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.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Further Weakening of Cap & Trade
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Drilling Regulations Snagged by Climate Fight. The Obama administration's push to beef up regulation of offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill could get sidetracked by a battle over the White House's climate-change policy. (wsj.com)".
From the above headline, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. Delving a little deeper into the original Wall Street Journal article, a few excerpts makes the situation significantly clearer.
The background is that Obama socialistic ideology of redistributing wealth globally must use the big tool of Cap & Trade. This must apply to carbon dioxide emission controls. Jackson, who is head of the EPA and who works for Obama, is obviously following Obama's directives by pushing for control of carbon dioxide emissions from all energy production in the US. Note that in every instance, reference is made to greenhouse gases, rather than defining the exact objective of controlling carbon dioxide emission. We obviously have no difficulty in controlling emissions of Freon and other manufactured chemicals, but carbon dioxide is in a completely different category. First it is a natural product of the environment and second, it's control would be a humongous undertaking involving many billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, which is why the Obama Administration is pushing it.
Here are a few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The Senate Appropriations Committee had planned to vote Tuesday on a proposal to fund offshore drilling regulation and the operations of the Environmental Protection Agency. But that vote was canceled." Republicans said, " Sen. Lisa. Murkowski (R., Alaska) would [likely] offer an amendment to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and other major emitters." This threat to control the actions of the EPA, which is the Administration's most powerful socialistic tool in climate control, apparently has worried the Administration to the extent that they even canceled the combined drilling/EPA increased funding proposal.
"Some Democrats have also called for a time-out on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, saying they worry that such regulations would stifle the economy and threaten jobs." This is a clear indication that the Administration is losing Democratic support for their global Cap & Trade program. Apparently some financially hard-nosed Democrats are starting to recognize the need for improving the US economy and particularly the job situation, rather than pie-in-the-sky global warming.
Randy, this is all good news. Please keep up the pressure to convince other Democrats that there are limits to do-gooder, giveaway programs, especially on an international basis.
EIN News says, "Drilling Regulations Snagged by Climate Fight. The Obama administration's push to beef up regulation of offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill could get sidetracked by a battle over the White House's climate-change policy. (wsj.com)".
From the above headline, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. Delving a little deeper into the original Wall Street Journal article, a few excerpts makes the situation significantly clearer.
The background is that Obama socialistic ideology of redistributing wealth globally must use the big tool of Cap & Trade. This must apply to carbon dioxide emission controls. Jackson, who is head of the EPA and who works for Obama, is obviously following Obama's directives by pushing for control of carbon dioxide emissions from all energy production in the US. Note that in every instance, reference is made to greenhouse gases, rather than defining the exact objective of controlling carbon dioxide emission. We obviously have no difficulty in controlling emissions of Freon and other manufactured chemicals, but carbon dioxide is in a completely different category. First it is a natural product of the environment and second, it's control would be a humongous undertaking involving many billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, which is why the Obama Administration is pushing it.
Here are a few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The Senate Appropriations Committee had planned to vote Tuesday on a proposal to fund offshore drilling regulation and the operations of the Environmental Protection Agency. But that vote was canceled." Republicans said, " Sen. Lisa. Murkowski (R., Alaska) would [likely] offer an amendment to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and other major emitters." This threat to control the actions of the EPA, which is the Administration's most powerful socialistic tool in climate control, apparently has worried the Administration to the extent that they even canceled the combined drilling/EPA increased funding proposal.
"Some Democrats have also called for a time-out on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, saying they worry that such regulations would stifle the economy and threaten jobs." This is a clear indication that the Administration is losing Democratic support for their global Cap & Trade program. Apparently some financially hard-nosed Democrats are starting to recognize the need for improving the US economy and particularly the job situation, rather than pie-in-the-sky global warming.
Randy, this is all good news. Please keep up the pressure to convince other Democrats that there are limits to do-gooder, giveaway programs, especially on an international basis.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
Manufacturing the Weather
E-Mail to Congress:
It appears that Cap & Trade and anything related to carbon dioxide as a climate control agent is now generally less accepted. However, it will be difficult for this one to die, because it is a strong part of Pres. Obama's plan to redistribute wealth worldwide. You must be eternally vigilant that the Administration does not put one over on you. Our best protection is your knowledge concerning climate control and vigilance.
The Chemical Heritage Foundation of Philadelphia is an organization appealing to the nostalgic interest of persons interested in chemistry and the chemical industry. The organization publishes "Chemical Heritage" magazine, with four issues per year. The latest issue is Volume 28; Number 2 Summer 2010. It contains an article entitled, "Manufacturing the Weather" by James Rodgers Fleming.
Mr. Fleming does a wonderful job of reviewing the history of climate control, in his 4-page article.
The following is a description of the article: "With dynamite, fireworks, cannons, and kites, Robert St. George Dyrenforth hoped to end drought in the late 19th century. His vision of weather controlled by man seized the imagination of scientists and businessmen alike. In the heat of climate change, the appeal---and the controversy---surrounding this vision endures."
Mr. Fleming's article starts with the activities of meteorologist James P. Espy in the 1830s. Espy developed a theory that convection was the primary cause of rain. He proposed lighting huge fires along the Appalachian Mountains to provide heat, smoke, and particulate matter needed to trigger storms and enhance the nations rainfall.
After reviewing the history, Mr. Fleming concluded that, "Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary technologies to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris".
It appears that Cap & Trade and anything related to carbon dioxide as a climate control agent is now generally less accepted. However, it will be difficult for this one to die, because it is a strong part of Pres. Obama's plan to redistribute wealth worldwide. You must be eternally vigilant that the Administration does not put one over on you. Our best protection is your knowledge concerning climate control and vigilance.
The Chemical Heritage Foundation of Philadelphia is an organization appealing to the nostalgic interest of persons interested in chemistry and the chemical industry. The organization publishes "Chemical Heritage" magazine, with four issues per year. The latest issue is Volume 28; Number 2 Summer 2010. It contains an article entitled, "Manufacturing the Weather" by James Rodgers Fleming.
Mr. Fleming does a wonderful job of reviewing the history of climate control, in his 4-page article.
The following is a description of the article: "With dynamite, fireworks, cannons, and kites, Robert St. George Dyrenforth hoped to end drought in the late 19th century. His vision of weather controlled by man seized the imagination of scientists and businessmen alike. In the heat of climate change, the appeal---and the controversy---surrounding this vision endures."
Mr. Fleming's article starts with the activities of meteorologist James P. Espy in the 1830s. Espy developed a theory that convection was the primary cause of rain. He proposed lighting huge fires along the Appalachian Mountains to provide heat, smoke, and particulate matter needed to trigger storms and enhance the nations rainfall.
After reviewing the history, Mr. Fleming concluded that, "Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary technologies to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
