On The Third Hand

Woah…well there is no more important subject (other than Islamism) to post about methinks.

Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — 12 Mar, 2007 @ 05:07

Pay a tax, change the weather. I donâ��t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls", read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and â��The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. Itâ��s a little late, but welcome to George Orwellâ��s â��1984â��. Watch -ï�  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Comment by John Jauregui — 17 Mar, 2007 @ 23:32

Some comments specifically on the part of the show that addressed climate charge and the Third World: This portrayed an extreme environmentalist view point on climate change and inaccurately applied it to developing nations. It poorly addressed how the reducing the impact of climate change practically pertains to developing countries and completely ignored the effects - current and potential - of climate change on people there… Or maybe they were just being tongue-in-cheek; I never really understood British humour, smiley faces are as sophisticated as I get

But anyways, as someone working in renewable energy in Nigeria, I found many of the assertions and arguments to ring particularly false to the reality on the ground. These four points in particular:

- “The polices being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world poorest people.” The only part of the Kyoto Protocol’s climate change policy that directly affects developing countries is the opportunity for partial sponsorship of clean energy projects in developing nations through carbon trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism. CDM has been estimated to free up around $10 billion for clean energy projects in developing nations. The issue with CDM is that Africa is currently getting a meager share as governments like China and India’s were more able to organize to access this funding. I don’t think that’s quite the “disastrous effect” Paul Driessen alleges. Since there are no proposed policies that I’m aware of requiring Africans to limit their CO2 emissions, I’m not quite clear what policy he’s referring to…

- The implication that all renewable energy, particularly solar, is too expensive and inadequate. (via one improperly sized photovoltaic system!) The claim that renewable energy is three times more expensive than conventional grossly oversimplifies energy costs in Africa - where cost per unit energy can be many times that of North America. For instance, the convention in Nigeria is that anyone who can afford it buys a generator as a backup power source since the grid is only up about a third of the time. The office I’m working estimates they spent the equivalent of 10 bucks a day on fuel alone or about $50/week. Since we installed a $6000 solar system 2 months ago, we’ve only had to use the gen once (when the grid was off for a week straight). So our PV system will pay for itself in a little more than two years while most of the components (excluding the batteries) are supposed to last for 15-20 years. However, the majority of people don’t have that much cash to put up at the onset and interest rates are 18-30% here… assuming one could get a (very scarce) loan approved for something as uncommon as a PV system. So solar is too expensive much the same way buying a house is too expensive compare to renting - it actually can be cheaper in the long term but only if people can access loans. Granted, there are quite a few other issues with solar, but it’s deceptive to claim nobody in Africa can afford it.

- Africa is being told by climate change activists “Don’t touch your resources” Well yes, they’re right that Africa has oil. But no one, not even environmentalists, would or could argue that Africa shouldn’t benefit from it. Let’s just be practical about who is currently benefiting from those resources. In Nigeria, only one thousandth of the oil produced here is used by Nigerians. And the profits from the exports mainly go to the international oil companies and very rich politicians. The current climate change movement is not playing an even incremental role in keeping Africans from benefiting from their resources, especially compare to the (incredibly complex) economic and political systems that have evolved over the past two centuries. Please, let’s be realistic - if this is seriously a concern then climate change is the wrong scapegoat.

- Energy infrastructure in developing nations is being [though I’m assuming they meant ’should be’ ] restricted to wind and solar as part of the global warming campaign. No one is actually advocating this. There are certainly people encouraging alternative energies to be included in a diverse energy mix and for very good reasons: Africa is still expanding its energy infrastructure which making both grid connected and decentralized alternative energy option cost-competitive in some situations. However, since these technologies aren’t as well-established they may not otherwise be considered. Diversification of non-fossil fuel energy also makes nations less vulnerable to fossil fuels’ unpredictable costs. Most developed nations planned their infrastructure in an era when fossil fuels were assumed to be endless and benign. Now they have a host of issues because of it. Shouldn’t developing countries learn from this and use it as an opportunity to develop better than the West? Due to the vastly different situations pertaining to North American and African electricity development the ‘We’re slow at adopting alternative energies and it’s even more difficult for them to’ line doesn’t necessarily hold. But that’s not to say that renewables, especially solar, don’t have some major challenges in order to be effectively utilized. (Detailed post on that here: http://my.ewb.ca/home/ShowPost/14177 ) Some of those challenges do require large scale action, but not one simple solution (that would make the topic too easy and uninteresting

Comment by Monica — 18 Mar, 2007 @ 10:46

i have this new kool blog,,,please everyone visit it…www.slickblog.wordpress.com
please please please comment on any articles im trying to get it up and running

Comment by heyhey — 22 Mar, 2007 @ 14:56

A very interesting discussion, but everyone avoids the main issues here. The Climate Change is part of a natural cycle, not something triggered by humans, although, particularly in the developing nations, overpopulation and stripping out of forests probably isn’t helping. Carbon footprints and carbon trade offs are largely esoteric constructs with little, if any, foundation in real science since there are far to many variables and unknowns for it to be analysed fully. One of your commentators is correct in saying that the current media hype and political posturing on this issue is about political control of human activity and a desire to restrict and direct how and waht people know and think on a wide range of issues, not just climate change.

Yes, there are alternative energy sources, such as building an environmentally damaging dam across the Severn Estuary in the UK - advocated by the Welsh Assembly who would reap the benefit but not have to deal with the damage - or by covering the entire UK with wind turbines (only actually generating about a third of the time) so that we don’t have to build any more coal, gas or nuclear power stations. Unfortunately, we don’t get enough sun for Photo Voltaics to work efficiently but we could look into solar boilers to generate steam - except that, again, we have a problem with sunshine and cloud cover. Already the placing of huge “Wind Farms” offshore around these islands is causing a problem for shipping - and we won’t even consider the hazard for aircraft and wild life.

Yes, to agree with the sentiment expressed by your commentor from Nigeria, Africa does have a problem, particularly when it comes to affording the new technology. But I would not put it down to a lack of aid or funds from the developed nations, but to the downright thievery of their politicians and bureaucrats whose trips to Europe for shopping are all funded by the funds creamed off the Aid packages and whose Swiss Bank accounts are similarly loaded.

Is there a solution? There probably is, but it will not be politically expedient to find it because the current situation suits the politicians who want more control over our lives - and more of our earnings flowing into their banks.

Comment by The Gray Monk — 24 Mar, 2007 @ 06:10

Yes,I do agree that the Global Warming belongs to the processes of nature and in reality there is nothing vitally significant we can do to prevent it. The governments know the truth but are using the fact for their own profits. The Government will never spill the beans…

Comment by CrediThinker — 18 Jul, 2007 @ 05:23

The KOS kids weep, beat chest. The M’sian PM says he’s against that and gets a blog drubbing like this here:
“When european shit somehow tastes better and is more filling ”
http://www.maobi.blogspot.com/

Hahaha!

Comment by wits0 — 6 Jan, 2007 @ 16:21

I continue to be amazed at all the hand wringing over Saddam’s indecorous end. He could have ended up like Mussolini, hung upside down and pissed upon. That would have been more just.

Comment by The Real Sporer — 8 Jan, 2007 @ 00:01

Merry Christmas!

Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 25 Dec, 2006 @ 00:46

And a very Merry Christmas, Happy Solstice, & Yummy Yule to you!

Comment by Timothy E. Harris — 25 Dec, 2006 @ 14:50

Yes, we most certainly do we them.

Comment by Mr. Bingley — 5 Dec, 2006 @ 22:05

This election was all about the Middle East. However, Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov’t erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel).
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)

Comment by 5th of November — 16 Nov, 2006 @ 11:32

Yeah, right…

If the US Govt could rig elections do you really think the Dem’s would have taken the Senate this month?
If they could rig elections do you think 34 states would have been able to pass laws or constitutional amendments in the last year preventing Eminent Domain land seizures from being given/sold to private parties?

Our current Government (indeed our whole system of governance) is far from perfect, but it has at least one saving grace - the open competition in information means the kind of conspiracy you suggest is occuring cannot be kept secret very long before it is discovered and put on the 24/7 News monster. If the claims in the book you link to can be verified, believe me they’ll get heard.
And BTW, Amazon.com is a private company that can decide what merchandise it wishes to carry. Just because they decide not to carry a book you want them to doesn’t mean any censorship has occured.

Comment by Timothy E. Harris — 16 Nov, 2006 @ 14:36

And another thing to Fifth of November: If the US Govt could rig elections and do all the conspiracy things you claim, do you really think that the question of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons in Iraq would be such a controversy now? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to have a “chance discovery” “more significant than any other in this war” that “shows Saddam Hussein was closer to his dream of attacking the US on its own ground than even his most ardent foes believed?” THAT would be the Reichstag fire you claim so many things are, and no wmd’s were discovered, so we have to defend our nation against the foes of Western Civilization and liberty and equality for women and gays the old fashioned way, persuade one uninformed idiot at a time.

The relationship of global warming to Islamic terrorism is like starvation to uncontrolled arterial bleeding. Sure starvation will get you in a week or so, but the bleeding will get you before you can call for help.

Now I forgot what I was going to comment about Bill Whittle’s perceptive piece.

Comment by Windy Wilson — 20 Nov, 2006 @ 14:15