Posts Tagged ‘GE’

Anthony Watts, what have you done?

6 december, 2011

Sadly, and reluctantly I decided to publish this post. But Anthony Watts has crossed a line that should not be crossed with this post.

Who gets the most access to network data (like emails at CRU)?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/who-gets-the-most-access-to-network-data-like-emails-at-uea/

First about Anthony Watts: He has my unreserved admiration for his long and unique work on surface stations in USA, revelling their poor locations, quality etc. This is exceptionally good work from a private citizen when the government and “scientific” organisations failed to do their work.

All this work can be found here http://www.surfacestations.org/

And then his dedicated work on his blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) to expose the flawed “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. All this work has made his blog, rightfully so, one of the must influential ones. This is extraordinary work from a private citizen.  I stand in salute for that.

But, as I said, he has crossed a line that should not be crossed with the above post.

As a former journalist and working in the government, I am deeply troubled. I posted a comment to his post (see at the end of this post), but I like to explain in more detail why I am so troubled by his post.

What shines through is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And dangerous.

So let’s first recapitulate which persons/groups are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big Media), Big Companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of them have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “charming lot” we are up against.

There are two parts to this.

First:

The first part is the extensive speculations, going through categories of persons that could have done it, and tips on who is behind the leak etc.

As I said in my comment to his post:

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak?”

This is not your job, Anthony. The governments, with ALL their disposable resources; from police via tax authorities to different intelligence agencies and special ops; HAVE ALL the resources in the world to find this person/persons. If they so chose.

As a journalist, the first rule is to protect your sources. And especially you don’t try and go and expose them  through lengthy examinations and discussion about who they can be.

To give you an analogue with one of the most famous of them all “Deep throat”. This exposed the Nixon administration, including the Watergate scandal.

Imagine if Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had written lengthy articles about who the source could be, which persons actually had access to that kind of information, which department etc he or she could come from.

How many new sources do you think they would get?  – None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. They would be the pariah of investigative journalism. And for a very good reason too.

Her you have a very reliable source with data that can be controlled and verified. And you want to find out who it is. Thereby risking that person/persons untold “unpleasantness”. Just by speculating.

And Anthony, why do you think FOIA after two years of silence published the WHOLE email file this time, even if you could only access 5000 of them? The rest covered by high encryption and a very long pass phrase?

Because this is his or her insurance against the resources the state can put against them.

Remember that FOIA was very naïve to in the beginning. He/she gave it first to the mainstream media (including laughingly enough BBC). Which of course refused to do anything.

It was only after that it was “leaked”. But however FOIA is, he/she have quickly learned the hard political lessons.

Very telling is the absent from the leaked emails of ANY regarding contacts between the so called “scientists” and politicians or person high up in various administrations/agencies etc.

Why, because I am quite sure that they are there among the rest of the 250 000 emails behind that encryption. So if the state or politicians gets “to close” FOIA will release the pass phrase which will reveal everything in the hidden emails.

That alone should give you pass for thought. And stop this helping to find the person/persons behind the leak.

Second:

So let’s again recapitulate which “charming lot” are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big media), Big companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of the have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “prime example of truthful and nice people” we are up against.

And what does Anthony do?

He writes an email to one of the chief architects behind the Global Warming Hysteria Phil Jones (CRU) and Journal of Geophysical Research; and kindly informs them that he has discovered some security holes.

And admonishes that they “should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review.”

Let me se if I get this right:

Anthony  writes to Phil Jones, a guy who literally hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leaks in the future?

HUUHHH??????

Leaks like Climate gate 1 and 2, which showed in black and white these “scientist”, politicians and “journalists” to be lying, breaking the law, “adjusting” and manipulating data to fit their agenda, stopping ANY dissent and  suppressing any person or paper that dared to question them.

Out of respect for Anthony I will not make some very tempting analogies here.

You have accomplished what the Global Warming Hysterics in their wettest dream didn’t dare to dream.

How sad. And what a shame.

I can only conclude by saying that Anthony, you have crossed a line, and even if you do not understand it yourself, you have become Colonel Nicholson (se below).

Here is my comment to his post published 4.24 am today:

______________________________________

Anthony, have you lost it?

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak? As some have pointed out in their comments.

And Charles.U.Farleys comments are spot on

“In fact if the roles were reversed i think theyd have used any foothold, any loophole to ensure they brought you down rather than simply seek the truth. Personally i dont think its wise to assist them in any way shape or form as its simply helping them to continue unabated.

After all, this is a global war theyre involved in, a war based on lies and disinformation, of treachery and vilification of anyone not supporting “the cause”, and comfort shouldnt be given to enemies of freedom, especuially ones who stoop so low as these.”

Sadly, you very much remind me of commander, Colonel Nicholson played by Alec Guinness in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).

The prisoners (British soldiers) are working as little as possible and sabotaging whatever they can at the construction of a bridge.

When Nicholson and his officers are released, he conducts an inspection of the bridge and is shocked by what he finds. Against the protests of some of his officers, he orders Captain Reeves and Major Hughes to design and build a proper bridge, despite its military value to the Japanese, for the sake of his men’s morale. The Japanese engineers had chosen a poor site, so the original construction is abandoned and a new bridge is begun 400 yards downstream.

Nicholson drives his men, even volunteering to have them work harder to complete the bridge on time

The commandos who where parachute in, plant explosives to destroy the bridge and a train carrying Japanese soldiers and important dignitaries is scheduled to be the first to use the bridge the following morning

Making a final inspection, Nicholson spots the wire and brings it to Japanese commander attention. As the train is heard approaching, the two hurry down to the riverbank to investigate.  Joyce, hiding with the detonator, breaks cover and stabs Saito to death; Nicholson yells for help, while attempting to stop Joyce from reaching the detonator. Joyce is killed by Japanese fire. Shears swims across the river, but is shot just before he reaches Nicholson.

Recognising the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, ”What have I done?”

I think it sums it up quiet well.

Sophia

__________________________________________________________

UPDATE

Well my post made some stir. As it should because it concerns some important principles.

First, let me say that I find it depressing that so few people really understands the need to protect the sources. And doesn’t understand that mindless speculations are very dangerous in this regard

Second, what shines through, still, in the debate is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And very dangerous.

This is NOT some tea party where you discus things friendly over biscuits and cake. And have a wee argument.

This is about Power and Real Politics. And the persons behind the Global Warming Hysteria have been playing it for a long time. And very successfully so.

Until people understand this, that it always has been a political agenda, the Global Warming Hysterics will have the upper hand. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

Here are some who publicly have commented and linked to my post about Anthony Watts:

 

GREENIE WATCH

Controversial action by Anthony Watts

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/12/controversial-action-by-anthony-watts.html

Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.

Why on earth would be do that when the Climategate releases have been so helpful to skeptics? It appears to be out of some misguided sense of honour but I suspect that the real motive is that he is tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.

A Swedish blogger who herself finds great holes in the reporting of climate statistics is particilarly upset because she knows how unprincipled and dishonest the climate establishment is. She sees what Watts has done as akin to aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.

Read her comments HERE

Tom Nelson

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/anthony-watts-what-have-you-done-udrk.html

Anthony Watts, what have you done? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt

”Anthony wrights to Phil Jones, a guy who literarily hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leeks in the future?
HUUHHH??????”

Johnosullivan (Legal analyst and specialist writer on anti-corruption, acts as legal consultant to Dr. Tim Ball)

Why Did Anthony Watts Help Climategate’s Phil Jones?

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42573.html

 “A schism in the ranks of global warming skeptics may ensue due to another gaffe by the world’s most popular science website, WattsUpWithThat. WUWT blogger, Anthony Watts has unashamedly boasted to have tipped off Climategate fraudster, Professor Phil Jones, about a potentially critical further security leak on university Internet servers.”

”You got that? It was his “duty,”says Watts, to help FOIA-denying fraudster Jones (the data-destroyer who unlawfully obstructed other researchers from trying to independently verify CRU climate calculations) to hide even more evidence. With such principled ‘friends’ like Watts does Steve McIntyre need any enemies?

Respected Aussie skeptic, Dr John Ray was so stunned by the Watts email that he penned ‘Controversial action by Anthony Watts’ (December 07, 2011) in response. Dr. Ray bemoans, “Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.” Then Watts appeared to give the finger to Ray and fellow skeptics by declaring, “I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it.”

Watts: Not the First Fool to Aid Professor Jones

 When roundly condemned by more savvy commenters on his blog Watts responded on December 6, 2011 at 10:38 am:

“I was told in the reply from Phil Jones and from AGU that others had also been made aware of it, so I wasn’t the first.”

This Watts statement gives the game away: by declaring he was not aware that others had already tipped off Jones and in offering no further justification for his tactically inept action, he is merely conceding, “it wasn’t me who did it!”

As such the image of a snivelling schoolboy caught misbehaving springs to mind. Above all else, this ill-advised gaffe by Watts proves, if proof were needed, that Watts acted in haste and probably without consulting others. As such it shows once again that “Our Side” are a rag-tag bunch of renegades and not the “well-funded and well-organized” team that the narrative of Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. would have the public believe.

I relate entirely to Dr. Ray and others who are now questioning why Watts would act to help the dastardly Phil Jones to block a potentially excellent source of information for skeptics. Ray speculates that Watts’s apoplexy appears to be triggered by some ”misguided sense of honor.” I can’t see any other logical reason so that may be true.

Ray suspects that an underlying motive is that Watts has become “tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.”

Wider International Frustrations Due to Watts

Ray’s frustrations are echoed by a Swedish blogger (read her comments HERE) similarly perplexed that Watts, a champion of exposing flaws in the ground level global thermometer readings, should want to sink to “aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.” 

Watts just doesn’t seem to have the broader expertize to join the dots on this. In legal parlance, both the mens rea and actus reas were there for any jury to convict Jones of such crimes. Watts doesn’t comprehend that the original criminal charge against Jones under the FOIA was not pursued merely because of a tecnicality –  the short six-month time limit had already expired. “

However, only the self-serving elite in the Crown Prosecution Service, police and UK Government refuse to see that Jones may still be prosecuted for his offenses as per the Fraud Act 2006 ( see Ch. 35. Fraud. ‘1 Fraud. 2 Fraud by false representation. 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information’) where no such time limit gets Jones off the hook.Watts, by being so amenable to Jones, is bolstering the edifice of climate criminality.

Watts just doesn’t get it – these authorities to which Jones is but a mere stooge – are not going to suddenly acquire the principles they manifestly lack and actually start playing by the rules. My own view is thatWattsacted hastily and foolishly to tip off fraudster Jones – such a gaffe gains us nothing and may cost us valuable new information. Scum like Jones do not deserve a helping hand because he and his governmental handlers can’t win a fair fight.”

“But why should Watts want to help scum like Jones? Professor Jones is a man patently caught out engaging in criminal misconduct expressing his intent in emails to colleagues and urging them to join him in unlawfully defying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The Extremely Costly and Total Madness of Large Scale Wind Power

11 mars, 2011

I have written extensively about the economical and environmental madness of wind power on a large scale. Wind power can be excellent on a small scale IF you live in the right areas.

See for example my post Record cold and snow in November – Wind Power at 12% output where you can find a lot of links to different post on the subject

They really want us back to the Stone Age to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.

And how long do you think the people and the modern societies would survive WITHOUT electricity? And what kind of life that would be?

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

Just the latest example of this is this quote from Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid (UK) from The Daily Telegraph, 2nd March 2011:

‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable. Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”

What a brilliant future the Global Warming Hysterics have in store for humankind. And remember they have publicly said and written that they would like to halve, or even cut in two thirds, the world population. Well, wind power is on way of getting about it.

These people are so caring are they not? And they REALLY love humankind.

Here are just a few examples around the world of the growing realisation of the huge cost and unreliability of wind/solar power:

For Every Green Job, Four Other are Lost (UK)

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/03/02/for-every-green-job-four-other-are-lost-uk/

“The economic candle in the U.K. is being blown out by wind power. The Verso study finds that after the annual diversion of some 330 million British pounds from the rest of the U.K. economy, the result has been the destruction of 3.7 jobs for every “green” job created.

The study concludes that the “policy to promote renewable energy in the U.K. has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland.” So British taxpayers, as is the case here in the U.S., are being forced to subsidize a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

“There’s a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy,” says study co-author and Verso research director Richard Walsh. “Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn’t stack up.”

Again, it’s been shown that wind energy can’t hold a candle to other more traditional and more reliable forms of energy.

The Scottish renewable sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the U.K.,” co-author Tom Miers adds. “Without the U.K.-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tolls to promote this industry.”

As here, only continuous subsidies and redistribution of resources to an unproductive and uncompetitive source of energy keeps the alternative energy industry alive, politically and economically.”

“Calzada noted that these are direct job losses. “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to high energy prices,” he said in an interview.”

Blow-jobs drive unemployment

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/03/blow-jobs-drive-unemployment.html

“The study concludes that the ”policy to promote renewable energy in the UK has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland”. So British taxpayers, as is the case in the US, are being forced to subsidise a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

I suppose it could be worse, though … they could be building electric vans.”

The real cost of ‘global warming’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100078040/the-real-cost-of-global-warming/

“The renewable energy industry is helping to destroy the UK economy and drive up unemployment says a new report. For every one of David Cameron’s “green jobs” created in the renewable energy sector (mainly solar and wind), another 3.7 jobs are being lost in the real economy, says the independent study by Verso Economics. In total, measurable policies to promote renewable energy cost £1.4 billion in the UK and £168 million in Scotland in 2009/10. But this doesn’t take into account the additional economic damage inflicted by the erection of enormous, bird-chopping monstrosities all over some of Britain’s most attractive tourist spots – including, for example, the hitherto unspoilt island of Tiree.(H/T Michael Daly).”

Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

“Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time.

Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines.

But the penny is finally dropping for almost everyone — except our politicians — that to rely on windmills to keep our lights on is a colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception.

Take, for example, the 350ft monstrosity familiar to millions of motorists who drive past as it sluggishly revolves above the M4 outside Reading.

This wind turbine performed so poorly (working at only 15 per cent of its capacity) that the £130,000 government subsidy given to its owners was more than the £100,000 worth of electricity it produced last year.

Meanwhile, official figures have confirmed that during those freezing, windless weeks around Christmas, when electricity demand was at record levels, the contribution made by Britain’s 3,500 turbines was minuscule.

To keep our homes warm we were having to import vast amounts of power from nuclear reactors in France.

Wind turbines are so expensive that Holland recently became the first country in Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target, announcing that it is to slash its annual subsidy by billions of euros.

So unpopular are wind turbines that our own Government has just offered ‘bribes’ to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electricity bills.

“So riddled with environmental hypocrisy is the lobbying for wind energy that a recent newspaper report exposed the immense human and ecological catastrophe being inflicted on northern China by the extraction of the rare earth minerals needed to make the giant magnets that every turbine in the West uses to generate its power.”

“The first is the pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.

The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.

This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops.”

“The second great lie about wind power is the pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy.

This comes in the form of the Renewables Obligation Certificate subsidy scheme, paid for through household bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every ‘megawatt hour’ they produce, and twice that sum for offshore turbines.

This is why so many people are now realising that the wind bonanza — almost entirely dominated in Britain by French, German, Spanish and other foreign-owned firms — is one of the greatest scams of our age.

The third great lie is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2 – it is not What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

We may not be aware of just how much we are pouring into the pockets of the wind developers, because our bills hide this from us — but as ever more turbines are built, this could soon be adding hundreds of pounds a year to our bills.

When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.

What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines.”

“Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built.”

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond reveals his ignorance of wind power

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8363643/Transport-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-reveals-his-ignorance-of-wind-power.html

“The fact is that no one would dream of building these absurdly inefficient machines unless they were guaranteed a 100 per cent subsidy through the Renewables Obligation. This forces electricity companies to buy the power produced by onshore wind at twice the market rate, paid by all of us through our electricity bills. In the case of the offshore turbines that the Government is so keen on, this subsidy is doubled to 200 per cent.”

Solar ‘Gold Rush’ in U.K. May Die With Incentive Roll-Back

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/solar-gold-rush-in-u-k-may-die-with-fastest-roll-back-of-incentives.html

Britain is moving faster than any other European country to contain a surge in solar power and prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. The risk is scaring off the investors who would create the “green jobs” Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to revive the economy.

It’s going to completely kill the market,” said Tim German, renewable energy manager for the local government in Cornwall at the U.K.’s southwest tip. “Investors are starting to get cold feet.”

The Dutch lose faith in windmills

http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/index.php?id=2656

“The new Dutch right-wing government has announced a radical overhaul of Dutch energy policy. It is cutting subsidies for most forms of renewable energy drastically, and is even putting an end to all subsidies for offshore wind, solar power and largescale biomass. It has also announced a warm welcome for new nuclear power stations – the first time a Dutch government has done so since the Chernobyl-disaster in 1986.”

The Dutch lose faith in windmills

http://energiaadebate.com/the-dutch-lose-faith-in-windmills/

“It was probably the huge subsidy allocated to a 600 MW offshore wind park by the previous government that induced the new Dutch cabinet to make some drastic changes in the existing subsidy scheme for renewable energy. In May 2010, the previous government announced that the German wind power developer Bard Engineering will receive a whopping (maximum) subsidy of €4.5 billion from the Dutch taxpayer to build two 300 MW offshore wind parks off the country’s northern coast. The new right-wing government, a coalition of the liberal party VVD and the Christian-Democrats CDA, supported by the anti-islam party PVV, decided they would not make the same mistake. During the election campaign, the new Prime Minister, Mark Rutte of the Liberals, had been cynical about the large government support for wind power. ‘Windmills turn on subsidies’, he had said.

Thus, when on 30 November, the new Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, heavyweight Maxime Verhagen, a Christian-Democrat, unveiled the new government’s policy on renewable energy, it was no surprise that this included a large cutback of green subsidies: from about €4 billion a year to just €1.5 billion. The new scheme is more than a cutback, though – it also aims at a radical overhaul of the existing methodology behind the allocation of subsidies. The plan intends to reward and stimulate “efficient” (cheap) forms of renewable energy, such as onshore wind power, and does not support relatively inefficient (expensive) renewables, such as offshore wind.”

Northern New Brunswick wind turbines frozen solid

http://www.globalmontreal.com/technology/Northern+Brunswick+wind+turbines+frozen+solid/4286952/story.html

“A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.

The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.”

Why Wind Won’t Work -The social and economic impacts of rural wind farms.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/why-wind-wont-work.pdf

“Wind power is very dilute, and thus a large area of land is required to gather significant energy. Wind energy needs a wide network of roads, transmission lines and turbines which degrades any area containing wind farms. It has a huge land footprint.

The operating characteristics of turbine and generator mean that only a small part of wind energy can be captured.

Wind power is also intermittent, unreliable and hard to predict. Therefore large backup or storage systems are required. This adds to the capital and operating costs and increases the instability of the network.

Wind farms are uniformly hated by neighbours and will not be willingly accepted without heavy compensation payments. Their noise, flicker, fire risk and disturbing effect on domestic and wild animals are well documented.

The wind is free but wind power is far from it. Its cost is far above all conventional methods of generating electricity. Either taxpayers or consumers will pay this bill.”

“The blades can only extract part of the energy, thus slowing down the wind in the process. The maximum proportion of the energy that can be extracted by a perfect propeller in a perfect wind is given by the Betz limit and that limit is about 59%. This is referred to as the Power Co-efficient. In the real world the very best turbines in an ideal wind could maybe peak at about 50%. Most large wind turbines built today have a Power Coefficient (PC) of no more than 37%.

If the wind speed is higher or lower than ideal, the PC will be lower. If the wind blows too fast, much kinetic energy slips between the blades and is lost. And in very high winds, the turbines are shut down completely so they do not shake themselves to bits.

But that is not the end of the weaknesses of wind power generation.

The spinning turbine has to be converted into electrical energy at each turbine. This is done using an electric generator. Electrical generators have been used for over 100 years so their technology is mature and their performance well known.

Electric generators achieve maximum efficiency at their design capacity. This is planned to suit the ”average” wind speed, and the generator produces maximum safe output at this speed. If the wind drops, so does the power generated. If the wind rises, the energy generated is limited to the design capacity of the generator (by varying the pitch of the blades) and at some point the generator is shut down to prevent burnout. So the generator cuts off all the high-energy infrequent wind, in order to capture the maximum energy from the winds expected by the turbine designers at that location. These unavoidable operating characteristics of the turbine also reduce the power generated.”

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1342032/You-dont-need-weatherman-know-way-wind-blows.html#ixzz1CEM1mpmm

“In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind ­turbines supply to the ­National Grid?

Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.

It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.”

Wind power heat warning

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/wind-power-heat-warning/story-e6frea83-1225978916924

“WIND power should not be relied on to guarantee electricity supply during hot days, experts say.

Wind turbines operate at less than three per cent of their total generation in hot weather because limits to prevent overheating and a lack of wind can stifle their output when temperatures soar past 35C.

The State Government and the Australian Energy Market Operator yesterday revealed there would be enough electricity in SA today to meet demand and loadshedding and blackouts would not occur from a lack of power. However, AEMO statistics show the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines in hot weather falls to a bare minimum.

The reduction in wind generation during peak periods, or at the hottest times of the day, is partially attributed to limits placed on some turbines at high temperatures to prevent overheating,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.”

This one is 3 years old but an actual and interesting example of the consequences of the unreliability of wind power when most needed.

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/28/1303/48225/299/465497

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.”

Wind power gets bent out of shape in Wyoming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/wind-power-gets-bent-out-of-shape-in-wyoming/#more-33030

Combine cold temperatures that make steel brittle along with gusty winds, and you have a Titanic recipe for disaster. For those that will argue that I’m being unfair to the promise of wind power, I welcome you to provide photos of any power plant in the USA that has been collapsed due to weather. Downed power poles sure, but power sources?”

Fire in the Sky – The bushfire threat from wind generators.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/fire-in-the-sky.pdf

“In the case of wind generators if there is a measurable likelihood of fires occurring and

with the lack of constant supervision of such high energy equipment it would be a real expectation that the owners of the generators would be liable for all the fire damage, which could reach into the billions if they caused fires on days of extreme fire danger.”

It has been reported that about 20 turbines catch fire and burn each year. The global total number of turbines appears to be around 68 000. All these figures are World Wide Web data and some from Wikipedia. They provide a rough guide to quantifying the bushfire risk but should not be taken as definitive. Applying the global data to the 2000 or so turbines installed in Australia we would expect a 60% probability of one turbine fire each year.”

Wind farms becalmed just when needed the most

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-becalmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind.

Even yesterday, when conditions were slightly breezier, wind farms generated just 1.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity — less than a third of usual levels.

The failure of wind farms to function at full tilt during December forced energy suppliers to rely on coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on — meaning more greenhouse gases were produced. “

Britain’s offshore windpower costs twice as much as coal and gas generated electricity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8028328/Britains-offshore-windpower-costs-twice-as-much-as-coal-and-gas-generated-electricity.html

“Off shore wind farms cost twice as much to produce electricity as gas and coal powered stations and will need subsidies for at least 20 years, a major report warns.

But costs of building the farms have doubled due to spiralling prices for steel and the drop in the value of the pound.

The running costs are also increasing.

The report found that costs have risen for all kinds of generation but off shore wind farms remain by far the most expensive – 90 per cent more than fossil fuel generators and 50 per cent more than nuclear.

Revealed: Wind farm power twice as costly as gas or coal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315711/Wind-farm-power-twice-costly-gas-coal.html

“The report, from the UK Energy Research Centre – a Government funded academic think tank – said the costs of offshore wind power were underestimated in the mid-2000s.

Instead of costs falling as predicted, in the last five years the cost of buying and installing turbines and towers at sea has gone up by 51 per cent.

Once the bill for building and maintaining an offshore wind farm is spread over the 25-year lifespan of a typical farm, each kilowatt hour of electricity now costs 15p.

That’s nearly twice as expensive as electricity from conventional coal and gas power stations, which costs 8p a unit, and more than nuclear, which costs 10p a unit. “

The true cost of wind is likely to be much higher than the 15p a unit outlined in the report.

Because wind is intermittent, the National Grid is forced to rely on a fleet of gas and coal power stations to back up the supply when the wind fails. “

Wind Integration Realities: The Bentek Study for Texas (Part I – IV)

http://www.masterresource.org/category/windpower/emissions-reduction-wind/

“In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased.”

Solare, Oh No

http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/solare-oh-no/

“Nicht ganz so drastisch wie bei der Sonnen- soll der Schnitt bei der Windenergie sein: Hier soll die Förderung um 22 Prozent gekürzt werden, allerdings auch rückwirkend für bereits in Betrieb befindliche Anlagen. Das Signal wäre auch hier fatal: Verlässliche Investitionspläne würden unmöglich, wenn die Regierung sich die Neudefinition der Fördersätze nach eigenem Gutdünken vorbehält.“

Germany cuts solar subsidies by up to 15 pct

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/germany-solar-idUSLDE71N2JL20110224

“German lawmakers passed on Thursday a law cutting solar power subsidies by up to 15 percent from this summer, six months earlier than originally planned, dealing a blow to the world’s biggest photovoltaic market.

The lower parliamentary house voted to introduce the cuts for roof installations from July and for ground-based cell assemblies from September.”

Austerity pulling plug on Europe’s green subsidies

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/eric-reguly/austerity-pulling-plug-on-europes-green-subsidies/article1883888/

“The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates.”

“Sunny Spain became the world’s top solar power producer. Since 2002, about €23-billion has been invested in Spain’s photovoltaic (PV) industry, which sucked up €2.7-billion in subsidies in 2009 alone, or more than 40 per cent of the freebies doled out to the country’s entire renewables sector.”

“Renewable energy is fraught with difficulties. In less-sunny climates, PV panels make little sense, though that hasn’t stopped Germany and Britain from installing them on rooftops everywhere. Wind power is becoming hugely popular in some parts of the world. But since the wind doesn’t always blow, backup power has to be installed. That means consumers have to pay for the capacity twice and the backup power is usually of the fossil-fuel variety. Denmark, which has a reputation as the cleanest of the clean countries, actually generates about half its electricity from coal, the grubbiest fuel. That proportion hasn’t varied in a decade in spite of the country’s relentless pursuit of wind power.”

Mafia’s new tactics: putting dirty money into clean energy

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100916-292547/Mafias-new-tactics-putting-dirty-money-into-clean-energy

ROME — The seizure of a record 1.5 billion euros from a Sicilian businessman known as ”Lord of the Wind” has put the spotlight on Mafia money-laundering through renewable energy ventures.

The Mafia use clean energy to invest dirty money,” Sicilian journalist Lirio Abbate told AFP after police confiscated the assets from businessman Vito Nicastri on Tuesday.

The haul included no fewer than 43 wind and solar energy companies and around 100 properties including swank villas with swimming pools in Sicily’s western Trapani region, along with cars, a catamaran and bank accounts, the interior ministry said.

The infiltration of organised crime into the renewable energy sector is ”a combination that is only now coming to light” in terms of legal action, said Abbate, a specialist in Mafia affairs who is under police protection.”

Steve Goreham (”Climatism”) quotes US and UK electricity generating costs (excluding the cost of carbon permits and the cost of backup generating facilities for wind and solar):

 

Goreham (p272) also compares the planned London Array offshore wind field with the planned Kingsnorth Coal fired plant and concludes:

”The wind turbine array requires 563 times more land than the coal plant and delivers electricity intermittently at twice the cost.”

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Record cold and snow in November – Wind Power at 12% output

4 december, 2010

I have written extensively about the economical and environmental madness of wind power on a large scale. Wind power can be excellent on a small scale IF you live in the right areas.

See for example my posts (some are in Swedish):

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 14

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 12

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 11

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 10

Vindkraften – En MINSKNING med 98 % på 3 dagar!

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 8

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 6

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 5

 Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 4,

  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 3

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 2

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas. – And emits more CO2 than thought

Wind power – what a costly and unreliable joke!

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals,

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power! 

Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion? 

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power

Who knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive? 

Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

So I thought it would be interesting to look at the statistics for Swedish wind power during the last 30 days. When we had record cold and snow all over the world. Just now it is – 10C outside and the snow is deep.

This is the combined statistics from the Swedish wind turbines and the big wind farms during the last 30 days.

The total combined output today is 12% of capacity.

And during the bitterest cold days the output dropped 50 % in two days (Now 29-Dec 1). And 74% in 4 days (Nov 29-Dec 3).

Imagine if this had been the main power source during this week? Thank God that we have nuclear power and water power (hydropower) covering 95% of our needs in Sweden.

AND THESE ARE EXACTLY THE POWER SOURCES OUR POLITICIANS AND THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS WANT TO BAN AND ABOLISH!

They really want us back to the Stone Age to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.

Here are just a few examples of what the statistics show during the last three winters:

The total combined output at 3%, 4%, 6% or 9% during cold periods when the output is MOST NEEDED. And a drop in output of 84% in two days. Or a 98 % drop in three days. Or a 67% drop in one day.

Here are some more examples of drop in output during the winter 2008-2009:

50 %  in 1 DAY (18/3).

89 %  in 2 DAYS (23-25/1).

98 %  in 3 DAYS (23-26/1).

84 %  in 2 DAYS (12-14/1).

84 %  in 2 DAYS (22-24/12).

67 %  in 1 DAY (10/12).

50 %  in 1 DAY (11/12).

87 %  in 3 DAYS (27-30/11)

These figures are the norm. It shows one thing beyond any doubt, how fundamental unreliable the wind power is. Especially when it is needed most. Which in it self is very obvious, except for our intelligent politicians and the Global warming Hysterics, because of the nature of that power.

Imagine running a hospital, or a process industry like steal or pulp, and you loose 67% of your power during one day? With figures like that you have to shut down parts of a country, whole industries, city’s etc.

And with a drop of 84% in two days, or 98% in three days, you have to effectively shut down the whole country.

Back to the Stone Age in two days.

And how long do you think the people and the modern societies would survive WITHOUT electricity? And what kind of life that would be?

And then you could look at the huge economic cost for wind power. The huge state and local subsidies on all levels – which make it a very profitable business for the owner and very, very expensive for the consumers. The extra power that has to be built to compensate for wind powers notorious unreliability (the standard is around 20-25 % of its capacity). The need to upgrade the grid. Not to mention its sharp swings up and downs when delivering power. 

You can also mention the short lifespan and huge replacement and service cost for these turbines. And the noise they produce to their neighbors delight. The huge number of birds being killed just to mention a few other “benefits”.

“Funny enough”, a lot of these birds are usually on the national protected species act.

But that doesn’t seem to bother the Global Warming Hysterics a bit. Which otherwise would not hesitate to stop huge industrial/ power projects which are beneficial for the country and the people, just because there is one pair of protected species there.

What a brilliant future the Global Warming Hysterics have in store for humankind. And remember they have publicly said and written that they would like to halve, or even cut in two thirds, the world population. Well, wind power is on way of getting about it.

These people are so caring are they not? And they REALLY love humankind.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate change policy has nothing to do with environmental protection

20 november, 2010

“Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun“

I have from day one written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

(See for example my post The Big Money & The Global Governance/Government Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism)

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, –  the Biggest Heist in History-  where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

Therefore it is refreshing to se that more and more of the Global warming Hysterics are coming out from behind their masks and are openly admitting their political agenda.

The latest one is Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. He is also the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology. He will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

Here are some direct quotes from an article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung November 14:

Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg….. da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.“

Aber dann müssen wir sehen, dass erfolgreiche Klimapolitik eben eine andere globale Handels- und Finanzpolitik braucht.“

Und in den Industrieländern wird uns klar, dass für ein Klimaschutzziel von zwei Grad weder rein technische Lösungen noch Lebensstilwandel ausreichen. Die Leute hier in Europa haben die groteske Vorstellung, Einkaufen im Bioladen oder Elektroautos lösten das Problem. Das ist arrogant, denn der ökologische Fussabdruck unseres Lebensstils hat sich in den letzten 30 Jahren vergrössert, trotz Öko-Bewegung.“

Es muss Strafen und Anreize geben: weltweite CO 2 -Zölle und Technologie-Transfer.“

Was wir suchen müssen, ist eine Oase, das ist die kohlenstofffreie Weltwirtschaft. Es geht um den gemeinsamen Aufbruch zu dieser Oase.“

My english translation:

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. there is no getting around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.”

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this, is obvious.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

“But then we need to see that a successful climate policy must specify a different global trade and financial policy.”

“And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The people here in Europe, have the grotesque idea that shopping in the health food stores or in electric cars solved the problem. This is arrogant, because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.”

“There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.”

“What we need to look for is an oasis that is the non-carbon global economy. It’s about the common departure for this oasis.”

The article from NZZ here:

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»

Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ressourcen gehe. Interview: Bernhard Pötter

NZZ am Sonntag: Herr Edenhofer, beim Klimaschutz fordern alle eine Reduzierung von Emissionen. Sie sprechen jetzt von «gefährlicher Emissionsreduzierung». Was ist das?

Ottmar Edenhofer: Bisher ging Wirtschaftswachstum immer Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum der Treibhausgasemissionen. Ein Prozent Wachstum heisst ein Prozent mehr Emissionen. Ins historische Gedächtnis der Menschheit hat sich eingebrannt: Wer reich ist, verfeuert dafür Kohle, Öl oder Gas. Und deshalb haben die Schwellenländer Angst vor Emissionsgrenzen.

Beim Klimaschutz sollten aber alle mitmachen, sonst funktioniert er nicht.

Das sagt sich so leicht. Aber vor allem die Industriestaaten haben ein System, das fast ausschliesslich auf fossilen Energien beruht. Es gibt kein historisches Vorbild und keine Weltregion, die ihr Wirtschaftswachstum von den Emissionen abgekoppelt hat. Da können Sie nicht von Indien oder China erwarten, dass die finden, dass das eine tolle Idee ist. Und es kommt noch schlimmer: Wir sind mitten in einer Renaissance der Kohle, weil Öl und Gas teurer geworden sind, Kohle aber nicht. Die Schwellenländer bauen gerade für die nächsten 70 Jahre ihre Städte und Kraftwerke, als ob es dauerhaft keinen hohen CO 2 -Preis gäbe.

Das Neue an Ihrem Vorschlag zu einem Global Deal ist die Betonung, wie wichtig Entwicklungspolitik für die Klimapolitik ist. Bis jetzt denken viele bei Entwicklungshilfe an Almosen.

Das wird sich sofort ändern, wenn global Emissionsrechte verteilt werden. Wenn das pro Kopf der Bevölkerung geschieht, dann ist Afrika der grosse Gewinner, und es fliesst viel Geld dorthin. Das hat für die Entwicklungspolitik enorme Konsequenzen. Und es wird sich auch die Frage stellen, wie diese Länder mit so viel Geld überhaupt sinnvoll umgehen können.

Das klingt alles nicht mehr nach der Klimapolitik, die wir kennen.

Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

Trotzdem leidet die Umwelt unter dem Klimawandel – vor allem im Süden.

Es wird auch viel bei der Anpassung zu tun sein. Aber das geht eben weit über klassische Entwicklungspolitik hinaus: Wir werden in Afrika mit dem Klimawandel einen Rückgang der landwirtschaftlichen Erträge sehen. Aber damit kann man umgehen, wenn die Effizienz der Produktion gesteigert wird – und vor allem, wenn der afrikanische Agrarhandel in die Weltwirtschaft eingebettet wird. Aber dann müssen wir sehen, dass erfolgreiche Klimapolitik eben eine andere globale Handels- und Finanzpolitik braucht.

Das grosse Missverständnis vom Uno-Gipfel in Rio 1992 wiederholt sich in der Klimapolitik: Die Industriestaaten reden von Umwelt, die Entwicklungsländer von Entwicklung.

Es ist noch komplizierter. In den achtziger Jahren waren unsere lokalen Umweltprobleme für die Entwicklungsländer ein Luxusproblem. Wer schon satt ist und Auto fährt, der kann sich über sauren Regen aufregen. Für China ging es hingegen darum, wie man 600 Millionen Chinesinnen und Chinesen in die Mittelschicht bekommt. Ob da ein Kohlekraftwerk steht oder in den Kohleminen die Sozialstandards niedrig sind, das war erst einmal nachrangig – wie bei uns im 19. Jahrhundert.

Aber die Welt ist kleiner geworden.

Jetzt kommt etwas Neues: Es geht nicht mehr nur um unseren Luxus, unsere Umwelt. Den Entwicklungsländern wird klar, dass die Ursachen im Norden liegen und die Folgen im Süden. Und in den Industrieländern wird uns klar, dass für ein Klimaschutzziel von zwei Grad weder rein technische Lösungen noch Lebensstilwandel ausreichen. Die Leute hier in Europa haben die groteske Vorstellung, Einkaufen im Bioladen oder Elektroautos lösten das Problem. Das ist arrogant, denn der ökologische Fussabdruck unseres Lebensstils hat sich in den letzten 30 Jahren vergrössert, trotz Öko-Bewegung.

Sie sagen, für die erfolgreiche Klimapolitik sei ein hohes Mass an internationaler Kooperation nötig. Gerade die sieht man aber nicht.

Ich teile die Skepsis. Aber haben wir eine Alternative? Derzeit gibt es drei Ideen, wie man die schwierige Kooperation umgehen kann: Man verlegt sich auf unsichere Experimente wie das Geo-Engineering, man konzentriert sich auf den Ausbau von sauberer und sicherer Energie, oder man vertraut auf regionale und lokale Lösungen. Es gibt allerdings keinen Hinweis darauf, dass eine dieser Ideen das Problem löst. Wir müssen die Kooperation also wollen, so wie man auch für die Regelung der Finanzmärkte zusammenarbeiten muss.

Aber anders als bei der Finanzkrise hat in der Klimapolitik ein Land Vorteile, wenn es nicht mitmacht.

Die Finanzkrise war eine Notoperation – angesichts von Gefahr verhalten wir uns kooperativer. So etwas wird es beim Klima nicht geben, denn es bleibt immer fraglich, ob ein konkretes Ereignis wie eine Überschwemmung ein Klima-Phänomen ist. Aber es gibt immer die Gefahr, dass individuelle Rationalität zur kollektiven Dummheit führt. Deshalb kann man das Klimaproblem nicht allein lösen, sondern muss es vernetzen mit anderen Problemen. Es muss Strafen und Anreize geben: weltweite CO 2 -Zölle und Technologie-Transfer.

In Ihrem neuen Buch ist viel von Ethik die Rede. Spielt sie bei den Klimaverhandlungen eine Rolle?

Ethik spielt immer eine Rolle, wenn es um Macht geht. China und Lateinamerika betonen zum Beispiel immer die historische Verantwortung der Industriestaaten für den Klimawandel. Diese Verantwortung ist nicht zu leugnen, aber es ist auch ein strategisches Argument der Länder. Ich würde eine Verantwortung für die Zeit seit 1995 akzeptieren, weil wir seither wissen, was den Treibhauseffekt verursacht. Die Verantwortung bis zur industriellen Revolution auszudehnen, ist ethisch nicht gerechtfertigt.

Kann man die Ethik nutzen, um den Stillstand zu beenden?

Das Buch enthält eine Parabel: Eine Gruppe Wanderer, die Weltgemeinschaft, ist in der Wüste unterwegs. Die Industriestaaten trinken das Wasser zur Hälfte aus und sagen dann grosszügig: «Jetzt teilen wir den Rest!» Da sagen die anderen: «So geht es nicht, ihr habt das Wasser ja schon zur Hälfte geleert. Wir reden jetzt mal über eure historische Verantwortung.» Wir meinen: Wenn wir nur um den Wasservorrat streiten, weil wir uns auf die ethischen Prinzipien nicht einigen können, werden wir verdursten. Was wir suchen müssen, ist eine Oase, das ist die kohlenstofffreie Weltwirtschaft. Es geht um den gemeinsamen Aufbruch zu dieser Oase.

Copyright © Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The Big Money & The Global Governance/Government Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

12 oktober, 2010

I have written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Waming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, –  the Biggest Heist in History-  where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

As always – Follow the money.

Here are some good videos on the big company, organisations and political money behind the Global Warming Hysteria.

Part 1- The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

Part 2- The Big Business of Scaring America to Death

Part 3- Green Gold: BP, GE & the World’s First Carbon Billionaires

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>


%d bloggare gillar detta: