that petrol and diesel should contain 2.5% of bio fuel, some of which is made from palm oil. Now questions have emerged over the emissions of greenhouse gas during its production on peat land and issues of deforestation. The round table for sustainable palm oil, the body responsible for environmental monitoring of the production process is at the point of breaking up over the issue. The Guardian states in the article 'International Palm Oil Strategy Falters as producers question emission cuts' that:
"The move could have significant implications for the UK government, which is relying on the project to defuse criticism that Britain's biofuel policies will help destroy rainforest and worsen climate change.....Tim Killeen, who represents Conservation International on the roundtable, said: "Failure to reach a compromise would be a serious blow to the credibility of the RSPO. I find it hard to believe that in 2010 people will accept a definition of sustainability that does not explicitly address the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."While the sustainably of all Bio fuels in general are in question the specific question of sustainability in rain forests and peat land brings the problem to a whole new level of insanity, What else needs to be said on the subject. Apart from In Sumatra's 4.2 million hectares (65%) of its tropical forests and peat swamps have been cleared for industrial plantations. Oh And George Mombiot who you may have thought could have a good word to say for Palm Oil Biofuel says in another article in the Guardian: 'Palm Oil Power Plant Becomes Burning Issue Thanks to Uk's Crazy Green Policy'
"When I say vegetable oil, I mean mostly palm and soya oil.....They are also the most destructive. The world's soya frontier is the Brazilian Amazon, where great tracts of rainforest are being trashed to produce oil and meal for western markets. Palm oil plantations now threaten to destroy almost all the remaining rainforest in Malaysia and Indonesia – even reserves such as the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan, which is currently being wrecked by planters. Oil palm threatens the extinction of the orang-utan, Sumatran rhino and at least one sub-species of tiger. It is driving tens of thousands of indigenous people from their homes. But, maddest of all...."A report for Wetlands International shows that every tonne of palm oil results in up to 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces."One of the major problems of middle management, faced with an imperative from on high is that they will do anything possible to meet the requirement (in word rather than spirit) even when the actions they take to achieve goals run counter the object of the exercise.
The Pirates Of CapTrade Or The Devils in the Detail
Cap and trade benefits the administrators of the system, Al Gore being a notable recipient owning one business and having major share holding in four others[The Economic Uses Of Al Gore]. The long and the short of Cap and Trade is that as time goes on and the CO2 constrictions mount, businesses will adopt new more efficient processes by which to conduct trade. However using the economic rod to beat the solutions out of business seems somewhat sadistic. Given a little time I am sure come up with a solution that doesn't involve so many of the painfully rich making billions for doing nothing more than investing in false markets . On Renewable energy.com Mark Braly Remarks in his article Trading Sub-prime Carbon
Wall Street will get the use of the halo of the mainstream environmental movement for its potent lobbying army. Environmental Defense, in particular, takes pride as the inventor of the emission trading scheme that it says solved the acid rain problem, is set to take a leading role. The organization recently condemned a Congressional Budget Office study that found that a carbon tax would be cheaper and more effective.While I need to do more research on the subject I fail to see why this function could not be undertaken by other more efficient mechanisms to ring fence and direct reasonable amounts of capital into private and public R&D. This could be done with the understanding that all research must be shared with other research units to ensure that solutions be most speedily found and mistakes not replicated. Also properly finalized systems could be rolled out to industry when errors and design faults were largely eliminated and maximum efficiencies achieved. While reading on the Oil drum discussion on Algae oil production I came across the following statement:
"An algal industry constrained by vertical markets. Each algal company jealously protect its intellectual property and does not share bubble research or breakthroughs. Even the scientific meetings are full of statements that the scientist cannot share real numbers because they have signed on disclosure agreements with their employers or grantors. The R&D necessary for successful algal production will take more money than is available from private investors. Who wants to invest $500 million on R&D. Investors want a fast return and are not willing to fund sufficient R&D. Failing government subsidies, the industry will sputter for decades. Then, when humanity desperately needs sustainable food and energy solutions, we will discover that the intellectual property for production is locked up by a very few producers who monopolize production to the detriment of all humanity."I think that statement could be multiplied a thousand times for so many of the current research projects on alternative fuels and technologies.
The following videos explain fallacy of the of Cap And Trade system.
It is crystal clear that the powers that be are not going to change their minds on this issue but that does not mean that we should passively sit by and assume that markets will take care of the problem. The efficiency of markets regards their ability to capture capital for the survival of the very rich while the poor do what they always do in these situations and pay for the privilege that they are told they are receiving. Eric Janzen puts it all rather well in Harpers: The next bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash
hundreds or thousands of separate firms financed by not billions but trillions of dollars in new securities that Wall Street will create and sell. Like housing in the late 1990s, this sector of the economy must already be formed and growing even as the previous bubble deflates...... There are a number of plausible candidates for the next bubble, but only a few meet all the criteria......The next bubble must be large enough to recover the losses from the housing bubble collapse. How bad will it be? the gross market value of all enterprises needed to develop hydroelectric power, geothermal energy, nuclear energy, wind farms, solar power, and hydrogen-powered fuel-cell technology—and the infrastructure to support it—is somewhere between $2 trillion and $4 trillion; assuming the bubble can get started, the hyperinflated fictitious value could add another $12 trillion......Thus, we can expect to see the creation of another $8 trillion in fictitious value, which gives us an estimate of $20 trillion in speculative wealth, money that inevitably will be employed to increase share prices rather than to deliver “energy security.”When the bubble finally bursts, we will be left to mop up after yet another devastated industry. FIRE, meanwhile, will already be engineering its next opportunity. Given the current state of our economy, the only thing worse than a new bubble would be its absence.If we look back in recent history and ask the question who won the cold war? The real answer is, a small cabal of powerful and wealthy war mongers. Who lost the cold war? Everyone who was subjected to the lies of the war mongers. Its that straight forward and that simple. Imagine all the development that could have taken place during those years and imagine all those things Scientist and engineers could have been doing while they were creating cradles for 50mm cannons or nuclear bombs. Think of all the countries that could have avoided hell while the powers played their games. Even the Green activists in thier more lucid moment know full well that their movement is being hijacked by the class represented by the Arch Green-Monger Al Gore and his kin. (See Green Anarchists Verses Green Capitalists)
"It's still Exxon, big business, and big banks that are determining the direction of carbon regulation..... If instead green capitalism is too weak to confrontThe California Environmental Justice Movement’s Declaration on Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change states the following:fossil lobbies(Wall Street I think he means) and is insufficiently prodded by ecomovements, then environmental collapse and ecofascism are likely to carry the day, in a planetary-scale replica of what happened to the poor of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina."
"13. Whereas, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Accord, as well as voluntary private sector trading schemes, encourages industrialized countries and their corporations to finance or create carbon dumps in the Developing World as lucrative alternatives to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Developed Countries; and
14. Whereas, the EU-ETS and the CDM sanctions the continued exploration, extraction, refining, and burning of fossil fuels and finances projects such as private industrial tree plantations and large hydro-electric facilities that appropriate land and water resources jeopardizing the livelihoods of local communities in the Developing World as carbon dumps for industries in the Developed World; and
15. Whereas, the EU-ETS and CDM fail to address and further deepens entrenched social inequalities, irresponsible development trends, inadequate hazard reduction policies, and are silent on confronting disaster vulnerability of populations worldwide."
16. Whereas, carbon trading is undemocratic because it allows entrenched polluters, market designers, and commodity traders to determine whether and where to reduce greenhouse gases and co-pollutant emissions without allowing impacted communities or governments to participate in those decisions;See Also Statement form the climate justice now alliance who say it like it is.
"The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) scheme could create the climate regime’s largest ever loophole, giving Northern polluters yet another opportunity to buy
their way out of emissions reductions. With no mention of biodiversity or Indigenous Peoples’ rights, this scheme might give a huge incentive for countries to sell off their forests, expel Indigenous and peasant communities, and transform forests into tree plantations under corporate-control. Plantations are not forests. Privatisation and dispossession through REDD or any other mechanisms must be stopped.
The World Bank is attempting to carve a niche in the international climate change regime. This is unacceptable as the Bank continues to fund polluting industries and drive deforestation by promoting industrial logging and agrofuels. The Bank’s recently launched Climate Investment Funds goes against government initiatives at the UN and promotes dirty industries such as coal, while forcing developing countries into the fundamentally unequal aid framework of donor and recipient. The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility aiming to finance REDD through a forest carbon mechanism serves the interest of private companies and opens the path for commodification of forests."
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.Take another quote from the Pepe Escobar writting in the Asia Times says in Hopenhagen's dirty secret
The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader. The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.
Be ready for a deluge of derivatives contracts and carbon-related financial products. Wall Street will attract key investors from hedge funds and pension funds - as it has already spent a fortune hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply "carbon offsets" to be sold to clients. Speculators will have a ball. Wall Street banks are bound to turn climate change into a new commodities market - and sell it as an investment product. Everyone has seen this movie before, but what the hell; welcome to the new trillion-dollar bubble - the still virtual carbon "cap and trade" market.Here's what Renewable Energy World Had to say in 2008:
"Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the "wealth" that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, "Carbon will be the world's biggest market over all." Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn't get anyone to talk to him about carbon." (Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)
The Powerful Are Not The Same
Oswald Mosely said, Fascism’s chances were none until the crisis [British Politics, Religion & History Post-1500],and our current banking and future global warming/energy depletion crises are no exception. While power appears ever more inclusive, accessible and devolved, citizens find themselves ever further from the centre. The rise of executive government, the inclusion of none elected individuals and corporate bodies and the disenfranchisement of the elected assembly are indicative of this shift . The rise in the twentieth century of remote international organizations such as the EEC,United Nations,Bilderburg Group,The Trilateral Commission, The BIS, The World Bank,The IMF and NATO to name a few largely disregard the individual. Effectively this is not the statism of Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin this is the birth of the Global State and what better vehicle to launch the global government, something we can all agree on, Global Warming!
"Thirdly, having spent some two years immersed in the literature on this, I find it hard to believe that we can achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we need without any sacrifice. Basically, we are living in an unsustainable civilisation and are coming up against the limits of that sustainability. Climate change is the most dramatic and radical expression of that, but it is more generic too. We have to take account of the discussion of growth and GDP"In a world of exponential population growth we are drawing near to the limits of growth and the limits to our civilizations monumental 150 year expansion. An expansion only made possible with the power of oil, gas, and the technologies that came in their wake. Whatever they may call the crisis, what we speak of in such hushed terms is an extremely serious future energy shortfall that, when it makes itself known will change all of our present assumptions and living arrangement. Where it reads "Reductions in greenhouse gas" could equally read 'Reductions in fossil fuel supplies' Better to discuss scenarios that avoids the word shortage I guess.
_____________________________________________________
Article Links
Video On Cap And Trade news report about EPA Ecoomists
Video on Cap And Trade By EPA Economists
Indoor Pollution from Cooking Fires Kills 1.5 Million
Congressional minority report on Global Warming
Methane
Hydrocarbon
China Air Pollution Worst in the World
Asian Times 'Hopenhagen's Durty Secret'
EPA
The Carlin Report
An Inconvienient Truth
British High Court ruling on the films distribution in schools.
Click For a Full Transcript of the court Case agains the Inconveinient Truth
CO2 Science
International Conference on climate change
Pouring cold water on Global Warming
Hockey Stick Diagram
US Senate Committee on Environment and public works minority report
Climate Change: This is The Worst Scientific Scandal Of Our Genaration
Submission to UK House of Lords Inquiry into Aspects of the Economics of Climate Change the UN IPCC
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.” Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. March 2,2006
Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?
SRESReport
Address of Russia Today Vid
Climate Change Data Dumped.
Video From News Allert Media matters
Guardian: Global Warming Rigged? here's the email I need to see: He Says:
CRU emails reveal a worrying pattern of bad behaviour
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
UN Infects Science with the Cancer of Global Warming Edward F.Blick PhD
Climate Change legislation: If the big money guys want it, it's probably going to happen
Climate Change Bill to Heat up Senate' states the following
UN Climate Chief Seeks 10bn Rich Nation Pledge
Times educational supplement Martin Cohen in his article Beyond Debate
Barack Obama Bets The Farm in$4 Trillion Poker Game
Courting Convulsion
Socially Sustainable Economics
New York times
Hirsch Report
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels
Disappointment as watchdog rules biofuels are not sustainable
Are biofuels sustainable? The EU perspective
New Hope for Hydrogen Storage
Use wind to power up hydrogen economy, urges expert
Friday, May 08, 2009 Death of the Hydrogen Economy
Could Cheap Algae Oil Power Our Energy Future?
algae
International Palm Oil Strategy Falters as producers question emission cuts
Palm Oil Power Plant Becomes Burning Issue Thanks to Uk's Crazy Green Policy
Palm oil
Indonesia
The Economic Uses Of Al Gore
According to the [The Investor.com] Al Gore Stands to make a fortune out of Cap and Trade:
See Green Anarchists Verses Green Capitalists
The California Environmental Justice Movement’s Declaration on Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change states the following:
The obvious example is oil, which finally peaked at $149 [New York Times
Declaration on Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change
The Investor.com
Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth
Green Anarchists Verses Green Capitalists
Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU
United Nations,
Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade.
Hopenhagen's dirty secret
BRITISH POLITICS, RELIGION & HISTORY POST-1500
Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008
Debate on the climate change bill from the House of Lords on the 8th December 2009
Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU
_________________________________________________________________________
Posts
.JPG)