The Washington Post
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)
Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Valuable Carbon Dioxide
EIN News says, "Carbon Dioxide, the Bane of Environmentalists, Is in Demand in the Oil Industry. The Obama administration views carbon dioxide as a pollutant that warms the earth, and it imposed new regulations at the beginning of the year to begin to control CO2 emissions. But to Texas oilmen, carbon dioxide is a useful - and scarce - commodity that is vital to extracting hard-to-reach oil reserves. (nytimes.com)".
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Climate Change Historian or Environmental Activist?
Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli Must Investigate Possible Fraud In Global Warming Grants
There has been considerable controversy concerning investigations of possible fraud by academic individuals receiving government grants involving the subject of global warming.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Continuing Fraud of Climate Change
In its latest issue (11/29/10), Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Low-Octane Climate Talks". It reports on a two- week United Nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico. C&EN says expectations for the Cancun meeting are restrained, which is why it is reported as "Low-Octane".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Fraud of Regional Cap & Trade
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
