Debunking Big Green 6

It has been reliably estimated by many researchers into the subject of “Global Warming” (or any of the other sobriquets by which it is known) that in fulfilling the draconian prescriptions of the Kyoto Accord or its successors, such as the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world, the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels, and the inhabitants of the Third World will be deprived of the minimal immunities, comforts, and amenities to which they aspire.

Are the warmists aware  of that? Do they want to spread poverty?

Seems so. But they are not succeeding.

This is from PJ Media, by David Solway:

Fiona Kobusingye, coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, has vehemently denounced the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming. “These policies kill,” she writes. As for the combustible Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.” Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity — except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels — is immoral. It is a crime against humanity” . …

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the nonprofit National Center for Policy Analysis, would clearly agree. He correctly argues that recommendations based on “flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles” should be taken “into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.” Such consequences are already in evidence. Benny Peiser, editor of CCNet science network, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 climate conference in New York, sounded the death knell of the green movement in Europe owing to huge costs and minimal results …  Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon quotes Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada, whose studies show that “every green job created ploughs under 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy” and that green jobs are proving to be unsustainable since the creation of even one such job costs $1 million in government subsidies …

These are costs that may be suffered in other, frankly ludicrous, ways as well. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its 2008 Annual Report, published in 2009, jubilates over the replacement of motorized vehicles by “bicycle rickshaws”—which, it must be admitted, will certainly help to decongest metropolitan traffic. That it would reduce America and the West to Third World Status does not trouble UNEP overmuch. Perhaps that is the plan.

The much-ballyhooed T. Boone Pickens strategy of introducing large-scale windmill technology is now proving to be a similarly quixotic project, unsightly, land-consuming, bird-killing, neurosis-inducing, expensive and totally inadequate to its declared purpose of meeting even a fraction of our electricity needs. Alex Alexiev of the Hudson Institute has laid the cards on the table for all to read: green electricity bills are rising exponentially; Europe is gradually abandoning many of its green energy programs as cost-ineffective and injurious to both wildlife and human health; and, as of the end of 2008, American solar and wind-power stocks had lost 80% of their value …  Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission has rejected a deal to build an offshore wind farm that would have entailed “hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs…”  New Zealand has repealed its carbon tax scheme and Australia’s opposition party is vowing to follow suit.

The writing is on the wall in majuscule. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has closed shop, putting an end to its estimated $10 trillion carbon trading scheme. In August 2011, President Obama’s pet green project, the California-based Solyndra solar plant, filed for bankruptcy, costing the U.S. $535 million in wasted stimulus funds and 1,100 jobs …  Other such futilities are impending. The Beacon Power Corp, recipient of a $43 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, has filed for bankruptcy after being delisted by the NASDAQ …  The solar cell company Spectrawatt, recipient of a federal stimulus boost, and Nevada Geothermal, which profited from Federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies, are on the brink of failure …  Ener 1, which received a $118 million stimulus grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop lithium storage batteries for electric cars, has filed for bankruptcy protection … This is bad news for the plug-in Chevy Volt, the president’s car of choice, which is beset with problems anyway; GM had to suspend production to cut inventory owing to anemic sales …  Abound Solar, which makes cadmium telluride solar modules to the tune of a $400 million federal loan guarantee, has laid off 300 workers, amounting to 70% of its workforce … And now the electric vehicle battery company A123 Systems, beneficiary of $300 million in Obama’s Recovery Act funds and $135 million in state tax credits and subsidies, courtesy of Michigan’s former Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, is about to go belly up

The reason for many of these failures in green energy-production companies is simple. … As author Rich Trzupek explains, the energy density of convertible wind and solar is risibly low and dispersed, which renders electricity-generating power plants, whether large or small, “the most inefficient, least reliable, and expensive form of power we have” …  As happened in Spain, Europe’s bellwether country for climatophrenic ruination, Obama’s “solar alchemy,” which demonizes traditional forms of energy extraction and application, has become a recipe for an American economic debacle.

Finnish professor Jarl Ahlbeck, a former Greenpeace member and author of over 200 scientific publications, points out that “real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” Contrary to common belief, he continues, “there has been no or little global warming since 1995” …  His findings have been supported by many other studies. To adduce just a few instances: geophysicist Phil Chapman, basing his results on careful analyses from major weather-tracking agencies, reports that global temperature is “falling precipitously” ;  …  geologist Don Easterbrook, associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University and former U.S. representative to UNESCO, is also convinced that recent solar changes suggest the advent of a new cooling cycle which could be “fairly severe” ; … and a new study conducted by three Norwegian scientists, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum, indicates that the next solar cycle, which is imminent, will see a “significant temperature decrease” over and above the current decline …

Moreover, as Robert Zubrin has decisively shown in his recent Merchants of Despair, there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth’s climate is a stable system, that CO2 emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul, and that under cyclical conditions of global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life immensely improves.

In a brilliant article for the Financial Post …  analyzing the eleven logical fallacies on which the argument for man-made climate change rests, Lord Christopher Monckton, known for tracking and exposing scientific hoaxes, has effectively proven that the anthropogenic thesis has absolutely no basis, neither in fact nor in theory. So-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology. It takes no less courage and perhaps even more for a climate “Warmist” to buck the trend, as culture-hero James Lovelock has recently done. Lovelock, who in his 2006 The Revenge of Gaia prophesied the charring of the planet, now admits he had been “extrapolating too far.” Despite predictably hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future, he avers that “we don’t know what the climate is doing” and disparages his previous work, including Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers, as “alarmist” (MSNBC.com, April 30, 2012).

Nevertheless, the Global Warming meme continues to circulate in defiance of the accumulating evidence, which leads one to wonder who the real “deniers” are. In my own country of Canada, “Warmist” foundations are determined to continue issuing environmental fatwas, in particular to tie up state-of-the-art, economically productive oil pipelines in endless litigation. That such a move would impact national revenues and cost thousands of potential jobs is a matter of no concern.

But the cost of environmentalism is becoming of ever greater concern. Must do.

If the deceit and self-righteousness of Big Green don’t rouse voters and tax-payers to vocal opposition, the cost will surely do it.

  • Harold

    So wind power is “totally inadequate to its declared purpose of meeting even a fraction of our electricity needs”.  This is obviously wrong, as even 3/100 is a fraction. 

    There are two main issues above, which should not be conflated.  The effectiveness and economic viability of low-carbon enbergy production is totally separate from the issue of whether global warming is occuring.  Both issues are raised above.

    For the first point, it is always going to be likely that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way of generating power.  The fuel has a high energy density, as mentioned in the article.  Crucially, the costs of disposing the waste products are not born by the generators, so the costs are effectively subsidised. 

    I have always said that the actuality of GW is not in question, but the ways of trying to deal with it are. 

    A discussion I had here with, I think, Don L got me thinking.  I mentioned the “tragedy of the commons”, which is a similar situation to atmospheric pollution.  The atmosphere is shared in common, so it is in no-ones interest to prevent polluting it.   In the original tragedy, it was in no-ones interest to avoid over-grazing their animals on the common land.  Don L (if it were he) said that the problem was that no-one owned the common, and the problem disappears if someone does own it, since thay then have an interest in preventing over-grazing. 
    This is certainly a good point, and I wondered how it would apply to the atmosphere. 

    Imagine for a minute, that you own the atmosphere.  You can charge people a modest sum for using it (breathing etc.).  In return, you are obliged to prevent the atmosphere causing harm.  There is a huge mass of scientific information that carbon burning will cause global warming.   There is a far, far smaller ammount of  information that it will not.   Majority opinion is that this warming will be costly.  There is a small minority that suggets that even if it does occur,  it will not be costly.  If you do nothing, and the damage does occur, you will be liable for the damages.   Since nearly every scientific institute in the world has accepted the theory, you will have no viable defence in court.  Should damage occur due to global warming, you will be liable. 

    What would you do?

    I think it would be sensible to charge people something to add CO2 to the atmosphere. 

    The rest of the article of course paints a very distroted view, but you already know pretty much what I have to say about that.  It basically comes down to accepting one persons view as a proven fact (Monckton), whilst rejecting  any other view as worthless.  This is not how to arrive at a balanced picture.

    • Liz

      What would you do about the fact that the carbon tax that you suggest will also be “costly” to industry, and combined with the inefficiency of “green energy” it will ruin economies, as it has already done.  The nations of the world will then regress to poverty levels which will prevent them from having the means to even create all the wonderful new expensive and inefficient green energy generating pie in the sky that you envision.  They will be too busy trying to survive to worry about saving the planet.

      • Harold

        Liz, as the owner of the atmosphere, I would not care very much about the effects on industry – I would be looking out for my own interests.  Anyone could continue to put CO2 into the air, and the charge would allow me to build up a “compensation fund” in case of future problems.  If the energy producers avoided the charge by producing CO2 free energy, then that is fine for me too. 

        I now find this a very appealing viewpoint.  I believe that a perfect market will arrive at the best solution.  The trouble is that markets are far from perfect.  One reason is things like the tragedy of the commons.  To figure out what the market would produce, this sort of thought experiment is very useful.

        I believe that if someone had their own money riding on it, as owner or CEO of Atmosphere PLC, they could not sensibly reject the possible costs of global warming out of hand.  If you were a shareholder, would you be happy with the view that nothing need be done?  No contingencies need be made?

        • Liz

          Yes, I would, because we are already regulated up to our necks on that anyway.  The whole idea that we need to “cap” our emissions or “pay” for them is bogus.  It was concocted by and for the demonizers of progress, free enterprise, and freedom period.

  • Yes! Go Robert Zubrin! I am so happy to see he’s not a Warmist. He’s one of the biggest space colonization advocates.

  • Liz

    Great news!  Ironic that their clever catchword – “Sustainability”, is exactly what is making life unsustainable for everyone on the planet.