Save the Economy or Save the Planet, it’s One or the Other

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2011

Pushing back against the EPA’s Assault against Business

With the economy in the toilet where it will probably remain for a long time to come, a lot of people have given up on environmentalism.  They take a look around them and see that things look pretty good.  Environmental-wise.  In fact, it’s a regular paradise compared to all the environmentalists’ alarmist predictions from a decade or two ago.  Which look rather silly today.  Children in the UK will no longer know what snow is.  The overwhelming stench of dead fish decaying on America’s beaches (killed by warming ocean temperatures).  Flooded coastal areas due to melting of Arctic ice.  None of it happened as predicted.  We got all worked up over nothing.  That’s why environmentalism is more of a young person’s game.  Because after you lived through 20-30 years of failed predictions, you tend to grow a little skeptical.  Especially during times of high unemployment.

That’s why a lot of people don’t give a rat’s rear end about global warming now.  They want a job.  And the way they see it, all this environmentalist nonsense is killing the job market.  And the Republican-controlled House they’re starting to push back on the job killer itself.  The EPA (see Soaring emissions posted 6/2/2011 on The Economist).

The Republicans’ chief concern is the EPA’s authority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. But more broadly they worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health. They point to a slew of new rules about industrial boilers, cooling water at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, and emissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicals from smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, will have a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. “Even God,” says Joe Barton, a Republican congressman, “couldn’t meet some of the ozone standards.”

…The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting to raise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwise uncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on the economy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

The Obama administration has.  And is.  Trying to raise the price of ‘cheap’ energy to promote their green energy initiatives.  It’s on record they want gasoline to cost as much in the U.S. as it does in Europe (as in $8/gallon).  To make more costly and shorter-range electric cars easier to sell.  And they want to do the same with cheap fossil fuel-produced electricity.  To make more costly and less reliable wind and solar generated electricity easier to sell.

EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage of hostility… The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefit analyses of all important regulations, in addition to submitting them for expert review and public comment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, including the ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to public health, the EPA reckons.

Expert review and comment?  By who?  It certainly isn’t the businesses affected by their regulations.  Who know exactly the costs their regulations will add.  No, they can’t be the experts.  Not when they are protesting the onerous costs these regulations are adding.

And the $30 in benefits for every dollar spent on pollution controls is a specious argument.  No one can know this.  It’s made up math based on fallacious assumptions and unrealistic projections.  Much like the math they used some 2-3 decades ago when they made all those alarmist global warming predictions that never came true.

Saving the Trees but Killing the Planet

We were saving the trees going to a paperless world thanks to the Internet.  Little did we know that we were killing the planet by saving those trees (see Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time? by Alex Roslin, for Post Media News, posted 6/3/2011 on The Vancouver Sun).

Ironically, despite the web’s green promise, this explosion of data has turned the Internet into one of the planet’s fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. The Internet now consumes two to three per cent of the world’s electricity…

The bulk of all this energy is gobbled up by a fast-growing network of huge “server farms” or data centres that form the backbone of the Internet. They are hush-hush facilities, some the size of five Wal-Marts, packed from floor to ceiling with tens of thousands of computers…

All those computers have a voracious appetite for energy, especially for cooling equipment to prevent overheating.

This means that every time you do an Internet search you’re releasing polluting carbon into the atmosphere.  Because the majority of our cheap and reliable electricity is produced with cheap and reliable fossil fuels.  And some of these server farms are fossil fuel beasts with voracious appetites.

Apple’s mega-facility is part of a cluster of gigantic new data centres coming on line in North Carolina that are powered largely by cheap and highly polluting coal power. Google has a 44,000-square-metre data centre in the state that eventually will consume an estimated 60 to 100 MW. Facebook has a 28,000-square-metre facility under construction there that will eat up 40 MW.

Greenpeace calls the three facilities “North Carolina’s dirty data triangle.” Coal, it says, is the most polluting of all fossil fuels and the world’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by the dirty coal power of the past,” the environmental group said in a report card on the IT sector in April, titled How Dirty is Your Power?

There is a reason why we use so much coal.  And it’s not because we hate the planet.

North Carolina offers industrial customers one of the lowest electricity rates in the U.S. — 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus the U.S. average of 6.7 cents.

It just so happens that the state’s electricity is also some of the dirtiest in the country. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s electricity comes from coal.

And here is the tradeoff between global warming and jobs.  Coal is dirty but cheap.  Which keeps electricity costs down.  Which attracts business.  Like in North Carolina.  Other locations lost these new jobs because their environmental policies made energy more expensive in those locations.

The real solution, [Bill St. Arnaud, an engineer and green IT consultant in Ottawa] said, is for governments to impose measures like carbon taxes and emissions caps that make dirty energy less attractive financially.

“The planet is warming up, and it’s going to get very bad. We need a price on carbon. It’s the only way to get people to move off coal because coal is currently so cheap,” he said.

The environmentalist want to raise the cost of electricity.  So cheap coal-generated electricity isn’t so cheap.  So business have no less costly solution.  Thus guaranteeing their costs will rise.  Making them look elsewhere to cut costs.  As in not hiring people.  Or laying them off.  All the while passing these higher costs onto the consumer.  Increasing their utility costs.  As well as the goods they purchase.  Leaving them with less disposable income.  Thus reducing economic activity.  With them buying less business will sell less.  Which means they won’t expand.  Instead, they’ll probably cut their production.  And lay off people.

However you look at it, increasing the cost of energy ends badly for the consumer.  And that’s exactly what the EPA wants to do.  And the Obama administration.  So they can implement their green initiatives.  And, of course, adding a tax on carbon, the most abundant byproduct of energy production, provides a lot of revenue for an overextended federal government.  Which is, I’m sure, just a coincidence.  And by coincidence I mean it’s the driving force behind all green initiatives.  Increasing tax revenue.

The EU wants to Emission Tax the World’s Airlines

But this is not an American phenomenon.  It’s even bigger in the European Union.  And they’re looking to export their regulations to other nations (see Airlines, EU in escalating trade row over emissions by David Fogarty and Pete Harrison posted 6/5/2011 on Reuters).

Global airlines attacked the European Union on Sunday over its plan to force them into the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, as the EU vowed to stand firm against threats of retaliation…

The EU will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 1 next year. The system forces polluters to buy permits for each tone of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.

You want to fly to the EU?  Well, that’s fine, but there’ll be an additional tax.  You see, we’re trying to save the planet.  And our treasury.  As these EU bailouts are getting expensive.  And don’t appear to be ending any time soon.

Airlines say the scheme will increase costs and comes at a time when fears are growing about a faltering global economy, which could slash industry profit expectations…

“The last thing that we want to see is a trade war,” said Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association. The EU had to heed a “growing chorus of countries strongly opposing an illegal extraterritorial scheme.”

“We have to absolutely avoid this because the risk of retaliation for Europe that is in survival mode would be the kiss of death,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of IATA’s annual meeting in Singapore.

The younger people today may not know what a trade war is.  It’s when one country raises the price of doing business in your country to every other country trying to do business in your country.  This is to protect the higher-priced domestic industries.  By removing lower-priced consumer alternatives.  When countries retaliate by doing the same you get a trade war.  And it is the consumer who suffers.  Because everything they buy becomes more expensive.  Oh, and it was a trade war that caused the Great Depression.

Under the scheme, the aviation sector will receive 213 million carbon permits, called EU Allowances (EUAs) in 2012 and then 209 million from 2013 to 2020, representing the cap. As many as 82 percent of them will be given free to airlines, meaning most of the rest will have to be bought from the market.

With six months before the sector joins the ETS, opposition is growing.

A China Southern executive has said the China Air Transport Association is preparing to sue the EU over the issue, a Chinese media report said.

“The opposition is broad,” said Andrew Herdman, Director-General of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, which represents 15 airlines such as Cathay, Japan Airlines and Singapore Airlines…

China says Europe should adjust the ETS to reflect the differences between rich and poor countries, while Vijay Mallya, chairman of India’s Kingfisher Airlines, said he could not accept it.

The EU may know what’s best for the planet.  And their bank.  But the world doesn’t appear that it will sit back and transfer sovereignty and money to them without a protest.  Or a fight.  Perhaps even a trade war.  Which would be a bad thing as much of the world tries to pull itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it would be a terrible shame for history to repeat itself on that score.  For one Great Depression was quite enough.

Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading kills Jobs and crashes Economies

Green energy initiatives are just a cover for massive tax increases.  For desperate nations who can’t control their spending.  That’s why nations everywhere are fighting against carbon taxes and trading.  They see the cost to business.  And the jobs they will kill.  It’s not that they want to kill the planet.  They just don’t want to subsidize another nation’s financial problems.  Or see their own economies crash.  Which it will under a carbon taxing/trading scheme.

Environmental policies and economic activity are a trade off. You advance one by reducing the other.   Which makes advancing environmental policies during recessionary times difficult.  Because it’s one thing to save the planet when you have a job.  But another when you don’t.  At such a time, yes, you care about the planet.  But you care more about your family.  You think to yourself that the planet can take care of itself.  It survived ice ages.  Cataclysmic meteorite collisions.  Huge volcanic explosions.  Droughts.  Fires.  Hurricanes.  Tornadoes.  Earthquakes.  Plagues.  And if it can survive all that, you think it’ll be able to survive your having a job so you can support your family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Gift of Global Warming: Cold Weather

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 5th, 2011

Global Warming:  The Greenhouse Effect Raising Temperatures

If you look up global warming on Answers.com you get many different definitions.  Some are more detailed than others.  Here’s one of the definitions pulled from Wiley Book of Astronomy: greenhouse effect:

An increase in a planet’s surface temperature caused by the absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Incoming short wavelength radiation passes through, but longer wavelengths reradiated from the surface are blocked by the greenhouse gases. Earth’s atmosphere is about 35 K warmer, on average, than if there were no atmospheric greenhouse effect. On Venus a runaway greenhouse effect massively increases temperatures by about 500 K over what they would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent. By contrast, the thin carbon dioxide atmosphere on Mars contributes only a 5 K rise in surface temperature.

If you’re into gardening you probably understand this.  Or at least you’ll understand what a greenhouse is.  In northern climes, nurseries start their seedlings before spring in their greenhouses.  Why?  Because it’s warmer inside a greenhouse in February than outside.  And here’s why.  The sun comes in through the glass to heat the space within.  But because the greenhouse is enclosed, those heated temperatures can’t escape.  Hence the greenhouse effect.

Global warming is supposed to work in the same way.  Except carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor act as the glass in a greenhouse.  So the more ‘man-made’ gases we put into the atmosphere, the warmer it will get on the planet.  That’s why they’ve called it ‘global warming’ for so long.  Because they said the planet was warming.  Like inside a greenhouse.  Hence the use of the term ‘greenhouse gasses’.  We were destroying the planet by warming it. 

And yet we continue to have cold wintery weather.  In areas that don’t normally have cold wintery weather.  But the climate scientists have assured us that this global cooling is happening because of global warming.  Because that just sounds silly, they’re not using the term ‘global warming’ anymore.  Or the definition.  Or their earlier science.  Now it’s climate change.  And it’s a much more useful term to use.  Because you never have to explain why it doesn’t get cold or snow inside a greenhouse.

Ice and snow in Dallas, Texas, may Curtail Super Bowl Festivities

So how cold is it?  Why, I’ll tell you.  Real cold (see Super Bowl XLV: Ice injures workers; weather messes with Texas by Cindy Boren posted 2/5/2011 on The Washington Post).

Dallas has been hit with a one-two punch of an ice storm earlier in the week and six-to-eight inches of snowfall Friday — something Cowboys owner Jerry Jones couldn’t control. Win McNamee was shooting weather pictures for Getty Images at the stadium when an “avalanche of ice” struck him and other workers. “I had nowhere to go,” he said. “It hurt pretty bad.”

“Honestly, while it was hitting me, I was thinking I’m going to die here,” McNamee said. With his left shoulder broken in four places, he planned to return home for surgery. “It was pretty frightening.”

Ice and snow in Dallas, Texas.  Imagine that.  When I used to live in a northern state where snow and ice was normal during the many winter months, my friend living in Texas liked to rub that in my face.  Figuratively, of course.  While he joked, “Snowbrush?  Hell, I don’t even own a snow shovel.”

Cold in Chihuahua, Mexico, Kills Zoo Animals

Okay, let’s head a little further south.  Into Chihuahua, Mexico.  In northern Mexico.  Though it borders a desert, the temperatures aren’t as warm due to the higher elevation of the area.  Still, the winters are, on average, above freezing.  The winter months typically see temperatures in the mid to high 30s.  Unless, of course, there’s global warming (see 35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico by the Associated Press published 2/5/2011 on The Washington Post).

Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region’s coldest weather in six decades…

Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.

Sixty years?  Back then they were probably warning us about the impending ice age.  Remember the ice age prognosticators?    If you don’t you’re probably young.  But they warned us then that cold temperatures indicated a new ice age.  Today those same cold temperatures indicate global warming.  Go figure.

Cold Weather can be Hazardous to your Health

Snow and ice in Dallas, Texas.  Nine degree temperatures in Chihuahua, Mexico.  Broken shoulders.  And frozen, dead animals.  You know, cold weather can be hazardous to your health.  There’s a reason all those retirees head down to Florida and Arizona.  They know something our global warming ‘scientists’ don’t.  Cold weather sucks. 

You know, we need to stop this dangerous cold weather.  So perhaps we should try to reverse global warming.  To make it colder.  So it can get warmer.  I don’t understand how that will work.  Then again, I’m not a climatologist.  I don’t have to know.  I just have to believe.  I guess.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #6: “No one bitched about global warming when it ended the ice ages.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2010

ICE AGES AND glacial movement are complicated.  We know that glaciers exist.  And that they move.  They do so today. 

Scientific study has determined that we have had at least 5 major ice ages.  During these periods the glaciers moved out from the north and south poles.  During the last ice age, they covered many of today’s populated areas.  Most of Canada, Seattle, Chicago, New York, most of Great Britain, northern Europe and Moscow were all under ice at one time.  The ice moved closer to the equator during previous ice ages.  Ice may have covered the entire earth at one time.  Or come close to it.

During the cooling and warming of the earth, glaciers traveled great distances.  Close to 2,000 miles in North America during the last ice age.  And this great movement is cyclical.  It’s happened 5 times already.  And it will most probably happen again.

In front of the glaciers is permafrost (permanently frozen soil).   As the glaciers and permafrost moved forward, life moved away from the cold.  Species died out (the woolly mammoth, the saber-toothed tiger and Neanderthal man, for example).  The advancing ice pushed life towards each other and into conflict as they fought for the increasingly limited food supply.  When the cold receded, life followed, the newly warmed lands able to support life again.

There are various theories about what caused the ice ages and glacial movement.  One thing for certain, though, cold kills.  Warmth, on the other hand, allows life.  Warmth is good.

THE KEY TO civilization is the food supply.  Only when there was a surplus of food did civilization begin.  The surplus of food allowed the division of labor.  Farmers farmed.  Tool makers made tools.  Leaders led.  And soldiers protected the civilization.  None of this happens without a surplus of food.  If you didn’t have to grow food, you could do something else.  And people did.  And they created modern civilization as we know it.

Farming was the quantum leap forward in producing a food surplus.  The first civilizations grew grain and cereal crops in the fertile soil of river valleys.  An arc from the Nile valley up through the eastern Mediterranean, through Lebanon, Syria, and down the fertile river valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris valleys forms the ‘fertile crescent’.   Anchoring the crescent at each end are history’s first civilizations.  Sumer (#1) and Egypt (#2).

Fertile soil and a warm growing season allowed this.  Again, warmth is good.

THE EARTH HAS cooled and warmed.  There are many theories why.  No one can be certain.  But what we can be certain of is that warmth is good.  Cold is bad.  Ice ages are cyclical.  And the glaciers receded further in periods when there was not a single man-made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

We’re probably 50,000 years or so before the glaciers come back and cover civilizations everywhere.  If man-made greenhouse gases warm the world greater than the natural cooling mechanisms advance the ice, perhaps life will continue.  None of us alive today, though, will have to worry about that.  When the ice comes again, future generations will face that horror.  Until then, let there be warmth.  And life.

CHICKEN LITTLE SAID the sky was falling and there was panic.  And so it is with global warming.  Well, the sky wasn’t falling on Chicken Little.  And it is unlikely that man is causing global warming.  Global warming existed before man created greenhouse gases.  The ‘scientists’ who say the world as we know it will end unless action is taken are more politician than scientist.  Ever wonder why the solution to global warming is the growth of government?  To me, that sounds something like what a politician would say, not a scientist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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