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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Climate money evaporating — global carbon market down 35% in 2012 — peak carbon is in the rear view mirror

It’s just another day tracking the decline of the global warming meme.

Things were so pear-shaped for global carbon trading markets in 2012 that the World Bank canceled its annual State of the Carbon Market report. But how bad were they?  In their last report in 2012 the grand global total was $176b USD for the 2011 year. Since the World Bank figure are not publishing their tally any more, I’ve switched to the Reuters Point Carbon figures instead, which are issued in Euro.

Rather devastatingly, despite the fact the FTSE grew 6% in 2012 and  Euro Stoxx grew by 13% in 2012, the global carbon market (which is mostly an EU market) fell by a whopping 36% in 2012. Money printing is running rife and new money is pouring into asset markets worldwide, yet globally the money is running from invisible, rortable, pointless carbon certificates. We are past the peak, and over the hill. This parrot is almost dead.

Back in the heady days of 2008 the growth was described as “explosive” and it was predicted it would grow to $1.2 trillion by 2020 (about 880 billion €) .

These figures are different to previous USD ones, but since most of the trading is in euro it is probably more useful.  In the USD graphs there were some spurious “rises” due to shifts in exchange rates. Even though a record in US dollars was claimed then the reality is that the carbon markets were flat for nearly four years.

Look out for new publicity claims saying market volume is growing, or even, more pointlessly, that the number of markets is growing. There is almost always a way to spin a “growing” headline.
Sources:

2005 €9.4 bn  |  2006    €22bn   |   2007   €40bn   |   2008  €92bn   |  2009    €91 bn   |  2010  €92 bn  |  2011   €96bn  |  2012   €62bn

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Climate money evaporating -- global carbon market down 35% in 2012 -- peak carbon is in the rear view mirror, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post:

151 comments to Climate money evaporating — global carbon market down 35% in 2012 — peak carbon is in the rear view mirror

  • #
  • #
    Manfred

    We are past the peak, and over the hill. This parrot is almost dead.

    A priceless classic – thank you Jo. With apologies to MP, the following paraphrased, elegantly sums up the fiat carbon currency, possibly one of the largest, saddest most excuciating pantomimes in history.

    I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now. It’s stone dead. That’s what I call a dead parrot. It is definitely deceased. The only reason it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was because it had been nailed there. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to live. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It is a stiff, bereft of life. It rests in peace.
    This is an ex-parrot.


    Report this

    370

    • #
      King Geo

      The Dead Parrot sketch is my favourite Monty Python skit. My favourite line which you (Manfred) could apply to highlight how very terminal “Carbon Pricing” is in today’s World is by adding this Dead Parrot sketch line to your list above: “all statements to the effect that Carbon Pricing is a going concern are from now on inoperative” – of course said with a voice identical to the great John Cleese. I wonder how John C views AGW? – I suspect he would think & maybe even say that it is “total bollocks”.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I am not sure the dead parrot analogy is correct, the alarmist cult has not yet rolled over.

        True, the alarmists are now on the back foot and as their ranting becomes ever more shrill, so their distortions of the facts will continue to grow in order to try and ‘prove’ the case for imminent Thermageddon.

        As for carbon credits, it is the same old story of when you sell something intangible of no realisable value and you continue to sell it again and again, some might call that fraud.

        Carbon credits and a hooker’s wares – what’s the difference? The buyer has a fleeting warm feeling and the seller just laughs and laughs at his stupidity.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … the alarmist cult has not yet rolled over.

          I don’t expect it to – at least not completely.

          These scams always leave some cargo cult adherents behind, waiting for the “trade” to come back again.

          And eventually it does, of a fashion. I heard that some South Seas Company share certificates were sold at auction, a few years ago, for considerably more than their original face value, which was ten guineas.

          If that is not proof of zombies, I don’t know what is.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Rereke Whatkaaro,

            You have hit on a possible explanation for something I have noticed. There has been an explosion of zombie movies and TV series in the last few years that co-incides with the increase in alarmism. Hollywood – full of green left prats … Hollywood – source of zombie movies and TV shows … is correlation an indication of causality?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Rereke:

            South Sea Company Stock (as it was called then) was at par at £100.

            During the bubble (1720) stock was issued at £300, £600, and £1000. Later it sat around £110-140 as it issued dividends at 4 – 5%. (i.e. £4 per every (£100) stock).

            The Company lasted until the 1850′s until abolished by W. Gladstone.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Manfred

          PM, it may well not be…

          …though, as correctly described:

          This parrot is almost dead.

          I rather like the idea that the parrot wouldn’t have stood on its perch unless it had been nailed there. I think that accurately exemplifies the carbon dioxide ‘market’.

          In any case, to borrow yet another metaphor from The Bishop, we are now undoubtedly witnessing

          A very slow motion car crash.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Greebo

        I wonder how John C views AGW? – I suspect he would think & maybe even say that it is “total bollocks”.

        Not too sure about that.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    scaper...

    Obviously there is no money to be made in this so it will shifted to the next scam.

    The warmist industrial complex is on its knees so lets look at the next stage to control the masses.

    Any predictions?


    Report this

    190

    • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        Hey, that’s my field.

        Go easy. !!! :-)


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Mark D.

        I agree, water.

        Not just will we have enough but controlling its use, controlling land use under the guise of “concern for the watershed” and even recreation and transportation.

        Remember, even your rooftop is a watershed. Everyone can be controlled quite nicely by new Water Laws.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Mark,

          You are so accurate as to be chilling. California actually has a water crunch right now. If you build a house it must have toilets using no more than 1.3 gallons/flush (which doesn’t work) and every faucet must have a flow restrictor installed. If you sell an older house you must install same (at your expense) or the house will not pass the state mandated inspection.

          The price of water is rising as well. Keeping your yard green will eventually become a nightmare all of its own.

          Then there are wetlands! It is legally so bad that if you have a place on your property where a puddle develops during a rain storm it could be declared a wetland and put under federal protection (read restriction of what you ca do on your own property).

          Water will cause a lot of political fighting and perhaps, someday, real fighting.

          You left out electricity, which California also has a shortage of. And this one is entirely man made.

          Natural gas is the only thing in abundant supply. And the price is, as you would expect, lower than water and electricity by a wide margin.

          There is no free market in any of these things because the utilities have a government sanctioned monopoly. The Public Utilities Commission is supposed to regulate for the benefit of the customer. But the evidence says they’re off on their own agenda and pay only lip service to the end user.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Mark D.

            Roy, Congressman James Oberstar (Minnesota) authored a bill that (thankfully didn’t pass) would have pulled waters jurisdiction away from the States and into the hands of the Federal Government. By leveraging the “Interstate Commerce” use of “Navigable Waters” the bill creatively sidestepped the Constitutional limits of the Federal Government. http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/21/oberstar%E2%80%99s-water-bill-sets-up-biggest-epa-power-grab-yet/

            The most frightening part was that the interpretation of “navigable” was bent to include virtually any body of water that could float a boat. Any low lying area that would form a puddle during a rain was potentially under Federal jurisdiction.

            Congressman Oberstar was an entrenched powerful member of Congress and Chairman of the Transportation Committee. This Water bill of his nearly passed but also may have cost him his office. I say good riddance to the likes of him. That said, I’m sure the Left still has a similar bill waiting to be set out upon us when the time is right.


            Report this

            70

        • #
          Greebo

          Remember, even your rooftop is a watershed

          That, in fact, was mooted by the Bracks/Brumby Govt in Vic. They planned to tax farmers on catchments, and eventually homeowners on rooftop catchments for water tanks. This, I believe, is the REAL reason behind the compulsory water tanks for all new dwellings legislation. Nothing to do with conservation concerns.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            ROM

            That taxing of water catchments was actually a follow on and direct opposite to a previous equally imbecilic policy of banning water tanks and etc that caught water for domestic use in Melbourne at least. Possibly a policy coming out of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the quango that ran Melbourne for many years
            There was a huge media hoo ha back maybe 30 or so years ago when a private car park owner, who apparently was refused a water connection for his premises, it being a private car park, put up a small water tank to catch rainfall for his own use from his small office roof in the car park.
            And was promptly heavily fined for putting up the very small tank as it set a precedent and the MBW was looking at a lot less income from domestic user water sales if that idea was ever allowed to get off the ground so as to speak.

            The wonders of the collective bureaucratic mind are truly a wondrous and a most mysterious side of human psychology never to be understood or fathomed by those who are the innocent victims of such rationaly challenged collectives of officialdom.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Bite Back

            You tossed the Red Queen, now toss the rest! It really is time to fight back.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Sometime ago I heard the prediction that the 3rd World War will be waged over water.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        James

        Yep water – not water shortage for the planet, but most likely the availability of potable water for third world countries – sounds like a good earner for unscrupulous money grabbers.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        I think its Ortiz Anchovies.

        Once word gets out how addictive they are when served with a bit of crusty bread, global supplies will be plundered and prices will skyrocket. I have an emergency supply in my pantry already.

        http://www.amazon.com/Ortiz-Anchovies-Anchoas-3-5-Ounce-Jars/dp/B001G0MC40


        Report this

        30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      so lets look at the next stage to control the masses.

      Any predictions?

      No need for any more “stages” – in western nations the masses are now pretty-much under total control.
      Including Australia.


      Report this

      130

    • #
    • #
    • #
      Alarmist Lank

      Nitrogen.
      78% of the atmosphere but there is much much more in the mantle. What would happen if N in atmosphere increases? We would be faced with much lower proportion of oxygen. We would all die!
      Just watch out for those volcanoes!


      Report this

      10

      • #
        observa

        Definitely nitrogen gives them a lot more scope than a trace gas-
        Nitro is increasing dangerously in the atmosphere folks and we must put a stop to it before the Big Bang so give copiously.
        The dough not the nitro you fools!


        Report this

        20

    • #
      bobl

      Meteor strike, for sure


      Report this

      20

  • #

    Any troll who thinks the carbon scam is still going strong, that we “deniers” are on the verge of defeat – they’re welcome to bet their life savings on the carbon market.

    Ha ha ha ha ha :-)


    Report this

    370

  • #

    Look out for new publicity claims saying market volume is growing, or even, more pointlessly, that the number of markets is growing. There is almost always a way to spin a “growing” headline.

    As I had noted in a post last April, one of the UNEP’s very own publications [GEAP] had noted:

    Emissions trading systems are often hailed as a powerful and cost-efficient approach to dealing with the multi-faceted challenges posed by climate change (Kossoy and Guignon, 2012). The UNFCCC estimates that these systems will contribute a significant portion of the funds necessary for climate change mitigation (UNFCCC, 2007)

    Yet this “powerful and cost-efficient” panacea has a few flies in the ointment:

    Corruption impacts the success of emissions trading schemes by reducing the overall reliability and effectiveness of GHG markets. The implementation of cap-and-trade systems in both developed and developing countries has been recurrently tainted by cases of fraud and bribery, abuses of power, and other conventional forms of corruption. Corruption in this sector has also taken more original forms, such as the strategic exploitation of ‘bad science’ and scientific uncertainties for profit, the manipulation of GHG market prices, and anti-systemic speculation (Lohmann, 2007; TI, 2012a; Wara, 2007).

    The challenge that corruption poses to climate finance also contributes to broader debates about the impact of corruption in environmental governance. Over the past two decades, domestic and international anti-corruption initiatives have proliferated, with the process being largely driven by the increasing recognition of the impact of corruption on the quality of environmental governance. [emphasis added -hro]

    To the best of my knowledge, they haven’t succeeded in swatting these flies in the ointment of this “powerful and effective” panacea!

    Which makes a more recent announcement via Reuters, all the more puzzling:

    UK to buy 50 mln stg of UN carbon credits to help poor countries

    The British government said it would buy 50 million pounds ($80.7 million) of U.N. carbon credits and cancel them as a way to help fund development and curb greenhouse gas emissions in poor countries.

    The government’s Carbon Market Finance initiative will buy and cancel Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), which are issued to projects in emerging markets that generate energy from biogas, solar panels and small hydropower units.

    The projects would be registered under the U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which has channelled more than $315 billion to carbon-cutting projects in developing countries by allowing investors to earn credits that they can sell for use in helping meet emission targets abroad.

    Investment under the scheme has dried up as nations wrangle over setting new emission reduction goals under a global U.N. deal. Prices of the credits have crashed to less than 50 cents from over 20 euros five years ago, making many projects unprofitable.
    [...]

    Why the U.K. – which, lets face facts, folks – is not exactly rolling in the dough of a surplus would choose to commit to this desperado rescue attempt of an abysmally failed UN “mechanism” is left as an exercise for the reader.


    Report this

    300

  • #
    Rod M

    Jo, if this trend continues you will have to find something else for amusement, or take a long holiday! I realise that there were times it was not so funny but I think we will soon be able to look back at some of the things the scammers did and tried to do and have a big laugh as well as breathe a sigh of relief.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Another Ian

      Maybe just geared up for quick response to the next try.

      Peak water and ocean acidification seem neck and neck favourites at the moment IMO


      Report this

      90

      • #
        AndyG55

        Realistically, water (as in potable water storage and supply), especially in Australia’s highly variable climate and in some other parts of the world, can be a major issue.

        Adelaide and especially Perth do have real issues: highly variable rainfall, insufficient storage etc..

        We do need to look at ways of increasing water supply security, while minimising cost. (ie NOT desal unless absolutely necessary.)

        But it should be done PURELY on an engineering cost/benefit/risk basis…..

        No ideology.. that’s what really stuffs things up, as climate non-science has amply illustrated.

        Their is NO water shortage anywhere, the world has plenty of water.

        What we have in many places is actually a water infrastructure shortage.


        Report this

        290

        • #
        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Their is NO water shortage anywhere, the world has plenty of water.

          Andy,

          That’s true in the academic sense — water covers nearly 75% of the planet. But getting enough safe potable water to where the population is can be quite another thing. Just ask anyone in California. The City of Los Angeles and the surrounding cities import water from literally hundreds of miles away and this started in the 1930′s. There are no more options for expanding that supply. And in fact, we may lose some of that water to Arizona — and have lost some of it to Arizona already. It’s a tough problem with an expanding population.

          Southern California has, demonstrably, the most desirable climate for year round living in the whole country. And we not only have babies born at a nearly exponential rate but people come here from other places as well.

          I don’t know how to solve that problem and I fear that politics will screw up any chance there is of getting it resolved with minimum trouble to the people. Ideologues have control at the moment.

          I take note of your comment below. If I can rephrase it,

          Too little water in any city is a very, very scary proposition.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Very true. Even in the desert parts of California, where they have strict rationing (by locality, not individual), the water is “imported”.

            But while the math tells them they have a problem, the people do not seem to think there is. In one suburb of Phoenix, it is against the law NOT to water your lawn. Yet Phoenix gets its water from the same place LA does.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              AndyG55

              In California,

              When it does rain, where does the water go?

              When you have a shower, where does the water go?


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Andy,

                In a few places the waste water (sewage) is recycled for use in watering landscaping. It’s called gray water and not suitable for drinking.

                But mostly it goes into rivers or streams and ends up in the ocean after being processed by the sewage plant.

                Rain just runs into drainage tunnels and channels and also into the ocean eventually. The Los Angeles River drains water into Santa Monica Bay from a huge area all the way up into the San Gabriel Mountains. Given the potential for contamination, not to mention just plain old dirt, I would not drink it and water purification plants are expensive in spades.

                Shower water must be treated as sewage because of the possibility that almost anything can be in it and the same for kitchen sinks


                Report this

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                Roy, modern treatment regimes can take almost any water up to a potable standard if necessary and if the economics make it viable. “Black water” (ie toilet water) is a challenge, because some hormonal substances are difficult to remove.

                Drinking and food prep water is actually a tiny percentage of use. There are many areas where the waste water could be treated and used for auxiliary purposes.

                In parts of western Sydney (Rouse Hill area), a whole “purple pipe” system has been implemented, and highly treated sewage water is used for garden watering, playing fields, and industrial uses. etc. This water is actually treated to the same standards as water from the main reservoirs and is safe to drink, but society prefers not to.

                The Penrith/Richmond area treats all its effluent to ‘A’ quality and pumps it into the Hawkesbury River. This means they don’t have to release water from Warragamba to keep the river running.

                Either we have to build bigger, better dams, (always preferred if possible) or we have to use our suburban rainfall more efficiently and stop wasting it.
                Be prepared to use it more than once.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                …modern treatment regimes can take almost any water up to a potable standard if necessary and if the economics make it viable.

                Andy,

                I’m aware of that. Unfortunately any technology you use is subject to failure and just one such failure that put contaminated water into the drinking water supply could sicken or even kill a whole lot of people. I understand that your expertise tells you what the technological capabilities are. But when it comes to the point of actually relying on such a water source, both I and the people who have to make the decisions will say no.

                I think things will need to be very bad before cleaned up sewage will be fed back into the water supply for general use.

                Just think about one possibility: If recycled water is used for bathing, how often will someone get some of that water in their mouth? If it’s used for washing cloths, how often will some virus or bacterium remain on the shirt when you put it on again? The problem of exposure to a failure is one of almost limitless ways someone could be infected or contaminated.

                Even if I have a separate gray water supply for my yard, how often will I get that on my hands?

                I do not trust technology to never fail. No one else should ever put that much trust in technology either. I flew around as I pleased for years. But every pilot goes through a lengthy checklist — including an actual test of engine performance — before every flight to make sure he has an airworthy machine before the wheels ever leave the ground. That’s what keeps the risk acceptable. I rejected several rental airplanes because of failure to meet that airworthiness standard. But I have no checklist I can use to determine if my water supply is “airworthy”. And that’s the difference.

                Remember, a failure has to actually happen before it can be detected.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              In one suburb of Phoenix, it is against the law NOT to water your lawn.

              And here I thought Arizona was at least tying to get it right. Who wastes time writing laws making it a crime to not water your lawn? Leave that to the homeowners’ associations. They seem to know what everyone should do, sometimes right down to the kind of grass you can have.


              Report this

              00

          • #

            Roy,

            From what I glean about California the population should be shrinking as power becomes ever dearer due to green energy policies. Dosn’t dear electricity force manufacturers, ie employers, to seek cheaper energy elsewhere and therefore take jobs with them?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Lawrie,

              I have no actual figures on that. But we have foolishly made the state a Mecca for those looking for a free ride. The productive are indeed leaving but I won’t bet on that being a significant population decrease. It is, however, a significant tax base decrease. And we will certainly regret the past mistakes.


              Report this

              00

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps. The real hard questions is HOW do we estimate risk, when trying to guess the future.

        I’ve talked with the guys who are currently updating ARR (Australia Rainfall and Run-off) and all they can really do is work on statistical analysis from what is realistically a very short record.

        Then you have to look at the consequences of “no water”.!

        A 1°C or even 2°C degree general rise in temperature.. in many area of the world would be a godsend.

        But in any capital city, “no water” is a very, very scary proposition !!!!!


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Dave

          AndyG55,

          In regard to runoff over the last 40 to 50 years has definitely changed the groundwater flows. I’ve lived in QLD most of my life and visit my family in North Queensland and I live on the Sunshine Coast. Here I have noticed natural streams (seepage points) now drying up after 6 months or less, over the last 15 years or so, where as as they used to flow all year round (Even after all the rain in 2010 and 2011). With new suburbs going up and properties smaller, building larger, virtually no water is returned to the ground. The whole roof area drains to storm water pipes, driveways and even grass areas have storm water pits etc, so less than 15% of the total block area actually absorbs water and soaks in.

          Also where the washing machine drains, the grass is the healthiest of all.

          My families property in NQ is on a large block and all roof drainage is directed to gardens, grass etc, even the washing machine and sinks etc discharges in garden areas. The trees and plants grow like crazy, plus the bore hasn’t dropped much over 50 years (Apart from long drought periods). The driveway is gravel and even soaks up water.

          The property has drill (1 meter deep) holes throughout the area and filled with gravel (where roof and waste water is sent) and soil is used for gardens. All of these are on higher ground, and new ones done every few years.

          I am just wondering if the implications of this ground water soak-age is included in the runoff figures (ie are there ground soak-age figures)? Do the new suburb developments take this sort of water management into account. Does this also mean that urban areas are returning more water to the ocean (what sort of volumes would they be)?


          Report this

          70

          • #

            @ Dave 8:19:

            Depends where in NQ. Most of the Townsville urban region is “old alluvial” eg clay soils, 60% sodic, so it is mostly all run-off anyway. Increasing proportion of roofs to natural ground only makes a small time-difference. Stormwater retention might be required where there is denser re-development and there is an issue with existing stormwater pipework. New greenfield developments have large constructed open drains eg 75+m wide, and increasingly, retention basins.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Do the new suburb developments take this sort of water management into account”

            The general principle we would like to see applied is that when an area is urbanised, the stormwater must be controlled so that peak flows during storms are maintained at the pre-development values. If flows are greatly changed you can alter the whole nature of the downstream river topology and habitat.

            Most of the major water authorities have taken this idea on board, but a lot of older drainage infrastructure wasn’t build that way.

            It is also prudent to try to slow down flows so as to allow infiltration to recharge groundwater.

            The old “dump it in a pipe and send it to the sea” traditional method of stormwater drainage is not only not very intelligent, its also a big waste of a possible resource.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I see several things discussed that I’d like to comment on.

              First, it would be illegal here if I allowed my washing machine to drain onto the ground. The soap or detergent and fabric softener entering the groundwater is a real problem. The days when my mother could run a hose out the back door and drain her washtub and washing machine are long gone.

              Second, street runoff during a rainstorm is highly likely to carry both engine oil and antifreeze with it. This is also a real problem and most yards in any housing development drain into the street as well. I also find a lot of trash — possible contamination unknown — blowing around my neighborhood and much of it settles in the gutters when there’s water, even yard sprinkler runoff. So runoff from any housing tract is all undesirable stuff to get into the water supply.

              It’s even becoming a problem that unused medication is being dumped down the toilet. Measurable amounts of many drugs are showing up both in groundwater and sewage treatment plants.

              I’m glad you’re working on these problems because I don’t know of any acceptable solution at the moment except to get it all back into the ocean and recycle it as rain or snow back into the general water supply. And even that is becoming a contamination problem in many places. That is also pushing its limit right now in many places.

              And then, how much can the oceans withstand without trouble? That’s a legitimate question too.


              Report this

              00

          • #
            AndyG55

            And yes, SEQ Water need to rethink some of their drainage, get more water back into the ground if possible and think about utilising run-off and waste water in more efficient ways.

            You have noted one of the major effects of urbanisation. Increased volume and speed of run-off, decrease infiltration into the ground.

            Its all a matter of getting the balances right. And we haven’t yet but we are trying to learn. :-)


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … all they can really do is work on statistical analysis …

          Which means they are extrapolating, the naughty boys, it will make them go blind.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Brett

    Back in the heady days of 2008 the growth was described as “explosive”

    They just need Gore to make another infomercial.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ROM

    Stats from World Stat Info based on the CIA’s Country Facts book

    2011 population estimate [ millions ]

    World – 6.93 billions as of 2011. Now about 7.2 or thereabouts global population.

    Countries where the CAGW meme has it’s belief base and then with only perhaps based on recent surveys, a little more [ perhaps ! ] than half the population actually believing in and believe that CAGW might be a serious problem so action needs to be taken.

    Europe – 734.5
    North America – 374.4
    Oceania- 35.2

    Total = 1144 millions population in the above continental areas.
    _________________
    Continents below where they couldn’t give a damn about any regularly repeated ad nauseum, western chicken little, the climate heated sky is falling or is about to fall
    They want what we have and they intend to get the same as we enjoy and the hell with all the western climate science drag queens and all their poncing about with the elites and their condescending display of their own self described superior knowledge and wisdom over and above that all other global citizens.

    The rest of the world only wants to better their lives and the lives of those to come in their countries and nations
    Now Africa is starting to accelerate and starting to emulate the Asian experience.

    [ A Giant Awakens: Inside Africa's Economic Boom ]

    Population of those nations and continents
    Asia= 4175
    Africa = 1038
    South America = 400
    Central America = 197

    Total= 5810 millions

    ie; 5.810 billions in the less developed world where bettering one’s life takes far greater precedence than any hypothetical model created CAGW meme of a very unproven scientific province
    _______________________

    So we have about 5 times as many citizens of this planet than are in the whole of the developed western world, who are determined to better their lives and of whom it is likely that only a miniscule few hundred thousands at the very most and then only of the wealthy ones actually even know let alone bother about all the CAGW global warming hype.

    Take the half of the western nations category who actually say ; emphasis on “say” , they believe in and fear in the CAGW meme but that may not necessarily be what they actually believe deep down believe which might be closer to the CAGW thing is a crock of sxxt.
    But hey, who is going to wreck their careers or miss out on big climate warming slush funding by admitting their doubts.

    So we are down to perhaps a third , about 400 million at the outside of the western nation’s population who believe there might be some dangers from CAGW.

    Lets say that out of those 5.8 billions in the non western nations have around 400 million also who believe in the quite hypnotically persuasive CAGW meme and that I suspect would be way over the true figure..
    We now have a very rough figure of 800 million of the global population, about 10% to 12% and falling fast according to the polls, who think there might be anything from no real effects to a catastrophic effect on the planet from anthropogenic global warming.

    I think the fanatics of global warming and a whole gamut of often corrupt, third rate pseudo climate warming scientists might just be facing the guillotine of public displeasure for their lies and their deliberate corrupting of the formerly highly respected profession of Science [ with a capital "S" ] in the not very distant future.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    couldn’t be happier. when polls tells us the public wants carbon dioxide emissions trading, u have to ask: what the hell do the people they are asking know about it? nothing. meanwhile, in the UK where it’s all unravelling:

    1 Dec: UK Telegraph: Louise Armitstead: RBS to push ahead with bonuses as probe nears
    The size of the bonus pool at RBS will not be affected by the decision of the City watchdog to investigate allegations that the bank had deliberately pushed companies into default, say sources
    Weekend reports suggested that RBS, which is 82pc-owned by the taxpayer, was planning to pay out a total of £500m in bonuses this year. Last year, the bank paid £607m in annual bonuses, despite reported losses of £5.2bn. The pool would have been higher, but £300m was deducted to pay for fines related to the global Libor-rigging scandal…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10487325/RBS-to-push-ahead-with-bonuses-as-probe-nears.html

    2 Dec: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: 800,000 people ‘lifted’ out of fuel poverty – by redefining it
    The Government is attempting to manipulate official figures to bring down fuel poverty, it is claimed today.
    A clause in the Energy Bill will change the definition of the key poverty indicator, reducing the number of English households counted as “fuel-poor” from 3.2 million to 2.4 million overnight…
    Currently, fuel poverty refers to those households that need to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel “to maintain an adequate level of warmth”. But under the new definition, contained in the Government’s forthcoming Energy Bill, which could be passed by the end of the year, it will apply only to households which need to spend more than average on fuel to keep warm and who would be left with “a residual income below the official poverty line” if they did…
    The Government has characterised the definition change as an attempt to “improve the energy efficiency of the homes of the fuel-poor”…
    But last night the suggested change met with anger, coming as it does against a backdrop of inflation-busting hikes in gas and electricity bills and ahead of an expected watering-down of measures to subsidise insulation for poor households in George Osborne’s Autumn Statement on Thursday.
    Official figures released last week show more than 31,000 people died needlessly during last winter’s freezing weather, of whom about 10,000 deaths are estimated to have been the result of cold homes…
    Ms Walley, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, added: “In the longer term, green levies could actually keep bills down if they drive energy-efficiency improvements that cut the cost of heating our homes. Insulating homes and supporting green technologies is vital to help the fuel-poor and cut the emissions causing climate change.”…
    The EAC report also criticised the Government’s decision to weaken its legislative commitment to fuel poverty. This means it will no longer require the elimination of fuel poverty by 2016, but instead ask for it to be addressed by a date to be set later.
    A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “The Government is tackling fuel poverty through schemes like the Warm Home Discount, which will help two million households this year, including more than one million low-income pensioners who will receive £135 off their bill.”…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/800000-people-lifted-out-offuel-poverty–by-redefining-it-8976232.html

    wouldn’t u know it. green levies help the poorest:

    2 Dec: Guardian: Rowena Mason: David Cameron accused of ‘smoke and mirrors’ on energy bills
    Labour accuses PM of secret deals with big six firms, while charity says cuts to green levies will come at expense of poorest
    It also emerged that the £1,000 offer for new homebuyers to spend on energy efficiency measures has been designed to boost the government’s flagging £1bn Green Deal scheme – which offers government-backed loans for home improvements of up to £10,000.
    Sources confirmed the new offer will run “in parallel” to an existing scheme offering people up to £1,000 off energy efficiency measures as a sweetener if they sign up to the Green Deal, which is due to end in March 2014. So far it has failed to significantly boost take up of the programme, with the Green Deal only managing to sign up around 1% of its target of more than 100,000 households so far…
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/01/david-cameron-energy-bills


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Manfred

      Ms Walley, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, added: “In the longer term, green levies could actually keep bills down

      ?10,000 yrs

      Walley is as Walley does.


      Report this

      60

      • #

        In fact, what he says makes perfect sense: fossil-fuel prices are on a long-term upward course that greatly exceeds the rate of inflation. Renewable energy prices are on a long-term downward course.

        1 + 1 = ?


        Report this

        04

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          And in the long term we are all dead. The 2 are no where near each other at this point. When they do get close – on their own accord without subsidies and excise taxes, there may even be other alternatives.

          When whales were being hunted to extinction, no one was lobbying to start burning that “black stuff oozing out of the ground”. Yet a few short years later, they figured out how to make it both profitable and more efficient than whale blubber.

          Your “renewables” have been around for over a century. And they have not become any more economical than they were then.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘peak carbon is in the rear view mirror’ is that because renewables are having an impact? So all those turbines, solar panels, etc. must be dong a good job! Yeah!


    Report this

    126

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well, if you had bothered to read the whole post, instead of just cherry picking part of the headline, you would know that Jo was talking about the Peak Carbon meme being in the rear view mirror, because the investors have left the building, and done so in droves.

      No investors, so no investments, so no more windymills. Pragmatism rules, and everybody apart from you (and perhaps Margot) can see that it is turning into a slow-motion train wreck.

      I have got some shares in a wind turbine company – wanna buy them?


      Report this

      280

      • #
        gee Aye

        an easy test of the veracity of this… if one more wind turbine is built you might want to be more careful how you write your refutations.

        err conch head :)


        Report this

        220

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Nice try, but it doesn’t follow, because of temporal lag, and in some cases forward contractual commitments.


          Report this

          150

          • #

            So how about a prediction, Rereke?

            When will the last wind turbine be built?

            When will the renewable share of the electricity generation market start a long-term decline?


            Report this

            05

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              When will the last wind turbine be built?

              When the true environmentalists bring themselves to publicly admit the damage they do to protected wildlife, such as the American Bald Eagle, the British Barn Owl, and the New Zealand Lesser Short-Tailed Bat (pekapeka-tou-poto), and start lobbying for less intrusive means of generating energy, and/or when Governments remove the heavy subsidies on the power they generate, and force them to compete on an open market with a level playing field, against other forms of energy generation.

              Wind turbines are a political statement, not a rational business proposition.

              If you disagree, then perhaps you will want to buy my shares in a company that makes windmills? I am happy to negotiate a price, using Jo as an intermediary, and I will even donate brokerage fees to her chocolate box, as a percentage of the deal. Are you up for that?

              When will the renewable share of the electricity generation market start a long-term decline?

              When the politicians finally admit (albeit very quietly and when they think nobody is looking) that they have always had to keep coal/oil/gas/hydro/thermal/nuclear generators running non-productively in order to provide a base load, to offset some of the engineering problems created by the variability of wind, tide, and solar energy; and they have also been paying subsidies and giving tax relief to renewables generation in order to put it on an economic par with other forms of generation. The Polly’s know that it is not sustainable. Those of us who lurk in the corridors of power know it is not sustainable. Even the Press Gallery, who are generally innumerate, have managed to figure it out all by themselves.

              So the answer to your question is, when the current supply contracts come up for renewal, and the generators find that subsidies are no longer on the negotiating table.

              Here, in New Zealand, the Government are selling part of its shareholding in a generation company (that just happens to be building a wind farm at Makara, near Wellington), since the sale process started, the share value has dropped, as more and more people do their due diligence. The decline has already started.

              Seriously, I would be most happy to sell my shares to you, but please make a decision quickly.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Dave

                Rereke,

                Marcot is not up to speed on new projects in Australia it seems.
                1. Index change for electricity prices in Adelaide over last 20 Years is 198.4%, which happens to be the highest in Australia.
                2. South Australia had an 18% increase in 2012 to 2013 F/Y.
                3. Gas-fired generation projects represent the largest share of investment until 2018.
                4. An additional 2,000 megawatts of capacity has been delayed or reconsidered, including wind powered, solar, and wave energy in 2013/2014.
                5. Coal (black & brown) and Gas represent nearly 80% of Australia’s installed generation capacity in 2012 compared to 70% in 1999. An increase of 10% share.
                6. But actual production makes windmills a bad investment now, as Black coal, brown coal and Gas generated over 225 TWh whereas wind, hydro and solar barely made 20 TWh which is less than 8% generation, with wind at less than 5 TWh.
                7. South Australia in 2012 only produced 15% of electricity from wind, the balance was by gas or imported.
                8. Annual investment was dominated by Gas in 2012 at over 600 MW, with wind a poor third at 100 MW.
                9. Only 4 projects are in the completed stage for 2012, 22 at committed stage, 100 at feasibility stage, and 37 at concept stage. The publicly announced wind projects have been the biggest decrease in the last 10 years, and the majority of the feasibility stage wind projects are deemed unable to proceed.

                Overall investors are leaving wind in droves, and gas is dominating.

                Wind is on the way out BIG TIME.

                Sorry Rereke, but I recommend that Marcot NOT to buy your windmill shares, as she’ll loose heaps of money. But Marcot, don’t let your love of Bird Munchers and Bat Exploders prevent you from taking up this worthless bargain on offer.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                That’s OK Dave, doggy paper is doggy paper, and I would have felt somewhat guilty in parting with it.

                We got in early, to what has proven to be a revolutionary turbine gearbox design. That design is used on a number of sites, where smaller turbines are more suitable. But unfortunately, the design doesn’t scale up very well (for a number of reasons I don’t fully understand) to the bigger windmill designs.

                The Government subsidies are not linear, and actually encourage the use of large inefficient windmills, over smaller but much more efficient ones. Go figure.

                It appeared to be a level playing field at the start of the game but, looking back, we under-estimated the obtuseness of the policy drafters.

                On the positive side, it looks as though the design will also work well with waterwheels, although that also comes with considerable regulatory baggage.

                Everywhere you look, there is a bureaucrat telling you that you can’t do something. That is why I might have been tempted to sell to Margot.


                Report this

                10

      • #
        Brett

        maybe he suffers premature vociferation


        Report this

        90

    • #
      Dave

      BA4

      Look at the dials, not You Tube.

      Wind in the UK got to over 3% today (a big WOW), but the gas kept generating just in case.
      Coal kept up its power supply.
      Nuclear kept up its power supply.

      Wind just sort stops and then starts, but mainly stops.
      But it always keeps on killing birds.

      Good grief, why install 12GW plus of wind power, and only produce about 1GW or 2GW?

      The windmills kept feeding the GANG GREEN parasites also.

      They’re a dead end power supply BA4, absolutely useless pieces of garbage.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Jammies

      What colour is the sky… yaddadah yaddadah yaddadah


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Yup renewables are having an impact for sure. But only on electricity prices, driving them up.

      Basically every credible analyst, every energy industry body, every western Government, every business lobby group, everyone with a shred of beleive-ablity agrees, renewables have served only one purpose and that is to punish low income earners into reducing their energy consumption.

      http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/thousands-going-without-power-as-electricity-bill-defaults-skyrocket/story-fnagkbpv-1226472948011

      Thats a 12 month old story and in Tassie, the rate of defaults has doubled in the last 12 months.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/new-energy-report-finds-more-low-income-households-are-battling/5116224

      http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4048

      So if you are of the opinion that pensioners should just die in the heat this summer (which a eugenicist like you no doubt is) then yeah, your stupid carbon nonsense has indeed had an effect.

      You proud?


      Report this

      40

  • #

    At this point, the only thing keeping the scam going is money, and that’s drying up.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/cop19-the-grubby-truth-behind-it-all/

    Pointman


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Brett

    THE Senate has scuttled the coalition government’s reintroduction of temporary protection visas.

    Labor and the Greens teamed up on Monday night to pass a disallowance motion in the Senate, 36 votes to 26, to quash the controversial visas.


    Report this

    16

    • #
      Andrew

      Sorry, but had to give you a thumbs down from bringing that to my attention.

      Just when I thought the most negative Opposition in history couldn’t sink any lower (after siding with the Greens to keep the WBCT that they went to the election “Terminating”) they do this? Might as well officially change their name to the People Smuggling Party after trying to destroy Indonesian cooperation and now gifting people smugglers family reunion to sell.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    ROM

    A dying of the meme then a lull or a while and then if global temps start to slide ever so little “The New Ice Age Now” will hit the streets in all it’s gory detail of how we are doomed “unless we do something now ” all over again.

    The change over from an oncoming ice age scare typified by this 1975 Mar 1st Science News article to the global warming catastrophe mem which drew on the equally emotional hyped up, catastrophic Ozone Hole science debacle which was accompanied by scandalous corruption in the science if you believe Proff James Lovelock who invented one of the prime instruments for measuring ozone. He had this to say in relation to the science of global warming and the Ozone hole;

    I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

    The Ozone Hole was just a warm up for most of the same corrupt lot of science gangsters who are right at the forefront of global warming alarmism and all it’s munificent financial offerings today.

    The change over from a New Ice Age to Global Warming [ Hansen, an astronomer by training, was involved in both ] via the Ozone Hole took only only a bit over a decade, from the late 1970′s to Hansen’s infamous Senate Energy Committee hearing June 23rd 1988.
    It was a stinking hot day with the usual Washington stifling humidity at that time of the year so one of Hansens assistants turned off all the AC’s for the hearing in which Hansen came out strongly on the new dire threat to humanity from global warming while the sweat poured off all the senators and their advisers right through the hearing.

    And so was borne the great global warming scam and swindle.

    So my guess is if the solar watchers are correct, the lower global temperatures which I think are already well on the way as new cold temperature records are being set in many northern hemisphere locations just like last year and the year before that, despite it being still a month and a half at least away from the coldest period of the NH winter, then by around 2020 there will be a brand new scare on the ˜New Ice Age, hyped to the heavens to make sure that a usual bunch of third rate so called climate scientists can go right on sucking on the public purse all the while lamenting to the skies that we are all again doomed unless we, that is everybody else “does something” such as inventing a new form of suffering for the masses to ensure that the anthropogenic created dangerously cooling world up will warm up .
    Dunno how they will come up with to blame mankind for any cooling but they will most surely think of something .
    After all you can’t expect a climate scientist to have to live at the disgustingly lower standards of living that the masses have to endure now can you?


    Report this

    110

    • #
      ROM

      Answering my own question!
      Aerosols!
      What else? 

      Perfect for blaming global cooling on aerosols which create those climate cooling low level clouds that are increasingly being blamed for the lack of warming over the last 16 years. ,
      Aerosols are a product of the processes of an industrial civilisation , are a product of most energy generation technologies, are created in large lumps by mega cities, are a well known product of coal burning so out goes steel and cement production as well as coal fired electrical power generation.

      Man made Aerosols are perfect for anthropogenic global cooling as stuff-all is known about aerosols or how they work in real life or if they actually do cool or warm or make it rain or stop it raining or do nothing at all.
      And how much of them is actually around and where and what they are composed of.
      Climate modellers have woken up to aerosols and they are being used in highly variable amounts by climate modellers according to each modeller’s personal assessments [ beliefs! ] of the amount of aerosol needed to make his model look like [ tuning ] it’s actually producing something that vaguely resembles the past global climate.

      The rabid greens will have a field day shutting down anything that has a whiff of dust or smoke about it as Aerosols will cover anything that farts or moves as well.
      [ For a fine example of real all out greenie whack job on this subject, take a look at the WZ Alternative Energy Scam or coal thread and a certain poster whose acronym starts with "Yasi"]

      My bet on the next big scare will be “Aerosols” followed when that falls over by the onset of the “New Ice Age” ,

      Now that would be something that I also would subscribe to as being, based on past recorded history , a rather scary prospect for mankind and will likely limit his ability to feed himself adequately and without any major famines during the period of colder temperatures, the “Eddy minimum” perhaps .

      History has recorded some very harsh lessons for mankind as to what happens when the global temperature fall and does so for many decades.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Rom,

      But, we have it on record that these self-same scientists and their bureaucratic fan clubs, were cajoling us to reduce whatever we were doing in order to reduce warming CO2, and then we end up with extremely cold weather. Obviously both the warming and then the freezing is their fault, and it is them who should be held accountable, for giving politicians exactly the wrong advice.

      Scapegoats are nice, but they have to be cooked correctly.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    David A

    Unfortunately, in the US, Obama is completely ignoring the trend, and through the EPA attempting to go full stupid. He is also trying to promise funds for third world nations due to our “evil” climate disruption. His reverse Midas zombie touch continues unabated. The more money his admin spends, the poorer the population of the US becomes, especially blacks and minorities, every “renewable company he gives OPM to, goes broke, right after contributing to his never ending campaign, and the spread between the rich and the poor increases, as the middle class dissolves. Oh, and he has totally screwed up and made dramatically worse, an already flawed health care system.

    @ Andy and others; If “water” is to be the next issue, then massive infusion of CO2 into the atmosphere is the most certain way to save water. At 400 ppm CO2 vs. 280 ppm, the world saves about 15% of global agricultural water, to produce the same amount of food.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Yea, the American Carbon market sank to 5 cents per ton before they just declared it a dinosaur.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Didn’t someone note that there are no data published for 2013 as done for 2012 – probably because the graph would look calamitous for those with hopes to make money in the carbon market?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    MadJak

    This one just through - LNP is trying to rally people to contact their senators to encourage the ALP to actually work in accordance with the will of the people.

    My question is this, they showed scant disregard and contempt for the australian populace when they were in power, so what makes anyone think they might change their tune now?

    Oh that’s right they got ripped into little pieces at the last election, that’s why.

    The ALP’s new motto – “Our unions don’t care about what the australian people think – and nor do our union groomed leaders”


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I wonder if those pro EU protesters in the Ukraine care less about a pseudo science based market collapsing or they’re just good old fashioned socialists spoiling for a coup?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    handjive

    The Social Cost of Oxygen¹

    For some reason, there is considerable effort now on estimating the social cost of carbon, while there is no visible focus on its “partner in crime” (and the periodic table), oxygen.

    I call upon economists and regulators to follow the pernicious effects of oxygen throughout all the ways it affects our economy and the lives of our people, and arrive at a defensible estimate of its true social cost.

    ✔ It’s well known that oxygen is dangerous.
    It is the necessary ingredient in fires, which cost the US about 2.2% of GDP ($324 billion) annually

    ✔ Before its toxic potential was fully understood, it was supplied at levels near 100% to premature infants in intensive care units in the US in the 1940s and early 1950s, during which time it was the leading cause of blindness in US infants.

    ✔ We all remember the terrible accident costing the lives of three astronauts due to a spark in the enriched oxygen environment. (After which oxygen was banned from the spacecraft interior in favor of helium.)


    The decisions to remove excess oxygen from the intensive care units and spacecraft can be considered early cases of regulation of this dangerous invisible and odor-free gas.
    However, these decisions have had virtually no effect on the 20.95% level of oxygen in air (600 times the amount of carbon dioxide)

    At this point, we must institute an oxygen tax that will be supported by all, especially our government, which needs it the most.

    ¹ Repost of comment from website “climate etc


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Neville

    When will these moronic fools ever learn? Or how to waste 7 trillion that will return zip on the investment????? A five year old would be able to understand the sums. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/11/climate_change_the_eu_wants_to_spend_7_trillion_on_projects_that_will_barely.html

    Probably one of Lomborg’s best posts on this barking mad cult. All the money wasted is listed and the returns???? are calculated as well


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Another Graeme

    Waters a good bet for the next scare but I’d be surprised if a concerted effort at population control isn’t up there to. So much anti human sentiment in green circles it’s scary.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    handjive

    As history looks back upon the this particular episode I will call for now (unimaginatively) The Great Carbon Bubble, there will be many noted moments.
    .
    Like a bucket of crabs as they scramble over each other to get out, the competition is fierce, but, I would like to nominate this comment as the most un-scientific of the ‘settled science’:

    But thanks to global warming, we’re unlikely to see another ice age.”

    At the end of what is a beautiful article with firmly based observed scientific evidence, sits one of the most simple, scientifically ignorant comments ever made. (imo)

    Note: Australia’s ‘leading’ climate scientist, Will Steffen, has said as much, but in a different way:

    “Prof Steffen said that this period of climate change caused by humans, known as the ‘anthropocene era’, could ultimately cause the whole system of ice ages followed by warm periods, that has allowed life on Earth to flourish, to be over.”
    .
    *Steffen receives the runner-up prize for embellished ‘settled voodoo science.’


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    Yonniestone -

    other viewpoints to our MSM’s frantic 24/7 pro-EU reporting, (guaranteed to keep protestors on the streets), which never comments on the black-bloc provocateurs shown in their footage, and rarely mentions any details of the EU deal. talk about a topsy-turvy political world!

    ??? listen at 1:35 Barroso: the times of limited sovereignty are over in Europe?

    RT: ‘EU crumbling Soviet style empire, replicates most ridiculous facets of USSR’
    Patrick Young, writer and financial adviser joins RT from Poland.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxLkc-WWuw

    Patrick Young
    http://patricklyoung.net/

    RT: ‘Any association with EU would be economic suicide for Ukraine’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zX4Ek8401I

    some evidence Ukraine is looking for a better deal:

    2 Dec: RT: Putin: Kiev protests have nothing to do with Ukraine-EU relations, prepared ahead of elections
    The footage from Kiev clearly shows “how well-organized and trained militant groups operate,” the Russian President said.
    Nobody seems to be concerned with the actual details of the Ukrainian-EU agreement, Putin said.
    “They say that the Ukrainian people are being deprived of their dream. But if you look at the contents of the deal – then you’ll see that the dream may be good, but many may not live to see it,” he argued.
    Putin then explained that the deal offered to Ukraine by the EU has “very harsh conditions”…
    “I want to stress that, regardless of the choice of the Ukrainian people, we will respect it,” Putin said…
    (Ukraine PM) Azarov told the diplomats that Ukraine has proposed some changes to the association agreement with the EU.
    “We’d like to discuss the provisions, which bother us. We’d like our initiative to be treated attentively and maybe we’ll be able to achieve compromise,” the Ukrainian Prime Minister stressed.
    He explained that some of the Ukrainian industrialists have appealed to the government with request for the changes, as the deal would otherwise “make the Ukrainian market too open”.
    As the Ukrainian officials assured the EU that they had not given up on the bilateral deal, President Viktor Yanukovich on Monday stressed that he “was, is, and will be a supporter of European democratic values and standards.”
    Yanukovich stressed that Ukraine wants more favorable conditions for the deal because the country’s economic interests are at stake. He said that a public debate must be held “so that society can give its evaluation of what we want to achieve, on what terms and why we put the problem as it is… It must be made clear that we are protecting our interests.”
    http://rt.com/news/ukraine-putin-riots-foreign-602/


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Thanks Pat, very interesting links to give a fresh perspective on what seems a confusing situation (according to our MSM) but perhaps a desperate EU grab for favour in marginal democratic countries, Putin is no fool and is probably laughing watching the EU flounder.
      Great to see someone allowed to cut loose on the news too, that Patrick Young is a bit of a pistol. :)


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Dave

    Christmas Cancelled??

    The GANG GREEN are at a desperate end releasing this video to scare the children again.

    Downton Abbey’s beloved Carson has swapped his butler’s uniform for a Father Christmas costume in a bid to raise awareness of global warming.
    Actor Jim Carter donned a fluffy beard and red robes to appear in a special Greenpeace film titled An Urgent Message From Santa.
    The 65-year-old urges viewers that Christmas could be cancelled unless world leaders take more action to protect the melting Arctic.

    Video on this page of Santas home coming to and end.

    They are really in disarray if they have to resort to this kind of garbage.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    As a long time investor in gold and silver (physical) with a major period of purchasing just winding up from 2013 (silver mainly), I also wonder what the non stop printing of money is doing to the price of some commodities.

    However when you look at the effect its having on global stock and futures markets (all time highs based on no substance) its pretty fair to conclude it is having an effect. So when you combine those notions with the fact that money is fleeing from carbon and renewables, its further evidence that the confected logic of carbon trading is rapidly wearing thin with investors. Imagine if you had made a major dive into this market 12 months ago, you would have seen your investment nosedive while almost every other vehicle you could have chosen has risen. Capital will go where it can find the best return and no one in their right mind would say that place is carbon or renewables at this time.

    I wonder what the effect of the US scaling down QE is going to be, but I doubt it will be pretty. As a glass half empty investor (which is why I like panic commodities like gold and silver) I believe both the US and Australia are not in a recovery, we are in another bubble. When the money tap is turned off(QE for the USA and record low rates for us), markets will contract in a big way. My only hope is that gold and silver recover their position as hedges, rather than being seen as just as inflated as the other paper rubbish.

    My point being, if you cant get money into carbon and renewables in a market where Bitcoin (fantasy trading at its finest) http://coinmarketcap.com/ is fetching $1000 a unit, then you never will basically.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    3 Dec: Bloomberg: Mike Anderson: Australia Urged to Buy Carbon Credits for Cheaper Emission Curbs
    Purchasing carbon credits from the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism would give the government an insurance policy if its plans for reducing emissions fall short, according to a recommendation from The Australian Industry Group, which has a membership of 60,000 businesses. Certified Emission Reductions from the UN fell to a record low of 20 euro cents ($0.27) on April 17 as nations have failed to boost demand outside Europe for the so-called carbon offsets…
    ***“It’s raining soup in international carbon markets, and we should be out there with a spoon,” Tennant Reed, lead policy adviser for the group, said in an interview yesterday at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne…
    The Australian Industry Group, which supports an emissions-trading system as the lowest-cost method for curbing carbon, says it’s offering the new government ideas to flesh out the Direct Action policy…
    CERs for December closed unchanged yesterday at 31 euro cents a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London. That’s 46 Australian cents.
    The government could use a portion of the Emissions Reduction Fund to establish a reserve of international units, Willox said. To cover the full risk of not meeting the target, the reserve fund could set aside from 275 million to 450 million credits, the submission said. Given yesterday’s CER price, the government could cover its commitment for as little as A$129 million ($117 million).
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/australia-urged-to-buy-carbon-credits-for-cheaper-emission-curbs.html

    not the first time MSM airs this opinion, tho no contrary opinion is ever sought:

    25 Nov: ABC AM: Ai Group urges changes to climate plan
    But the Australian Industry Group argues international emissions should also be included.
    Innes Willox says the Government should spend a portion of the allocated budget on the reserve of international carbon credits.
    INNES WILLOX: We need to get our emission reductions done at least cost. This is one way of doing it. This is also a fallback in case the emissions reduction fund, for whatever reason, doesn’t deliver on the outcomes that it seeks. And basically it also gives the Government some room to move if it decides to move beyond its current emissions reductions target of 5 per cent below 2020 levels…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3897992.htm

    Carbon Expo 2-4 December 2013 – Program
    Greg Hunt, Christiana Figueres, Greg Combet, David Karoly, Christine Milne, Tristan Edis, Ross Garnaut, Bloomberg & other carbon cowboys – all in attendance.
    http://www.carbonexpo.com.au/uploads/pdf/Carbon-Expo-Program.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Three EU nations move closer to handing out free EUAs
    LONDON, Dec 2 (Reuters) – Only three EU member states made progress in the past week towards handing to industry this year’s quota of free carbon permits, the European Commission said on Monday, meaning firms are increasingly unlikely to get their allowances before 2014…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3169249?&ref=searchlist

    UPDATE 2-EU nations aim to approve carbon supply cut plan this year
    LONDON, Dec 2 (Reuters) – EU nations may try to approve before the end of the year a plan to cut carbon permit supply in Europe’s emissions market, said a spokeswoman for Lithuania, which holds the rotating EU presidency…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3168274


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    have just done a search & neither ABC nor Fairfax media have yet covered the Farmers or Irrigators’ demands for an immediate repeal of the carbon tax.

    have u ever noticed how the nature-loving, planet-saving CAGW alarmists, especially the MSM variety, are utterly disconnected from nature?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      ROM

      pat
      December 3, 2013 at 11:08 am #27
      Pat says;

      have u ever noticed how the nature-loving, planet-saving CAGW alarmists, especially the MSM variety, are utterly disconnected from nature?

      Here’s why Pat!

      From the ABS; The average Australian

      [quote]
      WHERE DO THEY LIVE?

      The average Australian lives in one of our state or territory capitals. In 2011, three out of every five people (60%) lived in a capital city, with slightly over a third (35%) living in either Sydney or Melbourne. Aside from the capital cities, other major cities are Gold Coast, Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong, Sunshine Coast, Townsville, Geelong and Cairns. Together, the capitals and other major cities accounted for over two-thirds (69%) of Australia’s population in 2011.

      Altogether, nearly 90% of Australians live in urban areas (cities or towns of more than 1,000 people), and another 3% live in smaller towns or localites. However, in 2011, 1.8 million people lived in rural areas outside any defined towns or localities – more people than live in Perth.

      On average, according to the 2011 Census, there were 2.8 people per square kilometre in Australia, which is one of the lowest population densities in the world. However, since most of Australia’s population is clustered in cities and towns, the majority of people live in areas where the population density is much higher than the average.

      On average, Sydney has 1,900 persons per square kilometre, and Melbourne has 1,500. Darwin, the least densely populated Australian capital, has 480 persons per square kilometre.

      Inner city areas tend to have the highest population density. For example, the Melbourne CBD has 8,500 persons per sq km. However, the most densely populated part of Australia is a small area just north of Central Railway Station in Sydney, between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets. This area has 1,960 people living in a land area of slightly over one hectare (or a bit over two and a half acres), equivalent to a population density of 186,000 persons per square kilometre.
      [ end quote]


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      The vast majority of green voters live around the inner city areas of most capitals. They are notional greens who drive SUVs if they arnt riding pushbikes and only vote the way they do as a conscience salving measure for their own ill conceived perceptions of the “wrongness” of their own urban lives. The big downside is they are not satisfied with flagellating themselves, they must try to force their broken ideas on others to put the icing on the top of their guilt cake.

      Come to Tassy and walk the main street of Launceston or Hobart, try to find someone who claims to vote green, you will be lucky to get 1 in 100. I drove past a car the other day with a dirty back window and scratched on it was “kill a greenie and do the planet a favour”. That about sums it up in Tassie. The only reason they even get a sniff of power is inner city Hobart public servants trying to create political gridlock to secure their layed back, tax payer funded lifestyles. No one actually believes the crap…


      Report this

      90

  • #
    pat

    oh really?

    3 Dec: Bloomberg: Mike Anderson: Australia Wouldn’t Stop Secondary Carbon Trading, Minister Says
    Australia wouldn’t try to stop trading of emission credits that may come out of its proposed Direct Action policy for reducing climate change, the Environment Minister said.
    The Emissions Reduction Fund, proposed to have A$1.5 billion to spend on pollution abatement over the next three years, isn’t designed to be a trading system, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said today at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne. While Hunt calls it a carbon abatement fund, the system may create tradeable credits as an outgrowth, he said.
    “What people do with their private property is not our concern,” Hunt said. ***“If the Clean Energy Regulator issues permits, holders could sell them to the government, keep them, or sell them to voluntary or international markets,” he said.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/australia-wouldn-t-stop-secondary-carbon-trading-minister-says.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    30 Nov: UK Spectator: Our enemy is not global warming. In Britain, people are dying of the cold
    Everyone talks about the human cost of climate change. What about pensioners dying in the cold?
    The 2003 heatwave was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and treated as a national emergency. Sir David King, then chief scientific officer, declared that this meant climate change was ‘more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.
    Since then, some 280,000 Brits have died from the cold and barely 10,000 from the heat. We have been focusing on the wrong enemy.
    Yet still the government seems little bothered by the link between green levies, which are already jacking up our heating bills, and rising winter deaths. Whenever the Climate Change Secretary is presented with the charge that climate levies are hurting the poor he always makes the same claim: that one of the main roles of the levies is to subsidise home insulation schemes for low-earners, and that by doing so their energy bills will actually fall. This is a dubious assertion in that it relies on the elderly and the poor all being able to access subsidised insulation schemes. Many cannot…
    It is hard to escape the conclusion that by adding the cost of levies onto fuel bills (rather than paying them out of general taxation) the Blair and Brown governments hoped to deflect blame to the energy companies. And the Tories signed up to this agenda by voting for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act.
    Far from helping the poor, a remarkable amount of money raised in green taxes seems to land at the feet of the rich: wealthy landowners who rent their land to subsidised wind farms, and well-off homeowners who can afford to fit solar panels to their roofs or to invest in ‘green’ central heating systems such as ground-source heat pumps and woodchip boilers. This, in itself, is a scandal. But we are in a situation where people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes…
    Global temperatures, too, have declined to follow the predicted path on which the Climate Change Act was justified. While other countries loosen their carbon reduction targets Britain remains legally bound to targets which threaten to render industry chronically uncompetitive…
    (WHY IS IT DESIRABLE?)It is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall — as indeed they have in the US as gas pushes out coal as the main form of electricity generation. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of economic growth or the welfare of the old and poor. If David Cameron really wants to tackle ‘green crap’, sooner or later he is going to have to tear up the Climate Change Act — and replace it with a policy aimed at lowering bills and saving lives.
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9088931/winter-fuel/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    why is this being revealed at the Carbon Expo – & not in Parliament? the Expo/Parliament-carbon-tax-debate dates match so well? funny how the Carbon Expo flew completely under the MSM radar!

    3 Dec: BusinessSpectator: BY A STAFF REPORTER: Hunt unveils Direct Action details
    Federal Environment Minister has released details of his Direct Action policy at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne today.
    Mr Hunt indicated to the conference that there was reasonable expectation that abatement providers under Direct Action’s Emissions Reduction Fund would be offered five-year contracts.
    The minister also indicated that project proponents could create abatement credits that would go beyond five years, giving reassurance to potential bidders.
    The recognition of such credits beyond that time could come in the form of an extension of government contracts, or an expansion or altering of the scheme, although the minister was not drawn on any of these.
    Mr Hunt also said that the government would ensure Australian carbon credits under the scheme would be able to be converted into international credits.
    This raises the prospect of linking credits to the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, but again the minister was not drawn on details.
    Finally, Mr Hunt said the government would consider regulatory measures to set emissions standards and energy efficiency goals, if industry came forward with such a proposal.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/12/3/policy-politics/hunt-unveils-direct-action-details

    EcoBusiness Press Release: Climate Friendly sponsoring the carbon event of the year
    The event is Australasia’s premier conference on carbon policy and business. It is the opportunity to network with international carbon business players, develop strategies to minimise costs and maximise benefits associated with emissions reductions…
    ***Josh Harris, Climate Friendly’s Carbon Farming Manager, will be a panellist on the “Carbon Farming Initiative” session. This panel discussion will take place on Tuesday 3 December at 3:45pm and will provide an overview of the experience with CFI to date, the current status of methodology and project approvals and the role CFI will play going forward.
    http://www.eco-business.com/press-releases/climate-friendly-sponsoring-the-carbon-event-of-the-year/
    (CHECK THE CARBON EXPO WEBSITE FOR FULL SPONSORS’ LIST)

    the EU-US Partnership is the same as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – a global, fascist future awaits. no matter what any of us think of Monbiot’s CAGW advocacy, he makes some good points & provides links:

    3 Dec: Guardian: George Monbiot: The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal
    Plans to create an EU-US single market will allow corporations to sue governments using secretive panels, bypassing courts and parliaments
    The (European) commission insists that its Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership should include a toxic mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement. Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments…
    No longer able to keep this process quiet, the European commission has instead devised a strategy for lying to us. A few days ago an internal document was leaked. This reveals that a “dedicated communications operation” is being “co-ordinated across the commission”. It involves, to use the commission’s chilling phrase, the “management of stakeholders, social media and transparency”…
    Persistent digging by the Corporate Europe Observatory reveals that the commission has held eight meetings on the issue with civil society groups, and 119 with corporations and their lobbyists. Unlike the civil society meetings, these have taken place behind closed doors and have not been disclosed online…
    Barack Obama promised that the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase US exports by $10bn. They immediately fell by $3.5bn. The 70,000 jobs it would deliver? Er, 40,000 were lost. Bill Clinton promised that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create 200,000 new jobs for the US; 680,000 went down the pan…
    So where are our elected representatives? Fast asleep. Labour MEPs, now frantically trying to keep investor-state dispute mechanisms out of the agreement, are the exception; the rest are in Neverland…
    Caroline Lucas, one of the few MPs interested in the sovereignty of parliament, has published an early-day motion on the issue. It has so far been signed by seven MPs. For the government, Clarke argues that to ignore the potential economic gains “in favour of blowing up a controversy around one small part of the negotiations, known as investor protection, seems to me positively Scrooge-like”.
    Quite right too. Overriding our laws, stripping away our rights, making parliament redundant: these are trivial and irrelevant beside the issue of how much money could be made. Don’t worry your little heads about it.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/transatlantic-free-trade-deal-regulation-by-lawyers-eu-us

    did u hear about this on the MSM? would the results be similar in UK or Australia?

    27 Nov: Economist/YouGov Poll: Partisanship and the filibuster – Congress approval hits a low
    Americans are split down the middle on whether filibuster rules in the Senate are good or bad, but only 6% of Americans approve of the job Congress is currently doing.
    http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/27/partisanship-and-filibuster-congressional-approval/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***it certainly does. unbelievable? not really:

    2 Dec: Bloomberg: Mike Anderson: Australia’s Pollution Plan Starts to Look Like Trading***
    Australia’s newly elected leaders, claiming a mandate to dump the old government’s climate policies, would actually protect programs the defeated Labor party was using to prepare for emissions trading.
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt is working to shield the agencies that monitor and regulate greenhouse gases from cuts proposed for other climate units, according to a policy paper he issued on Oct. 24. The outline reaffirms a pledge to pare Australia’s emissions by 2020 and calls for a “carbon buy-back fund” that might include penalties as well as credits based on industry targets, Hunt said in an e-mail last week…
    “We will use architecture that is already in place and working well,” Hunt said in the paper drawn up for the Carbon Market Institute, an industry group based in Melbourne. “We agree on the science. We agree on the targets. We agree on market mechanisms. We disagree, absolutely, on what is the right market mechanism.”…
    (Peter Castellas, chief executive officer of the Carbon Market Institute)“The coalition has been pretty consistent in saying their proposal is a market-based system,” Castellas said in an interview. If the coalition build its proposed $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund around credits and penalties determined by baseline estimates, “you’re talking about an emissions-trading system,” he said.
    The coalition’s fund should enable businesses to make long-term plans and support a secondary market to help them hedge risks, according to Westpac Banking Corp. (WBC), Australia’s second-biggest lender. Tradeable carbon units should also be part of the program, said Emma Herd, the Sydney-based executive director for emissions at Westpac…
    Castellas’s non-profit institute has members including the utility AGL Energy Ltd. (AGK), oil company BP Plc (BP/) and food producer Bunge Ltd. (BG) It asked for Hunt’s views on how the policy would evolve and made recommendations. Castellas, leading a panel presentation today in Melbourne, said the new government has been open to its ideas…
    The minister (Greg Hunt) rejected the idea that the system will evolve into carbon trading.
    “There should be no surprises,” Hunt said in an e-mail on Nov. 29. “We have said on multiple occasions what we would keep and what we would reject. We want to make the transition as simple as possible but remove the tax. We are not proposing to raise any revenue. We are not creating an Emissions Trading Scheme. We are using a carbon buy-back fund.” …
    The government is consulting industry on how to structure the auctions. It plans to release a “green paper” this month with preliminary guidelines for the new fund.
    The paper probably will propose including 300 emitters now bound by Australia’s fixed-price on carbon in a new system that rewards companies exceeding peer averages, said Mathew Nelson, the Melbourne-based head climate change service at Ernst & Young…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-01/australia-s-pollution-plan-starts-to-look-like-trading.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Australia’s newly elected leaders, claiming a mandate to dump the old government’s climate policies, would actually protect programs the defeated Labor party was using to prepare for emissions trading.

      and

      Environment Minister Greg Hunt is working to shield the agencies that monitor and regulate greenhouse gases from cuts proposed for other climate units

      and

      We are not creating an Emissions Trading Scheme. We are using a carbon buy-back fund.” …

      Somebody remind me again how all this greenie scam BS would disappear under an LNP government?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Well its not quite as bad as I predicted, which was that the LNP would use the state of the economy to explain why the carbon tax has to stay, but considering its not gone yet, I remain open minded about the LNP’s ability and discipline to change things in a big way. Basically I will believe it when I see it.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It seems to me, observing from this side of the Tasman, that the LNP are quite keen to have any monies that can be raised through a carbon tax, but are loath to pass it on to any supra-national body, such as the UN.

        What will they do with all this money? You may ask, and quite rightly so. One thing is for sure, they won’t be giving any of it back to the people who actually created the goods and services that underpinned it.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Dave Trimble

    If water is going to be the next new-and-improved-boogeyman, I recommend investing in Berkey Black filters. You can get them online and each one will filter 3,000 gallons of water and remove virtually everything bad.

    Here’s a link to the Berkey Guy, who has them on sale ($20.00 off)

    http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=erdjmglab&v=001WeBrwlP3VB0RdrpgXJ2UGJSZKMliwBZkeyDBS5OXLIROFtzmWyQG8-M8ZkAhcTTLPossTRxzlEB0gXn1IUHyIfezKob784kdf5Q9o0MWBSSJXEvNup7G6eBBr0QDWZ-V1ZrwvjP3XiNYbu7V9MTcPleoZjMm0d5Q

    Here’s a link to plans to build your own system.

    http://www.alpharubicon.com/kids/homemadeberkeydaire.htm

    I built my system about 3 years ago and it works like a dream. If push comes to shove, you can pour gutter water through it after the silt settles. I figure I still have about 3 or 4 years use out of them.

    Dave


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    launched to coincide with the Carbon Expo! nice.

    3 Dec: SMH: Heath Aston: Stifling heat, anarchy, refugees: welcome to a post climate change world
    Living in Sydney by the end of the century will be like living in Rockhampton, subtropical Queensland, if global temperatures are allowed to rise by four degrees – the current trajectory of climate change.
    Melbourne’s climate will be akin to Griffith in regional NSW and Canberra will feel like outback Cobar.
    Alice Springs will mirror modern-day Sudan, while Darwin will be like no other city on earth in 2013. The Top End would be virtually uninhabitable, with more than 300 days a year of 35-plus degree heat…
    The downside to warmer winters on the eastern seaboard in 2100 is the prospect of “anarchy” in our region prompted by the dislocation of 250 million people from the Asia-Pacific, climate refugees who will need to be resettled in part in Australia.

    ***The “profound” shift in living conditions as a result of climate change is raised in Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a hot world, a compilation of climate science literature to be launched in Melbourne on Wednesday…

    •250,000 coastal properties inundated by rising sea levels at a total cost of $63 billion
    •17,200 heat-related deaths a year – up from 5800 today
    •Snow will disappear from all but the highest alpine peaks
    •250 million people in the Asia-Pacific will be displaced.
    The mass exodus from low-lying Bangladesh and coastal cities of China, Indonesia and India poses perhaps the biggest challenge for Australia, which could face a wave of climate refugees on a scale that would dwarf the current asylum seeker crisis.
    In a chapter written by Professor Ross Garnaut, the prospect of “anarchy” and the breakdown of nation states is raised…
    The book’s main author, Peter Christoff, an Associate Professor at Melbourne University said Australia would need to swap its five per cent emissions reduction target to 38 per cent within 10 years to keep warming under two degrees…
    “We have about a decade.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/stifling-heat-anarchy-refugees-welcome-to-a-post-climate-change-world-20131203-2yn6e.html


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Oh dear, oh dear … how sad is that?

      It’s a bit like turning up to a society wedding wearing last years fashions.

      Perhaps Peter Christoff and Ross Garnaut failed to get the memo.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, ABC, Fairfax, other Aussie MSM are not even reporting on Hunt’s Carbon Expo “emissions trading” story.

    SMH’s Tom Arup doesn’t even include the words “Carbon Expo” or “emissions trading” in his article. what’s up? maybe they’ll tell us there were concerns “climate deniers” would try to disrupt the Expo???

    3 Dec: SMH: Tom Arup: Environment Minister Greg Hunt to pitch alternative direct action policy
    Mr Hunt will tell a conference in Melbourne carbon taxes play a “limited role” in reducing emissions and there are many international “direct action” policies such as renewable energy targets and funds to pay for emissions cuts…
    In the speech Mr Hunt will point to Norway’s Carbon Procurement Program and bilateral deals signed by Japan to purchase emissions reductions and build clean technology projects in other countries as examples of direct action.
    He will also point to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy targets established in countries such as United States, China, the European Union and Russia, along with regulations of emissions from cars and power plants in some countries…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/environment-minister-greg-hunt-to-pitch-alternative-direct-action-policy-20131202-2ymhp.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Great!

    I can now look forward to low electricity bills!
    House prices will come down by 30%!
    Petrol will be 70c per litre!
    Air fares will be a lot cheaper!

    Let the good times roll!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    Turnbull is firing a warning shot across the ABC bow:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-calls-abcs-operations-oldfashioned/story-fn59niix-1226774150212

    He acuses them of an error of judgement with the spying report and also not adhering to the charter regarding balanced reportage.

    As a side note I note something vaguely amusing … notice when you click news on the ABC, look at science and next to it you see environment. Don’t they think environment falls under the science envelope?


    Report this

    20

  • #

    For all of you who have ever needed something that you can point at which shows the actual land requirement for electrical power generation, I’ve found a wonderful image.

    It shows a comparison of acreage requirements to make an equivalent amount of electrical power for 1000 average households per year.

    The lowest is Natural Gas and far and away the highest are Wind and Solar.

    It’s always nice to have a ready reference handy, and now I have one.

    Electricity Generation Versus Land Requirement

    Tony.


    Report this

    30

    • #

      I need to place this in block quotes to emphasise the bullet point in this statement:

      Keep In mind here that this is for an equivalent amount of electrical power.

      t


      Report this

      10

      • #

        Darn, I hit Post instead of Preview, so I’ll do it again:

        Keep In mind here that this is for an equivalent amount of electrical power in total.

        With Natural Gas, Coal Fired, and Nuclear, that power is always available while ever the unit is actually running. It then needs to be compared with the Capacity Factor of the two renewables in question.

        Now, while gas, coal, and nuclear are constant run, the same cannot be said for Wind (30% CF at best) and Solar 20% at Best.

        So for the same area in use for gas, coal, and nuclear, you get 3 times as much power than you would from Wind, and 5 times as much power than you would from Solar.

        The more you actually look at wind and solar, the more ridiculous it actually becomes as a viable methods of power generation.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Tony,

          you get 3 times as much power than you would from Wind, and 5 times as much power than you would from Solar.

          Can you then multiply the land use for Wind by 3 and the land use for Solar by 5 to get a more like-to-like comparison?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Wait a sec Tony, the title is “acreage requirements to make electricity for 1000 households per year”.
          My interpretation of that sentence is that the actual electricity generation output is the same for all types, so it’s not just a nameplate capacity matching but an actual generated output requirement. It would already include the capacity factor adjustment in that case.

          Can you check the source of the picture again and check if it is indeed same electrical output?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          What they SHOULD be comparing is the area required to produce the same amount of continuous, reliable electricity.

          Electricity that turns off after dark on a freezing cold still day, is a pretty pointless sort of energy.

          Sort of a “Clayton’s electricity” the electricity you have when you don’t want electricity you can actually use.


          Report this

          20

    • #

      Not sure why you think land requirement is an important metric.

      The land requirement to make a loaf of bread is significantly higher than the land requirement to make a cucumber salad, and both are significantly less than what is required to make a steak.

      And yet, all three of these products are viable.

      Thus, your metric is garbage.

      Oh, and there is the minor fact that it is a global reality that wind turbines are right now a viable proposition for generating power.


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        “there is the minor fact that it is a global reality that wind turbines are right now a viable proposition for generating power”.

        Excellent. Stop all subsidies, special prices and requirements for amount to be used as they are no longer needed.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Oh Margot, really!

        Oh, and there is the minor fact that it is a global reality that wind turbines are right now a viable proposition for generating power.

        This is the Load Curve for virtually all of Australia.

        Load Curve Power Generation

        Wind is the yellow area at the bottom, around 2.1% of power generation.

        It’s the same across the Whole of Planet Earth, wherever you want to look. The percentage for Wind Power is roughly the same, and most importantly not increasing all that much.

        That is most definitely NOT VIABLE.

        You’ve done your research.

        Prove it’s wrong.

        Tony.


        Report this

        20

        • #

          Margot,

          ALL the wind power in Australia comes in at a Nameplate Capacity of 2660MW. That’s the same Capacity as the Bayswater power plant, just one coal fired power plant. That’s around 1200 to 1500 wind towers, and has cost many Billions of dollars, more than half of that money in straight out gifts up front to the proposers of these plants, the only way they can actually survive.

          The power that all these towers actually deliver comes in at a tick over 6.1TWH per year, and while that actually sounds considerable, that same amount of power is delivered from Bayswater in 125 days.

          Just saying that is bland statistics really, because no one can actually be certain when that power is actually there available for use, so, constant backup is required at a moments notice.

          If Wind Power was actually forced to compete on a level playing field, it couldn’t compete.

          That lack of actual power delivery makes wind power totally non viable as a source of electrical power generation.

          Wind power will NEVER be viable on the scale required, just boutique, expensive, and unreliable.

          Tony.


          Report this

          40

      • #
  • #
    ROM

    Tony
    0.8 acres / .3239 Ha’s ie; a patch that is 57 metres square of Bio-mass to provide the energy for a year for 1000 average households doesn’t cut the mustard.
    I would suggest the biomass of that one third of a hectare or 3 of 1/4 acre house blocks would’nt produce enough power to run the teenager’s phones in those 1000 households.

    Unless they are talking about mowing down a couple of hundreds of year’s old forest for it’s biomass and even then there would be an awful lot of very cold. hot/ hungry / candle burners and tinned food consumers as the power wouldn’t get more than about the first 3 or 4 blocks before running out

    Example from the Washington Times

    he height of eco-madness is the conversion of the Drax Power Station in the United Kingdom from coal to wood fuel. Drax is the largest power plant in Europe, generating up to 3,960 megawatts of power from 36,000 tons of coal per day, delivered by 140 trains every week.
    In order to “reduce emissions” at Drax, more than 70,000 tons of wood will be harvested every day from forests in the US and shipped 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean to Britain.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ROM

    My post page 40 / 23-4-2013 from the Alternative Energy Scam thread on the old Weatherzone climate forum.
    I did the calculations on Australia’s energy needs and the area that would have to be covered with turbines to supply Australia’s electrical energy based on these papers

    My quote

    If Australia was to be powered entirely by wind power then with wind generating capabilities at a half a watt per square metre of area and some 56 billion watts of generated power needed to match Australia’s present lignite [ brown coal ] coal, gas and hydro generating capabilities means that the Australian wind farms would have to cover about 112 thousand square kilometres.

    Tasmania covers 64,500 sq kilometres.
    Victoria covers 227,000 sq kilometres

    [ end quote but there's lot more]

    These figures were based on the following papers

    Rethinking wind power
    HARVARD RESEARCH SUGGESTS REAL-WORLD GENERATING CAPACITY OF WIND FARMS AT LARGE SCALES HAS BEEN OVERESTIMATED
    &
    Are global wind power resource estimates overstated?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Craig Abernethie

    Why anyone would PAY for hot (supposedly) Air is just madness. It’s like gambling, they bet that the price of these CC’s (funny that) will go up and then they make profits thereby. It is like the stock market as well but the risk is caveat emptor. Instead of all that, lets just shut the whole thing down as citizens of the FREE world.

    We do not want to be ripped off by gambling our precious money down the Toilet. That will happen in Australia now we have a liberal Fed Guv at long last. Roll on the Double Dissolution and the Revote in the Senate that W.A. might have to have. Maybe we can put down the Dog’s resistance to change! Really good blog Joanne, thanks for being here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    ARC blew nearly a million dollars on “electric car research” in W.A.

    I got a nudge from a UWA Fadebook article about the “electric vehicle trials” in W.A., run by UWA. Verdict: “Useless, as charged.”

    My Facebook comment was more in depth and is preserved “offline” on my blog as an addendum to the article that already stated the obvious back in 2009.

    If you have the time and the intestinal fortitude, read the linked report. The report is more spruiking for social acceptability than the technical aspects. Because if the latter were addressed, then EV’s are simply be shown to be impractical for general use by the population. In less than an hour of analysis. So not much scope for ARC grants.

    BTW: I got spam telling me that “NOMINATIONS NOW OPEN FOR THREE MEMBERS OF UWA SENATE”. Feeling up to it Jo? ;-)


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>