Environmental Certification of Oslo Airport won’t prevent any Carbon Emissions from the Planes using it

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

Some say it’s pointless for the United States to cut back on its carbon emissions.  For whatever we do it won’t change what China and India are doing.  And what are they doing?  They’re building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow.  So it is kind of pointless what we do.  For when it comes to global warming it won’t make a difference what one nation on the globe is doing.  As the massive amounts of carbon emissions produced by China and India will enter the atmosphere surrounding the globe.  Which will affect the United States.  Even if we shrink our carbon footprint to nothing.

In a similar manner it is kind of pointless for an airport to try and minimize its carbon footprint (see Oslo Airport achieves environmental certification by Joacim Vestvik-Lunde posted 3/28/2014 on Sustainable Aviation Newswire).

On Monday, 24 March 2014, Oslo Airport received a certificate showing that it is certified according to the internationally recognised ISO 14001 standard by DNV GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd)…

Developed by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), ISO 14001 is an international standard for environmental management based on two concepts: continuous improvement and regulatory compliance…

OSL has been focused on protecting the external environment ever since the airport was on the drawing boards. OSL is working systematically to reduce the environmental impact of its operations and also uses new technology and innovation to improve its performance. These measures include converting stored winter snow into cooling energy in the summer, the recovery of energy from wastewater and a pilot project to study the use of hydrogen as an energy source for vehicles at the airport. OSL has been certified since 2010 at the highest level of Airport Carbon Accreditation, a voluntary scheme to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions together with the players at the airport.

If there was any place that should get a pass on their carbon footprint it should be an airport.  Because whatever they do will not offset the carbon emissions of the airplanes landing and taking off from that airport.  And they emit a lot of carbon.  So much that the Europeans wanted to extend their emissions trading scheme (ETS) to include airlines.  Making them pay for the amount of carbon they emit when flying in EU airspace.  Something the Chinese are very opposed to.  As are other non-EU members.  So much so that they delayed the inclusion of air travel into the ETS.

The biggest carbon emitters at any airport are the planes.  Nothing even comes close.  So why spend the money for a costly certification when it won’t make any difference?  For the only way to make a real cut in carbon emissions at an airport is to get rid of the planes.  Of course, if they did that then we wouldn’t need any ISO 14001 compliant airports, would we?  But if we did this it wouldn’t stop China and India from building their coal-fired power plants.  Proving how futile any efforts in combating manmade global warming are.  It’s just money that could have been spent on feeding the hungry.  Housing the homeless.  Treating the sick.  Or a myriad of other social spending that actually helps some people.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Solar Farm dislocates Desert Tortoises – a Threatened Species

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem with renewable energy sources is that they take up a lot of real estate.  To save the environment they must take a big footprint in that environment.  And big things cost a lot of money.  Such as solar farms.  Or wind farms.  Even though the ‘fuel’ is free.  Sun.  And wind.  Which is why free solar and wind power is some of the most costly power.  And if that wasn’t bad enough we also have to evict some of the indigenous life from their natural habitat (see Sunflower mirrors power California’s desert farm by Rowan Hooper posted 2/13/2014 on New Scientist).

IT TAKES a couple of seconds to work out what’s going on in this photo. You’re looking at a pair of heliostat mirrors – sunflower-like reflectors that turn to track the sun during the day. These are just two of hundreds of thousands such mirrors arranged in the Mojave Desert in California, all part of the Ivanpah solar power project.

Their job is to concentrate the sun’s rays onto boilers located on three central towers, turning water into steam that drives turbines. The site (below) covers 14 square kilometres and will produce at least 377 megawatts of electricity, not much below the summer output of a typical nuclear power station in the US and enough to power 140,000 homes in California…

The project has been controversial. Native American groups have objected, claiming it will impact burial grounds. The project was also held up while desert tortoises – a threatened species – were relocated away from the Ivanpah site. It highlights the fact that even renewable energy projects can have some adverse environmental impacts.

Hundreds of thousands of mirrors?  That must have cost a pretty penny.  I wonder what happens when the desert winds blow sand onto those mirrors.  Either making them dirty and less reflective.  Or dulling them by the natural sandblasting of the blowing sand that has worn away solid rock in the dessert.  Making them less reflective.  Requiring periodic cleaning of these mirrors.  And their replacement over time.  Thus making a very costly power generation system even more costly.

If we’re not hacking eagles to death with wind turbines we’re kicking another threatened species from its home.  Neither of which happens when we burn coal in a coal-fired power plant.  While there is only a theory that these coal-fired power plants are harming the wildlife on the planet it is a fact that renewable energy is.  So one can only conclude that wildlife like eagles and desert tortoises prefer coal-fired power plants over solar and wind power.  Which isn’t harming them.  As is evidenced by their being around after centuries of burning coal only to suffer harm from solar and wind power.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2013

History 101

(Originally published October 18th, 2011)

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A minor Volcanic Eruption in Japan creates Ash Clouds that hang around for Days

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2012

Week in Review

We can do a lot to shape our environment to bend it to our will.  We can dam a river to produce electricity.  We can extract raw materials from our environment and transform them into useful things.  We can build a breakwater to block damaging waves from entering a safe harbor.  But other than a nuclear explosion there is nothing we can do to compare to the power of a volcanic eruption.  For they can cool the planet.  And they are erupting all of the time (see Volcano eruption in Kagoshima covers nearby city with ash by Adam Westlake posted 7/27/2012 on The Japan Daily Press).

Sakurajima Volcano has been steadily erupting for the last week, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency, but a larger-than-average eruption on Tuesday has showered nearby Kagoshima City with rocks and ash… Meteorological officials have stated that there have already been more 600 minor eruptions since the beginning of this year alone…

As of Thursday morning, weather agencies reported visible ash clouds still lingering in the air, and with winds primarily coming from the southeast direction, residents have been warned that there may be more ash fall in the days to come. On July 24th, pilots reported seeing ash clouds as high as 8,000 to 12,000 feet, causing the Kagoshima Airport to briefly divert air traffic.

This is why volcanoes can change the weather.  By throwing up soot, ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere it blocks the sun’s warming energy from heating the planet.  Two days after this tiny little eruption ash clouds were still lingering in the air.  Imagine what a large volcanic eruption could do.  Or the aggregate of all the volcanic eruptions in the world.  And the cooling affect they have on the planet.

Interestingly volcanoes aren’t the only thing that throws soot, ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  Coal-fired power plants do, too.  Well, at least before we started putting scrubbers on them.  Funny how volcanoes can cool the planet while coal-fired power plants warm the planet.  Not ‘ha ha’ funny.  By the ironic kind of funny.  Another interesting fact is that the planet started warming right around the time we started putting scrubbers on these power plants.  And did other things to limit the emissions from burning coal.  Coincidence?  Or have the environmentalists actually caused global warming because of their actions to prevent global warming?  Perhaps.

You can see this eruption at Video: Sakurajima Volcano Erupts in Japan, Showers Kagoshima City With Ash.  It’s a pretty awesome sight.  And it’s just a minor eruption.  Showing how much more nature can shape our world than we can.



Tags: , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Green Initiatives did not Create Jobs or Save the Planet

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

If the Energy Department was a private corporation it would be the ideal bailout target for a company like Bain Capital.  Inept management, poor investments and bad strategic policy.  It has everything.  So much so that it would be easier for the bailout team to ask them at Energy what actually worked.  It would keep the initial meeting much shorter (see Difference Engine: To and from the grid posted 6/1/2012 on The Economist).

Since then, interest rates have fallen, while the price of solar panels has tumbled even more so—thanks to Chinese overcapacity. Meanwhile, electricity rates (at least those in southern California) have risen noticeably. Your correspondent reckons photovoltaic solar systems now cost half as much as they did four years ago.

Two things could make or break America’s affair with solar power. One concerns the ushered in by the economic stimulus bill of 2009. Many of those temporary tax credits are now coming to an end. If nothing is done to extend them, the incentives will fall from a peak of over $44 billion in 2009 to $16 billion this year and $11 billion by 2014. That could bring the solar-installation business to a screeching halt and wipe out tens of thousands of green jobs. The industry’s future depends largely on the outcome of the November election….

The irony is that those who invest their own money to generate clean electricity from solar panels on their rooftops are likely to be the last to benefit from it environmentally. Nowadays, most people work outside the home during the day and consume the bulk of their residential electricity in the evening and during the night. In California, that is when the state—which meets only 70% of its electricity requirement from its own resources—relies heavily on cheap electricity imported from dirty coal-fired power stations elsewhere in the country. This situation will only be exacerbated if, as expected, plug-in battery vehicles, needing to be recharged overnight, account for an increasing share of the Californian fleet.

That aside, all your correspondent now has to worry about is whether the 31% anti-dumping tariff recently imposed on Chinese solar-panel makers really does deter them. Having seen such trade spats play out many times before, he suspects the tariffs will only spur Chinese firms to acquire the few remaining American solar-panel makers so that they can carry on manufacturing in low-cost Wuxi or Shanghai and do their final assembly in middle America (presumably with local subsidies to boot).

So solar panels have never been cheaper thanks to the Chinese.  Which is good.  These lower prices will encourage people to save the planet by installing solar panels onto their roofs.  Unless the government raises these low prices with a 31% anti-dumping tariff.  Hmm.  Looks like you have to choose between saving the planet.  And providing green jobs.  For as this anti-dumping tariff clearly shows you can’t have both.

And because jobs are more important than the environment the government is subsidizing the clean energy industry.  Let’s crunch some numbers.  They say we could lose “tens of thousands of green jobs.”  So let’s assume there were 80,000 jobs created in the first year.  And they declined by 10,000 every year to reflect with the growing number of bankruptcies in the green energy sector.  Dividing the incentive by the cost in the first year you get a cost of about $550,000 for each job created.  If do the same for the last year you also get a cost of about $550,000 for each job created.  That’s a lot of money to pay someone.  And I’m guessing that the Chinese aren’t paying their employees a half million each in wages and benefits.  Not when they’re making these solar panels so cheap that the U.S. has to slap an anti-dumping tariff on them.

Of course these numbers don’t include the $500 billion the government blew on Solyndra.  Or the other Solyndras out there.  Which when you factor all of these in these green jobs are costing the taxpayer probably in excess of a million dollars each.  For what?  To pay someone a $50,000 wage on an assembly line so he or she can take these earnings and stimulate the economy?  Talk about a negative return on investment.  And the president is attacking Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital past?  If Bain Capital took over the United States government to turn it around to get a sensible return on tax dollar investments guess who would be the first fired from his job?  The incompetent chief executive that spent a million dollars plus to get $50,000 worth of stimulus.

And the kicker is that none of this matters.  When solar power is available people are at work.  When people are home cranking up their air conditioners and plugging in their electric cars for the night the sun is down and coal-fired power plants are meeting this peak demand.  So we get nothing.  No jobs.  And we don’t even save the planet.  We just get higher taxes and more debt.  A pretty crappy deal if you ask me.  We have coal.  We should just use coal.  And not demonize it.  We’d arrive at the same outcome.  Only with fewer taxes and less debt.  And cheaper electricity.  Because we’d be bringing more coal-fired plants on line.  Now that is a smart turnaround plan.  The kind of turnaround that could end up in the win column at Bain Capital.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Australian Government avoids using ‘Carbon Tax’ in Television Ads

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 27th, 2012

Week in Review

You know a tax is unpopular when you buy advertising to sell the subsidies you can get to avoid paying that tax.  Without mentioning that tax by name (see Tax focus groups don’t test the c-word by AAP posted 5/28/2012 on The Australian).

THE Gillard government did not test the term carbon tax in focus groups for a television advertisement promoting its household assistance package.

The government is spending $36 million over two years on print, radio and television ads to sell the package, which aims to cushion the financial impacts of the carbon tax.

Assistance payments already have begun to land in bank accounts even though the tax does not begin to operate until July 1…

The department’s deputy secretary, Felicity Hand, said the government decided the campaign should primarily focus on the payments.

“There had been a lot of public relations activity previously that had linked household assistance package to clean energy future and carbon pricing,” she said.

Contextual information about the carbon tax was available at a website and if people phoned the hotline number.

Focus group testing.  Imagine that.  The carbon tax is so toxic and unpopular that the government is desperately trying to cushion the financial impact of it.  With some pretty commercials.  I guess to make you feel like you’re making a difference while you’re sitting at home with less of your earnings to spend because of that new carbon tax.  But they dare not mention the c-word.  Because, apparently, the people don’t want anything to do with that environmental BS.  The Australians are a hearty breed.  And more than a few got their ass kicked by the outback.  And yet that environment is so fragile that watching television at night might kill it.  Unless they pay a carbon tax on their electric bill. 

Amazing how all of government’s solutions come down to this.  Taking away our earnings for our own good.  And, of course, lying to us.  For the focus group testing tells them that telling us the truth will make us reject them and their silly policies.



Tags: , , , ,

British Electric Bills will rise by 27% to Subsidize Wind Farms and other Renewable Energy Initiatives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 20th, 2012

Week in Review

Saving the planet isn’t cheap.  It takes a lot of taxes.  Subsidies.  And a significant reduction in your standard of living.  But that’s a small price to pay for not making a difference, isn’t it?  That’s what the British government thinks.  And they are willing to suck the quality of life right out of their people to prove it (see Electricity bills set to rise to pay for wind farm subsidies by Robert Mendick posted 5/20/2012 on The Telegraph).

This week the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will publish its draft energy bill, setting out how it plans to reform the electricity market and reduce the cost to households.

DECC has insisted that energy bills will begin to fall from next year and will be reduced by seven per cent – or £94 – by 2020 because of new energy efficiency policies.

These include the Green Deal, which will provide loans to fund loft and wall insulation; the roll-out of ‘smart’ meters to help control and monitor energy consumption; and the improvement in the energy efficiency of kettles and other appliances.

But a study of the Government’s own figures by the Renewable Energy Forum (REF), a specialist renewable energy consultancy, has accused DECC of deliberately misleading the public.

REF claims its analysis of the Government’s own figures shows that two-thirds of households, about 17 million in all, will be worse off – even if energy efficiency targets are met in full…

REF estimates that the UK’s climate change policies – which promote wind farms and other forms of renewable energy – will be responsible for ‘major increases’ in the retail price of electricity and gas.

It estimates that electricity prices on domestic bills will rise by 27 per cent by 2020 and by 34 per cent on bills for medium-sized companies. Gas prices will rise by seven per cent and 11 per cent respectively…

Earlier this year, 101 backbench Tory MPs wrote to David Cameron demanding that the £400 million a year subsidies paid to the onshore wind turbine industry be “dramatically cut”. In all, REF estimates that £1.5 billion a year is paid out in subsidies for all forms of renewable energy – including on and offshore wind – and that figure will rise to £8 billion a year by 2020.

The UK budget deficit in April of 2012 was £18.17 billion ($26.76 billion).  So spending £1.5 billion ($2.37 billion) a year they don’t have will not reduce their deficit.  It will only increase their debt.  And the interest they must pay on their debt.  Requiring higher taxes.  A bitter pill to swallow when the cost of electricity is rising at the same time.  Going green is going to impoverish the British people.  And by 2020 things will be over 5 times worse.

And all of this to save the planet.  Funny, really.  Because what the British do won’t be able to offset what the Chinese and Indians are doing.  Their economies are likely to continue to grow.  Pumping far more carbon into the air than the British can ever hope to remove.  So the British green policies will only hurt the British people.  Reduce their standard of living.  Without changing the world in the least.

And all the talk about insulating the UK from energy shocks?  Here’s something to think about.  Let’s say it’s winter. And the UK gets 25% of its electricity from wind farms.  Now let’s say a cold spell sets in.  And the wind stops blowing.  What do you think would happen if a fourth of the available electricity disappeared?  Can you say rolling brownout?  And blackout?  Not a problem you think?  Because your furnace uses natural gas?  Well, it takes electricity to run that furnace.  It takes electricity to pump hot water and blow hot air.  Anyone who lost their electric power in the winter can attest to that.  But the power companies can get the electricity back on line in a day or so.  Of course, you can’t do anything to make the wind blow.  Talk about irony.  To lose your power not from a storm with high winds.  But from a calm day.  Imagine worrying about losing your power whenever the winds don’t blow.  Instead of worrying the few days they blow really hard.  Of course, that risk doesn’t go away either.  Losing your power during a storm.  Sort of damned if the wind blows.  And damned if it doesn’t blow.  Which means you’re pretty much damned all of the time.

And if that wasn’t bad enough (and don’t you think it should be?), the British will be paying higher electric bills.  And higher taxes.  All while making no difference to the environment.  But at least they have the consolation of knowing that the people that are ruining their lives had good intentions.  Sort of makes everything worthwhile, doesn’t it?  Just remember that when you’re huddled under your blankets waiting for the wind to blow again so you can have some heat.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gas Prices Stay High along the Environmentalist West Coast due to a Lack of Refinery Capacity

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 20th, 2012

Week in Review

Take a look at an electoral map.  Say from the 2008 national election.  What do you see?  Blue (i.e., Democrat) on the coasts.  Red (i.e., Republican) in the middle.  And blue in the union Midwest.  Okay, now what else do you associate with the blue on the coasts?  That’s where there are high concentrations of liberals.  (The blue in the Midwest is more organized labor than liberal).  And what is one of the biggest issues with liberals?  That’s right.  The environment.  (I’ll just assume you said the environment).  Especially in California.  Where they have tougher emission standards than the federal government has. 

They take their environmentalism serious on the coasts. So much so that they punish the use of fossil fuels through high taxes and excessive regulations.  It is for these reasons you don’t see them building many new refineries in these regions.  For there are few things they hate more than petroleum oil.  From drilling it out of the ground.  To transporting it.  To refining it.  Their basic attitude towards the oil industry is, “Sure, you’re welcomed to do business here.  But you will pay.  And pay.  And pay.”  So with that in mind here’s a little story about high gas prices on the West Coast (see Unlike the East, gas prices stay stubbornly high out West by William M. Welch posted 5/18/2012 on USA Today).

“We are seeing a tale of two coasts,” says Michael Green, spokesman for AAA, which monitors pump prices. “On the West Coast, gas prices are rising steadily, while on the East Coast they are steadily decreasing.”

Oil analysts blame a refinery slowdown in western states for sending retail prices in the opposite direction of wholesale costs.

In California and Oregon, the average price of regular gas has increased 20 cents a gallon so far in May, AAA reports. Average pump prices were down 19 cents in Florida and 18 cents in Virginia…

Tupper Hull, spokesman for Western States Petroleum Association, blamed unexpected maintenance and other problems at refineries…

“Our concern is a lack of competition at the refinery level in California,” says Charles Langley, gasoline analyst at Utility Consumers’ Action Network in San Diego. “We’re not saying there’s a conspiracy. It’s just that with this few competitors, it’s very easy to game prices by turning off capacity.”

Bob van der Valk, petroleum analyst in Terry, Mont., said gasoline inventories are at a 20-year low in California for May. Supplies will return to normal, he said, but perhaps not in time for upcoming holiday travel.

The high prices on the West Coast are of their own making.  Prices have fallen on the southern half of the East Coast.  Because they aren’t as blue as they used to be.  They love their environment there.  Which is why they live there.  But they know they need petroleum oil and gasoline to live.  And they know that there is a direct correlation between anti-oil policies and the price at the pump.  Something they apparently don’t know on the West Coast.  For they hate oil.  Don’t want anything to do with oil in their state.  And yet almost everyone drives a car in California. 

If they want lower gas prices they have to make it easier to do petroleum business there.  That means they need to make it easier to refine gasoline in California.  Which means backing off on the taxes.  And the excessive environmental regulations.  They can do that.  Bring the price at the pump down.  And still have a beautiful environment.  Like they do on the southern half of the East Coast.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Ship drifts Towards Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, may cause Environmental Armageddon

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 19th, 2012

Week in Review

A ship drifts towards Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.  Adrift due to a broken engine.  And those on the Left want to use this opportunity to attack fossil fuels (see Troubled Freighter Drifts Toward Great Barrier Reef posted 5/19/2012 on Discovery News).

A broken-down cargo ship was drifting towards Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Saturday, with fears of major damage if it were to run aground at the World Heritage-listed site…

Simon Meyers from Australian Reef Pilots, a company which provides aerial surveillance of shipping channels around the reef, said it was hard to tell whether the ship would run aground.

“It is not certain at this stage whether the ship is at risk of hitting those isolated outer reefs,” he told ABC Radio.

But the ship’s owner, Hong Kong-based ID Wallem said it looked likely to pass over the reef without incident.

“On its present course, the vessel will drift over Shark Reef but is not in danger of grounding as the ship has sufficient clearance to pass over the reef,” ID Wallem said in a statement cited by Australian Associated Press…

Senator Larissa Waters from the environmentally-driven Greens party said Saturday’s breakdown was a reminder of the dangers of turning the reef into a “coal and gas superhighway” to Asia.

“While we all wait and hope that this ship can be rescued before it creates a disastrous spill, the Australian government should now take responsibility for the Great Barrier Reef and stop this headlong rush to boost fossil fuels exports at the expense of the climate and the environment,” she said.

Fossil fuels are not the only thing they put on ships.  They also ship clothing, plasma televisions, smartphones, beer, wine, liquor, medicine, espresso, etc.  They even ship food on these ships.  And people.  For many Australians today are descended from people who came to Australia by ship.  Like the U.S., Canada, etc., Australia started out as a jewel of the British Empire.  Brought into this world by the great international trade networks Britain built.  Trade that continues today.  Which is why the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc., are some of the best countries to live in today.  As least based on the flow of refugees to these countries.

There’s probably a lot she and her fellow Greens use in everyday life that found its way over on a ship.  A ship that used diesel fuel to get it there.  Does she want to get rid of all of these ships?  Or just the ones carrying fossil fuels.  Or, in this case, an empty ship?

International trade is good.  It creates economic activity.  It increases the standard of living.  It makes our children healthier.  Yes, we have accidents along the way.  But no accident yet has destroyed the world.  For it turns out the environment is very resilient.  Unlike a child wanting for food or medicine.  Or the energy of fossil fuels used to power their schools, hospitals, grocery stores, etc.



Tags: , , , , , , ,

Does the Criegee Biradicals make Global Warming a thing of the Past?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2012

Week in Review

Looks like the science of understanding climate has taken another step forward  (see Eureka! Newly discovered molecule ‘could reverse global warming’ by Rob Waugh posted 1/13/2012 on Mail Online).

A little-understood molecule in the atmosphere could play an important role in reducing pollution and global warming, scientists believe.

The ‘Criegee biradicals’ could lead to aerosol formation – and ultimately to clouds, with the potential to cool the planet.

Fascinating.  Now only if we could make these Criegee biradicals and get them into the atmosphere.

Co-author Professor Dudley Shallcross, from the University of Bristol, pointed out that chemicals released naturally by plants aided the production of Criegee biradicals.

‘Natural ecosystems could be playing a significant role in off-setting global warming,’ he said.

Then again I guess we don’t have to.  Mother Nature is already doing that.  The environment.  How about that?  So maybe there isn’t any such thing as manmade global warming.  Because as fast as we may dirty the environment the environment may be cleaning itself.  Which probably explains why those scientists at the University of East Anglia played with the data to get the results they wanted.  Because they had to play with the data.  For the fear of manmade global warming is a manmade fear.  And nothing more.



Tags: , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries