The following article brings many subjects light. These include mining, coal, energy, jobs, the economy, the environment, and politics. These are complex, and for many, passionate issues. If Americans want to maintain their standard of living, and recover from this current economic "recession", there are hard choices to be made.
Al Gore and James Hansen, the leading global warming alarmists, want to ban all coal mining and the use of coal to generate electricity. The big question is, how are we going to generate all the electricity we depend on? There is talk of plug-in electric cars, where is that additional electricity going to come from? Solar and wind power can not begin to fill the need. It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant. What are the answers? Our government can not keep printing money forever. At some point people need to begin producing things (again).
Peter
EPA Puts Mountaintop Mining Projects On Hold
by The Associated Press (source)
“It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites.” West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney
“If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward. There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the [Army] Corps [of Engineers].”Joe Lovett, executive director for the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment
NPR.org, March 24, 2009 · In a move that took the coal industry by surprise, the Environmental Protection Agency put hundreds of mountaintop coal-mining permits on hold Tuesday to evaluate the projects' impact on streams and wetlands.
The decision by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson targets a controversial practice that allows coal mining companies to dump waste from mountaintop mining into streams and wetlands.
Between 150 and 200 applications for new or expanded surface coal mines, many mountaintop removal operations, are pending before the federal government. EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency does not expect problems with the overwhelming majority of permits.
The permits are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency that has been criticized by environmental groups and has been sued for failing to thoroughly evaluate the environmental impact of mountaintop removal.
Under the Clean Water Act, companies cannot discharge rock, dirt and other debris into streams unless they can show that it will not cause permanent damage to waterways or the fish and other wildlife that live in them.
Last month, a three-judge appeals panel in Richmond, Va., overturned a lower court's ruling that would have required the corps to conduct more extensive reviews. The appeals court decision cleared the way for a backlog of permits that had been delayed until the lawsuit was resolved.
The EPA's action on Tuesday could leave those permit requests in limbo a little longer.
The EPA said in a statement that it would be actively involved in the review of the long list of permits awaiting approval by the corps, a signal that the agency under the Obama administration will exercise its oversight.
The EPA has the authority to review and veto any permit issued by the corps under the Clean Water Act, but under the Bush administration it did that rarely.
"If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. "There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the corps."
The EPA action stunned the coal industry, which had been breathing easily since the mid-February ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It's almost like the EPA's trying to skirt the 4th Circuit appeals decision and do whatever they want to do," Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Caylor said. "We would lose half our production in east Kentucky."
Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said further delays in the permits would cost the region high-paying jobs.
"This is very troubling, not only for jobs in the region, but production of coal generally," said Raulston.
Mountaintop mines in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee produce nearly 130 million tons of coal annually — about 14 percent of the nation's power-producing coal — which in turn generates electricity for 24.7 million U.S. customers, according to industry estimates.
The low-sulfur, high-energy coal produced from those mines is not easily replaced. The industry has long maintained that eliminating mountaintop mining will lead to increased imports from countries that have far fewer environmental safeguards.
The practice has a huge economic impact in Appalachia.
Mountaintop mines employ some 14,000 people across the four states. Wages average about $62,000 — high pay for rural Appalachia — and states make millions in taxes.
"It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites," said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney. West Virginia is the nation's second-largest coal producing state behind Wyoming.
In a separate action, the EPA recommended denying permits the Army Corps of Engineers was planning to issue that would allow two companies to fill thousands of feet of streams with mining waste in West Virginia and Kentucky. The Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that it was weeks away from issuing both permits.
But in letters sent Monday to the corps' office in Huntington, W.Va., the EPA said that Central Appalachia Mining, a subsidiary of Lexington, Ky.-based Rhino Resources, and Highland Mining Co., a subsidiary of Richmond-based Massey Energy Co., have not done enough to avoid and minimize damage to water quality and stream channels.
In the case of the Highland Mining's plans, which would fill in approximately 13,174 feet of stream in Logan County, W.Va., the agency said it believes the project "will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance."
Neither Massey Energy Co. nor Rhino Resources immediately responded to requests for comment.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Economic Suicide By Believing In The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming
Is this where America is headed? It looks like it, if we follow the lead of our new socialist leaders in Washington D.C., liberal Democrats, and global warming fear-mongers like James Hansen and Al Gore. (Remember, you can do a search on this blog for key people, subjects, and ideas and find much more information.)
It is insane to increase taxes on conventional energy sources (coal, oil, and gas), destroy existing industries, with vast established infrastructures, (pipelines, refineries, power plants, etc.), put millions more people out of work from skilled jobs, and remove Billions of dollars of royalties and taxes that those industries currently give to local, state, and Federal treasuries.
To destroy industries that have taken a century and a half to build and try to replace these with economically unproven alternatives such as solar and wind power is insanity. Yet that is what people are proposing. I am worried about the economic future of America if we continue down this road.......all in the name of saving the Planet Earth from an imaginary danger.......man-caused global warming. We must stop the insanity such as described in the following article.
Peter
Government Should Compel Consumers to Use Alternative Energy, Congressman SaysFriday,
March 27, 2009By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer (source)
(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday. Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.
Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers. With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms. “I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.
“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson. At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.” "I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said. (Mr. Obama, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a harmless gas, produced every time you exhale. Peter)
"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added. But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Voinovich's Web site)
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” said Obama. “That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.” Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives. “Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.” Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.” “My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”
It is insane to increase taxes on conventional energy sources (coal, oil, and gas), destroy existing industries, with vast established infrastructures, (pipelines, refineries, power plants, etc.), put millions more people out of work from skilled jobs, and remove Billions of dollars of royalties and taxes that those industries currently give to local, state, and Federal treasuries.
To destroy industries that have taken a century and a half to build and try to replace these with economically unproven alternatives such as solar and wind power is insanity. Yet that is what people are proposing. I am worried about the economic future of America if we continue down this road.......all in the name of saving the Planet Earth from an imaginary danger.......man-caused global warming. We must stop the insanity such as described in the following article.
Peter
Government Should Compel Consumers to Use Alternative Energy, Congressman SaysFriday,
March 27, 2009By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer (source)
(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday. Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.
Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers. With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms. “I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.
“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson. At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.” "I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said. (Mr. Obama, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a harmless gas, produced every time you exhale. Peter)
"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added. But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Voinovich's Web site)
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” said Obama. “That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.” Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives. “Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.” Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.” “My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
For Everyone's Enlightenment About Global Warming
For those who think the debate over the myth of man-caused global warming and climate change is over, here is a lot of information that should give cause for thought.
Peter
Mar 22, 2009Video Interviews at the ICCC, Elsewhere
Reporters from TheNewAmerican.com
The second International Conference on Climate Change concluded its 2-1/2 -day run March 10, 2009 in New York City after confronting the theme “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”
The answer was a resounding “No.” Here are some of the early youtube videos from the conference. There will be many more available in the weeks ahad and we will maintain them in a master list.
Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Willie Soon, Phd, Chief Science Advisor at Science and Public Policy Institute at the International Global Climate Change Conference in New York City March 2009
Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute on Global Warming at the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City March 2009
Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Dr David Evans at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change in NYC.
Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Roy Innes National Chairman Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) at the March 2009 Conference of Global Climate Change in New York City.
Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Lord Christopher Monckton at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change.
Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center. Hal asks Mr. DeWeese about Law of the Sea TREATY (LOST) and the ICCC.
John Coleman sings the Nah-Nah Goodbye Global Warming song at the Conference on Global Climate Change in New York CIty March 2009 Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews John Coleman on “What’s/Who is behind the ‘Global Warming Hoax’ at the International Conference on Global Warming Climate Change in New York
Henry Lamkin, reporter for The New American interviews Joanne Nova, author of “The Skeptic’s Handbook”. Joanne Nova believed in manmade warming by carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-2007. Not any more!
Henry Lampkin, reporter for The New American interviews Dr. Tom Segalstad, Head of the Geological Museum at Univ. of Oslo during the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City - March 2009 The the full proceedings with videos of the keynote addresses and Introductions and the powerpoint and PDFs here. More videos of the talks will be posted in upcoming days.
Gore was invited again but ignored the invitation. He is featured in a mock debate here with 7 scientists on The American Thinker here.
And finally, this interview with liberal democrat Harold Ambler here.
Hansen’s talk in Oslo courtesy of Paal Brekke of the Norwegian Space Centre.
There are many ‘End of Days’ theories about the year 2012, but what many may not know is that even some scientists say there is a possibility that a solar event could occur and present problems for hundreds of millions of people by affecting power grids and satellite communications. But although such an impactful solar storm will eventually occur, no one can say where or when (2012 or2065?). FOX25’s Kevin Lemanowicz interviews Dr. Willie Soon and Joe D’Aleo here.
See this new video Stop Global Whining By Justin C here.
-->
Peter
Mar 22, 2009Video Interviews at the ICCC, Elsewhere
Reporters from TheNewAmerican.com
The second International Conference on Climate Change concluded its 2-1/2 -day run March 10, 2009 in New York City after confronting the theme “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”
The answer was a resounding “No.” Here are some of the early youtube videos from the conference. There will be many more available in the weeks ahad and we will maintain them in a master list.
Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Willie Soon, Phd, Chief Science Advisor at Science and Public Policy Institute at the International Global Climate Change Conference in New York City March 2009
Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute on Global Warming at the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City March 2009
Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Dr David Evans at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change in NYC.
Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Roy Innes National Chairman Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) at the March 2009 Conference of Global Climate Change in New York City.
Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Lord Christopher Monckton at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change.
Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center. Hal asks Mr. DeWeese about Law of the Sea TREATY (LOST) and the ICCC.
John Coleman sings the Nah-Nah Goodbye Global Warming song at the Conference on Global Climate Change in New York CIty March 2009 Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews John Coleman on “What’s/Who is behind the ‘Global Warming Hoax’ at the International Conference on Global Warming Climate Change in New York
Henry Lamkin, reporter for The New American interviews Joanne Nova, author of “The Skeptic’s Handbook”. Joanne Nova believed in manmade warming by carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-2007. Not any more!
Henry Lampkin, reporter for The New American interviews Dr. Tom Segalstad, Head of the Geological Museum at Univ. of Oslo during the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City - March 2009 The the full proceedings with videos of the keynote addresses and Introductions and the powerpoint and PDFs here. More videos of the talks will be posted in upcoming days.
Gore was invited again but ignored the invitation. He is featured in a mock debate here with 7 scientists on The American Thinker here.
And finally, this interview with liberal democrat Harold Ambler here.
Hansen’s talk in Oslo courtesy of Paal Brekke of the Norwegian Space Centre.
There are many ‘End of Days’ theories about the year 2012, but what many may not know is that even some scientists say there is a possibility that a solar event could occur and present problems for hundreds of millions of people by affecting power grids and satellite communications. But although such an impactful solar storm will eventually occur, no one can say where or when (2012 or2065?). FOX25’s Kevin Lemanowicz interviews Dr. Willie Soon and Joe D’Aleo here.
See this new video Stop Global Whining By Justin C here.
-->
Monday, March 23, 2009
Global Warming: The Skeptics Handbook
The following "handbook" is very well done and should be downloaded, read, and distributed to everyone. GP
Global Warming
The Skeptics Handbook
Rise above the mudslinging in the Global Warming debate. Here are the strategies and tools you need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps.
Click on the cover to download the latest 550kb pdf version.
To comment on theSkeptics Handbook,visit here.
Links to theoriginal sources are here
“Everything has changed since 2003″
To help the debate progress:
1. The sixth draft of the The Skeptics Handbook (pdf)
How to get past the pointless tit-for-tat swapping of ‘evidence’
What evidence is, what counts, and what doesn’t
Why new results have changed everything
How to steer out of details and get to the only point that matters.
2. Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years, as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. Judge the lag for yourself.
3. Coming: resources, cartoons, graphs and information
4. Coming Articles:
“The five reasons the AGW story got so out of control”,
“How science communicators let us all down.”
Please email us: joanne AT joannenova.com.au (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’) if you would like access to copyright-free graphs, cartoons and updates. I’ll be happy to notify you as soon as they are available. (I promise, no spamming).
Joanne Nova
…There is only one question that matters: ‘will adding more CO2 to the atmosphere make the world much warmer now?’
From the handbook:
"Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not
a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade,
emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and
money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter—
like finding a cure for cancer or feeding Somali babies. Having a
real debate IS the best thing for the environment."
Global Warming
The Skeptics Handbook
Rise above the mudslinging in the Global Warming debate. Here are the strategies and tools you need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps.
Click on the cover to download the latest 550kb pdf version.
To comment on theSkeptics Handbook,visit here.
Links to theoriginal sources are here
“Everything has changed since 2003″
To help the debate progress:
1. The sixth draft of the The Skeptics Handbook (pdf)
How to get past the pointless tit-for-tat swapping of ‘evidence’
What evidence is, what counts, and what doesn’t
Why new results have changed everything
How to steer out of details and get to the only point that matters.
2. Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years, as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. Judge the lag for yourself.
3. Coming: resources, cartoons, graphs and information
4. Coming Articles:
“The five reasons the AGW story got so out of control”,
“How science communicators let us all down.”
Please email us: joanne AT joannenova.com.au (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’) if you would like access to copyright-free graphs, cartoons and updates. I’ll be happy to notify you as soon as they are available. (I promise, no spamming).
Joanne Nova
…There is only one question that matters: ‘will adding more CO2 to the atmosphere make the world much warmer now?’
From the handbook:
"Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not
a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade,
emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and
money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter—
like finding a cure for cancer or feeding Somali babies. Having a
real debate IS the best thing for the environment."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A Good Summary Of Current Thought On The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming
The following is a well written summary of the current status of the understanding of what I call the "myth" of man-caused global warming. It is particularly gratifying because it is written by a politician, a group of people we often assume to be the last to understand anything. GP
Time for Some Climate Realism
By Rep. Carl Gatto, Alaska
We try to stay informed, read the newspapers, watch the news on TV, and still we missed a major event that affects our future and our pocketbooks. 700 scientists, economists, and public policy experts from 20 countries met in New York City in early March of this year. They concluded that global warming, if it is ocurring at all, is probably natural rather than man-made.
The message from 700 of our best and brightest scientists who studied this issue, based on science and observation, was very different from Al Gore’s message and President Obama’s message. Gore claims that there is a crisis in our atmosphere, that a calamity is occurring, and in ten years the atmosphere may suffer irreversible harm. Gore and Obama offer their solution: cap the production of energy from fossil fuels, tax carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, create a “cap and tax” bureaucracy, make most forms of energy very expensive, and transfer our personal wealth to government wealth all to perform an absolutely worthless and unnecessary task.
The Gore-Obama plan is to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground forever, spending trillions of dollars doing it. In return, we get nothing, unless you count the $645 billion in additional taxes, something that all Americans will pay every time they buy a product or fill up the tank of their car or truck.
Global warming alarmists want us to believe that the temperature of Earth would stay the same year after year, century after century, if not for “the human presence.” This is scientifically false. Huge climate changes have occurred before humans could possibly have played a role. More recently, global temperatures rose from 1900 to 1940 (1934 was the century’s warmest year), fell from 1940 to 1975, rose again from 1975 to 1998, and declined from 1998 to 2008. How does “the human presence” account for this variation? It can’t.
Most people have noticed the recent cooling that is taking place: extended cold snaps, snow accumulations, snow falling in southern states where “it does not belong” and staying around way too long. Satellite data confirms that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2001, and probably earlier.
Al Gore says “soaring global temperatures will bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” “Global warmers” also predict no more agriculture in California, and in ten years the oceans will be toxic and all life could die. And yet, we’re halfway to the much-feared “doubling of CO2” in the atmosphere, and none of these disasters has even begun to appear.
Global warming’s true believers say trains carrying coal and other fuel to cities are really death trains carrying poisonous fuel to “coal-fired factories of death.” Whew, Hollywood horror films could not top this stuff. But there is more: hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, polar bear extinctions, dust bowls, and anything else about the weather than you can imagine.
Let’s look at the facts. Nearly 85% of US energy consumption is carbon-based, and reducing that figure by using wind, solar, and other renewable sources will take a long time, be very expensive, and may not even be technically possible.
Scientists (and farmers) know carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant.” The vast majority of it is produced from natural sources, not human activities, and plants and forests use CO2 to grow and produce oxygen for all living things. Ordinary air contains roughly 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and a paltry 0.038% carbon dioxide. Scientists - including several who presented at the New York conference - are quite unsure that a tiny increase in that tiny amount of CO2 is having any effect on climate. Many scientists believe negative feedbacks more than offset whatever warming the CO2 might be capable of causing.
Our whole solar system is showing signs of climate change, including Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and even lonely Pluto. There aren’t any SUVs on those planets. What all the planets have in common, though, is that they receive heat from the sun and they are affected by cosmic rays and other galaxy-wide processes. Nothing we do can compare to changes in sun spot activity and brightness when it comes to changing our climate.
Our climate appears to be once again reversing course and cooling, repeating a cycle that has repeated itself thousands of times in the past. Glaciers advance when the Earth cools, then make up for all that work by retreating when the Earth re-warms. Human activities may have a little impact, but is it good or bad? Worth preventing? No one knows.
So for the time being, let’s accept that the Earth’s climate has been wide-ranging for five billion years. That’s our planet’s history, and we are here in spite of (or maybe because of) all those changes. Thank God for that. Read more here.
-->
Time for Some Climate Realism
By Rep. Carl Gatto, Alaska
We try to stay informed, read the newspapers, watch the news on TV, and still we missed a major event that affects our future and our pocketbooks. 700 scientists, economists, and public policy experts from 20 countries met in New York City in early March of this year. They concluded that global warming, if it is ocurring at all, is probably natural rather than man-made.
The message from 700 of our best and brightest scientists who studied this issue, based on science and observation, was very different from Al Gore’s message and President Obama’s message. Gore claims that there is a crisis in our atmosphere, that a calamity is occurring, and in ten years the atmosphere may suffer irreversible harm. Gore and Obama offer their solution: cap the production of energy from fossil fuels, tax carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, create a “cap and tax” bureaucracy, make most forms of energy very expensive, and transfer our personal wealth to government wealth all to perform an absolutely worthless and unnecessary task.
The Gore-Obama plan is to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground forever, spending trillions of dollars doing it. In return, we get nothing, unless you count the $645 billion in additional taxes, something that all Americans will pay every time they buy a product or fill up the tank of their car or truck.
Global warming alarmists want us to believe that the temperature of Earth would stay the same year after year, century after century, if not for “the human presence.” This is scientifically false. Huge climate changes have occurred before humans could possibly have played a role. More recently, global temperatures rose from 1900 to 1940 (1934 was the century’s warmest year), fell from 1940 to 1975, rose again from 1975 to 1998, and declined from 1998 to 2008. How does “the human presence” account for this variation? It can’t.
Most people have noticed the recent cooling that is taking place: extended cold snaps, snow accumulations, snow falling in southern states where “it does not belong” and staying around way too long. Satellite data confirms that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2001, and probably earlier.
Al Gore says “soaring global temperatures will bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” “Global warmers” also predict no more agriculture in California, and in ten years the oceans will be toxic and all life could die. And yet, we’re halfway to the much-feared “doubling of CO2” in the atmosphere, and none of these disasters has even begun to appear.
Global warming’s true believers say trains carrying coal and other fuel to cities are really death trains carrying poisonous fuel to “coal-fired factories of death.” Whew, Hollywood horror films could not top this stuff. But there is more: hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, polar bear extinctions, dust bowls, and anything else about the weather than you can imagine.
Let’s look at the facts. Nearly 85% of US energy consumption is carbon-based, and reducing that figure by using wind, solar, and other renewable sources will take a long time, be very expensive, and may not even be technically possible.
Scientists (and farmers) know carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant.” The vast majority of it is produced from natural sources, not human activities, and plants and forests use CO2 to grow and produce oxygen for all living things. Ordinary air contains roughly 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and a paltry 0.038% carbon dioxide. Scientists - including several who presented at the New York conference - are quite unsure that a tiny increase in that tiny amount of CO2 is having any effect on climate. Many scientists believe negative feedbacks more than offset whatever warming the CO2 might be capable of causing.
Our whole solar system is showing signs of climate change, including Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and even lonely Pluto. There aren’t any SUVs on those planets. What all the planets have in common, though, is that they receive heat from the sun and they are affected by cosmic rays and other galaxy-wide processes. Nothing we do can compare to changes in sun spot activity and brightness when it comes to changing our climate.
Our climate appears to be once again reversing course and cooling, repeating a cycle that has repeated itself thousands of times in the past. Glaciers advance when the Earth cools, then make up for all that work by retreating when the Earth re-warms. Human activities may have a little impact, but is it good or bad? Worth preventing? No one knows.
So for the time being, let’s accept that the Earth’s climate has been wide-ranging for five billion years. That’s our planet’s history, and we are here in spite of (or maybe because of) all those changes. Thank God for that. Read more here.
-->
Monday, March 16, 2009
Obama's Energy Policy: The Blind Leading The Blind
The picture could not be any more clear than it is. Our dependence on foreign oil can not be eliminated by producing more ethanol, or building more windmills, or installing more solar panels. The magnitude of our energy needs makes these solutions just a literal drop in the bucket. It does not take a PhD. Economist to see this. The numbers are there for everyone to see. I'm afraid I agree with what the following writer (and many others) is saying. The U.S. is setting the stage for higher energy prices, more dependence on foreign energy supplies, and more economic hardship. GP
March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.
Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.
Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.
President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.
Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.
According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.
The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.
US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!
A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!
In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!
Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!
The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!
All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!
Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.
Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT
Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com
March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.
Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.
Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.
President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.
Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.
According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.
The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.
US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!
A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!
In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!
Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!
The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!
All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!
Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.
Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT
Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Backlash........
AL GORE, FOREVER PLEDGED TO SCARE MANKIND, SO HELP HIM GOD.
Look closely at the bumper sticker One Big Ass Misake AmericaFriday, March 13, 2009
Japanese Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Myth
Three prominent Japanese scientists, working independently, are now openly rejecting the myth of man-caused global warming. They also say many of their colleagues think the same way but have been reluctant to speak out and risk being politically incorrect and creating a threat to their continued funding. This sounds just like what has been going on in American universities and undoubtedly around the world.
The Japanese are also expressing regret for having created and signed the Kyoto Treaty, forced them to spend Billions buying offsets for creating carbon dioxide emissions when that can not possible stop global warming or climate change. Hopefully American politicians are listening and follow the Japanese lead, before it is too late.
Peter
Japanese scientists cool on theories
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent March 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.
It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth," writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre.
Dr Kusano, Dr Akasofu and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.
On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis".
Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".
Dr Maruyama studies the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change, and he thinks the large influences on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity.
Like Dr Akasofu, Dr Maruyama believes the earth has moved into a cooling period, and while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country's greatest looming problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.
"Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy carbon discharge rights," he said. "This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust."
Dr Maruyama said he was uncomfortable, given the scientific uncertainty of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a leading position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets.
The scientists and two others -- Seita Emori, of the National Institute of Environmental Studies, and Kiminori Ito, of Yokahama National University -- contributed to a paper titled "The scientific truth of global warming" that was published in January by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources.
Professor Emori is a firm supporter of man-made climate-change theory and Dr Ito is generally for it, although with reservations about the scientific rigour of the IPCC approach.
The doubters, particularly Dr Kusano and Dr Akasofu, are being widely cited by greenhouse-sceptic websites, after their sections of the paper were translated by The Register, a London-based online publisher.
However, the paper's co-ordinator said the JSER's position on anthropogenic global warming was neutral.
"This paper represents the views of the individuals and not of the society," said Hideo Yoshida, of Kyoto University. "The purpose is to stimulate debate among scholars and readers, and let them form their own judgment."
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is an academic group that promotes co-operation between industry, academic research and government.
Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.
The Japanese are also expressing regret for having created and signed the Kyoto Treaty, forced them to spend Billions buying offsets for creating carbon dioxide emissions when that can not possible stop global warming or climate change. Hopefully American politicians are listening and follow the Japanese lead, before it is too late.
Peter
Japanese scientists cool on theories
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent March 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.
It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth," writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre.
Dr Kusano, Dr Akasofu and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.
On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis".
Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".
Dr Maruyama studies the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change, and he thinks the large influences on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity.
Like Dr Akasofu, Dr Maruyama believes the earth has moved into a cooling period, and while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country's greatest looming problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.
"Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy carbon discharge rights," he said. "This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust."
Dr Maruyama said he was uncomfortable, given the scientific uncertainty of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a leading position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets.
The scientists and two others -- Seita Emori, of the National Institute of Environmental Studies, and Kiminori Ito, of Yokahama National University -- contributed to a paper titled "The scientific truth of global warming" that was published in January by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources.
Professor Emori is a firm supporter of man-made climate-change theory and Dr Ito is generally for it, although with reservations about the scientific rigour of the IPCC approach.
The doubters, particularly Dr Kusano and Dr Akasofu, are being widely cited by greenhouse-sceptic websites, after their sections of the paper were translated by The Register, a London-based online publisher.
However, the paper's co-ordinator said the JSER's position on anthropogenic global warming was neutral.
"This paper represents the views of the individuals and not of the society," said Hideo Yoshida, of Kyoto University. "The purpose is to stimulate debate among scholars and readers, and let them form their own judgment."
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is an academic group that promotes co-operation between industry, academic research and government.
Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.
War Going On Over Global Warming
The war is between those seeking to increase tax revenue and control the economy and hence the people of the world, and those who see through the myth of man-caused global warming. See the following article. (note: I am "geo-Pete")
Peter
There Is A War Going On, And It Is Not About The Environment
geo-Pete
Message #103/13/09 12:08 AM (this debate on MSNBC can be followed here)
The war is ideological. It is between one group of people who see using global warming and its supposedly frightful consequences as a means of controlling the world's "carbon-based" economy and thus controlling the world's people. Call this group liberals, "greenies", socialists, communists, or whatever.
The other side is composed of people who value freedom, liberty, respect for the individual, and reward for free enterprise. Above all, call them Americans. The following article also comes from the total biased, liberal-left supporting MSNBC. The nature and magnitude of the gap between the two sides is shockingly wide. GP
Climate experts warn of 'irreversible' shifts
'Worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories ... are being realized,' they warn
The Associated Press
updated 3:08 p.m. CT, Thurs., March. 12, 2009
COPENHAGEN - Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.
Attended by some 2,000 experts, the conference aimed at updating the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty.
"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches.
'Highly vulnerable'"Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.
It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.
(the key phrase here, that reveals their true intentions is "societal transformation required"....GP)
The conclusions of the congress will be presented to politicians when they meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
"We know from scientific evidence that climate change is a reality and that
(of course climate change is a reality...you morons!!!! GP)
climate change will have damaging effects on the economy all over the world," said Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, one of the politicians attending the scientific conference. "Therefore we need an agreement and we need an agreement this year."
Recession an opportunity?
Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy.
"Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.
Stern said green investments make sense because energy-efficient economies will be more sustainable in the future.
"We know from this crisis that if we postpone looking risk in the face, it will bite us much more deeply," he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/
Peter
There Is A War Going On, And It Is Not About The Environment
geo-Pete
Message #103/13/09 12:08 AM (this debate on MSNBC can be followed here)
The war is ideological. It is between one group of people who see using global warming and its supposedly frightful consequences as a means of controlling the world's "carbon-based" economy and thus controlling the world's people. Call this group liberals, "greenies", socialists, communists, or whatever.
The other side is composed of people who value freedom, liberty, respect for the individual, and reward for free enterprise. Above all, call them Americans. The following article also comes from the total biased, liberal-left supporting MSNBC. The nature and magnitude of the gap between the two sides is shockingly wide. GP
Climate experts warn of 'irreversible' shifts
'Worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories ... are being realized,' they warn
The Associated Press
updated 3:08 p.m. CT, Thurs., March. 12, 2009
COPENHAGEN - Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.
Attended by some 2,000 experts, the conference aimed at updating the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty.
"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches.
'Highly vulnerable'"Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.
It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.
(the key phrase here, that reveals their true intentions is "societal transformation required"....GP)
The conclusions of the congress will be presented to politicians when they meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
"We know from scientific evidence that climate change is a reality and that
(of course climate change is a reality...you morons!!!! GP)
climate change will have damaging effects on the economy all over the world," said Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, one of the politicians attending the scientific conference. "Therefore we need an agreement and we need an agreement this year."
Recession an opportunity?
Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy.
"Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.
Stern said green investments make sense because energy-efficient economies will be more sustainable in the future.
"We know from this crisis that if we postpone looking risk in the face, it will bite us much more deeply," he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Global Warming Crisis? CANCELLED
The following is a first-hand report of some of what has been going on in New York City at the second annual conference for scientists and related experts on the subject of a flat-out rejection of the myth of man-caused global warming.
Peter
"Skeptics", "Deniers", and World Class Scientists
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
After spending time at the largest gathering of world class climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, engineers, and economists, among other very brainy folks, I came away with the feeling that the battle remains joined by this hearty group, otherwise derided as skeptics and deniers of global warming.
The occasion was the second annual International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank. The place was New York City and the gathering involved seminars on all aspects of the bogus science put forth by the global warming alarmists. The conclusion should come as no surprise. There simply is no valid science that supports the claim that the Earth has warmed dramatically, is warming dramatically, or is likely to warm dramatically.
I find it almost amusing—if it weren’t so important—that the alarmists never make any mention of the fact, verified by weather satellites, that the Earth has been in a decade-long cooling trend and some who have examined it think it will continue for twenty or thirty more years. The increased severity of winter weather events around the world is testament to that. It is not getting warmer. It is getting colder.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and serving also in a rotating term as president of the European Union, received a standing ovation at the beginning and end of his presentation. “Their true plans and ambitions (are) to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back,” said Klaus of the globally united environmental organizations and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It’s worth pointing out that the IPCC is not about “science”; it is about “government” as the name implies and, despite claims of scientific authority, its computer climate models and the claims based on them are held in universal disdain by the relative handful of men who understand climate or weather.
As Klaus noted, the alarmists are “not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998, and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”
“It is evident that the environmentalists don’t want to change the climate. They want to change our behavior…to control and manipulate us,” said Klaus. That’s what all totalitarian regimes want to do. (And this is why Obama so enthusiastically embraces concepts like "cap and trade" for carbon dioxide emissions. Peter)
Sadly, anyone watching the behavior of leading scientific organizations knows that they have thrown their prestige behind the alarmists, giving awards and honors to the likes of Al Gore and NASA’s James Hansen when it is obvious to all that both are engaged in the worst kind of hucksterism and charlatanism. Many of these organization’s members are less than thrilled by this further evidence of the politicization of science.
Great dangers do exist for Americans and others around the world for whom the Big Lie of carbon dioxide emissions is being used by the White House and in Congress to justify legislation that would impose “cap and trade” regulations and by an Environmental Protection Agency that is poised to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant” under auspices of the Clean Air Act. It is a massive fraud.
It will prove enormously costly to every kind of business and industry in America. It has the potential of undermining the economy to a point where we shall never be able to recover from the present financial crisis.
All this was on the minds of those attending the conference. It should be on your mind too and it is why you have to ask your elected representatives and senators, “Why do you want to raise my energy prices?” That’s the ultimate punishment every American will bear because regulation of CO2 is about energy use of every description.
Why do you want to raise my energy prices? If they tell you it’s because of global warming, tell them you will not vote for them and in 2010, vote them out of office!
Compared to the thousands of environmentalists running about issuing notices of doom, a gathering of 800 men and women from around the world may not seem like much, but they have something beyond value on their side; the truth!
Source
Peter
"Skeptics", "Deniers", and World Class Scientists
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
After spending time at the largest gathering of world class climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, engineers, and economists, among other very brainy folks, I came away with the feeling that the battle remains joined by this hearty group, otherwise derided as skeptics and deniers of global warming.
The occasion was the second annual International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank. The place was New York City and the gathering involved seminars on all aspects of the bogus science put forth by the global warming alarmists. The conclusion should come as no surprise. There simply is no valid science that supports the claim that the Earth has warmed dramatically, is warming dramatically, or is likely to warm dramatically.
I find it almost amusing—if it weren’t so important—that the alarmists never make any mention of the fact, verified by weather satellites, that the Earth has been in a decade-long cooling trend and some who have examined it think it will continue for twenty or thirty more years. The increased severity of winter weather events around the world is testament to that. It is not getting warmer. It is getting colder.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and serving also in a rotating term as president of the European Union, received a standing ovation at the beginning and end of his presentation. “Their true plans and ambitions (are) to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back,” said Klaus of the globally united environmental organizations and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It’s worth pointing out that the IPCC is not about “science”; it is about “government” as the name implies and, despite claims of scientific authority, its computer climate models and the claims based on them are held in universal disdain by the relative handful of men who understand climate or weather.
As Klaus noted, the alarmists are “not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998, and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”
“It is evident that the environmentalists don’t want to change the climate. They want to change our behavior…to control and manipulate us,” said Klaus. That’s what all totalitarian regimes want to do. (And this is why Obama so enthusiastically embraces concepts like "cap and trade" for carbon dioxide emissions. Peter)
Sadly, anyone watching the behavior of leading scientific organizations knows that they have thrown their prestige behind the alarmists, giving awards and honors to the likes of Al Gore and NASA’s James Hansen when it is obvious to all that both are engaged in the worst kind of hucksterism and charlatanism. Many of these organization’s members are less than thrilled by this further evidence of the politicization of science.
Great dangers do exist for Americans and others around the world for whom the Big Lie of carbon dioxide emissions is being used by the White House and in Congress to justify legislation that would impose “cap and trade” regulations and by an Environmental Protection Agency that is poised to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant” under auspices of the Clean Air Act. It is a massive fraud.
It will prove enormously costly to every kind of business and industry in America. It has the potential of undermining the economy to a point where we shall never be able to recover from the present financial crisis.
All this was on the minds of those attending the conference. It should be on your mind too and it is why you have to ask your elected representatives and senators, “Why do you want to raise my energy prices?” That’s the ultimate punishment every American will bear because regulation of CO2 is about energy use of every description.
Why do you want to raise my energy prices? If they tell you it’s because of global warming, tell them you will not vote for them and in 2010, vote them out of office!
Compared to the thousands of environmentalists running about issuing notices of doom, a gathering of 800 men and women from around the world may not seem like much, but they have something beyond value on their side; the truth!
Source
Friday, March 6, 2009
It Is Important To Know The Truth About Renewable Energy
People who have dealt with the realities of worldwide energy use for their entire working lives, (like geologists) understand the absurdity of thinking that the so-called renewable sources of energy can or are going to replace oil, gas, and coal in the near future. The following article published in "The Wall Street Journal" explains the reasons for this absurdity very clearly.
The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do not seem to understand this. The science, math, and economics are very clear and simple. It makes one wonder what their real objectives are. They are out to control energy, meaning the oil, coal, and gas industry with their proposed taxes and cap and trade scheme. However, think about it. If we shut down the oil, gas, and coal industry, where is the government going to get the money to finance all their other grand projects? To shut down fossil fuels in the name of stopping global warming is a particularly vile and cruel lie. This is becoming more clear on a daily basis.
Peter
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. ( And neither am I, Peter) I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.
And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.
Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."
He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions.
He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.
Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated. (Carbon dioxide emissions being related to the global warming scare. Peter)
But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).
The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do not seem to understand this. The science, math, and economics are very clear and simple. It makes one wonder what their real objectives are. They are out to control energy, meaning the oil, coal, and gas industry with their proposed taxes and cap and trade scheme. However, think about it. If we shut down the oil, gas, and coal industry, where is the government going to get the money to finance all their other grand projects? To shut down fossil fuels in the name of stopping global warming is a particularly vile and cruel lie. This is becoming more clear on a daily basis.
Peter
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:18 P.M. ET
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE (source)
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."
While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.
By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.
Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.
Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.
If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.
Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. ( And neither am I, Peter) I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.
And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.
That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.
The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.
Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.
Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.
During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal."
He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions.
He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.
Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated. (Carbon dioxide emissions being related to the global warming scare. Peter)
But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)