A chemist friend from New Hampshire e-mailed me suggesting that I look at the article entitled, "Cap and Trade Programs" in the October 18 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. He went on to suggest that the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN, get out of politics and confine its activity to Chemistry and Membership.
The essence of the C&EN article is a report on the development of regional Cap and Trade groups, which are composed of several states. One of the state groups is Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and includes New Hampshire and nine other Northeast states. Since New Hampshire is involved, I can see why my friend is upset.
For the uninitiated, Cap & Trade was originally proposed on the federal level as a Socialist Federal gimmick to obtain additional tax revenues from US taxpayers and distribute a portion to other countries as wealth redistribution. The Obama Administration hoped to obtain public and Congressional approval by establishing a fear that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would adversely affect climate. Using that basis, the idea was to establish a maximum limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide from various industrial activities, including electricity generation, and use a permit exchange process, with associated tax. Fortunately, Congress has been able to see through the duplicity of the proposed program and while they have previously demonstrated support of any tax increase mechanisms, they appear to be listening to the general public, since it concerns their reelection.
When The C&EN article devotes three pages in trying to prove the foresightedness of individual states in coming together to form regional groups for small Cap & Trade programs. C&EN cites that in 2009, which was RGGI's first year of operation, CO2 emissions in those member states fell 34%, without any significant change in electricity prices. Note that there was no data given on electricity production, the Cap amounts of CO2 allowed, nor the amount of taxes collected. C&EN's implication is that formation of the regional Cap & Trade group was a great success in reducing CO2 emissions. However, we have shown several times that the mere idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions is ridiculous from a climate control viewpoint. It is only another gimmick to collect taxes and was not indicated to have been accomplished in the C&EN account.
The likelihood is that for the year 2010, we will also see a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. However, such reduction will be purely coincidental with respect to any regional Cap & Trade programs. The general reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have been caused by lower level of electricity production, resulting from the recession, in which we still find ourselves. In addition, there has been a strong technological/economic advance in the power industry. Through a relatively new process of fracturing shale, large amounts of low-cost natural gas are now available as fuel for electricity generating plants. This has brought down the price of natural gas compared to coal, which has been the traditional fuel. Bloomberg Business Week, October 25, 2010, gives a natural gas price of $4.06 per million British Thermal Units. The coal price is given as $4.75 per million British Thermal Units. It is obvious that energy buyers will more likely purchase natural gas.
The conversion to use of natural gas will also coincidently reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though that has no practical significance. To produce 1 million BTUs of heat, burning 36 pounds of natural gas is required versus 72 pounds of coal. The burning of 36 pounds of natural gas produces 113 pounds of CO2, while burning 72 pounds of coal produces 264 pounds of CO2. It is obvious that burning natural gas versus coal for electricity production, automatically produces less than half the usual CO2 emissions. The key point here is that reduction of CO2 emission is likely unrelated to any Cap & Trade program, but is rather the substitution of natural gas for coal in electricity production.
There is nothing complex about the above calculations, and I strongly criticize C&EN in not having presented them and thus resulting in their use of deception in order to promote Cap & Trade as a regional reducer of CO2 emissions, and perpetuating the myth that CO2 emissions are significant in climate change.
Another interesting aspect is that the coincidental reduction in CO2 emissions, caused by recession and conversion to the use of natural gas versus coal, will likely lead to a continuance and expansion of regional Cap & Trade, as the public is more easily defrauded by national magazines and state government, as opposed to simple facts presented above. This will be unfortunate as the hole will be dug deeper. Lower caps will be required, thus requiring more trading taxes and installation of CO2 capture equipment at electric utilities, all of which will increase the cost of electricity to consumers. Down the line, the inhabitants of other states which have not become a part of this fraud system will be thanking their state governments for not having become a part of this silly program.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Greenhouse Gas Deception
EIN News says, "Ireland's greenhouse gases fall for first time in two decades 24 Oct 2010 - 10:28".
Reading further into the article, it says, "Resulting from the economic downturn all sectors of industry and commerce witnessed a decline in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. The statistics published today by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that emission from the cement sector fell by well over a third."
There has been a worldwide recession, with a general reduction in the need for electricity and other forms of energy such as heat for production of Portland cement. It is highly likely that Ireland's total fuel use is down. But, note that the EPA, in a political move supporting the Obama administration on greenhouse gases, did not mention that. Their political agenda is to accent greenhouse gases, which we have demonstrated several times has no deleterious effects on climate change. This is a standard deceptive technique in using data incorrectly to support a political view, I abhor this action on the part of the EPA, which should be a respected agency.
Reading further into the article, it says, "Resulting from the economic downturn all sectors of industry and commerce witnessed a decline in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. The statistics published today by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that emission from the cement sector fell by well over a third."
There has been a worldwide recession, with a general reduction in the need for electricity and other forms of energy such as heat for production of Portland cement. It is highly likely that Ireland's total fuel use is down. But, note that the EPA, in a political move supporting the Obama administration on greenhouse gases, did not mention that. Their political agenda is to accent greenhouse gases, which we have demonstrated several times has no deleterious effects on climate change. This is a standard deceptive technique in using data incorrectly to support a political view, I abhor this action on the part of the EPA, which should be a respected agency.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Global Warming Is Good
The Moon has daylight and night, similar to Earth. It also is about the same distance from the Sun, which is the heater. NASDA says daytime temperature on the Moon is 260 degrees F, which is hotter than boiling water at 212 Degrees F. Nighttime temperature is MINUS 280 degrees F. Why the extremes compared to Earth? GLOBAL WARMING on Earth. None on the Moon, because the Moon has no gaseous atmosphere. NASA says. "The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy!"
Those who promote Earth's global warming as a disadvantage say the Moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised of argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and that leads to a greenhouse effect on the Moon. This statement is contradictory to the observed temperatures and is also a red herring. There is no SIGNIFICANT atmosphere on the Moon. If there were it would be measurable as a realistic reading on a device for measurement of atmospheric pressure.
Notice that in the above claim for a Moon atmosphere, many specific gases are mentioned. The purpose for this specification is to awe the reader and develop respect for the intellectual capacity of the writer. Don't be fooled. It's snake oil gobble de gook. It is likely that all these components are present but at such low concentrations as to have no significant effect. Amounts and concentrations are always important. One can drown in a lake, but a drop of water presents no danger.
If you would like to see more convoluted information and fictional conclusions on global warming, see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/. In so doing, notice the use of the term "tenuous", which means having little substance or effectively so weak as to be insignificant. Notice also the new word "exosphere". in place of atmosphere. NASA says that 1 cubic centimeter of Earth's
atmospheric gases contains 100 billion billion molecules. One cubic centimeter of the Moon's atmospheric gases contains only about 100 molecules.
Why are we even talking about this? The Moon has no atmosphere, which is why it is subject to the temperature extremes of outer space. Earth has a protective atmosphere, We can say it results in global warming, but it also results in global cooling. Global warming and global cooling are good for us.
Those who promote Earth's global warming as a disadvantage say the Moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised of argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and that leads to a greenhouse effect on the Moon. This statement is contradictory to the observed temperatures and is also a red herring. There is no SIGNIFICANT atmosphere on the Moon. If there were it would be measurable as a realistic reading on a device for measurement of atmospheric pressure.
Notice that in the above claim for a Moon atmosphere, many specific gases are mentioned. The purpose for this specification is to awe the reader and develop respect for the intellectual capacity of the writer. Don't be fooled. It's snake oil gobble de gook. It is likely that all these components are present but at such low concentrations as to have no significant effect. Amounts and concentrations are always important. One can drown in a lake, but a drop of water presents no danger.
If you would like to see more convoluted information and fictional conclusions on global warming, see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/. In so doing, notice the use of the term "tenuous", which means having little substance or effectively so weak as to be insignificant. Notice also the new word "exosphere". in place of atmosphere. NASA says that 1 cubic centimeter of Earth's
atmospheric gases contains 100 billion billion molecules. One cubic centimeter of the Moon's atmospheric gases contains only about 100 molecules.
Why are we even talking about this? The Moon has no atmosphere, which is why it is subject to the temperature extremes of outer space. Earth has a protective atmosphere, We can say it results in global warming, but it also results in global cooling. Global warming and global cooling are good for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
