There’s another more subtle message to politicians from the Gallop poll last week. The headline we discussed was that a whole quarter of the US are emphatic skeptics who don’t worry “at all” about climate change. But the other message is that if the politicans want to show they care about the environment, nearly every major environmental issue is more important to voters than “climate change”: 55% of the population worries about water pollution but only 32% feel the same level of concern for global warming.
On environmental concerns, climate change has the highest profile, but is consistently low ranking in the concern-stakes. People are much more worried about clean water, lakes and rivers, and air pollution rather than “climate change”. There is room here for either side of politics to step over the top of the supposedly greenest left wing parties and win voters by tackling real pollution rather than the fantasy kind. Any party that took serious action on rivers and water would earn environmental kudos and swinging votes. They wouldn’t win the die hard green vote, because those votes are not about the environment anyway. But true swingers shift between the major parties, and they are less into tribal politics and more into real outcomes. Their votes count. Wouldn’t it be something if the discussion at dinner parties was not about the “degree of green” as if it were a sliding scale from 1 – 100, but the type of green — practical, achieveable, or grandiose and grand-mal-expensive? The price of making a measurable difference to rivers and lakes is vanishingly small when compared to the cost of changing the global climate.
Most voters won’t change their vote for the environment ahead of the economy or jobs. But elections are won or lost on a few swinging percentage points. At the very least it could change the landscape of the environmental debate. There are pragmatic environmentalists, and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. As long as all political parties run in the climate changin’ race, as if it were the only enviromental issue, the greens win. Time to change the race. Other finish lines are closer
14. I’m going to read you a list of environmental problems. As I read each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. First, how much do you personally worry about — [RANDOM ORDER]?
2015 Mar 5-8 (sorted by “a great deal”)
| Environmental Problem | Great deal | Fair amount | Only a little/ Not at all |
| Pollution of drinking water | 55 | 22 | 23 |
| Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs | 47 | 32 | 21 |
| Air pollution | 38 | 33 | 29 |
| Extinction of plant and animal species | 36 | 28 | 36 |
| The loss of tropical rain forests | 33 | 30 | 37 |
| Global warming / Global warming or Climate change | 32 | 23 | 45 |
Here is the latest Essential Poll.
http://essentialvision.com.au/tag/climate-change
60
Looking over the numbers I think Essential is biased towards the warmist position, because they do the polls mostly in late spring or December. Couple this with alarmist propaganda from Fairfax and ABC leading up to summer and bingo, even sceptics can be swayed.
161
My questions: 1. How do you define “fairly conclusive”? 2. How do you answer, if you think climate change is happening but is not caused by human activity? 3. How do you answer if you believe that there is sufficient evidence to say that what we are witnessing is definitely normal fluctuation of the earth’s climate?
Conclusion: The Essential Poll from Essential Vision is Essentially Rubbish.
440
Or, how do you answer if you think there has been CC, that humanity has some effect but that it is not harmful or, at least, not catastrophically harmful?
80
Just shows there are a lot of stupid people who listen to the ABC. I’ll bet most of that 54% don’t know there has been no warming for 18 years nor that the Antarctic sea ice extent is at record levels. It is time the government ran a series of ads (just like Labor did) telling some facts that obviously are not told by the ABC or Fairfax. When people are given all the facts they usually come to the right conclusions. Just think of the boost to the economy if we scrapped all the waste currently going to climate change programs and subsidies.
160
‘It is time the government ran a series of ads (just like Labor did) telling some facts that obviously are not told by the ABC or Fairfax. When people are given all the facts they usually come to the right conclusions.’
That would be revolutionary, producing an uproar from the warmist faithful. In pubs and coffee shops across the country it will be debated and much laughter will be heard. How did we get it so wrong?
Trying to overcome mass delusion under the guise of community service announcements is a great idea, but Abbott is prudent and would prefer to avoid further divisiveness.
With half the population brainwashed into thinking the planet is doomed, the truth will come as a huge shock.
41
Lawrie the best thing to do is for Abbott to put Dennis Jensen in the vacant Science Ministry seat and let him carry the can in the run up to Paris.
Don’t touch the media apparatus, let aunty interview Jensen on climate change and see who wins the argument.
30
I should try that one on my friends. Oh! I forgot, I don’t have any, any more, because I told them the earth was not warming, glaciers were not vanishing and the ‘melt’ in Antatica had a lot to do with volcanos and, apart from that, the ice is at a modern record high. Sigh! They spurn me now.
563
You too? I
homogenizeempathize with you. Some of my rellies won’t speak to me either.R-COO- K+
332
Most of my friends do not care about supposed man made global warming, correctly believing it to be an exaggerated non-problem. I would not call most of them sceptics, just people who instinctively trust their own internal BSometers.
However, if the subject is one of future energy supplies, there is huge indignation about the accelerating transition from cheap reliable sources to unreliable expensive ones. In the UK, we have yet to have the situation of: cold winter meets greenie induced power outages’. When that happens, and it will happen soon, then there should be an incredible backlash against those responsible for the tens of thousands of unnecessary winter deaths and the huge inconvenience of sitting in the dark and cold, while being told “you are helping to save the planet”.
If you want to destroy a country’s future, long term, economic potential, then there is no better policy to follow than the current UK one in energy.
An agreement in Paris later this year will be the final nail in the coffin of the UK economy.
303
What frightens me, Peter, is a statement by Minister McFarlane who wants to take a RET policy to Paris that is bankable. (forgive the paraphrasing.) A RET policy that is bankable here would be it’s abolishment. We are governed by fools. McFarlane no doubt sees a lucrative future post politics in the wind industry.
60
Most of my friends do not care about supposed man made global warming, correctly believing it to be an exaggerated non-problem. I would not call most of them sceptics, just people who instinctively trust their own internal BSometers.
However, if the subject is one of future energy supplies, there is huge indignation about the accelerating transition from cheap reliable sources to unreliable expensive ones. In the UK, we have yet to have the situation of: cold winter meets greenie induced power outages’. When that happens, and it will happen soon, then there should be an incredible backlash against those responsible for the tens of thousands of unnecessary winter deaths and the huge inconvenience of sitting in the dark and cold, while being told “you are helping to save the planet”.
If you want to destroy a country’s future, long term, economic potential, then there is no better policy to follow than the current UK one in energy.
An agreement in Paris later this year will be the final nail in the coffin of the UK economy.
173
You’re in good company Peter. Welcome to the rational realist camp.
81
When all your friends think that all that photo shopped evil black smoke emanating from power stations ic CO2.
80
One of my relatives is a green voter…..they are very intelligent, but have that leftist sneer of “you cant teach me anythig”….sad to say….
I remind them the other day that the Green platform isnt “green” ( maybe 10% of it is ) – its anti-conservative, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-wealth and anti-capitalsim….in short – Communism.
71
Yes, I mentioned the word “Marxist” to one of my friends and, if he had been a horse, he would have reared up and snorted. As it was he lunged back in his chair, trapped his arms firmly across his chest and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. I haven’t broached the subject since. I don’t have a huge circle of friends, but it is a shame that I cannot have a rational discussion without a reaction like this. And he is a very intelligent, professional person, the same age as me, 74. You have to wonder why he has not done the research that I have that has brought me to same conclusions as Jo and her followers here.
90
As Dr. Patrick Moore wrote, the Greens are utterly ignorant of chemistry. That is how the Greens get away with labelling Carbon, dirty black coal as a pollutant. People actually believe this, if it is repeated by public figures. That is the core driving force behind the ‘Green’ vote. Ignorance.
For carbon, all that is needed is the simple explanation that we and plants are made from the same thing, carbon dioxide. Carbon can be diamond clear, black like soot, invisible like CO2 or green like a plant because all plants are made from carbon dioxide from red roses to huge sequoia trees. Organic chemistry is carbon chemistry.
There are only 92 major elements in the periodic table, so if not Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, what else? Aluminium? Everything has to be made from something, so what are we made from? Carbon dioxide and water. Nothing much else.
I have found many people including medical doctors with real science skills do not use their science at home and just believe Green propaganda because they are busy people. They do know floating ice does not raise the water level when it melts, but still worry about sea ice melting. The huge oceans are all alkali, not acid but they are told the oceans becoming ‘more acidic’ and they believe it. Why would someone lie to them?
Scientists need to remind people of simple science and the Green machine would look as nutty as it is. Greenpeace even banned Chlorine, an element of the periodic table. How do you ban sea salt, made from sodium and chlorine? Our bodies run on Chlorine. Greenpeace would love to ban Carbon too.
We should be aghast that public science figures like Australia’s Dr. Karl with his colourful shirts and Climate Commissioners like industrial chemist Dr. Will Steffen do not explain basic carbon chemistry. Then how can they go along with the oceans becoming ‘more acidic’ and say nothing?
We may as well declare water as pollution too, an equal combustion product with CO2. How many scientists stay silent? It gives manipulative extremist Green politicians a free hit on 10%-20% of the voters and they can push their communist agendas since the takeover of the Greens in 1990 by communists, as experienced by Dr. Moore.
The upper levels of organizations which should be defending real science have been corrupted by money, fame and power. A merchant banker runs the CSIRO. Perhaps until Global Warming, being a meteorologist must have been very boring and no one wants the ride to end?
Ignorance is the Green strong suit, not just theirs but real ignorance in society itself and the reluctance of people with real knowledge to correct the fantasies. We are not pollution. The Green of the leaves is made from carbon dioxide as are the leaves themselves and every part of the plant. Carbon is the ultimate Green element.
652
Some say even if the earth is not warming we still need to rid our world of those nasty, dirty, filthy, disgusting, killer fossil fuels plus reduce CO2.
I say “HUH?”
232
Exactly right. People are generally scientifically illiterate. co2 is not co1, but most do not know the distinction. Nonetheless, even a clueless US Supreme Court gave the EPA the go ahead to label co2 as a pollutant.
In North America climate change is way down the list of priorities, despite most peoples’ scientific ignorance. The few that are zealots about it are not going to change how they vote-if they vote. It is probably a good thing that many of the scientific illiterate self select themselves out of voting.
Nonetheless, it’s not the voters that concern me. It is the un-elected bureaucrats, and Gov specialists.
Just because many people may hold degrees in political science or whatever from some university does not mean that they understand basic physical science. They can be greatly influenced by the “experts” because they don’t know them selves. If they don’t take chemistry and physics in high school, then may not get it- ever, even if they later obtain a college degree. Natural science 101 is usually taught to under graduates as part of their general education as an elective. And in too many cases what passes for a natural science survey course is actually climate change propaganda these days.
Obama is a prime example of inadequate general education in terms of natural science. He did his under graduate work at a community college known for its focus on socialist politics. That is what he learned there. (also explains his illiteracy in terms of economics). Then it was off to post graduate work at Columbia where he studied International Relations and emerged as a “community organizer”.
191
TdeF: as for ocean “acidification”, the result of research is that:
(h/t Latimer Alder for this summation.)
This is the conclusion of a…erm, scientist… who has already determined that:
Maybe I am really stupid (not to be discounted), but I do read that as saying that there are a huge number of variables present in the complexity of the oceans, that we have to be careful in our assumptions. However, he then happily came to the conclusion that Latimer Alder has outlined, above.
Be scared, everyone! Not about the conclusions reached, but that the persons presenting them are classed as credible scientists, on whose word policies to the detriment of millions of innocents could be based.
151
RR, 98% of all free CO2 is already in the oceans, so the extra 2% will not change anything anyway if all the aerial CO2 went into the oceans. Then the pH of the entire system is chemically buffered by vast amounts of Calcium compounds like Calcium Carbonate, limestone. From the pyramids to the white cliffs of dover, all calcium carbonate. The oceans can never be acid. If anything, a slight move from 8.11 to 8.07 is actually a move to perfectly neutral acid/alkali balance at 7.0. Real carbonic acid, lemonade has a pH up to 2.5 which is 30,000 times stronger than 7. If it wasn’t for the salt, sea water would be fresh water, thus the desalination plants. Note this is a logarithmic scale. (For example Diet Coke is 3.39 and battery acid is 1)
Also as Dr. Moore (Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout) also points out, CO2 has recently been at very dangerous lows. Under 0.02% the plants and we all die and we are just up to 0.04%. The scare about CO2 levels is utterly fake. I gave a talk once on Carbon and Global Warming. The left of politics did not attend. They know it is a political exercise.
Professor of Chemistry, former Australian Climate Commissioner Dr. Steffen knows that if you warm lemonade, CO2 leaves. He knows about equilibrium and Henry’s Law. He knows that increasing CO2 is a result of a slight ocean warming, not the other way around. Why does he say nothing?
110
TdeF mentions here: (my bolds)
Even battery acid is dilute.
Each RAAF Base has it’s own Battery Room, a complex where all battery servicing is carried out, for all batteries, be they vehicular or aircraft batteries.
When it came to lead acid batteries, the charging process involved time mainly, but the best indicator was the Specific Gravity, (SG) and for lead acid batteries, that SG was 1250, or 1.25.
When it came down to replacement of electrolyte inside the cells themselves, we made our own electrolyte from the Concentrated Sulphuric Acid, a process so involved with safety, naturally, special overalls, a full length neck to ankle thick rubber apron, rubber overboots, thick rubber gauntlets almost to the elbow, a hood and a head cover with a complete visor, doors open, exhaust fans turned full on, and another person, similarly attired as a supervisor, and it was only done in this manner.
We, umm, ‘cooked’ our own distilled water in the still at the back of each lead acid side of the battery room.
Then in a special tub, we’d pour in the required amount of distilled water, and then ever so slowly add the concentrated acid, a dark brown in colour, adding the acid bit by bit, until the required SG was reached, checked with the Master Hydrometer, until that SG of 1250 was reached.
This electrolyte was only used for new aircraft batteries or deep cycle and drained batteries for complete refill from empty, as the only thing used for normal servicing was distilled water to top up the cells.
Car batteries, when a cell failed, were just tossed, after flattening and emptying.
It’s all different now with SLABs, when it comes to Lead Acid batteries.
All the different types of batteries were (religiously) kept separate, and in those days, there were only Lead Acid and Alkaline, and each had their own separate room as part of the overall Battery Room operations.
Tony.
(SLAB – Sealed Lead Acid Battery)
90
Yes, +1 from 8 is 10^9 more H+. That’s a 1,000,000,000 times stronger than neutral. When people are going on about acid and alkali they are talking about absolutely tiny amounts of acidity/alkalinity, not far from perfectly insipid neutral. The very idea of acid oceans eating all the calcium carbonate (Coral/limestone) would prevent the seas becoming alkaline. It cannot happen. Sure acid rain happens with sulphur in the air and you can get acid creeks and rivers, but an ocean? Never. The oceans are 340x heavier than the entire atmosphere and 850,000x heavier than the CO2 in the air. So why do celebrity scientists not say anything? ABC Science’s Dr Karl? Will Steffen? Why not tell people this acidification is a lie?
121
He wouldn’t have a job that’s why.
50
Interesting. Is there an acceptable, verifiable source of the 98% figure? A source that cannot be dismissed by the loon who I was talking about, above (erm, NOT Mr Alder), and am in occasional discussion with. (Mind you, he has since raised the spectre of the Lew paper, which has to lower his credibility yet further.)
20
This is a really pervasive fact unchallenged but I have seen no proof. If you want to search for hard evidence, the figure usually quoted is that the oceans contain 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere, a figure I have presented unusually as 98%.
The 50x is an unusually high amount compared to other gases and I suggest a consequence of the enormous pressures with an average ocean depth of 3.45km, so 345 atmospheres. CO2 is very compressible, as you would expect from its low freezing point of -78C against oxygen at -218.8C. My own pet theory is that CO2 comes out of solution in the tropics according to Henry’s law and goes in at Arctic latitudes, but there is a huge reserve of compressed CO2 at depth and an elevator mechanism. This means a slight warming of the top of the ocean produces 50x the volumes expected. All this fits very well with the 50% increase, the warming ocean surface and the fact that C14 levels in CO2 show little effect from C14 free fossil fuel CO2. Until contradicted by evidence, I hold that C14 proves conclusively that fossil fuel CO2 levels are under 2%, so mankind cannot increase the CO2. It is controlled by Henry’s Law of gaseous equilibrium at the sea/air interface, but who cares about real science? The (fake) science is in.
40
The 50x figure I presume comes from NASA carbon cycle data. They have 800Gt in atmosphere and 38000 Gt free in oceans.
OTOH the Census of Marine Life says that 90% of the biosphere is in oceans which would give about 25000 Gt extra in oceans.
We don’t seem to have much of a grasp of the carbon cycle that the carbon casinos are based on.
50
Thank you. A very cogent argument. I have seen the figure “50x” before; it is interesting when it is expressed in another format. Helps put a lot of it into perspective.
10
As the long past history of humanity has invariably predicted, the great pendulum of human affairs has started it’s still slow but accelerating swing back towards the political center and political right and towards an increasing rationality after a couple of decades of utter irrationality in public energy policy and in so many other public policy fields plus the gross excesses and outright failures and the deliberate corruption of ethics by the green, anti human leftist watermelon environmental propaganda machine.
Even in Germany, the very centre of the green push to an all renewable energy economy, a couple of the most prominent greens have now openly said that the “Energiewende’ the German “Transition to renewable energy” is an overwhelming political and societal disaster.
[ ie; Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity!]
If not posted elsewhere here, a sign below of what is to come if not yet in the Western world but now starting to accelerate trend in the underdeveloped world as the one and only basis for the Green claims and catastrophic excesses, the irrational Green belief that is based almost entirely on the non evidential, non science supported , emotionally and ideologically founded beliefs in the catastrophic climate collapse due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, beliefs and an ideology that are increasingly disputed and are steadily disintegrating as more and more real time science based evidence rather than just the output from playtime climate models shows the utter irrationality of the CO2 induced climate catastrophe claims.
And there are also the first signs of the anti green backlash elsewhere in the western developed world as Governments everywhere finally begin to question the “charitable“, non taxable status of the thousands of so called charities includng the Green watermelon, so called environmental organisations as a means of reducing the massive financial handouts and special treatment and exemptions these green organisations get from Government and as a means of raising taxable income by removing the pseudo “charitable organisations” tax free status.
___________________
From the Huffington Post Via the GWPF;
[ quoted]
Greenpeace India’s Registration Suspended, Bank Accounts Frozen
The Indian government has suspended the registration of Greenpeace India under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act after it had protested against certain industrial and coal mining projects that were proposed to be built in environmentally sensitive regions in the country.
The Home Ministry said in a statement that there were serious allegations of Greenpeace’s involvement in what it called ‘anti-development’ activities. All seven bank accounts of the organisation have been frozen for the next 180 days, and a show cause notice slapped on it asking why its registration should not be cancelled permanently. That would make the organization a non-entity in India, and it would need to close all operations in the country.
In June 2014, the Intelligence Bureau had recommended cancellation of Greenpeace’s FCRA registration, claiming it was a threat to national economic security and it was masking its real sources of funding. It had mentioned that “Greenpeace was leading a massive effort to take down India’s coal-fired plant and coal mining activity.” The vast majority of India’s energy needs are produced by thermal power plants.
The Narendra Modi government has pursued Greenpeace and its activities with more interest than its predecessors. Earlier in January Priya Pillai, an activist with the organization, was stopped at the Delhi airport from flying to London where she was supposed to make a presentation to British members of parliament about human rights abuses in Mahan, Madhya Pradesh. Essar, a major industrial conglomerate, and state-owned Hindalco want to mine the forested land for coal reserves but have been held up because of protests by Greenpeace and other environmental organisations.
Last June the government had asked India’s central bank to stop all foreign contributions to Greenpeace and Climate Works Foundation, after concluding that the agencies were gearing up to make India the primary target for activism against thermal coal-fired power plants.
[ / ]
120
Jo, it’s gallUp, not gallOp…
given there are only 3 people in the “Activists at Sydney Uni” photo that accompanies the following McKibben call on “our” youth (they aren’t yours, Bill) to protest, “numbers” can mean anything or nothing when it comes to promoting CAGW. a handful at the 22 April protests in Australia will be enough to generate maximum MSM coverage.
in good old CAGW fashion, throw in a few celebs & say anything u like and it will be published:
9 April: Guardian: Bill McKibben: Universities should keep leading Australia’s push to divest from fossil fuels
The normal order at a university is that the young learn from the old. Climate change upends that order: the claims of ***our youth must take precedence
HILARIOUS PHOTO CAPTION: Activists at Sydney university. Photograph: AAP
In the UK, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has demanded that his alma mater – King’s College London – sell off its fossil fuel shares and Oxford’s former finance director threw his weight behind calls for divestment by helping to take over a university administration building.
In the US, Harvard alumni – including Star Wars actress Natalie Portman – have backed student calls for civil disobedience later this month. At historic Swarthmore College near Philadelphia, 44 students have been occupying the president’s office since mid-March.
And in Australia, on 22 April, students, staff and faculty will rally at universities across the country to say the time has come to step away from investments in yesterday’s technology.
***The fossil fuel divestment movement – which one study found to be the fastest growing such anti-corporate campaigns in history – has won over dozens of cities across the world…
Arguably the most symbolic moment of the whole campaign came when the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the family that is heir to the world’s original fossil fuel fortune, decided last September that it was neither prudent nor moral to own coal, oil and gas shares and voted to divest.
Religious communities ranging from the Uniting Church in Australia and America’s United Church of Christ to the World Council of Churches have divested. In March, Anglican bishops from around the world joined the call…
It’s never easy, though, because so many of the richest and most powerful university donors and trustees come from the fossil fuel or finance industries, and they are working hard to stop the campaign. That’s because they know it’s effective – nothing has done as much to spread the essential truth about our climate change predicament, which is that the world’s fossil fuel companies have four times as much carbon in their reserves as scientists say we can safely burn. These aren’t normal companies – if they carry out their business plan, the planet tanks…
Not only that, but our universities are crowded with young people who are learning for the lifetime ahead of them. A lifetime that will be increasingly impossible as the temperature warms.
***Look at what’s happened to Australia with 1 degree of global warming; now imagine a further 3 or 4 degrees in the lifetimes of those currently studying for their degrees…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/09/universities-should-keep-leading-australias-push-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels
NOTE: Bill writes: “***The fossil fuel divestment movement – which one study found to be the fastest growing such anti-corporate campaigns in history” & provides a link.
following is the so-called “study” which has been used by Grist/Guardian & others since it first came out in 2013 to make a similar claim. hilariously, it’s from Oxford University which, 2 years later, has just postponed any decision on divestment!
the power elite/vested interests involved in this so-called study are surely not supported by young activists in this day and age: HSBC, Rothschild, Bloomberg, David Blood (of Blood & Gore), & selected others whose names you will be familiar with by now:
PDF: 81 pages: Oct 2013: Smith School of Enterprise & the Environment/University of Oxford:
Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?
Authors:
Ben Caldecott, (Adviser to The Prince of Wales’ International Sustainability Unit, Academic Visitor at the Bank of England, Visiting Fellow at the University of Sydney, previously Research Director for Environment and Energy at the think tank Policy Exchange, as Head of Government Advisory at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, & as a Deputy Director in the Strategy Directorate of the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change)
Atif Ansar (has widely consulted for the World Bank)
James Tilbury (researcher for Ernst & Young)
About the Stranded Asset Programme
The Stranded Assets Programme at the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment was established in 2012…
The Programme is currently being supported through donations provided generously from The Ashden Trust, Aviva Investors, Bunge Ltd, HSBC Holdings plc, The Rothschild Foundation and WWF-UK. Our non-financial partners currently include Standard & Poor’s, Trucost, Carbon Tracker Initiative, Asset Owners Disclosure Project and RISKERGY …
The Programme is led by Ben Caldecott and its work is guided by a high-level Consultative Panel chaired by Professor Gordon Clark, Director of the Smith School. Members of the Consultative Panel currently include:
David Blood Co-Founder and Senior Partner, Generation IM (OF BLOOD AND GORE)
Yvo de Boer Special Global Adviser, Climate Change and Sustainability, KPMG …
Kelly Clark The Tellus Mater Foundation
Mike Clark Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, also Director, Responsible Investment, Russell Investments …
Catherine Howarth CEO, ShareAction
Michael Jacobs The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation …
Bernice Lee Research Director, Environment, Energy and Resource Governance, Chatham House
Jeremy Leggett Chairman, Carbon Tracker Initiative
Michael Liebreich CEO, Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Nick Mabey CEO, E3G …
David Nussbaum CEO, WWF-UK
Stephanie Pfeifer Director, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change
Julian Poulter Executive Director, Asset Owners Disclosure Project
Nick Robins Head, Climate Change Centre of Excellence, HSBC …
Paul Simpson CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project …
Simon Upton Director, Environment Directorate, OECD
Steve Waygood Chief Responsible Investment Officer, Aviva Investors
Michael Wilkins Managing Director, Infrastructure Finance Ratings, Standard & Poor’s
Dimitri Zenghelis Principal Research Fellow, Grantham Institute, London School of Economics …
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of WWF-UK for this project. Valuable assistance was also provided by participants in a roundtable discussion on the fossil fuel divestment campaign, held under Chatham House rules at Generation Investment Management (BLOOD & GORE) on 19th June, 2013…
http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf
BTW THE ONLY POSSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE STUDY FOR MCKIBBEN’S GUARDIAN CLAIM RE THE FOSSIL FUEL DIVESTMENT MOVEMENT –
***which one study found to be the fastest growing such anti-corporate campaigns in history – IS THE FOLLOWING LINE:)
p.51 Despite its relatively short history, the fossil fuel campaign can be said to entering the second wave of divestment…
112
I wonder if the Rockefellers were thinking ahead to a wave of takeovers in the oil & gas business (check today’s paper) and signalling their assets were buyable for the right price, or just issuing a press release to stall until the whole hysteria is over and the prices go up again.
120
I loooooove this campaign, big oil and gas miners pay dividends, thats why the universities are invested in them, when these big players dump their shares, I can buy them up at a discount increasing my yield. Yay team!
40
‘In the same poll, Gallup found 51% of Americans saying the weather in their area was colder than usual this winter, while 18% said it was warmer and 29% said it was about the same. However, when asked what they attribute it to, most of those in the cold regions believe the extreme cold reflected normal variations in weather. At the same time, just half of those in the warm spots attribute the unusual heat to global warming; the other half think it was normal variation.’
Lydia Saad / Gallup senior editor
So more than half believe this recent US winter came about because of natural variability and not AGW. A modest victory for our side.
241
Prime Minister Tony Abbott is on to them, he said last year that he will not allow socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
230
It would be nice if he ever backed up words with action.
41
The Left is pretty much decided on Global Warming etc. (google for the term in use this week). The few with common sense have switched. Most of the rest either think it is true or else a good tactic to beat the right with.
The ‘right’ is a coalition of believers and non-believers and probably a majority who haven’t a clue about it. Being divided internally they try to appease the internal believers, thinking that will catch the external believers as well. The result is that they confuse everybody, including themselves, so they put it into the too hard basket.
Instead of (fumbling) they should grasp the nettle (avoiding clichés like the plague) and attack. Firstly get Greenpeace, WWF, Australian Conservation and any other NGO doing nothing but issue alarmist press release after alarmist press release off the list of registered charities and onto the list of taxpayers.
Then they should indicate to the BoM and any climatologists/scientists on the public payroll that statements calling for more money for coming disaster will NOT get any more money and might well get less, and that they will be held responsible for any unsupported claims made. The University Grants Commission or whatever it is called should be told that “if the science is settled” then there is no need for ANY grants to study the effects of global warming. Sell that to the public as reducing wasted expenditure – which most of it is anyway. The hysteria will drop out of the debate, as who in the MSM, except the ABC, will keep repeating the alarm left over from last month. Without a daily dose of “the worst EVAH”, “the strongest EVAH” the voting public will then start to realise that there is no warming and that there was nothing but exaggerations.
Then they can work at getting back the vote. The lead given by TonyfromOz about cutting CO2 emissions by up-grading our coal fired stations should be encouraged. Give the coal fired people RET certificates for the amount cut, the same to the gas fired people. Tell the wind farmers that they will be expected to supply a much more consistent feed in future. And just to ram home the message hand out 5 times more RET certificates for solar (yes, I do know about the effect of supply and demand on cost).
Then announce that nuclear is not a proposition until thorium (or any other non-runaway feedback process) is up and running. Say it could be necessary to supply those white elephant desalination plants, so necessary to maintain the water supply to the cities.
By that stage the effects of global cooling will be obvious and the whole hysteria will die.
201
Somewhat off topic, but I thought I would mention that there are newer types of uranium salt based generation, that are not dependent on the constant circulation of high pressure water, for heat transfer and cooling processes. I am not sure how much thorium Australia has, but it sure does have uranium.
90
Keeping off topic together. Does anyone yearn for a discussion and debate about science? Is anyone publishing anything these days or is the debate about climate change about policy?
73
Science?
Good question GeeAye
Here’s one for you?
To recover Rare Earth elements from waste products to keep up the demand (Wind Mill magnets, electric cars, phones etc) of the renewable sector and instead of using toxic methods, scientists discovered that phosphate on the surface of certain types of bacteria were 10 times more efficient at attracting rare earth elements than conventional methods.
How environmentally favourable to the green world we live in would that be?
But, there’s no way known so far to grow enough bacteria to meet the demand? If only they could find a naturally occurring organic material in large supply that had enough phosphate in it, to extract the REE’s.
Science wins again
Bingo!
Answer: Salmon semen, that’s right sperm from Salmon.
But dry it first!
Using dried semen called milt, scientists poured it into a beaker that contained a rare earth solution and found the milt absorbed the REEs from the solution, with a huge bonus – they extracted thulium and lutetium—two very expensive REEs.
Currently, there isn’t much of a market for recycled REEs as billions of phones, batteries, wind mills, laptops all go to landfill because of the expense.
So lets start hunting MALE Salmon all over the world to solve the REEs recycling problem, grab them and extract the sperm, bottle it, put it in REE rich waste to make more Windmills?
Are we really giving money for this sort of junk science?
Greens kill all male Salmon to make Wind Mills
Good science today!
111
thanks Dave. I’m not going to drag this off topic. I’ll leave my lament as it is.
I like your thought experiment but can’t really be bothered progressing it (or hunting down the research you didn’t reference thanks!) to see which bits you mean seriously or satirically, sorry. Here is a fascinating thing from my past – possibly Jo’s too. I’ve used the DNA from Salmon and herring sperm as a blocker to prevent background hybidisation when detecting homologous and analogous DNA for cloning and expression analysis.
Cottage pie last night was well received.
11
“or hunting down the research you didn’t reference thanks!”
Geeaye
I did reference it – hover your mouse over the coloured text – click – then it will take you straight there.
Jo has a list of functions in guide to commenting here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#code
10
apologies, thanks.
00
Why don’t you propose something Scientific on the next Weekend Unthreaded instead of standing in as the devils advocate?
40
how about I link to the latest Nature climate change
but not here.
00
Thorium OK. It occurs in beach (mineral) sands which Australia has heaps and uranium too.
The problem with nuclear is that anytime you raise the possibility the greens claim
1. it will blow up.
2. the radiation from plutonium has a half life of 250,000 years.
Since the average thinking person, let alone a greenie, doesn’t understand that the longer the half life the less radiation being given off per hour/day or year, this scares people. Thorium can be explained as new, not prone to runaway, and doesn’t generate plutonium.
30
I don’t disagree, Graeme.
I was merely reflecting upon the thought that the practical end of the Nuclear industry is still locked into a paradigm of high-pressure-hot-water reactors, used to create steam to run turbines. We know how to do that stuff, and with a pretty good safety record.
Uranium salt reactors still uses a material that people understand, but without a lot of the plumbing problems. It also scales down to a size where power generation can be distributed. I see that as a suitable halfway house, between what we know, and where we should be.
I don’t know as much about the engineering of thorium based reactors, so I guess I am typical of the industry. Changing the design, and the energy source, and the way that safety is assured, and … just seems to be pushing things a bit too far.
But that doesn’t make you point wrong. In fact in the long run, I think you are right. Just don’t mention fusion.
10
Australia’s Thorium deposits
World Nuclear Association; Thorium
The WNA site is very comprehensive and provides an interesting outline of all the numerous nuclear and thorium reactor types and their operations.
30
I can never understand the hysteria over the half-life of waste products, when you consider that the source uranium has been radioactive since the year dot.
20
Graham, one extreme worry about Plutonium, apart from the ease of making tiny suitcase sized atom bombs which could destroy central London and the incredibly long half life, is that despite this long half life, it is also the most poisonous substance on earth, exceeding nerve gases. The fatal does is one picogram! 10-12 grams. Properly distributed then one kg of plutonium could kill 10^15 people. No one really wants this stuff on the planet and I have read that there are tons of the stuff already. Retrieving it from Russian missiles was the plot of James Bond movie, The World is Not Enough. Beyond scary.
30
Is it just me or does the available answer options for those questions smack of the “When did you stop beating your wife?” fallacy?
I mean even the option of “Fair amount” is assuming a level of concern more than 50%. The only way to ask this type of question and get a non-prejudical response is to use a scale from 1 to 5. Numbers tend to take the emotive content out of the answers.
100
Jo,
Here in Hobart I keep asking the Greens to do something about our local environment rather than “saving” the world:
• Have busses run on gas (eventually electric) to stop belching black smoke and particles.
• Stop storm water running into the Derwent River.
• Introduce/enforce noise limits on cars.
• (re)Introduce pollution checks on cars over 5yrs old.
• Encourage gas/electric delivery trucks.
Every single person I have ever spoken to; warmers, skeptics and cynics all agree wholeheartedly but the Greens just ignore.
Your advice on environmental issues is in part, being adopted by the Federal Govt. For example the ~$200m for UN environment program is to go towards things like reforestation etc in the region.
See below the RET alternatives listed in today’s Australian. What is missing is for Greg Hunt to propose 30% “renewables” by 2030. Beats Obama in headline stakes and matches China’s carbon output peak in/by 2030 AND, you get a warm fuzzy feeling of “doing something for the planet”. Not sure what impact it will have on the cost of RET certificates but it must lessen the pressure on cost as most will wait for the renewables cost to reduce and our coal generators to reach replacement schedules in the 2025-2030 time frame. Of course this wonderful stretch target will be howled down as “roon’n” the fledgling renewables industry but given the articles on solo and wind being at grid parity (see Reneweconomy), they of course don’t need subsidies.
Or am I just being cynical?
The Alternatives for 2020 % of new expected actual consumption
Original 41,000GWh will be 26.2%
CEC/Labor 33,500GWh will be 23.2%
Govt. final offer 33,200GWH will be 22.8%
“True” 20% of total in 2020 will be 23,500GWH
41
Partly with you here Peter. I don’t like seeing diesel vehicles belching smoke!
However in terms of STORM WATER, where has it always gone. In to the Derwent River, that’s where.
Where do you propose that it should go?
80
Pete C, there are two storm water drains within 500m of our place. One has a rubbish trap, the other runs straight into the Derwent. The free drain section of beach has a permanent No Swim Polution restriction. The one with a trap is generally OK. We have had Greens in the last State Government and they did nothing on any of the local environment issues I have listed.
Storm water can and should be recycled. Downpours, only 2-4 times a year in Hobart, would necessarily overflow (Mt Wellington can put a lot of water down quickly). But the bulk that has the oil, rubber and other detritus would be recycled.
The Greens have commissioned a Senate enquiry on Salmon farms in Macquarie Harbour, the Huon and the Derwent but let garbage from the roads float down the to Derwent’s Salmon farms. go figure!
Perhaps tax payers would be willing to pay a polution (stormwater) tax even if they don’t want to have a CO2 Tax.
50
Peter C, you don’t need references, or even much thinking time, to know that storm water 200 years ago, that ran through deep litter and into gullies was completely different to storm water running through paved suburban Hobart, or even outside of Hobart, through cropped and grazed land.
01
Yes, the city runoff is cleaner, sorry to burst your bubble there, after the initial flush runoff from cities has few particulates, compared to field runoff which is full of dung, bacteria and rotting vegetation, however it would be good to at least filter the runnoff for plastic bags and the like.
21
Sorry to dismiss but city runoff has hydrocarbons (oil, lubricants and plastics). Whereas bush runoff is largely biodegradable. Sure, ovine and bovine poo beats kangaroo, wombat and possum piss any day but vegetarian excreta is not as harmful as humanoid, feline and canine outpourings. Have a nice pollution free day!
30
City runoff contains hydrocarbons and rubber dust. Not to mention by-product from read-kill.
10
Hydrocarbons are not biodegradable?
You are buying into the fear-mongering-but-content-lacking mantra I’m afraid.
00
Hydrocarbons mobilise much nastier things than simple alkanes. Judging from your comment you don’t know anything about these?
00
Gee, save me some time and tell me which ones aren’t biodegradable.
Right.
00
bush runoff is much much slower excluding when the system is saturated (which is still slower). It also runs through a catchment much slower and enters the river with a completely different history so the mineral and silt composition is different.
To Bobl by cleaner you mean less turbid I take it. I wouldn’t drink either.
21
You’re still pontificating statements of the bleeding obvious, but I will grant you that it’s becoming a higher standard of obvious
21
I was addressing an implicit statement by Peter C who seemed to think that because the destination of storm water was the same then the flow of storm water into the Derwent is the same as pre-European settlement and therefore not a problem. The statements were obvious to you but not to PC or the 7 thumbs uppers who read what he wrote.
11
Peter Cynical:
Bring back trolley buses! Just have enough storage capacity for them to run 2-5 km. and recharge at the designated stop, from an overhead point. No need for continuous wires, no visible emissions*, regenerative braking, ability to detour around impediments and a light weight, fast accelerating, quiet bus.
* All emissions at the power station, but claim the electricity is “renewable” and the greens will believe you.
30
Reading, in England, used to have trolley buses (continuous wires) and they were wonderful. They were replaced by noisy, very smelly diesel buses….very sad.
20
I don’t have a calculator handy, are those numbers re the LRET accurate? If 41,000GWh is 26.2% then 20% would be about 31,000GWh by my rough guesstimate.
20
Victor,
I just pasted The Australian article figures.
You have calculated 20% of the current electricity demand.
I think they have:
• Either left off the pertinent Footnote, or
• The journalists didn’t know what he/she was reading, or
• The Editor cut the article for brevity!
But what they are really trying to say is that: “that if the current trend of reducing electricity consumption of/at x% p.a. continues at the same trend then by 2020 the ‘True’ 20% will be 23,500 GWh.
My children wander why I am cynical?
10
Thx Peter. I’ve now read the editorial in The Australian and agree that some information is missing. Your comment makes sense. Not sure if you have a typo but the editorial indicates 25,500GWh as being a “true” 20% RET (which I assume they mean LRET). Cheers.
00
a moment out for some humour.
SmartMeters, SmartGrids…now get ready for SmartFlowers:
7 April: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: Solar War Games to Test Green Power’s Resilience for NATO
Green energy is going to war.
Starting in June, defense companies including Thales SA and Multicon Solar AG will join NATO to test the military’s ability to use renewable power in combat and humanitarian operations.
About 1,000 North Atlantic Treaty Organization soldiers will spend 12 days deploying wind turbines, solar panels and self-contained power grids in Hungary, according to Susanne Michaelis, the group’s action officer for smart energy…
“A lot of people are crippled or die transporting fuel and water,” Michaelis, who is helping prepare NATO’s Smart Energy camp in Hungary, said by telephone. “If you attack a fuel truck, it explodes and burns all fuel. There’s no stopping it. If you shoot at solar cells, one may break, but it doesn’t explode and all the other cells will still be working.”…
***Smartflower Energy Technology GmbH will deliver its instant solar-power plants, carbon-fiber units with petal-shaped panels that can be operated by a single person and open to the morning sun. NATO command has so far been
active in sunny countries, Michaelis said.
The market is “screaming” for all-in-one solutions, Smartflower’s co-founder Alexander Swatek said in an interview.
“Armed forces in many countries are viewing renewables as an important option from the point of view of security of supply and diversity of energy sources,” said Angus McCrone, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
***Armies represent “large customers not directly exposed to the macroeconomic cycle” who are willing to try out new technologies, he said…
*** U.S. Army has said it plans to install 1 gigawatt of renewable capacity at bases by 2025…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-06/nato-tests-green-energy-to-reduce-fuel-supply-line-vulnerability
***hmmm. US Army p1ans to install 1 gigawatt of renewable capacity at bases by 2025!
2011: Politifact Tampa Bay Times: Truth-o-Meter: The U.S. military “is in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world.”
– Ron Paul on Monday, September 12th, 2011 in a Republican presidential debate in Tampa
We found U.S. military personnel on the ground in a whopping 148 countries — even more than Paul had said…
According to this report, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries, which is a smaller number than the 900 bases Paul cited. But here again, the list omits several nations integral to active operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s conceivable that the actual number of sites approaches 900…
On balance, we rate Paul’s statement Mostly True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
61
‘There is room here for either side of politics to step over the top of the supposedly greenest left wing parties and win voters by tackling real pollution rather than the fantasy kind.’
Abbott hoped to do just that with his Green Army but was hobbled by the High Court late last year, much to the delight of the Green activists.
‘The case has meant the types of projects approved for the Green Army must now be of a national focus and “directed towards meeting Australia’s relevant international obligations” or “conserving matters of national environmental significance”.
SMH
40
In my recent reclusion I missed this. Can you give more details.
00
Overall, the preservation of natural systems has always been a conservative issue in my mind. By that I mean keeping things intact and not trashing the place, not some ideological notions of a fixed and unchanging environment with scary tipping points.
The ideological left has never cared about anything outside cities – evidenced by Stalin causing millions of farmers to die of starvation by taking their crops for the city workers. Even the suburbs are beyond the pale for some Greens and they care little about the environment in any context. It took months of email and talkback radio reports before our local Green dominated govt respond to a fountain of raw sewage in a local watercourse. They were too busy organising grants for a play about killing climate sceptics.
I doubt that general concern about the environment has changed much over the decades. It’s rarely been a high priority but most people have more concern than the Greens.
111
The alarmists picked up on the public view with regard to environmental protection a long time ago. That is why they frame the global warming argument in terms of shrinking glaciers and dried up streams to catch the people who would otherwise welcome a couple of degrees of warming.
81
Latest Obama climate nonsense Via Delingpole.
80
Well it seems like the average normal person (not environmentally twisted) can discern what is actually important.
50
There is a saying from the First World War:
“If you want to know how fierce the fighting is, don’t ask an Officer. Rather, it is better to ask the Sergeant in the trenches”.
That still holds true in Business, Politics, Sports, and most other group activities, today.
20
Here in California the worry about polluted water is changing rapidly to worry about having enough water. Places in the Sierra Nevada Range where they go this time of year to measure the snow depth and ordinarily find about 5 feet are completely bare and green. It’s looking pretty grim with reservoirs already down to 20 or 30 percent of capacity.
I’m sure that if you asked Californians what most concerns them it would be how bad the shortage is going to get before we finally get relief. I don’t think climate change will be on very many minds when we can’t take a daily shower. And it is about that bad with the state set to impose mandatory 25 percent reduction in use across the board with penalties for failure to comply. A whole lot of nice green lawns are about to turn brown.
And don’t anyone start blaming climate change. California is a desert environment for the most part and dry years are common. Wet years are not common. Average rainfall in Los Angeles is about 12 inches with most of that falling in December, January and February. These last 3 years are just an example of what the state has gone through for hundreds of thousands of years. And our problem is made much worse by the pressure of increasing population. Desirable climate and desert conditions are a double whammy.
The one good thing about this drought is that maybe it will be enough incentive to get serious about using reclaimed water for landscaping, washing cars and other things that don’t require potable water. It’ll be a huge effort but one that could pay off handsomely in the future. Millions of gallons of processed sewage go directly into the ocean every day. Why not use it where we can? If it’s safe enough to dump in local creeks or directly into the ocean then it’s safe enough to water your grass. Just don’t drink it.
70
History shows that the first two colonies to be established in California peris due to a lack of water. Hardly something new. Of course, Ca COULD start doing something about using water more responsibly, either that or start building massive desalination plants.
30
I sure hope we do get our act together about water.
In the past the voters have defeated several water projects because there was no certainty that the money would be spent on what it was supposed to be spent on. Politics can ruin almost anything.
We already import water from hundreds of miles away and there’s no hope of finding any additional remote source. And even if there was one there’s plenty of competition for that water already.
But there is only so much water and money can’t manufacture H2O. We can’t get the proverbial blood out of a turnip. My wife is not going to like her nice looking lawn going brown and frankly I’m not looking forward to planting a yard with the approved low water flora either. But it’s going to have to happen.
One city has built a state of the art desal plant, a large scale reverse osmosis project and put it into operation with a lot of fanfare. But its present status doesn’t look so good. It’s been offline and useless for quite a while. So far desal operations have been more of an embarrassment than a success.
What we do have a clear and obvious chance to do is make more use of reclaimed water than we do. But this is a long term project because whole duplicate water distribution systems would have to be built and metered so the users pay the cost of it. Then the reclaimed water supply needs to be scrupulously monitored for contamination. There’s little tolerance for a mistake without hurting hundreds or thousands of people. Just because you don’t drink it doesn’t mean you can’t be exposed to it.
00
“But there is only so much water and money can’t manufacture H2O.” No, but….$$$ can produce potable water.
Of course, there is that little Canadian invention-Reverse Osmosis Desalination. One small unit (portable with a 2 ton pickup truck (Ute in Oz)) can produce over 4 (yes FOUR) METRIC TONNES of potable water from salt or bio-chem contaminated sources per hour. (there are even hand pumped versions now available for travellers and trekers. – not trekies, but even them as well) These units are easy to operate, relatively cheap (purchase and sustainment) and yet are only being used in a limited manner, despite being proven effective for all biological and chemical contaminants – excluding nuclear materials. (your local issues with your plant are likely due more to poltics than engineering as the technology is mature-quick research also shows it is not a ROD unit but a chemical “desalter” facility, not exactly something reccomended for sourcing potable water and also does nothing for chemical or biological contaminants, only salts.) Militaries love them as they make major units independant of local suppliers. They are great for disaster response and isolated areas. Even some municipalities are starting to use them throughout the world, yet the US seems strangely resistant (outside of the USN & Army). I drank ROD produced water for years with no problems. Water reclaimation begins at the most basic level, surface run off, grey and black water; then with ground water and other sources.
10
You’re right. There is no good reason why we can’t use “gray water”. The problem is that collecting it is an even more expensive and time consuming job than using reclaimed water.
There is also bound to be resistance to using RO (reverse osmosis) for the simple reason that a single failure can put a lot of contaminated water into the system before it’s detected. Large capacity RO plants need on the order of hundreds of RO filters, each with a nonzero probability of failure within the next day, week or month, however you want to reckon it. That scares some who know what they’re talking about, not just me.
I have RO drinking water in my home. It takes out a lot of stuff that spoils the taste and isn’t necessarily pleasant that comes through the water system, chlorine or chloramines being one of those things. But I’d be a lot more skeptical of using it if I knew the feed water could be dangerous.
00
Adelaide has used discharge from the sewage treatment plant for over 50 years to keep sporting fields and golf courses green.
20
Roy, here in OZ we are used to water restrictions – severe at times but mainly due to our gutless pollies’ refusal to build dams.
50
No, “gutless pollies” allow people during Australian water restrictions to daily top up their swimming pools because they don’t want to be sued for cracking empty swimming pools! While at the same time banning kids from poorer neighborhoods playing under a sprinkler on the lawn for an hour a day when the data shows it uses less potable H2O than the average swimming pool top up when in summer drought.
Don’t know about CA but Australia’s large cities have more water fall on them than they consume. Therefore it’s a management and waste problem not a water shortage problem. Before we spend more money on dams and desal, we need to further refine our management practices.
For example, if you go into the Sydney Water website and Annual Reports you cannot work out, nor will they answer to emails asking, how much potable water is used by industrial consumers. A domestic rate and an industrial rate per GL ramping up on a progressive basis would see and give manufacturers time to collect, recycle and or pay. It’s one of those economic surveys they needs to be done to assess how much extra water is available and how long before we do have to have more dams, desal etc.!
40
Peter, actually I agree with you. I was only giving a condensed view not the full on soap box version. Cheers
10
Peter:
Some years ago when there were water restrictions in Adelaide it leaked (sorry!) out that the household use was 6% of water used. Water not accounted for was slightly greater than this. This latter might be due to Adelaide being “the burst water main capital of Australia”.
20
I don’t know what voting is like in Australia, but I do know what it is like, or rather, what it “appears” to be like in the US. It is never the issues that elect a candidate, it is not their campaigning or their positions, it is what money is behind them and who controls the voting machine this year.
There hasn’t been a presidential election that has gone with the exit pools in years, and there are dozens of politicians reelected each year that, if you poll their districts, don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of being reelected, so you have to go to the lowest common denominator to figure out why. That little box next to the candidates name is only “mapped” and can be counted in any column that the program wants. And since over half the machines used don’t even issue you a copy of how you voted, you only have it on “faith” that you voted for who you think you did. I could run for office and appeal to 75% of the voters in my district, but if I don’t appeal to the 1% that control things, I most likely will lose in a squeaker, with no chance of an actual recount of ballots since there are only electronic records. Climate change still tops the list because the 1% that control things wants it there, and what the people want has no impact on the issues.
80
I “personally worry” about none of those survey questions. What is an ‘environmental problem’? The fossil record has no “personal worry” with cyclic or punctuated habitat variability. Like all animals we optimize our habitat to our needs, we’re just better at it. We make sure all the animals and plants we prefer are nearby and the ones we don’t much want around are in their own places, and not in ours. I do not want a skunk living in my kitchen – just saying. The question is how far away or how close do I want every plant and every or animal?
I have my niche, they have theirs. I will not infringe on them too much, and I’ll try to not wipe them out by design or accident, but they will not be safe if they enter the minimum allowable radius to my habitat. Other than that “the environment” is of no interest at all.
Do volcanoes “personally worry” about global extinction and environmental contamination before they erupt? Or ask the Sierra Club or UN if it’s OK to explode?
But I should feel faux guilt for using a plastic bag? 😀
Nah!
With regard to the last question, I don’t “personally worry” about ‘Global warming / Global warming or Climate change’. I only get stroppy at people who falsely call ‘climate’ in 2015 detectably different from what’s periodically occurred during the preceding 200 million years (except that its significantly cooler in 2015 compared to the Jurassic), but contrive a fairytale of pretend-science to single-out humans as a cynical mechanism for exploiting ignorance and impart faux guilt (much like religion did/does) for political gain and misdirecting involuntary taxation revenue to build wind farms and other thoroughly misguided unsustainable albatrosses.
250
I can hear the ghost of George Carlin in that question.
60
Absolutely! Those are evil, evil, evil and evil! 😉
11
All joking aside, you’ve stated the thing extremely well.
Humans do nothing more than any other species but we are better at it. And good for us. It would be a betrayal to have our capacity to shape our environment to suit our needs and not use it. We just need to stop short of the point where we start hurting ourselves. And I think we don’t always find that point.
20
Plastics are the ultimate in recyclable materials. When you are done reusing it, you can still recover the oil based energy in them. BUT, the green lobbies will never allow any of it.
00
Stop copying me everybody! Gosh!
I have been thinking this all along… the early 90’s state education I breeze through taught and opined so much against real pollution, acid rain, water pollution, heavy metals (okay Chernobyl was a bit of a downer) etc…in fact I think we were at one point learning about mercury levels, carbon monoxides and C/HFC’s. I recall a War on my Spray Cans.
Jo is spot on, this is where soooooooo much of the blob money should have been diverted to, cleaning up actual pollution that is actually harming people and animals. Especially the tasty animals, like lambs and steaks and chops.
Come on Libs, now is a fantastic time to trump the stupid left at their own game, and its not like you couldn’t use a few swingers to ease the polls.
Start something, Tony.
91
For the record, Chernobyl apparently happened because the operators were given an extensive, and highly detailed, procedures manual, as is the communist bureaucratic wont, but not much real practical training.
When a fault occurred, that was not listed in the procedures manual, somebody panicked, and ended up venting a whole lot of gas and water that would have been better left contained. It went down hill from there.
A “reenactment” is on YouTube. I can’t vouch for the accuracy.
20
The Chernobyl disaster;
The Russian designed and built RBMK reactors had no containment buildings which are mandatory in every other nation that uses nuclear reactors at any level.
The containment building which prevented a major release of radioactive products when Three Mile Island in the USA came within seconds of a melt through of the reactor pressure vessel was never a part of the Russians plans for any of the RBMK reactors.
The Finns did build a containment building for their Russian designed VVER reactors.
From the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on Chernobyl
THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: UPDATING OF INSAG-1
INSAG-7
A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
______________________
Most analyses now associate the severity of the accident with the defects in the design of control and safety rods in conjunction with the physics design characteristics, which permitted the inadvertent setting up of large positive void coefficients.
The scram just before the sharp rise in power that destroyed the reactor may well have been the decisive contributory factor.
On the other hand, the features of the RBMK reactor had also set other pitfalls for the operating staff. Any of these could just as well have caused the initiating event for this or an almost identical accident.
1-4.9. Causes of the accident
The event which initiated the accident was the pressing by the senior reactor control engineer of the EPS rod drop button (EPS-5) to shut down the reactor for
some reason which has not yet been established for certain.
The cause of the accident was an uncontrolled increase in reactor power which initially arose because of the increase in reactivity caused by the displacers of the RCPS rods {17, 28, 35].
The increase in reactivity was not suppressed by the absorbers of RCPS rods, not only because of their slow speed, but also because the operating personnel had withdrawn more than the permitted number of manual control absorbing rods from the core before the tests, thereby creating the conditions for a multiple increase in intensity of the initial reactor runaway, which was predetermined by the design of the RCPS rods.
The initial reactivity increase resulted in a substantial growth in power since there was strong positive feedback between reactor reactivity and steam generation in the core.
This process was considerably enhanced by the low initial reactor power, by the thermal-hydraulic characteristics that promoted maximum realization of the
steam reactivity effect, and by significant power density irregularities throughout the core.
Conclusions;
1-5.1. Design deficiencies of the RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl Unit 4 predetermined the severe consequences of the accident
1-5.2. The misguidedness of the practice of transferring emergency protection functions to the human operator owing to the lack of appropriate engineered safety features was highlighted by the accident itself: the combination of design deficiencies and the non-total reliability of human operators brought about the disaster.
[ / ]
_________________________
Chernobyl was the World’s worst nuclear accident.
Or was it ?
Read about the Soviet Union’s Kyshtym nuclear explosion in Sept 1957 [ variously but for now the 1982 Los Alamos Report
10
What? You mean that experience and practice are more valuable than written procedures? You really expect a reactor control room engineer to take ownership of the responsibility? 😉
Well, a lot of people seemingly do go trough life without taking ownership of their responsibilities. But it sure does work better when they do.
The rather slipshod design of the reactor didn’t help either. Even then it was known how to do it better than they did.
00
By the way, that same problem exists in almost every tech support group I’ve ever had contact with. If it isn’t listed in the cookbook of problems they can’t cope.
00
Climate change is not a concern,
To most who can easily discern,
What is purely political,
Or environmentally critical,
Being a skill that the Greens must learn.
141
LYW Ruairi
30
As I have said for DECADES: if you really want to make a difference to the environment, start cleaning up pollution, even something as simple as picking up YOUR TRASH can make a difference. Enough with demanding “somebody else do something” (the typical “green party” line), start by being responsible yourself. Some of us (not radical idiots) have lived environmentally responsible lives for a long time and we are not green freaks.
120
Not dropping litter and rubbish everywhere would be a good start. Since the Easter holiday there is a depressing amount of it on the road over the Black Spur, especially on the Healesville side. There is even a fly-tipped mattress…it’s horrible. I daresay the ridiculously high prices for using the official tip encourage this behaviour. That’s just another example of greenie thinking that leads to worse results than the original problems.
70
Alice’s Resturant – Arlo Guthrie
20
The original recording is here
10
Alice’s Restaurant = 18 minutes
Gap in Dick Nixon’s tapes compliments of Rose Mary Woods = 18 minutes
Arlo thinks there is a connection, and I do too.
10
I looked for that version, but couldn’t find it.
10
‘Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism’.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
50
The Chinese communist economy was stagnant for years and they were slowly going backward compared to every other nation. They accepted Hong Kong as the example and adopted a partial capitalism model. They have since exploded as a commodity power house.
The Russian communist model was an utter failure. “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”. Long lines of bread lines because the bakery was only permitted to sell X number of loaves per day.
What model does Christiana want to adopt. Whoever interviews this woman in the future needs to get out of her exactly what she has in mind.
80
1) She won’t answer the questions in any comprehensible fashion
2) The MSM won’t ask the questions to begin with
60
it just confirms what many of us think;it has very little to do about climate,but a lot about a major shift in who controls the levers.
30
If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, nothing will.
70
Yes, chills abound particularly in winter and most notably for polticians. As far back as September 1988, the UK winter proved an inconvenient stumbling block for politicians — the then UK Health Minister, Edwinia Curry tells pensioners to start knitting now to keep themselves warm in winter.
One wonders what the UN et al. will tell the freezing masses of power impoverished sheeple who have run out of furniture and park benches, garden shrubbery and botanic garden trees, who struggle to pay for food and transport against the competing need to keep warm. They’ll be back to stealing the coal from railway lines that fell from the engine tender, or some twenty-first century equivalent…maybe an illegal colliery or two…
Isn’t eco-marxism fabulous by the light of the frappé coffee, a bundle of Sunday newspapers and an idylic Sunday afternoon, whiled away in armchair delusions of inspirational global solutions with like minded folk…..
60
My personal worry is that, because of the relentless propaganda messaging from ABC, BBC, msnbc, newspapers, etc., the sheeple will vote for the misanthropic rich elite politicos. These same misanthrope elites who will ensure a future where fossil fuels’ usage is locked-up in intractable law and regulations, thus the majority of the Western world is kept cold, miserable, and hungry.
And all because the unelected UN says humans control the climate through (what they call) a pollutant called CO2.
That’s the Green’s unsustainable but very wasteful future – their dream.
81
The black humour is that the Greens, and their fellow travellers, actually think they are setting the whole agenda.
By the time they have figured out they were only the means to achieve an end where they have no further use, it will be too late.
120
Indeed, it may well be too late for all of us at that point.
Vote now to exact your measure in the literal and cold comfort of being able to thoroughly kick the proverbial Green cat. The activity may even help warm you up. I also understand that cats are reported to make fine eating for some.
40
But they won’t figure it out RW, delusion is implicit in human affairs. It’s just some are more apt and ready to recognize it and move past the older illusions … into a range of completely new ones.
And others who pretend there are no illusions in them, as they were very, very careful with their thinking and sorting, to see to it that none snuck in unawares.
gawf! bwhaha! 😛 … yeah, right.
It’s degree and type of illusion we entertain which differs, and the degree to which people are willing or able to face delusion is situation-normal, learn from this and move past popular myths.
While the can’t quite ‘figure it out’ crowd, will always be ruthlessly led to an endless false dawn as the control agenda takes deeper root, via sewing more prethink illusion making (such as axiom-laden poll surveys above) into the bounds of public debate. Which bounds people mentally wobble about within for a decade, as they dare not question the prethink. That would clearly amount to a thought-crime.
Hence we get: Another call to arrest climate “deniers”
Rulers rule by illusion. The more formidable the illusion, the stronger their capacity to control, so challenging the prethink and its resulting illusions is an attack on political power. Which is an act that imparts fear to commit the thought-crime.
This control mechanism’s brilliance is that it’s hidden in plain view, and that being blinkered to it’s processes is obviously in ones immediate best interests.
So it’s doubly rare to find a political leader who has the temerity to call out the illusion, as it undermines the illusion making control mechanism itself, and not just the illusion that it was using to maintain control the bounds of prethink and a bogus sophist public-debate in all ‘respectable’ forums.
_
Correspondingly, the more respectable the public forum is, the less likely it is to not be pedaling BS, on any given day.
40
It is a fact that the majority are dis-engaged from the global warming debate.
Put some solar panels on the roof because you can save money with a government rebate is about as far as it goes for most.
But, for the ‘rebels of the consensus’ who battle on, we know the stakes could never be higher ‘on the road to Paris’:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday.”
Extract is from the official UN-RIC site HERE)
And, who’s children’s children is UN-IPCC Executive Secretary Figueres concerned about?
Youtube Video: UN Doomsday Global Warming Official says “We should make every effort” to depopulate the planet.
“In 2013, Figueres had a conversation with Climate One founder Greg Dalton regarding “fertility rates in population,” as a contributor to climate change.”
The comments are made at 4.20 into the video.
. . .
Un-elected. Un-accountable. That is the UN.
Many wars have been fought for freedom.
The battle continues.
131
Some thought the UN would be a good thing! Who besides Joseph Stalin?
91
I guess you can jointly blame Roosevelt and Churchill, along with Stalin.
The original idea was broached at the Yalta Conference at the end of the Second World War, in response to the number of people killed on all sides of the conflict, and the frightening devastation caused by the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The political League of Nations had obviously failed to prevent or mitigate the war. So having a permanent bureaucratic body to replace it was seen as a good idea at the time. The possibility that it could take on a life of its own, was not foreseen.
30
It probably was foreseen, but ignored.
There was no oversight, no way to disannul the thing, no way to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum, no way for the body to enforce peace anyway.
It looks like a knee jerk reaction, a feel good measure; Somebody has to do Something kind of thing. Think of the children.
I get the impression the human race can’t learn from history.
30
Yes, you are probably right.
Of course, they did introduce the concept of Peacekeepers (sky blue helmets), but that reintroduced politics because they had to be drawn from the Member Nations. As you say, we can’t learn from history. We just lurch from crisis to crisis.
30
handjive
April 10, 2015 at 7:41 am · Reply
“It is a fact that the majority are dis-engaged from the global warming debate.
Put some solar panels on the roof because you can save money with a government rebate is about as far as it goes for most.”
How about this for disengaging?
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/04/we-dont-need-no-509.html
10
the CAGW crowd who hail Obama would surely not be thrilled about the US Secret Service and security team using dogs to search journalists and their equipment or the removal of the homeless & the destruction of street vendors’ stalls in Kingston Jamaica for the US President’s visit. as one vendor, 67-year-old Claudette Reid who sells crabs at National Heroes Circle, said:
“Is more than 40 years I have been selling right here so. Is through this selling I was able to send all of my children to school. Imagine, the Queen come here and them never remove wi, the Prince also come and we were allowed to stay, so why now?” said the distraught woman.
the number of road closures was pretty pointless, given:
Waiting in vain for the president
Scores of Jamaicans gathered at the roundabout at Sir Florizel Glasspole Boulevard last night to witness the arrival of United States President Barack Obama, but they would look in vain as the president never travelled by road to his hotel as they expected…
Even after Obama was whisked away in the helicopter – Marine One, many refused to budge as they still expected him to drive by.
While roving the Corporate Area earlier, The Gleaner team found that the announced traffic changes were in place…
the purpose of this visit?
Jamaica Gleaner: Debbie-Ann Wright: Jamaica signs energy agreement with US
Jamaica could finally get the long-touted liquefied natural gas (LNG) project off the ground with the signing of an energy cooperation agreement with the United States Government…
Speaking with The Gleaner after the signing, Energy Minister Phillip Paulwell said the Government is optimistic particularly at the prospect of becoming a hub for distribution of LNG from the US to the rest of the region…
The letter of intent also provides for technical assistance in energy conservation and fuel diversification…
Jamaica Gleaner: Daraine Luton: US to unveil energy deal as Obama meets Portia
In January, US Vice-President Joseph Biden invited Caribbean heads of state to Washington as part of his Caribbean Energy Security Initiative, which is aimed at helping to move small-island governments away from fossil fuels.
The White House has said that a concerted effort is being made to “provide assistance to Caribbean islands on difficult policy and regulatory reforms that can attract the private finance required to implement new energy technologies and approaches”…
One such initiative is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) which will dedicate resources to the Caribbean to facilitate deals that match US government financing with strong energy projects…
Petroleumworld.com quotes Ted Piccone, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, as saying that with Venezuela cutting its supply of oil under the PetroCaribe programme, “the goal of the United States now is to try to break up PetroCaribe”…
Wikipedia: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
To date, OPIC has supported more than $200 billion of investment in more than 4,000 projects, which have generated an estimated $76 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 278,000 American jobs…
OPIC has committed to provide $1.5 billion to develop energy projects in Africa over the next five years, in support of President Obama’s Power Africa initiative to double the number of people on the continent who have access to electricity. The Power Africa initiative will help African countries develop more of their extensive energy resources, including oil and gas, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar and biomass, while also building out power generation and transmission infrastructure…
OPIC does not support projects that negatively affect the U.S economy…
9 April: White House: FACT SHEET: U.S.-CARICOM Summit – Deepening Energy Cooperation
The leaders’ discussion focused on the importance of improving energy security, reducing energy costs, and fighting climate change. This follows robust engagement on these issues over the last year, including the White House Caribbean Energy Security Summit hosted by the Vice President in January 2015 and the launch of the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI) coordinated by the Department of State. The United States is deepening this collaboration through the following initiatives:
Clean Energy Finance Facility for the Caribbean and Central American (CEFF-CCA): The United States will launch a $20 million facility to encourage investment in clean energy projects. The facility will provide early-stage funding to catalyze greater private and public sector investment in clean energy projects. It will draw on the expertise of the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) in coordination with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State…
Clean Energy Finance: In January, OPIC formed a dedicated financing and insurance team to advance development of the Caribbean renewable energy sector. OPIC is in advanced talks to finance a 20 MW solar farm in Jamaica, and has already committed financing to Jamaica’s largest private-sector wind farm, a 36 MW facility in Malvern, St. Elizabeth Parish. OPIC is actively looking for opportunities to support solar and wind energy projects in Jamaica and throughout the broader Caribbean region…ETC
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/09/fact-sheet-us-caricom-summit-deepening-energy-cooperation
7 April: Western Journalism: Paul Driessen: Liberals, Morality, And ‘Global Warming’
Current climate policies mean energy deprivation, poverty, disease, and death for billions.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and World Bank will refuse to lend money for coal-fired power plants, and even most gas-fueled generators and hydroelectric facilities, in developing countries…
African Development Bank’s president Donald Kaberuka says poor nations will no longer tolerate these hypocritical, lethal policies. His bank will continue loaning money for coal-fired generating units. But in a perverse irony, the absence of World Bank and OPIC money means those projects will not have sufficient funding to install modern, readily available pollution controls. So millions of families will finally have electricity and won’t be sickened by wood and dung fires, but new pollutants will needlessly afflict them…
http://www.westernjournalism.com/liberals-morality-and-global-warming/
60
I would turn out to see the Queen and Prince if they came here but I would NEVER turn out to see O’Bama.The latter, with the need for a completely ridiculous number of cars/helicopters/aircraft and security bods, has always made me question his attitude and position.
30
further to ROM’s India/Greenpeace link:
10 April: The Hindu, India: Devesh K. Pandey: MHA suspends Greenpeace India’s registration
Greenpeace India’s all seven bank accounts have been frozen with immediate effect
The government also took exception to Greenpeace India’s participation at the Istanbul Coal Strategy Conference-2012. “At the Istanbul Conference, US-based funding agencies projected India as the primary target for thermal power plant activism,” said the official.
Sponsored by US-based Climate Works Foundation (CWF) and World Resources Institute, the Conference had identified 999 thermal power plant sites in the world, of which about half were in India.
The official said the Conference had resolved to focus on the Singrauli region in India.
CWF, which was recently put on MHA’s watch list, had since then donated Rs.1.4 crore to Greenpeace India.
“As a follow-up, Greenpeace came up with a three-pronged strategy: to create a network of anti-coal protest movements, target coal block allocations with regulators and in courts/tribunals; and campaign among domestic/foreign investors against Coal India Limited,” the official alleged…
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/mha-suspends-greenpeace-indias-registration/article7084953.ece?homepage=true
9 April: EconomicTimes India: PTI: Government blocks Greenpeace India’s foreign fundings, suspends NGO’s licence for 6 months
NEW DELHI: In a tough action, the Government today barred Greenpeace India from receiving foreign funds with immediate effect by suspending its licence for six months and froze all its accounts, alleging it has “prejudicially” affected the country’s public and economic interests.
The environmental activist group was also served a notice by the government
which asked why its registration should not be cancelled permanently.
The decision was taken by the Union Home Ministry after it was found that the NGO has “prejudicially affected the public interests and economic interests of the country in violation” of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act…
The foreign fundings to Greenpeace India have been blocked by suspending the NGO’s licence for 180 days, the Ministry said. In all, the NGO’s seven bank acounts were frozen, it added… READ ALL
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/government-blocks-greenpeace-indias-foreign-fundings-suspends-ngos-licence-for-6-months/articleshow/46864928.cms
10
For all the peak oilies out there:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32229203
Another massive find of oil. Not in a remote location, mind you, but near Gatwick, UK.
Peak oilies bemuse me. I throw them in the same mental basket as Malthusians, Club of Romers, climate catastrophists and other generic doomsdayers.
80
Peak oil correlates nicely with trough IQ.
40
And yet again the optimistic view of Open-Ended Resourceship triumphs over the failed “peak-oil” doomsday climate pessimist:
Open-Ended Resourceship: Bring on 2012!
By Robert Bradley Jr. — December 29, 2011
masterresource.com
“If resources are not fixed but created, then the nature of the scarcity problem changes dramatically.
For the technological means involved in the use of resources determines their creation and therefore the extent of their scarcity.
The nature of the scarcity is not outside the process (that is natural), but a condition of it.
But there is no economic law analogous to the physical conservation of matter. There is no law of conservation of value; value is continually, routinely created by the market process. And this value creation does not deplete–just the opposite.
This insight reorients the peak-oil debate from pessimism about hypothetical future physical resources to here-and-now concerns over incentives and institutions–or the ability of a free market to create a robust energy future.
Estimating Future Supply
The total supply of any mineral is unknown and unknowable because the future knowledge that would create mineral resources cannot be known before its time.
Human ingenuity and capital investment under a regime of economic calculation can lead society to new combinations of minerals—or minerals and non-minerals—to perform the same (or better) economic services over time.”
00
Yes, it’s interesting
One of the criteria for assessing Reserves (note: not Resources) is economic – ie. is the deposit economically mineable at today’s sale prices and an estimated sale price over say, the next twenty years
[Resource assessment must include geological conditions, factors and probabilities that affect or may affect mineability, but makes no decision on the actual economics]
It’s understandable that the general public, very much including most journos, confuse Reserves with Resources. If a professional geologist or engineer does this deliberately, they face heavy legal sanctions; if done inadvertently, they should quickly find another field of endeavour
Such constraints are not upon greenies and activists. When this is suggested, they react with great alarm 🙂 🙂
10
It’s not dissimilar to the peddling of species decline…in the face of a constant stream of discoveries of hitherto unknown species.
40
Similarly Manfred one topic that I have always enjoyed is the notion that biodiversity is threatened by loss of species.
If you accept that all organisms have a common ancestor then its clear that all current biodiversity evolved from the smallest denomination of bio diversity that can exist. So to say that you need millions of different organisms to guarantee biological complexity and diversity is provably wrong.
Of course I am not suggesting it doesn’t matter to lose species, but if there is one single celled organism left after we finish “trashing the planet” then there is no reason to believe life would not re evolve in all its current complexity and perhaps more.
This is why I keep referring to greens as ultra conservatives, despite the unpopularity of that term of reference to them on this site. They are indeed ultra conservatives, they will accept no change of any kind. Conserving the status quo is the endgame for them and preferably winding back what advancements have been made. They promote themselves as “progressives” but nothing could be further from the truth. Progress requires change and change will not be tolerated.
10
It’s right near LGW and Greenie Hippy paradise…that’ll annoy them. 😉
10
One point I’d like to raise is they are given no opt-out, the three options are no, a little and a lot, and the warmist claim, a little and a lot. What about the huge “I dont give a rats” demographic, unlike some surveys that have, don’t agree or disagree, or tend to disagree, tend to agree. People that don’t care will probably answer at a median (3 on a 5 point scale) or “A little” in this survey when in reality almost all of them would be opposed to the government reaching into their wallets for more taxes or charges.
It’s about time these surveys were done right.
40
Choice #1, prechecked, should always be included in the result of any survey, the actual question:
Why should anyone consider your asinine question?
30
Nick Xenophon on ABC this morning.
“Im prepared to support the Govt. on the RET if we can get some discussion on decent forms of renewable energy”
Fran Kelly “such as”
Nick “well not wind for starters, its expensive, intermittent and unreliable”.
Now Nick is hardly the voice of the anti wind movement. A nice little stab of reality in the debate there. I was pleasantly surprised, no doubt he wont be invited back to the ABC anytime soon.
90
Good catch Safetyguy.
40
Until the self-professed “elite” Greens and their fellow travellers (regressives, not progressives) are attacked head on, the debate and arguments based in politics will over-ride the pragmatiism of empirical evidence-based science. And argument will continue to go in circles with the great unwashed in the middle never hearing the penny of truth in reality, drop. Political relevance is often as not achieved by being the master of deception and disguise. To apply a metaphor, the Green boil needs to be lanced.
The word “Green” needs to be seen as much less than mere “ordinary” and highly undesirable in the Australian manner of thinking. Sure, there will always be some lunatics, like followers of any religious cult or dogma based belif system founded on the subversion and control of others. History suggests societies always had to contend with anarchists.
“Green” needs to be tarnished with the politics of the anarchist, the one who always cries “wolf” and never embodies the truth. “Eco” is now degraded in meaning from ecological, where it was derived, and is now applied totally out of context so it’s a useless term. “Green” implies ecological, social and economic integrity (I avoid “sustainable” as it falls into the same pit-trap as “eco”), or the notional “triple bottom line”. However, in reality it’s the ultimate example of hyprocrisy and the political policies are diametrically opposed to supporting, sustaining and advancing civil society. “Green” is also about as useful as “world’s best practice”, which is completely defunct before it gets off the ground. More bullshit terms aimed to impress the great unwashed.
“Green” needs to be seen and clearly understood as belonging entirely in the realm of the political. Not as “environmental” where it might have originated. What we need is a new term that embodies and encompasses the “triple bottom line” in a truly ecological context that also conveys integrity of both purpose and application. And anything “Green” is seen to be anaerobic and toxic to intelligent thinking individuals, communities and society at large. As for a term to replace “green”, I suggest let it wither on the vine and
stickstink where it fits best. Sensible if albeit, un-enlightened, people will begin to abandon both the “Green” and the “green”, and the herd will follow. Returning to sensible, realistic, appropriate, pragmatic and justifiable use of language would be a goos start. Like good science, let the results speak for themselves.40
Larry Niven wrote about the “green” movement years ago in his sci-fi book “Fallen Angels”, amusing to see how many of his predictions have come true.
00
I had not heard of that title, Fallen Angels, before I saw your comment. But Niven is one of the two best sci fi writers since sci fi began so I just ordered the book.
My good luck that I scan recent threads for new comments.
Thanks for the tip.
Roy
00
I think you will enjoy it, both for the premise and his various predictions. Good story also. You might also like to take a look at James Hogan’s “Kicking the sacred cow” and his discussion over how politics uses manipulated science. His own politics is questionable though, especially his vehement denial of the historical facts regarding genocides in continental Europe under the NAZIs.
10
good funding from good billionaire:
8 April: InsideClimateNews: Katherine Bagley: Bloomberg Pours $30 Million More Into Fighting Coal
Billionaire’s grant to Sierra Club continues support for Beyond Coal campaign and attracts another $30 million in matching gifts
The grant will bring the former New York City mayor’s support for the program to $80 million since 2011.
In reporting the gift Wednesday, the Sierra Club said it obtained a matching $30 million in combined donations from more than a dozen additional funders. They include the Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Yellow Chair Foundation, the Grantham Foundation and the Sandler Family Foundation.
The money will support the environmental group’s Beyond Coal campaign, which uses grassroots activism to fight coal-based power and push wind, solar and geothermal projects. The Sierra Club said it will also use the funds to counter fossil fuel industry opposition to President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which requires existing coal-fired power stations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
With the increased funding, the Sierra Club will expand its goal to retiring or getting pledges to retire half of the nation’s power plans by 2017, up from one-third by 2020, according to Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Beyond Coal campaign…
“Coal’s days are numbered,” Bloomberg said. “It is an outdated technology, it is holding back our economy, and it is hurting our health.” …
Bloomberg is the world’s 14th richest man, with a $36.3 billion fortune from his financial data company Bloomberg LP, according to Forbes…
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042015/bloomberg-pours-30-million-more-fighting-coal
at least Bloomberg has scotched growing rumours he would run for London Mayor, based on his ex-wife being British & his children having British citizenship:
10 April: Guardian: Nadia Khomami: Newly knighted Michael Bloomberg denies he wants to be mayor of London
Anglophile former mayor of New York insists he has ‘zero chance’ and ‘zero interest’ in succeeding Boris Johnson
Speaking at the British embassy in Washington after receiving an honorary knighthood from the Queen, Bloomberg, 73, said he had “zero chance, zero interest” in the position, the New York Times reported.
Bloomberg’s denial puts an end to widespread speculation about his intentions, both in the UK and the US. On Monday, Boris Johnson – whom Bloomberg has in the past referred to as a “kindred spirit” – expressed support for his ally…
Bloomberg is a proud anglophile and a patron of the arts in London. He is building two giant bronze-and-stone towers on the site of the ruins of a Roman temple in London to house his company and charity and is the owner of a £12m house in Cadogan Square, Knightsbridge.
But even if Bloomberg had wanted to stand, he would have faced a significant hurdle: he is not a British citizen, a requirement for the job…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/knighted-michael-bloomberg-denies-mayor-of-london
10
following includes link to 7-page PDF World Bank “Common Principles” doc:
8 April: RTCC: Ed King: Top development banks agree definition for climate finance
Financial institutions with over US$ 2,100 billion in assets publish principles to guide future investments in clean energy
A set of “Common Principles” backed by the World Bank, International Development Finance Club (IDFC) and Agence Francaise de Developpment lists investments than can qualify as climate friendly.Released last week, the document outlines a range of efficiency, renewables and forestry projects that slow greenhouse gas emissions, but it also leaves the door open for future investments in coal power plants and carbon capture technologies (CCS)…
It also emphasises that banks should not exaggerate the amount of money flowing into clean energy projects, and report only funds that directly lead to emissions cuts.
The document is significant given the signatories – which include the top development banks in China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan and Mexico – control assets worth US$ 2,100 billion, with financing commitments of $390 billion in 2010.
In a statement Ulrich Schröder, Chairperson of IDFC and Chief Executive Officer of KfW Bankengruppe said this was a “major milestone in the fight against climate change.”
Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change said common methodologies across financial organisations was essential to “build trust” that funds were flowing.
“Our ability as multilateral, national and bilateral development institutions to tell a shared story will provide an essential piece of the climate finance jigsaw puzzle,” she said…
Super critical [highly efficient] coal power plants should not be constructed with climate finances, she (Shelagh Whitley, a ***climate finance expert at the London-based Overseas Development Institute) added.
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/08/top-development-banks-agree-definition-for-climate-finance/
***Q. what is a “climate finance expert”?
A.someone who knows how to spend money for the CAGW cause.
10
what could go wrong?
9 April: UK Daily Mail: Ellie Zolfagharifard: Could artificial clouds end droughts in Arizona? State says spraying sky with silver iodide may help tackle global warming
Central Arizona Project invested $1 million to research cloud seeding
Process involves seeding clouds over the Rockies with silver iodide
Some scientists are concerned about silver building up in river basins
There are also legal uncertainties over who should get additional water
With a ‘megadrought’ forecast to hit the US in the coming decades, parched states are turning to increasingly radical solutions to fill their reservoirs…
The process of cloud seeding was first proposed in the 1940s at the General Electric labs in Schenectady, New York.
Two decades later, the Central Arizona Project and the Salt River Project invested in research to make it a reality…
The system works on the premise that rainfall takes place when supercooled droplets of water form ice crystals.
As a result they become too heavy to remain suspended in the air, and fall, often melting on their way down to form rain…
In a recent Wyoming Weather Modification pilot project, the technology resulted in an increase of seasonal snow water accumulations of 5 to 15 per cent…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3031022/Could-artificial-clouds-end-droughts-Arizona-State-says-spraying-sky-silver-iodide-help-tackle-global-warming.html
10
and if you believe this…
8 April: NYT: Michael Greenstone: If We Dig Out All Our Fossil Fuels, Here’s How Hot We Can Expect It to Get
(Michael Greenstone is the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University of Chicago, runs the Energy Policy Institute there. He was the chief economist of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010)
For those who don’t like suspense, here’s the total: an astonishing 16.2 degrees. And here’s how that breaks down. Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have warmed the planet by about 1.7 degrees. We are already experiencing the consequences of this warming. In recent weeks, we have learned that the world had its warmest winter on record and that Arctic sea ice hit a new low, even as intense storms continue to inflict harm on communities globally…
If we were to use all of this coal, natural gas and petroleum, the planet would warm by an additional 2.8 degrees. Add the heat from those reserves to the 1.7 degrees from what has already been emitted, and you get a world that is 4.5 degrees warmer since the industrial revolution; this is beyond scientists’ recommended 3.6-degree threshold…
The next set of fossil fuels in line is referred to as resources, rather than reserves. The difference is that they are recoverable with today’s technology, but not at current prices. There is 3.1 degrees’ worth of warming if the oil and natural gas in this category are utilized, which would lead to a total increase in global temperatures of 7.6 degrees.
This warming does not even consider our coal resources. A middle-of-the-road estimate of the coal that qualifies as resources indicates that its use would lead to an additional increase of 8.6 degrees. Thus, the use of all reserves and resources would lead to a total increase of 16.2 degrees. Today’s climate and planet would very likely be unrecognizable…
There are essentially only three long-run solutions to the climate challenge. The first is to price carbon emissions to reflect the damages from climate change. In practice, this means pricing carbon in as many parts of the world as possible — and ideally, globally — so that there is a level playing field for all energy sources…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/upshot/if-we-dig-out-all-our-fossil-fuels-heres-how-hot-we-can-expect-it-to-get.html?_r=0
10
Greenstone happily and deliberately mixes the terms Resources and Reserves even though he knows the difference exactly
And he does so without sanction. See my post 27.2.1 above at 1:45pm
Ho hum
20
CAGW advocate Mooney still shilling for CAGW-friendly Shell! or something like that:
8 April: WaPo: Chris Mooney: What the Shell mega deal says about the planet’s energy future
In an interview last year, Ben van Beurden, the new CEO of oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, gave his outlook on what it would take to deal with the global problem of carbon emissions.
“I think the real challenge is not so much how do we accelerate renewables but more about how do we decarbonize the system we have,” said van Beurden. “How do we take coal out and replace it with gas?”…
Renewable energy doesn’t contribute any carbon dioxide emissions — and burning coal produces the most among fossil fuels. But nestled in between is natural gas, which, when burned, produces about half as much of the greenhouse gas as coal. That’s why it has often been touted as a “bridge fuel” to a low carbon future…
Perhaps the most important part of the story, however, may be how this helps to position Shell to sell huge volumes of LNG to China — a country lacking natural gas resources large enough to meet its fast-growing energy needs…
Through this deal, then, Shell — which has an internal companywide carbon tax — has positioned itself to play a key role in helping sell the gas that will, in turn, help China to pursue its climate and pollution reduction goals and rely on fewer coal plants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/08/what-the-shell-mega-deal-says-about-the-planets-energy-future/
wow. Nobel prize winners with no “climate” expertise join the anti-coal chorus:
9 April: Guardian: Ian Sample: Nobel prize winners join call for charities to divest from fossil fuels
Laureates, including former Wellcome Trust employee Sir John Sulston, argue that investments by charities conflict with their aims of improving public health
Nobel prize winners in the US and Australia have joined calls for the world’s two largest health charities to sell their stocks in leading fossil fuel companies…
“It is clear that while some coal producers may be in denial, the large oil companies understand exactly what is happening with anthropogenic climate change. It is also clear that the rush to find more oil and dig more coal continues unabated,” said Professor Peter Doherty, a scientist at the University of Melbourne who won the Nobel prize for his work on the immune system.
“Is it likely that anything other than placing a real price on carbon and withdrawing investment will influence either industry?” he said…
Professor Anne Glover, who was chief scientific adviser to the European commission until last year, and Lord May, the UK government’s former chief scientist, have backed the Guardian campaign, along with over 175,000 others.
***“These are leaders. These are people that others look to. So they have enormous responsibility. That’s why for me it is important that they react to this,” Prof Glover said…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/nobel-laureates-echo-calls-for-charities-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels
20
This is OT but very important. Liberal democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has written an article for the Fin review about the obscene super expensive con of the RET scheme.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/9_billion_for_a_green_scheme_than_makes_no_difference/
We’ve already spent some 9 billion $ on this obscenity and by 2030 we are due to outlay another 22 billion $.
But he is correct that we should include our hydro energy as part of this renewable energy garbage and so save the poor bloody user an exorbitant increase in their electricity bills.
Of course this won’t change the temp or co2 levels at all. We are just flushing 10s of billions of $ down the drain for a guaranteed zero return. GRRRRRR.
90
Not sure if this comes under Jo’s “Swinging Voters” label but from a new site http://climatechangepredictions.org/ created by a retired Sydney lawyer comes this particular prediction via The Age 2nd November 2007 which I just have to pass on as imbecility at this level is rarely attained even by the most dedicated warmists.
_____________
No brides for brothers
“That evening I learnt of a most remarkable consequence of the drought. The Samburu circumcise their youths in grand ceremonies, which are held every seven years or so, when enough cattle and other foods have accumulated to support such celebrations. Circumcision represents a transition to manhood, and until a youth has passed it he can’t marry.
“But it’s been 14 years since a circumcision ceremony has been held here. There are now 40,000 uncircumcised young men, some in their late 20s, waiting their turn. All of the eligible young women, tired of waiting, have married older men (multiple wives are allowed), so there are no wives for the new initiates.
“I could never have imagined that climate change would have such an effect on an entire society.
Proff Tim Flannery ; An explorers notebook
60
A wonderfull set of comments from Freeman Dyson, just published, well worth reading!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html#
00
[…] The invisible swinging environmental vote (20% of the population?) […]
00
[…] The invisible swinging environmental vote (20% of the population?) […]
00