Saving the Planet
Idiocy-offsetting
"I have three children. I feel it is my duty to attempt to repopulate the World with intelligent individuals in an attempt to offset Jonathon Porritt's stupidity. Idiocy-offsetting, kind of like carbon offsetting, just a little more immediate."
A comment on the BBC website, from Kirstine Berry, Bracknell, after reading Mr Porritt's thoughts on population control, in which he states that people who choose to have more than two children are selfish and irresponsible.
To wit:
"Every additional human being is increasing the burden on this planet which is becoming increasingly intolerable," says Mr Porritt
Mr Porrit is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). For the pendants among you, for those who live in fear of "over-population", the optimum number is 70 million for the UK.
(If you have never heard of Porritt, he's been around for years banging on about environmentatl issues. Everyone should have a hobby, however, Porritt has no expertise in climate science, or anything else.)
Footnote? The entire world's population could stand upright on the Isle of Wright and the Isle of Mann - fodder for a trivia quiz. The entire population of the UK, 60 million, live on only 10% of the land, with room to sit down.
Climate Change, you know it makes sense
The argument
The Global temperature is rising, this rise must be held in check at 2°C by 2050. If nothing is done, the globe will see a rise of 4°C by 2100, with catastrophic consequences for the planet.
This warming is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat rising in the atmosphere, causing the earth to warm, disrupting the earth's climate.
The Evidence to support the case for global warming
The evidence does not support the case. From 1500 to 1990 the record shows no significant rise in average global temperatures. We are told by climate scientists, or more often by people who are not experts at all, e.g. pop singers and quangocrats like Jonathan Porritt, that we are now seeing a steady rise in temperatures.
However, the data is not conclusive, indeed few have actually seen the data. Mainly because no data, in terms of temperature readings, actually exist. Meaningful data recording only began around 1850, measurement before then is done using 'proxies', e.g. tree rings.
Recent data evidence has been the preserve of a very small select group of climate scientists who have been busy sharing their conclusions, that support the global warming argument, but not allowing anyone else to see their evidence base.
The Argument becomes Common Sense
In actuality, so good has the global warming marketing campaign been that only a mad person will dare to question its truth. Saving the planet is the new religion, the scientists its apostles, the politicians its acolytes. The people will cooperate without any opt-outs, the need for action on climate change outweighs individual preferences, indeed individual preferences will be shaped to favour pro-planet activity, e.g. driving your car five miles less a week, fitting dull light bulbs etc. Saving the planet is the only rational consumer choice.
Dissenting voices within the science community are not being funded and their ideas are going unpublished. At climate summits no dissenting voices are heard or indeed tolerated.
A recent publication advising magistrates on sentencing in pollution cases told them to be strident and as environmentally active as any Friend of the Earth in their condemnation of polluters, i.e. smokers who use the high street like a giant ashtray.
So from a scientific endeavour to explain the anomalies of climate change and from funding pressure on that endeavour for answers, a whole belief system is building into a new and unquestionable common sense.
There's a major catastrophe on the horizon and action must be taken. The key message of this campaign is that it's everyone's problem.
Who are the key players in this new hysteria
The UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, the Climate Research Unit and the Hadley Centre (Met Office/MoD). These agencies supply the 'evidence' that activist lobby groups and politicians embellish to suit their own agendas.
Interestingly, the Met Office claims that it can't support or participate in any kind of lobbying activity because it adheres to the Civil Service Code of behaviour... please. And sometimes climate change zealots let their passions get the better of themselves.
The significance of Copenhagen (Dec. 09)
The Copenhagen meeting of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or COP15 for short is about money.
Of the 190 countries attending, around 130 can be described as poor. Some of these countries can't even afford to send more than a couple of representative to the meeting, they are being given an attendance allowance of $220 a day. Once they have arrived they couldn't function without the assistance of organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth acting in support roles for them.
In contrast the US will have around 100 reps present and ditto the rest of the G20 countries. These rich countries will pledge £100b to assist the poor countries in their efforts in the fight against global warming. This 'gift' will also allow the rich countries to dodge their own responsibilities using language like 'common and differentiated' responsibility. Meaning due the variability of economic development existing globally, key polluters will be reviewing and revising emissions targets annually rendering long-term targets worthless.
Copenhagen is also about technology. The rich countries have it and the poor ones want it. The question is, how willing will the rich be to share with their poor neighbours. They will need to draft in a Russian chess master to figure the geopolitical consequences of giving away technological advantages to potential competitors. These poor countries don't like the rich ones. Let's remember our competitive edge was won by the bullet. We distorted the natural developmental paths of many poor countries for our own gain in the past.
Ultimately, Copenhagen is just about preparing the groundwork for a series of other meetings already on the agenda for the coming years. The circus rolls on....
So is the planet at DEF-CON 1
No. Man made activity is causing irreparable damage to the planet, a long list of examples could be provided but to no purpose.
The real problem is the lack of regulation by governments.
The real problem is government denial of polluting activity.
The real problem is the cavalier attitude of business.
The real problem is McDonald's - you can't have your burger and eat it! It doesn't matter how much nutritional information McD provides it aint good for you but its quick and cheap, allowing you to get on with your life... to do what exactly? Save the Bloody planet, what else!
The Outcome of Copenhagen, wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen....
Nothing meaningful happened at the Climate Change Conference in terms of reducing cardon emissions. A few promises have been made but without any kind of verification.
However, the conference was different to all that went before in a couple of respects. Firstly, developing countries showed that they have had enough of being treated like small children who really don't understand the arguments and that are best left to the G20 grown-ups. Secondly, the transparent cynicism of the organisers was laid bare to the world's public, as they watched thousands of delegates being barred from entering. Fire regs were used as the excuse.
CO2 emissions = GDP x Carbon Intensity
Gordon Brown offered to cut CO2 emissions by 42% by 2020. So, the question is, can the man who has already saved the world once do it again, even more miraculously, i.e. by simultaneously reducing carbon intensity and not reducing the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. (Update: Obviously not.)
The figures suggest that a 42% cut in emissions will result in a corresponding fall of 30% in output, that is, by 2020 the value of production will be the same as it was in 2004.
Progress on cutting emissions has been quite good to date but in order to meet the 42% target the rate of improvement would need to double over the next ten years and the technology to support that improvement is just not available.
To a large extent the gains made in reducing emissions over the past decade have relied on the ‘dash for gas’ but further opportunities here are now limited and there’s a big security question mark over using imported gas.
However, the Brown promise relies heavily on a technological solution; the introduction of new nuclear power stations, more wind and tidal power, and the widespread introduction of carbon capture and storage. In sum, carbon intensity reduction that does not harm the nation’s prosperity can only occur via rapid technical change.
Alternatively, CO2 emissions could be reduced by producing less. We know this is not possible for a nation with a massive debt problem. The economy must grow, must produce much more rapidly and this will lead to increased emissions over the next ten years.Cancun 2010
Nothing happened, third world countries went home happier, based on big promises from rich countries?, but all serious decision making was deferred until Durban 2011.
Saving the Planet, will you all row together please?
Solutions to the global warming problem are at hand, now we are just waiting for citizens to buy into them because this is everyone's problem - just in case you have already forgotten!
Dull bulbs and other great technologies to save the planet
Throughout the land citizens are being encouraged to support the State's efforts to reduce cardon emission targets by fitting dull bulbs in their homes.
The rallying cry being that all citizens should do their bit to hold back the inevitability of Global Warming - the latest ad' campaign suggesting that citizens drive their cars five mile less a week. We can just see all those government ministers in Copenhagen stopping five miles short of the conference venue and walking the rest of the way.
The Evidence that favours dull bulbs
Well actually there is none. Yes, dull bulbs waste less energy but how much in total, in terms of carbon emissions, will it save and will this saving add towards stalling Global Warming. No one knows.
What we do know is that all the measures proposed to date to fight the catastrophy of Global Warming have been half measures designed to put things on hold. And some citizens actually feel that life is dull enough already.
We also know that the total cost of production of dull bulbs is the same as for tungsten bulbs. We can infer this from the fact that the State has not produced any figures to show that cardon emissions are less for dull bulbs.
We also know that the mercury in dull bulbs present a major future waste problem, one that is not currently not being address. Did you know that retailers have to take back dull bulbs that have lost their dullness for 'safe disposal'. Where? And have you tried taking a dead dull bulb back to the supermarket where you bought it?
Dull bulbs really are duller
And there's more... EU bureaucrats have admitted that the dull bulbs really are dull, despite reassurances that the technology had improved and that we wouldn't notice any difference between a dull bulb and a real light bulb. Also, tests of various brands of dull bulbs reveal that all manufacturers are exaggerating the brightness of dull bulbs by an average of 40%.
Wait... there's still more, apparently the UK Government does not have the power to enforce the ban on 'real bulbs'. Why? Because some dullard forgot to draft new legislation; Ed Miliband's minions thought the paperwork was in place but when someone bothered to read it they found that it only applied to bulbs in domestic fridges. Meanwhile, real bulbs will be on sale marked "not for domestic use", so that we can all take part in another silly charade.
The State outlaws real light bulbs
From January 2009, shops in the UK began the process of phasing out traditional tungsten bulbs as part of a government plan to completely replace them by 2011. So whether you like or not your future will be gloomier than it is now. But well done for saving the planet.
(Survival tip: use twice as many bulbs to lift the gloom, it wont cost you any more, given that the dull bulb uses 80% less energy.)
Would you swap a litre of biofuel for a loaf of bread
Green Party members put biofuels in their cars to save the planet, feel good in their hair shirts but hardly spare a thought for the urangtans dying in Malaysia or the plight of the Amasonian slave workers who produce their feel good feelings.
Globally, 100 million tons of food production is being diverted to biofuels. Do we know how costly this hopelessly irrational quest for clearner fuel has been to African farmers, as local environments are destroyed and the top soil disappears with the wind? The financial loss to small farmers has been put at $50 billion over the last 10 years.
And yet, the US and EU has targets to increase the production of biofuels, in the case of the EU, by 2020, they want 10% of petrol and diesel to be replaced by biofuel. In the short term and ultimately, the only winners will be the Biofuel Industries. In short, biofuel production is irrational and should be ended.
When the wind forgets to blow
Britain’s wind farms 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still in December of 2010. Working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes. Conventional coal and gas-fired power stations filled the void.
The capacity of Britain's 280 wind farms is around 5.2 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power almost three million homes. The plan is to increase the number of wind turbines by another 10,000 and be producing 30% of the nations energy by 2020.
At best wind turbines work at 30 to 40 percent of their potential and when it's really cold at lot less, the wind blows a lot less. For example, on the December 20, 2010, the average temporature was minus 6C, output from wind farms was 59 MWatts, according to the National Grid. But the NG only collects data for half of the farms, so the true figure was around a 120 MWatts; that's one fifth of capacity.
The following day, when the average temperature was minus 5.2C, turbines were recorded as generating just 20MW. The real figure was probably around 40MW – the equivalent of just 20 turbines at full capacity.
Built in the wrong place...........
More than half of Britain's wind farms have been built where there is not enough wind. But more than half of Britain’s wind farms are operating at less than 25 per cent capacity. In England, the figure rises to 70 per cent of onshore developments, research shows. Europe's biggest windfarm, Whitelee, near Glasgow, boasts 140 turbines which last year ran at less than 25 per cent of capacity
Experts say that over-generous subsidies mean hundreds of turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough. Britain’s most feeble wind farm is in Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, where the nine turbines lining the East Pier reach a meagre 4.9 per cent of their capacity.Beware! Subsides at Work...........
Michael Jefferson, the professor of international business and sustainability who carried out the analysis, says financial incentives designed to help Britain meet green energy targets are encouraging firms to site their developments badly.Under the controversial Renewable Obligation scheme, British consumers pay £1billion a year in their fuel bills to subsidise the drive towards renewable energy.
Some argue that the full subsidy be restricted to turbines which achieve capacity of 30 per cent or more – managed by just eight of England’s 104 on-shore wind farms last year. This figure seems a trifle low for such a big investment.
Nick Medic, of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said talk of efficiency was ‘unhelpful’.
You could always put one in your front garden
These are also eligible for the feed-in tariff and can provide greater savings than solar panels, though your home is less likely to be suitable for them.
A wind turbine costs between £15,000 to £22,000 to install, but this should provide enough electricity for lighting and appliances in a typical home, according to the Energy Saving Trust. A 2.5 kWh turbine should generate around 4,000 kWh of electricity per year, which could mean income and savings of £1,300 per year.
However, your home may not be suitable if there are large obstacles such as buildings, trees or hills nearby, as turbines work best in exposed locations with an average wind speed of no less than 11 miles per hour. You will probably need planning permission, too.
When the sun forgets to shine............
Estate agent Jonathan Cunliffe, says: 'While solar panels do not necessarily add value to a home, they are an increasingly appealing feature for buyers, especially if there is the opportunity to sell energy back to the grid. They are becoming a standard piece of kit on new-build homes.'
However, Which? tells us, consumers are being misled over how the schemes work and how much money they can save. In fact, the Which? survey says "the solar panel industry is blighted by mis-selling." Ten out of 14 solar thermal panel companies made misleading claims.
The misleading claims within the industry prompt the question: Can solar panel savings ever eclipse their costs?
Beware! Free Lunches and Solar Panels
Consumer groups warn that householders should think carefully before entering into contracts with companies offering free panels.
If you don't want to pay for the panels, then you could sign up to a 'rent a roof' scheme. These are soaring in popularity after a glut of companies, including British Gas, starting offering free panels in return for pocketing the feed-in tariff.Liz Laine, of Consumer Focus, says: 'Customers need to go into these deals with their eyes open. Asking the right questions and getting legal advice could help them avoid the potential pitfalls.
Undate: Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels
In December 2011 the Government cut the feed-in-tariff for solar PV, the cut was due to take place in April 2012.
Under the old system domestic customers received 43.3p per kw/h, index linked for 25 years. This meant that an initial outlay of £10,000 would be repaid in ten years, and would then go on to earn the home owner a further £15,000 (from energy bill savings and the feed-in-payments).
The new situation, with a feed-in-tariff of 21p, looks less attractive - with a pay back period of 18 years and benefits of only £3,800 over an estimated 25 year lifetime of the panel systems.
These calculations are based on all things remaining the same. The price of panels might halve, with mass production occurring in China, this would mean that payback would we be achieved in 11 years, providing a surplus of £7,700. And an increase in energy prices would also change the arithmetic.
However, one thing that may not stay the same is the Government's commitment to maintain the feed-in-tariff over the life time of your solar project.
Footnote: the Government is also currently subsidizing small wind turbines, solar water heating, and ground source heat pumps.
An expert assessment of Solar Panels.
The forgoing section might be described as the optimistic estate agent's view; quite simply the numbers might be wrong, particularly in terms of how much you will save on your energy bill.
The conversion efficiency of your panels is crucial, to get more than 30% out of a mass produced panel would be remarkable. Salesman who suggest electricity delivered from solar PV greater than 5 kWh per day per person (based on 20%) are lying. The fact is that Britain is just not that sunny and technically, it's too far away from the equator to maximise the benefit of solar panels, all to do with the tilt of the earth and midday doesn't tend to last, unlike at the equator. And, worth keeping in your bluffer's guide to solar panels, fundamental laws of physics mean that even the most upmarket panels, with perfect concentrating mirrors or lenses, will only provide 60% efficiency.
The best option for a family home would be a combined system of solar water heating and Photovoltaic - note, with a south facing roof. Covering your south-facing roof at home with photovoltaics may provide enough juice to meet quite a big chunk of your personal average electricity consumption but the smart option would be to go for a combined system.
Carbon Credits: the dream scheme for saving the planet
Lehman Brothers, famously one of the first casualties of the fresh air trading frenzy that brought down the banking community, had plans to move into the trade in emissions permits, i.e. carbon credits. Banks that survived the crunch have moved into the trade in carbon credits in a big way, the market was worth $130 billion 2006, by 2020 the market will be worth $3 trillion.
Governments issue emissions permits to polluters, these allow the polluter to pollute up to a stated limit of CO2 emissions. If the polluter pollutes less than expected they are allowed to sell the permit to another polluter, so that they can pollute a bit more. The surplus of permits, known as carbon credits are traded like other financial products by banks.
How exactly a price for a carbon credit is arrived at is one of life’s abiding mysteries, in fact the price is arbitrary. Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, green economist, wrote a seven hundred page report for the Government on the subject of carbon credits and wrestled variously with the problem of price setting.Well, he meandered this way and that but failed to provide an adequate answer, acknowledging that the notion of ‘marginal social cost’ just didn’t do the job – just too difficult to calculate.
The upshot was that they left price setting, not to the market but to the bureaucrats. So some chump with a biro said that a metric tonne of carbon was worth $30 – let the trading begin.
Now pay attention: emissions permits are monopoly rights to pollute, they are limited in number, and therefore susceptible to big price swings, and are therefore ripe for speculation. Which becomes very lucrative for polluters when the fool with the biro issues too many permits.
In 2005, the EU carbon trading authority issued 170 million surplus credits, UK electricity generators earned £800million in each of the three years by selling their spare carbon credits, oil companies also made a killing. Basically, these companies were able to make a small fortune for doing nothing?