JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.2/10 (31 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 7.2 out of 10 based on 31 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kkyltxp

143 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #

    Recently, the EPA in the U.S. proposed new regulations for CO2 emissions levels from power plants.

    That level was set at 1100 Pounds per MWH for coal fired plants and 1000 to 1100 Pounds per MWH for Natural Gas (NG) fired plants.

    This seemed innocuous enough. However, what it did do was to make me think why the EPA would come up with that specific total.

    So, I went and checked.

    Well, what do you know?

    That amount of 1000 to 1100 Pounds per MWH is just a tad higher than the current emissions rate from NG fired power plants.

    It even counts out the new USC coal fired technology now being used extensively in China. Emissions from USC plants come in at just under 1800 Pounds per MWH, while existing 70’s technology plants are around 2200 Pounds per MWH.

    The EPA says coal fired plants can still be constructed, as long as they have CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) in place to remove enough CO2 from their emissions so that it falls under the new standard. That equates to 40%, and the EPA leaves it at that bland 40% without explaining the process, or just how much that 40% comes to.

    For a USC plant, that means they must capture and then sequester underground, forever, a total of around 16,000 tons of CO2 each day. The best that can currently be achieved is a couple of hundred tons a day, and even that is problematic, as that’s just the capture part of the process.

    The EPA says that because this process has achieved what it has already, then that means the process is viable, and that’s why they have imposed this limit.

    So, having imposed this limit, what this quite effectively indicates is that the EPA does not really think that CO2 induced Climate Change is much of a problem, otherwise the limit would not be so high, considering that currently CO2 emissions from NG power sector come in at close to 600 million tons each year, and increasing at a large rate.

    What the EPA also concedes with this is that even they think CCS is not viable, otherwise they would have implemented it also for that NG sector.

    The third thing this proposed standard indicates is that the EPA does not consider Renewables to be able to take the place of coal fired power, as what this means is when these old coal fired plants do need replacement, they will convert straight across to NG.

    I wrote a new Post on all of this explaining in detail the whole thing. It’s long, but it has to be to explain as much as possible about what this really means.

    That Post is at the following link.

    EPA Attacks Only Coal Fired Power

    Tony.


    Report this

    242

    • #
      J Martin

      So the upshot is that pretty well all US power generation will be from NG within a few years, one side effect of that is that reduces power security and makes it easier for terrorists to disable the US power generation network, as pipelines of NG are likely to be easier to disrupt than trains of coal. Putting all ones eggs in one basket is rarely a good idea where choice is available.

      But presumably also in the next 7 years if the ‘pause’ continues or even morphs into cooling as seems likely then the legal right of the EPA to regulate co2 may well be removed from them and common sense can then prevail. There are currently a number of challenges to the ruling that gave the EPA the right to regulate co2 about to be heard in court.

      In any case, converting all coal plants in the US to NG will make no difference whatsoever to atmospheric co2 levels as the BRIC countries drive towards a Western economy.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      diogenese2

      I suppose that it is too much to ask of the greens to wonder why the gas & oil giants give huge stipends to the corporate environmentalists despite the vilification they receive and zilch to skeptics. Perhaps the elimination of the only conceivable competitors, coal and nuclear, might have something to do with it. Big oil employs the worlds best geologists, engineers and market economists. They KNOW that “renewables” can replace nothing and entities that pursue that route will be impoverished. Observe the suicidal disaster that is European energy policy. The EU is going all out to stop development of shale gas – the only means of economic survival open. I note your troll on the previous thread was beefing about Aus being a bit warm. Check out South Dakota blizzards and early deep snow in Munich to see what the northern hemisphere winter is like. You lucky bastards!


      Report this

      232

      • #
        Andrew

        I note your troll on the previous thread was beefing about Aus being a bit warm.

        Ignore the trolls. PARTS of AUS had ONE warm day. One of the late days in winter was a winter record (aided by the adjustments down of old data and the UHI of course). A week earlier was one of the most bitterly cold nights I have ever experienced in SYD. Last week, SYD had a hot day. Today it’s freezing cold in PER.

        And ignore the BoM. What was, to them, a “hot, angry summer” was in fact a cold, wet summer interrupted by a hot fortnight with one very hot day (but not hot enough to break records that have stood for decades). On average, it was bang on where you would expect summer temps to be across the continent.


        Report this

        242

        • #
          diogenese2

          “parts of Aus had one warm day..”

          you lucky bastards!


          Report this

          70

          • #
            scaper...

            We can have too much of a good thing. Reminds me of my road trip from Brisbane to Perth in the beginning of the year.

            When I crossed the Nullarbor Plain the temperature was 48 degrees! Decided not to fuel up at a roadhouse because had enough fuel, I thought.

            About 80kms from Norseman my fuel light came on. Turned the aircon off, backed down from 180 to 100kph to conserve fuel. Opened the windows and it was like an oven out there.

            Had plenty of water but it was hot as the ice in the esky melted. Made it to Norseman and I reckon with the last of the fuel in the line.

            My mistake was not accounting for fuel evaporation.


            Report this

            21

            • #
              AndyG55

              Got stuck in one of those lovely dust storms between Deniliquin and Mildura… on a motorbike !!

              Had sweat based mud running up my arms, took refuge next to a creek !


              Report this

              20

    • #
      ianl8888

      As noted many times before, the CO2 capture section has been around in various efficiencies for yonks (there are many filtration units to choose and improve efficiencies on)

      But the storage section, especially with the volume of liquefied CO2 to be transported and stored is astronomically expensive … and the “right” geology for storage requires specific strata bounded top and bottom by rock units impermeable to gas and groundwater discharge, forever (tremors not allowed). Greenies will have an unfettered free kick with this aspect

      Stupid from a technical viewpoint, good politics for the geologically challenged populace

      Ho hum – lights out if CSG and shale gas falter


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Joe V.

      I guess burning biomass (wood) wouldn’t come in anywhere under the 1100 limit would it ?

      What’s so right about burning ‘biomass’ (trees), as the biggest power station in Britain ,at Drax, now does ?

      Wouldn’t planting trees per tonne of CO2 generated make rather more sense than CCS, in the long run ? Or aren’t ‘Greenies’ really interested , now that they’ve tasted power, in a Green Planet any more ?


      Report this

      121

      • #
        Andrew

        Green energy, by definition. Trees are green. What’s the problem?


        Report this

        40

        • #
          WhaleHunt Fun

          Only top bits are green. The sticky bits are brown and grey.
          Science knowledge like this comes from years of peer reviewing mates’ drunken missives. Just like the IPCC.


          Report this

          31

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Joe V.

        Of course it would count as reducing the emissions. That’s why half of Drax is switching to wood chip, they get a subsidy equivalent to a billion pounds over the next few years. That makes up for the taxes on the other half using coal.

        For a greenie it is sensible not to burn coal (Drax is built over a coal bed) but to chop down 12,000 sq. miles of forest, transport it overseas (and by rail) and burn it and only produce about 20% EXTRA CO2. That counts as cutting emissions.


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Spetzer86

        Don’t forget that the wood for Drax comes from the USA! It’s really efficient if you have to truck the wood pellets in from half a planet away.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Green Power has little to do with electricity generation.
        It’s about enslaving the minds of another generation to the delusion of a Socialist paradise.
        .


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Tim

      Could the genuine ‘alternative green energy’ solutions have been stifled? A good example being Cold Fusion / Tritium:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FilflaqbVI

      It would seem that the powers that be are not all that serious about real answers and are pushing simplistic solutions like profitable, subsidised solar panels and giant windmills as the only response to alternative energy production.

      I wonder why they don’t encompass the idea of genuine free energy to save the planet that they seem so very anxious to protect. Where are the research grants for Cold Fusion?


      Report this

      40

    • #

      This could all be ended in two months or less if coal mines would just shut down for two weeks out of the month. A very quick and pointed demonstration of what coal really does. Of course, I sincerely doubt Americans have to intestinal fortitude to actually do something that effective and demonstrative. At this point, I have little sympathy for any of this. It can be stopped cold if people really wanted it to. Instead, they want to sit in the dark, freezing, hungary and complain about how they have no idea why this happened to them. It’s hard to feel sorry for companies that had the power to stop things, but did not use it.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Mark D.

        Sheri, I’m at a point where maybe rolling brown-black outs NEED to happen to bitch-slap these idiots into understanding. The EPA needs to be UN-funded. Their purpose has mostly expired and they are now the Green Wreaking Bar. As for the power companies not acting to defend themselves, I agree they need to quit kowtowing to the EPA. Class action lawsuits and outright shutdowns (suddenly) to demonstrate exactly what happens. The average head in the sports section of the newspaper would be just a bit more careful with his vote if he couldn’t watch the Monday night game because the power was off.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        J Martin

        A temporary shut down say for a week in the middle of winter would be a great idea. But I believe it would be expensive. I think that a coal fired plant cannot be shut down without suffering some damage ?, and perhaps also takes some time to re-start. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in this area could comment. As long as the only method of enforcement available are fines via the courts then the US power companies should just ignore the EPA. Shareholders might not be pleased to see the courts bankrupting the power generation companies though. Once the power company has gone bust, they should simply close down all their power stations and then a large area would be without power for a very long time.


        Report this

        20

        • #

          Yes, it would be expensive. However, sthe EPA hutting down coal plants and forcing people to use wind and solar is far more expensive in the long run. One has to take the “long-term” view–stop the insanity now, or live in the cold and dark later. I know off no reason why a coal fire power plant would be damaged by a shutdown (my husband worked in a coal mine and has knowledge of coal fired power plants). They routinely shut various units down for inspection. If one were to shut the plant down while it was going full blast, it’s possible damage could occur. Before that, someone would notice the large black pile outside is getting smaller and smaller and have plenty of time for shutdown. It does take a bit to restart–coal doesn’t produce the intense, immediate heat of NG or wood. Maybe up to three days. It also takes much longer to burn out–that’s why people put it in fireplaces for overnight.
          Your idea of just ignoring the EPA and waiting for the courts to bankrupt power plants leaving no power could work. It takes too long to build a new plant, so as the EPA shutters the doors (or the court does) on coal plants, lights would start going out. Coal only provides about 40% of US power, but that’s nearly half the power shut off by the government. People might wake up.


          Report this

          20

        • #

          I need to add that at coal plants, the coal is finely ground, then mixed with air. This is believed to increase efficiency. The plant about 30 miles from my house uses this process.

          For further information on how coal plants work (without the editorializing of the green energy sites): http://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/coal-fired-how.asp


          Report this

          10

          • #

            I’m surprised how interested people are about the technology behind coal fired power.

            Asking the bland question ….. “How do you get electricity from coal?” produces (9 times out of 10) blank looks, and as soon as I then explain it, the interest is amazing. People have no understanding, other than it just comes out of the hole in the wall, always there.

            I have this wonderful diagram that explains it well.

            The Electricity Generation Process

            When you look closely at this, you’ll see there are anything up to a dozen separate processes, right from the raw coal to the delivered electricity.

            The coal is crushed to a consistency of talcum powder, then forced into the furnace with injected air.

            Now when you visit that link and look at the diagram, concentrate of Step 2 and just trace the flow of water from the lake or reservoir (far right) augmented by cooling water from the cooling ponds and also from the turbines as well.

            Now trace it through the boiler and then through the stages of the turbine.

            The new USC and soon the Advanced USC have literally better everything, but this Step 2 is where the real advances are, the furnace and the making of the huge pressurised steam to drive even better turbines.

            Once you have this process done, then the better turbines can drive larger generators, currently 1000 and 1100MW generators.

            The Chinese, with the now leading technology, will soon be able to drive a 1350MW generator (turbo alternator)

            That’s 1350MW from ONE generator.

            The equivalent Wind Power would have between 300 and 400 huge towers, so that’s 3 or 4 Huge wind plants.

            Then, on top of that, that ONE generator will actually deliver three times as much power over 12 Months, and the ONE generator will have twice the life expectancy.

            And here we are now, attempting to ban coal fired power and move ahead with wind plants.

            Lunacy, absolute stark staring lunacy.

            Tony.


            Report this

            140

            • #
              scaper...

              Australia’s black thermal coal is of the highest quality. Has a low sulphur content, a high calorific value and well in the viability range of the Hardgrove Grindability Index.

              We are doing the world a favour by digging the stuff up and sending it off shore.

              Take the coal China has been digging up as an example. Their dirty thermal coal has a high ash content of ~25% as ours has ~10%. This transfers to a much lower particulate output per tonne. Using our coal reduces scrubbing and particulate filtering.

              Besides, if we stop burning coal where are we going to source the fly ash which is an ingredient of concrete?

              A by product of the scrubbing process is gypsum, used in construction as wall board.


              Report this

              52

      • #
        ianl8888

        I’m unsure of the legal situation in the US, but in Aus electricity supply is categorised legally as an “essential service”. This means that a power station cannot unilaterally and deliberately cease operations without severe sanction, including goal terms


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Tony,

      The EPA has had something like 2/3 of its staff on furlough during the shutdown and it’s still operating. That should tell you something about both the importance and the correctness of the EPA’s pronouncements. I think President Obama is headed for a showdown he and his party will lose if he keeps going as he is.

      The sooner the better! :-)


      Report this

      50

      • #
        J Martin

        I don’t believe Obama will back down as he doesn’t face re-election. The Republicans need to find something Obama can accept instead, other cuts aimed at starting to tackle their insane rate of debt creation, perhaps bring forward an end to the so called quantitative easing (printing money) that brings with it the danger of inflation and rising interest rates and the consequent risk that the US is then not able to pay the interest rates on it’s debt. Resulting in the biggest economic collapse in history which will echo round the World like some berserk game of dominoes.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          Obama accepts no compromise and takes the US population hostage when he is crossed. He will not cut a dime and will continue to lie to the population saying raising the debt ceiling doesn’t raise debt, lying that borrowing more money to pay our bills is responsible behaviour, etc. This person is a complete narcissist who cares absolutely nothing about America. He only cares about himself. Unless the idiots in the Republican party learn to do the right thing instead of kissing Obama’s posterior, there will be no good outcome to this. The economy will collapse–probably under Obamacare’s burden. Unless people wake up, it will be ugly. I hope AndyG55 (below) is correct, but I lean more toward the Darwinian natural selection idea. When humans fail to think and react intelligently, nature fixes the problem.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Obama was carefully created and placed in the top job to push an agenda and bring down the USA as it exists, a new age Stalin if you will.


            Report this

            32

          • #
            Ross

            On the videos done as part of the Topher’s 50:1 project there is the interview with Marc Morano. Marc explains how Obama ( and Holdren & co) are using the EPA to get their climate change “policies” in via regulation instead of going through Congress.
            That is, going through the back door.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          J Martin,

          Everyone and his brother has an opinion. That’s not a slap at yours, it’s simply fact.

          If Republicans do not cave in the Democrats will eventually do so. Obama’s approval with the public isn’t what counts, it’s his approval within his own party and to a lesser extent the independent voters. Republicans need to get a concerted position, a lesson Democrats learned long ago. If they do, the Democrats who’re becoming more and more fearful of Obama’s so-called leadership will turn on him. And the position they need is not just Obamacare it’s the damned spending spree we’ve been on for 5 years. Obamacare is only part of it.

          This is the showdown that should have happened in 2010.

          That all leads me to a question — what’s the difference if the economy collapses now or in a few short years? The devastation is the same. And we cannot pay the interest on our current debt without more borrowing or without devaluing the dollar or both. I shouldn’t need to say that both options are a disaster we shouldn’t have even allowed ourselves to approach, much less reach. Never mind the possibility of default. So now is the time for those with better judgment to stand up to His Royal Majesty, King Obama and say, “No more!”

          There will be pain no matter what. So I want it to be the pain that gets us back on the road to sound government and a healthy economy again.

          I hate to put it so bluntly but we’re past the point of no return. The only way out now is to confront our devil head on and try to force his hand. Obama and his supporters are a cancer that will never get better with time or with any compromise, only worse.


          Report this

          60

    • #
      Col Andrews

      TONY AND JO,

      Have a look at this – sounds almost too good to be true but holds huge promise if it can deliver 1/2 what they claim.
      http://joulefuels.com/


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Yes, it does sound too good to be true.

        There is no reason why you can’t do what they claim they’re doing, but at what cost? Once you scale up the plant to produce the sort of quantities needed, you need a lot of land. You also need a lot of pumps, miles of circulation tubing etc. Then you have to extract the ethyl alcohol from solution and turn the low level of ethanol in water into 100% ethanol. That all take money.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Dave

          Graeme No.3

          Do you think it is a type of extraction process from cyanobacteria. Is that what they meant in this statement:

          In contrast with algae-based approaches, Joule uses optimized microorganisms that act as living catalysts to produce fuel, rather than first producing biomass and later extracting lipids or sugars for subsequent multi-step conversion into fuel.“.

          Yet Paul Hudson, a researcher at the School of Biotechnology at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm says:

          We are very excited that we are now able to produce biofuel from cyanobacteria. At the same time we must remember that the manufacturing process is very different from today’s biofuels,” he says. “We need to improve the production hundredfold before it becomes commercially viable.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I don’t know what they are using. Cyanobacteria or genetically modified bacteria (or even protozoa) could all be a possibility or even a mixture.

            Bacteria have been used before with starch as a food base.

            “Acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation is a process that uses bacterial fermentation to produce acetone, n-Butanol, and ethanol from starch. It was developed by the chemist Chaim Weizmann and was the primary process used to make acetone during World War I, The process is anaerobic It usually uses a strain of bacteria from the Clostridia Class – Clostridium acetobutylicum is the most well-known strain, although Clostridium beijerinckii has also been used for this process with good results”.

            Possibly they have a sunlight converting entity generating sugars (or starch) which acts as feed for another bug.

            But they will still have to extract the ethanol from the water carrier. Supposedly this could be done using CO2 but you will still have to remove the last of the water before using it as fuel in a car. It’s some years since I looked into this and my figures are buried in my backups, but 8,000 US gallons per acre per year doesn’t seem that good. Nor does the cost which they do NOT state except that IF they improve the yield by 3 times they will be around $1.28. That’s about the current ex pump price of heavily taxed petrol here.

            With all these schemes bear in mind that photosynthesis is pretty inefficient and can be as low as 3% conversion of sunlight to sugar etc. This limits what you can get per square mile. You can boost production with waste CO2 e.g. from a power station exhaust, but the area required for even 50% reduction of CO2 emissions from a typical power station makes this impractical.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Reinder van Til

        As soon someone comes with a solution and by some process can deliver (almost) free energy the powers that be will come up and by the patents and rights to make sure it won’t be developed. The powers that be will never give up their monopoly on energy until we organize a revolution to get rid of those powers that be.


        Report this

        20

    • #

      Tony, a good posting. However I disagree when you say

      So, having imposed this limit, what this quite effectively indicates is that the EPA does not really think that CO2 induced Climate Change is much of a problem, otherwise the limit would not be so high, considering that currently CO2 emissions from NG power sector come in at close to 600 million tons each year, and increasing at a large rate.

      There are other possible explanations for the EPA’s criteria.
      1. Climate policies are never about eliminating 100% of CO2 emissions. It is a cost-benefit calculation. However, as the EPA has not used this criteria in the past, (and is not applying it with respect to CCS) this is unlikely to be the reason.
      2. The EPA wants to eliminate new coal-fired power stations, so applies an impossible barrier.

      As you often point out, the US needs the new coal-fired power stations to replace the aged and less-efficient old power stations. In this respect, the a better CO2 reduction strategy would be to stop EPA regulating on CO2 emissions.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Good thing is, that once common sense prevails, there will still be plenty of coal around.

    And yes, I do have faith in human common sense… in the long run, hopefully. Perhaps.


    Report this

    82

    • #
      Joe V.

      It might take a while though. By which time will we still have the means to extract and generate power from it, without another lengthy & expensive program of investment ?
      Like the strategic steam reserve, quietly abandoned in the Eighties, it may be a comforting thought at the the time, but really ?


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      The main thing I hope, for the very survival of the human species, is the current children wake up early enough and don’t allow the CO2 level to drop below 350ppm EVER AGAIN !!


      Report this

      132

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. This is one thing we can actually control !!

        So long as we aren’t stupid enough to keep demonising the gas of plant life.

        Its pretty easy to keep pushing ancient sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs. And helps human progress at the same time.


        Report this

        122

        • #
          Backslider

          Its pretty easy to keep pushing ancient sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs.

          And this is the thing…. coal is in fact “bio-fuel”.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Backslider

          …. as are petroleum and gas, of course…….


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Andrew

          Exactly. I point out to the warmies that by definition, fossil fuels are sequestered carbon. Even burning 100% of the fossil fuel ever sequestered CAN’T produce an environmental catastrophe, because it can only restore the earth to its previous state. And of course 99% of all the fossil fuel ever created is uneconomic and won’t be burned.


          Report this

          21

    • #
      J Martin

      And plenty of Thorium. But it will come too late to prevent hardship for many.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Annie

      Optimist! (AndyG55)


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Annie

        I mean in respect of human commonsense prevailing in the long run. I’ve often wondered why it is called commonsense when it seems so uncommon.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Joe V.

          Common sense. Generally comes from experience. There are far to many experts around who have little experience of real stuff yet are are bound to take their view on things because that’s what they are paid for. Beware professional experts.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Annie

            I’m very suspicious of the term ‘expert’ these days. I also go into BS detector mode when I see or hear anything about ‘experts warned’ and like terms!


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Eddie Sharpe

              The BBC has seemingly given up on experts and now prefers to call in and interview its own correspondents in a related field.

              Are they afraid even well chosen experts mightn’t be sufficiently media savvy to keep spinning in the right direction ?.


              Report this

              50

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I’ve often wondered why it is called commonsense when it seems so uncommon.

          Good point! :-)


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Another Ian

            Roy,

            IMO the themesong for the 21st century is John Prine’s track of “Common sense” from his album of the same name.

            Refrain “It don’t make sense that common sense don’t make no sense no more”.

            And from a rare shining light in a government department

            “Most of those sitting behind a desk seem to have been born behind a desk”.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Another Ian,

              I don’t know how anyone else defines commonsense but I’d call it the ability or maybe the will to learn from our predecessors and not repeat their mistakes.

              I’ve this theory that life has become too easy. As a result the inevitable trouble from poor decision making is put off or we can cover it up. We’ve simply become too prosperous to have the incentive of failure right around the corner if we get things wrong. So of course the lack of commonsense doesn’t always hurt much where in the past it would.

              But I expect as time goes on life is going to get harder again and the problem becomes self correcting. When you have no safety net you think twice about what you’re intending to do.

              Re John Prine’s line: it would seem that some of those sitting behind a desk were even conceived behind a desk. A certain president who almost went that far comes to mind. ;-)


              Report this

              30

  • #
    pat

    diogenese2 -

    nuclear was always part of the CAGW deal, but Fukushima put a spoke in that wheel…for now.

    however, here’s a tale for the genuine CAGW-believers (not The Team running the scam, who only pretend they believe) to ponder, tho the Guardian downplays the BIOFUELS’ aspect:

    10 Oct: Guardian: Jonathan Watts: Brazil tribe plagued by one of the highest suicide rates in the world
    Land losses blamed as study shows Guarani-Kaiowa are 34 times more likely to kill themselves than Brazil’s national average
    Ahead of World Mental Health Day on Thursday, figures from Survival International suggest that the Guarani-Kaiowa are 34 times more likely to kill themselves than Brazil’s national average…
    The community of 31,000 people, mostly based in the south-western state of Mato Grosso do Sul, is plagued by alcoholism, depression, poverty and violence after losing its ancestral lands to ranchers and biofuel*** farmers…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/suicide-rates-high-brazil-tribe

    13 Nov 2012: SurvivalInternational: US food giant accused over biofuel ‘tainted with Indian blood’
    Headquartered in the US, global grain trader Bunge is deeply involved in Brazil’s burgeoning biofuels market, and sources sugarcane from farmers who have taken over the ancestral land of the Guarani…
    The Guarani say pesticides sprayed from planes land on their community, and discarded machinery and crops have been left to rot in streams they rely on for water…
    Survival has written to Bunge, but the company was unapologetic, saying it would continue to source sugarcane from this ancestral Guarani land until the Brazilian authorities fully map out the area as indigenous.
    Earlier this year, Raizen, a biofuels company set up by Shell and COSAN scrapped controversial plans to source sugarcane from land stolen from the Guarani after a sustained campaign by the Indians and Survival…
    http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8812

    2011: RainforestRescue: Brazil: Violence and forced eviction for Biofuel
    The extreme level of sugar cane expansion for the purpose of ethanol production supersedes other extensive farming practices, especially cattle breeding. This, in turn, makes cattle farmer open up new areas in the rainforest…
    https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/mailalert/769/brazil-violence-and-forced-eviction-for-biofuel

    12 Sept: Roll Call: Christine Harbin Hanson: Sugar-to-Ethanol Subsidies Are a Sweet Deal for Producers, Not Consumers | Commentary
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/sugar_to_ethanol_subsidies_are_a_sweet_deal_for_producers_not_consumers-227507-1.html?pos=oopih


    Report this

    21

    • #

      Let’s not forget the EPA trying to shut down the Navajo power plant by the Grand Canyon. You’d think by now the Native Americans would know they’d get a raw deal from the US government.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    J Martin

    The UK imports a small amount of it’s electricity from France and the Netherlands. Perhaps if those countries and others invest in Thorium reactors in the future, then the UK can replace most fossil fuel energy with imported electricity, thus moving nearer to achieving it’s absurd 80% co2 reduction target But if mainland Europe gets a bitter winter then electricity exports to the UK may be reduced or cease altogether.

    So the people have to suffer for their politicians religious beliefs. But then there is that saying, that “the people get the government they deserve”, I tried looking up the source of that saying but found that nearly every country seems to lay claim to it and especially the French. I will go with the Germans as originating it as it sounds so much better when said in German. Die Menschen bekommen die Regierung, die sie verdienen if Google translate got it right.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Joe V.

      Don’t worry, the National Grid is confident it has the access to tools and to ‘market mechanisms’ to keep the lights on, this winter anyway, but how many will die as a result of the costs ?
      Blackout threat intensifies. and Energy companies have started their price hikes early, to catch the Winter bonanza.
      SSE hikes tariffs by over 8%

      All this while UK fuddles its way to Energy Crisis that will bite long before the debt crisis sinks the US.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      J. Martin:
      “But if mainland Europe gets a bitter winter then electricity exports to the UK may be reduced or cease altogether”.

      The UK has depended on the 2,000 GW it gets from France in the last 2 winters at least. That’s about 3.3% of maximum demand. You will only have 5% reserve this winter (15% would be desirable) so you can’t afford to have that amount cut off.
      Add in the early start of winter with below zero temperatures in Germany (snow in Munich etc.) and other countries, the UK may be in for a rough time. Still enough money may persuade the French to keep supplying nuclear, and the same approach will keep Russia supplying natural gas. Otherwise the result of green policies to reduce CO2 will mean thousands of diesel generators running flat out.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Peter Miller

    My wish for 2014 is that sceptics all start to distinguish between AGW ( a mild, largely beneficial, phenomenon) and CAGW ( a ‘science’ fantasy dreamed up by alarmist leaders to puff their egos while simultaneously helping to perpetuate their comfortable lifestyles).

    Alarmists routinely and deliberately muddle up AGW and CAGW, knowing that a small amount of AGW is probably real but totally harmless, while CAGW is complete BS. However, CAGW pays the bills, while the truth about AGW would lead to widespread and well-deserved redundancies in the Global Warming Industry.


    Report this

    153

    • #
      Joe V.

      Now there’s a title for a book. The Truth About AGW.
      Isn’t that what skeptics have been doing though ? Those of long standing anyway. There are of course many newcomers , ordinary people who are realising that it’s just not happening. The beneficial effects, when and if it does happen again may benefit from highlighting, now that our experience through the 20th century has made it familiar and shown it isn’t so scary.


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Andrew

      All “sceptics” DO understand the difference.

      I routinely get called a flat earth denier or worse for my ridicule of Flanneryism, and I had someone ask me point blank “What – you don’t believe in global warming??” They were shocked when I said “Of course I do – global warming is a fact. The world has warmed approx 0.7C, and at least half of this is likely to be due to rising CO2. What’s more, I expect that this and previous pauses reflect a sine wave around a rising trend, and will therefore be succeeded by ongoing temp records – exaggerated by UHI effects such that cities will report disproportionate temp records. I expect my remaining life to see a series of max temp records.” By 0.4 degrees C.

      That confuses them – it doesn’t sound like a huge amount. I point out that the difference between a hot and cold season can be as much as 4C around the ENSO cycle, and that all the AGW in a life would be a fraction of what nature already routinely endures without mass extinction.

      ALL the science deniers who still believe in CAGW have left is to attack fictional straw men – the people who don’t believe that CO2 is a GHG. I find the best way to shut down the warmies is to stipulate to all the facts. It leaves them with absolutely nothing.


      Report this

      142

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        I prefer to point out to greens that I enthusiastically look forward to their children enduring a short brutish life, wracked by disease as the eke a living from an earth utterly ruined by my joyous excess and pleasures. That they will be making soup from grass and hunting rats is why I always refuse carbon offsets and never tick renewables on my power contract. It is important for the leftard greens to understand my joyous acceptance of their darkest prognostications.


        Report this

        92

      • #
        Manfred

        A little warming. Probably. How much due to anthropogenic causes remains theoretical and as I understand it, based on energy budgeting of radiative input ≠ radiative output due to >GHG (90% H2O). The uncertainty regarding feedbacks and forcings, as yet not fully described nor understood together with mounting measurement error, obfuscation, adjustment and location make the hypothetical attribution of the theoretical warming a political exercise and impossible to separate from natural variation.

        I usually mount the counterpoint by questioning them closely about their understanding of the issue. It is (I suppose) surprising that they express their certaintly in the meme of the moment with a fevered enthusiasm, which I find rapidly wanes when they are unable to tell you the simplest fact, how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and why it is considered a GHG. How quickly they lapse into: “because THEY say so.”

        Bishop Hill May 27, 2013

        “The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.”

        “Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Additionally, the Met Office needs to reassess other claims that it has made about statistically significant climatic changes.”


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Eliza Doodle

        That’s an excellent potted summary there Andrew. Is your middle name Luke, by any chance ?
        Has it really been that much warming ,0.7C, considering the depression the pre 70′s readings have undergone since ?


        Report this

        40

  • #
    handjive

    As the Juneau Glacier retreats in Alaska, geologists are finding the remains of ancient forests, dating from various periods between 2350 and 1200 years ago.

    This is yet more evidence of warmer times, not only in the MWP, but further back.
    It also complements similar findings in the Exit Glacier of Alaska and glaciers in Patagonia.
    .
    The Scientific Consensus that says this is impossible.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      “CO2 concentrations haven’t been this high in millions of years. Even more alarming is the rate of increase in the last five decades and the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. This milestone is a wake up call that our actions in response to climate change need to match the persistent rise in CO2. Climate change is a threat to life on Earth and we can no longer afford to be spectators.

      – Dr. Erika Podest

      Carbon and water cycle research scientist”

      Did she sleep under a rock? Hasn’t she noticed that NASA has proven that our Earth is turning more green thanks to elevated concentrations of CO2 in our air? How did she become a Dr.?


      Report this

      80

      • #
        diogenese2

        Really fascinating. She works for NASA and specialises in satellite monitoring of earth systems. She must be well acquainted with the “greening”, indeed it may be her work.
        The “longevity” remarks relating to atmospheric CO2 does not
        sit well with NASAs own observation, from notes for writers on the Orbiting Carbon Observatory that 60% of human emissions since 1781 have been absorbed. Indeed the sat. was launched to find out where it went. Since most of this was emitted since 1950 the “hundred or thousands of years” comment is incomprehensible. She has been closely involved with NASAs work on the carbon cycle!


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Other_Andy

        And that surprises you?

        NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to “re-inspire children” to study science and math,
        to “expand our international relationships,”
        and to “reach out to the Muslim world.”
        Of those three goals, Bolden said the mission to reach out to Muslims is “perhaps foremost,” because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their scientific accomplishments.

        In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change (According the Orlando Sentinel).


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Mike of NQ

        “CO2 concentrations haven’t been this high in millions of years” What if we look at the last 50 million years, what do we see? Now this tells a different story.


        Report this

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          Shows how close the earth has been to complete shutdown for the last million or so years.

          Very much a minimum subsistence level of CO2.


          Report this

          61

        • #
          AndyG55

          ie, CO2 has been DANGEROUSLY LOW for a very very long time.

          It is our JOB to make sure it keeps climbing to sensible levels,

          700ppm at least.

          1ppt even better !!!

          AND KEEP IT THERE


          Report this

          71

  • #
    David Wood

    The earth’s climate is an exceedingly complex system of which we have only the most rudimentary understanding.
    It is simplistic in the extreme to see this as a steady state situation in which the earth is portrayed as a black body receiving one quarter of the insolation which instantaneously strikes the earth (averaged over 24 hours),and radiates to space at a constant temperature, over the same 24 hrs.
    This approach produces mathematically correct results but is very far from the dynamic real world in which we live


    Report this

    70

  • #
    handjive

    Pushing the known time line back further again:

    Oct. 8, 2013
    Bronze Age sundial reveals lost civilization’s tech savvy
    Ancient sundials with half-hour marks are rare, though one was discovered earlier this year at the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.

    March 20, 2013
    A sundial discovered outside a tomb in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings may be the world’s oldest ancient Egyptian sundials, say scientists.
    “The significance of this piece is that it is roughly one thousand years older than what was generally accepted as time when this type of time measuring device was used,” said researcher Susanne Bickel.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    • #
      Speedy

      Pointman

      Decisions, decisions! A very strong field again this year, but I notice that while the usual favourites (Suzuki, Obama, Flannery, Mann, Gore etc) are receiving strong support, may I also suggest a bob each way on HRH Prince Charles, Penny Wong, Christine Milne, Kim Jong Il, Bob Geldorf, Julian Assage and The United Nations? Far be it for me to influence the voting…

      And another thing. The Pratties need to recognise those long-term performers who have been somehow cheated of their moment of glory; why not have a “lifetime achievement” award to recognise consistent, unwavering Prattie performance?

      And a corporate sponsor. Perhaps Pansonic would be interested? Or National Geographic? Chevron perhaps?

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        I’ve nominated David Lean for the lifetime award. Nobody in the UK has worked for longer or harder to achieve prat-dom. such dedication should be rewarded.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      cohenite

      Suzuki or Geldof; but the field is strong!


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    Can someone direct me towards all the pictures of those surface weather stations which are not accurately measuring temperatures. Thanks on forehand!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Joe V.

    British Coalition Govt. is divided on Green Taxes as Cameron battles Liberal Democrats to curb soaring energy bills after Energy firms started lifting prices earlier this week.

    Opposition Labour parties pledge to freeze energy bills, would that it had the power to do so, seems to have struck a chord, and while few believe price control is feasible in a free market it has openened a can of worms that includes carbon taxes as a key contributor. The Conservatives are feeling compelled to respond and let’s face it, they are not going to do it with price controls, and they cannt influence wholesale energy processor the Carbon Taxes will have to bear the burden.

    Meanwhile Britain is negotiating with Germany who want to delay EU caps in carbon emmissions to protect German car industry, the heads of 10 of Europe’s biggest utilities called on the European Union to overhaul its energy and climate policies


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      German industry know damn well that it has to get cheap electricity or
      a. go under or
      b. move overseas.

      So far large firms have been shielded as the cost of green power policies is being loaded onto the public. 600,000 germans have had their power cut off because they can’t afford the bills, and if the coming winter is a very cold one, then there will be more howls. Of course they switch to burning wood and coal to keep warm, and “bugger the CO2″ (watever that is in German.

      Merkel is stuck; she has a minority and needs a coalition but the choice is between green loonies, so policy paralysis is likely. The only advantage they have is the number of coal fired stations being built or planned. That and their interconnections to the rest of Europe’s grids. It may come down to a bidding war between Germany and the UK for French nuclear electricity this winter. Once again England is caught unprepared!


      Report this

      60

      • #

        “…caught unprepared!” That is the inevitable consequence of a heavy handed top down command and control political mechanism. The politicians assume that their laws, when passed, assume the status of laws of nature and that natural law is nothing but the arbitrary and mutable whim of scientists and engineers who discover and use them.

        As a consequence their preparation, plans, and efforts have absolutely nothing do to with what is and can be. They will, by necessity, always be caught unprepared. This is no surprise, to most of us on this list. However, it is a huge surprise to most politicians. Their arbitrary whim is supposed to rule reality but reality does not pay any attention to them.


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Joe V.

    Chief Executive of Energy giant Scottish & Southern declares a halt to all investment in offshore wind and new power plants until after the next general election in 2015 because of the acute political uncertainty around energy created by Labour promising a price freeze if it wins the next election.

    The naive Labour Classe Politique thinks it has come up with an election whinning wheeze. While in reality it has sounded the death knell of Green Taxes while throughing the UK Energy market into further dissarray..


    Report this

    70

  • #

    In Europe: Most Severe Winter Start In 200 Years:

    Last Thursday evening and yesterday winter made its debut in Southern Germany and Austria – and how! German RTL television last night called it the “most severe start of winter in 200 years,” saying many meteorologists were caught by surprise. Up to half a meter of snow fell at some locations.

    Gone are the mild winters of the sort Europe had seen in the 1990s and early 2000s. Indeed for central Europe the last 5 consecutive winters have all been colder than normal – a record!


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    Opposition Labour parties pledge to freeze energy bills

    The unbelievable stupidity of the socialists continues to amaze and astound. This is the same party that’s just spent the last 20 years doing all it can to make energy more expensive.

    They have learnt nothing in 100 years.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Socialists never learn. They just forget on a roughly generational cycle , that their next big idea is only a repeat of their last one . It’s called being progressive and it sounds great.


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        Communists see no purpose in life unless somebody gets hurt.

        The only stinking thing they can claim credit for.


        Report this

        52

      • #
        Tel

        They just forget on a roughly generational cycle , that their next big idea is only a repeat of their last one .

        True, but the problem is that a lot of normal people also forget on a generational cycle. The answer would be a quick way to get young people up to speed with the lessons of the past.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What is the next Leftist Horse Shit to come along to use to control the West and kill innocent people?

    Here’s the list of mostly failed ideas so far:

    - Eliminate pesticide. This gave about 4 million people malaria, not bad, but not effective enough for them.

    - Eliminate CFC. No ozone changes, but energy wasted, money wasted, and refrigeration out of price for the third world.

    - Eliminate chlorine. Getting rid of an element from the periodic table proved a bit too much of a challenge.

    - Eliminate fossil fuel. Despite continued attempts, common sense seems to be hanging on by the fingernails.

    So what is there left? Maybe we could see a resurgence in Eugenics to eliminate imbecile leftists


    Report this

    61

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So what is there left? Maybe we could see a resurgence in Eugenics to eliminate imbecile leftists

      These days I’m about ready to go for that.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The writing has been on the wall for years. The IPCC will rebrand itself as International Panel on Ocean Acidification.
      There will also be a Biodiversity Crisis and every development outside urban areas will be stopped in case some undiscovered endemic insect could be threatened.
      The Sustainability theme will need a bit more work before they can figure out how to turn it into a crisis. That might be difficult since the the timescales are too long to be scary, unless they can convince everyone that Peak Oil is an urgent crisis that requires permanent rationing. Faking some species extinctions would be a good way to start.
      That’s the environmentals covered anyhow.

      On the culture angle, their war against individuality, self defense, personal responsibility, sovereignity, and cultural identity (which of course they deride as “tribalism”) will only continue. I can’t predict what they will pick next. Just pick any belief that makes you an independent actor and that is a belief the collectivists will attack.
      Rights are always a fertile ground, and the Right To Not Be Upset will be pushed in many different directions.

      Economically, the Leftists will once again be used by the extreme right authoritarians to break down national sovereignity, move jobs offshore, give a free ride to the industrial mafia, and generally ensure the factors of production are held at arm’s length from people by a handful of crony capitalists. This works because neither the Leftists nor the crony capitalists want the people to be self sufficient in skills, machinery, or resources, but for different reasons. The green/left dupes want to stop exploitation of nature, the authoritarian Left wants a Communist Utopia, and the capitalists want to make sure they are the ones in the middle making money every time you want to sneeze. (Why else is there a trend to turn products into services?) If you want to know why civilisation is being cored out, just consider the number of forces arrayed against you as an independent individual.

      Wherever the crony monopoly-men can figure out how to get the Left to send money in their direction, they will do it. It’s easy to imagine how this can be done. An American mining company (eg Koch) might channel funding via a money laundering charity (eg the Pew Foundations) to green groups in Australia (eg the Wilderness Society) to run campaigns opposing a new mine (or perhaps a gas hub at James Price Point) so as to prevent (or raise the cost of production of) a new mining competitor and so keep commodity prices high. For as long as there are starry-eyed rebels without a cause looking for a cause this trick will work.

      As we have seen from Abbott’s reaction to the Bank Levy, the NDIS, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, the Liberal-in-name-only Party are a bunch of crony-capitalists, so expect rorts and profiteering far exceeding the RuGillUdd government.

      But I’m just gas-bagging. We can’t blame the “Left”, or any other ideology, for everything bad. Sometimes it’s just good old fashioned greed and short-term thinking that leads to poorer conditions for the rest of us. You could call it the law of the jungle.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Joe V.

    Financial Times publishes, for Sunday reading:-
    DECC: climate change policies to add 41 per cent to electricity prices by 2030

    It calculates:-
    State “energy and climate change” policies – including subsidies for wind farms and nuclear power stations – will add 41 per cent to the price of electricity in the UK by 2030 according to forecasts by the energy department.
    Citing this March 2013 report
    Climate Change policy impacts on Energy Prices and Bills


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      The UK has been home to Newton, Clerk Maxwell, and Robert Boyle and I cannot bear the colossal stupidity shown by her now

      i just can’t stand it


      Report this

      72

      • #
        Eliza Doodle

        Not to mention newly Nobel Prize winning Higgs of the Boson, though his work was a product of the Sixties.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Tel

        The UK has been home to Newton, Clerk Maxwell, and Robert Boyle and I cannot bear the colossal stupidity shown by her now .

        They really never recovered from World War II, which is even more difficult to get your head around when you consider that firstly they won the war, and secondly they saw first hand what National Socialism could do and why it was a really bad idea.

        But then, after the war they all rushed to become socialist themselves, and abandon their own heritage.

        Funny old world.


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Ed Davey’s Department for Energy and Climate Change spent more than £300,000 flying civil servants and ministers around the UK last year.

    Green MP Caroline Lucas said: “I find it hard to believe that trains weren’t an option on at least some of these routes. Given the impact of carbon emissions from aviation, it’s disappointing that the department isn’t showing more leadership.”

    Shame on them, Eh!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    scaper...

    I suggest the hypocrites use this mode of transport.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    AndyG55

    It’s good to have a TV in the study. :-)

    Marking some assignments (each one is taking about 40 mins – 1 hour.. but only 3 to go :-)

    Bathurst race on TV.

    A break every now an then to check emails, make quick comments etc.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Andy I’ve been watching a bit just to see how Mercedes and Nissan go, the footage on TV from different angles are amazing.
      Knowing your love of CO2 I was wondering how much is pumped out over the entire race from all cars? :)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Darn .. MAGIC FINISH !!! :-) :-)


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Less than half a second between them after all that time, I can’t believe how hard they can drive those cars up to the end, fantastic engineering.
        A great result for Ford after a tough few years in sales/production, I wonder if they’ll keep the Falcon now?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    pat

    Joe V. -

    re your CAGW/Energy policies “will add 41 per cent to the price of electricity in the UK by 2030″ comment:

    add the massive CAGW-policy-generated increases in water bills, insurance companies forcing flood cover on people who have absolutely no need for it, plus the ever-rising cost of council rates, & the following nightmare scenario maybe isn’t too much of an exaggeration!

    22 Aug: Brisbane Times: Retirees’ home ownership set to plummet to 2 per cent
    The number of retirees who own their homes outright is tipped to fall from the current rate of 78 per cent to just 2 per cent by 2050.
    The startling figure emerged as the Queensland Council of Social Services released its Pensioners Cost of Living report, which also revealed that already those aged over 65 who rent, rather than own, their properties do not enjoy basic living standards.
    QCOSS chief executive Mark Henley said property ownership rates among retirees was in freefall, with ageing Australians increasingly selling the family home to fund their retirement.
    “That’s one big focus, the other is people are hitting retirement age and have not paid off the family home,” he said…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/retirees-home-ownership-set-to-plummet-to-2-per-cent-20130821-2sbmu.html

    13 Sept: AAP: Failed Qld scheme ‘behind water bill rise’
    A defunct $2.6 billion recycled water scheme is behind southeast Queensland’s soaring water bills, the premier says…
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/18914862/failed-qld-scheme-behind-water-bill-rise/

    will post documentation re forced Flood Insurance separately.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    not only RACQ:

    Flood Insurance – RACQ Queensland Home Insurance
    Everyone is at risk – Everyone is covered
    Flood cover will be a standard part of all RACQ Home and Contents and Body Corporate Insurance policies effective 1 July 2012.
    Customers will not need to apply for this cover – it will be automatically added to existing insurance policies.
    Q. Is flood cover optional?
    A. No. The recent weather events and natural disasters saw many people confused about the differences between the types of flood. RACQ Insurance believes having flood as standard provides its customers with total confidence and certainty about what they are covered for.
    ***Most policyholders are determined to have a minimal risk and will only receive a minimal increase due to flood.
    http://www.racq.com.au/insurance/floodcover

    ***”minimal increase” means several hundred $$$ a year extra for neighbours living on top of hills, who are at no risk whatsoever of flood damage of any kind.

    11 Sept: The Conversation: Fire and flood: how home insurance can help us adapt to climate change
    by Stewart Williams, Lecturer, School of Geography and Environmental Studies at University of Tasmania
    Disclosure Statement
    Stewart Williams receives funding from the Australian Government, NCCARF and AHURI. He is affiliated with the University of Tasmania
    Extreme weather is on the rise thanks to climate change. It’s one of the factors behind rises in insurance premiums, a cause for public concern. But instead of worrying about price hikes we should be reading the signs…
    More frequent and more intense weather events are expected with climate change. Internationally the insurance industry’s big re-insurers anticipate having to recoup higher pay-outs by raising premiums…
    Research funded through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility has examined how planning, building and insuring might figure in our adaptation to more extreme weather events in the future…
    http://theconversation.com/fire-and-flood-how-home-insurance-can-help-us-adapt-to-climate-change-17568


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    A sequel to the first youtube documentary The Greening Of Planet Earth. Probably already seen by some people here. It is a documentary that demonstrates the great positive effects of more CO2 in our air.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XbnyWC5WM


    Report this

    60

  • #
    handjive

    FYI:
    Despite Climate Concern, Global Study Finds Fewer Carbon Capture Projects

    The number of large-scale projects to capture and bury carbon dioxide has fallen to 65 from 75 over the last year, a worldwide survey has found, despite a consensus among scientists and engineers that such projects are essential to meet international goals for slowing the buildup of climate-changing gases.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    It’s Tata to more British jobs

    A chemicals factory in Northwich, Cheshire which has supplied industries such as glass and soap-making for 140 years is to close because of “massive” energy bills, costing 220 jobs.

    The business is owned by Indian conglomerate Tata, which also owns Jaguar Land Rover and the Corus steel business.

    A spokesman said that rising gas prices and carbon emission taxes had heaped pressure on the business.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Is it another Tata Steal ?
      Are such losses a price worth paying for the grand prize of shutting down & shifting production to the new tiger economies ?


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Another Ian

      And if you drink tea, they own Tetley


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Eliza Doodle

        Could this be Imperial Blend, going into reverse ? Tetley’s never tasted much good, despite all their popularity.

        Tata Tea Group, is reputedly the second largest manufacturer of tea in the world after Unilever.

        My own favourite for a decent cuppa, Brooke Bond has been with Unilever, since 1984 apparently.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Tim

      Methinks there’s more to it…

      Aug 2009 the steel giant Corus announced plans to close two plants and expand operations in India through its parent company, the Tata Group. After the move, Tata sold its English carbon permits for £1.2 billion, as reported by the Express.
      http://ragingbull.com/forum/topic/1361
      http://informationliberation.com/index.php?id=28333&comments=0

      “Pachauri denies close relationships with the Tata group, a major global energy player, when he and some of his staff share a variety of committee and board-room places with them and work on projects together.”


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Do you mean carbon tarrifs are effectively being used to shift, industry, wealth & jobs to the emerging economies. Carbon tarrifs that are imposed unequally on only the developed economies. Do you mean the developing economies cannt wait for the process to happen but are accelerating it by buying up struggling industries and administering the last rites before shifting the production & jobs back to their homelands ? Do you mean Pacchaurri’s IPCC is well placed to facilitate the process ?


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    In other shock news, Rudd’s mate Albo was pipped to the post by that impish creature Bill Shorten, who was pronounced the winner of the ALP’s leadership election yesterday (by a very narrow margin). Not the people’s choice, apparently, but then that’s just Labor for you.
    Shorten’s mother-in-law offered to resign, ostensibly to avoid perceptions of nepotism, but Abbott has instead chosen to see her squirm whilst signing his bills until March.
    What a twisted web we weave.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Carbon500

    On ‘climate change’ and for interest: in ‘Unstoppable Global Warming – every 1,500 Years’, S.Fred Singer and Dennis Avery describe artefacts found during the last decade at the Alpine Schnidejoch Pass when the glaciers retreated.
    In subsequent internet discussions about glacial retreat and advance, past warmings and so on this seems to have been largely overlooked – so here’s some information to refresh memories. Real world discoveries, no computer modelling or statistical chicanery!

    Archaeological Discoveries on Schnidejoch and at Other Ice Sites in the European Alps
    Author: Albert Hafner

    Only a few sites in the Alps have produced archaeological finds from melting ice. To date, prehistoric finds from four sites dating from the Neolithic period, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age have been recovered from small ice patches (Schnidejoch, Lötschenpass, Tisenjoch, and Gemsbichl/Rieserferner). Glaciers, on the other hand, have yielded historic finds and frozen human remains that are not more than a few hundred years old (three glacier mummies from the 16th to the 19th century and military finds from World Wars I and II). Between 2003 and 2010, numerous archaeological finds were recovered from a melting ice patch on the Schnidejoch in the Bernese Alps (Cantons of Berne and Valais, Switzerland). These finds date from the Neolithic period, the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age, Roman times, and the Middle Ages, spanning a period of 6000 years. The Schnidejoch, at an altitude of 2756 m asl, is a pass in the Wildhorn region of the western Bernese Alps. It has yielded some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic human activity at high altitude in the Alps. The abundant assemblage of finds contains a number of unique artifacts, mainly from organic materials like leather, wood, bark, and fibers. The site clearly proves access to high-mountain areas as early as the 5th millennium BC, and the chronological distribution of the finds indicates that the Schnidejoch pass was used mainly during periods when glaciers were retreating.


    Report this

    20