Obama fights against US coal exports


**Posted by Phineas

In Obama's crosshairs

In Obama’s crosshairs

I’m not sure what the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado did to Barack Obama –after all, they gave him the electoral votes he needed to win reelection– but he sure has it in for their major exports and the jobs they create:

The leaders also announced that the Netherlands was joining the U.S. and other countries in an effort to stop the international funding of new coal-fired power plants by development banks.

“We’re pleased that the Netherlands has joined our initiative that will virtually end all public financing for coal-fired plants abroad,” Obama said. “It’s concrete action like this that can keep making progress on reducing emissions while we develop new global agreements on climate change.”

Per Bryan Preston, the US is the world’s second largest coal exporter, and each million tons exported creates over 1,300 jobs. Now, why on Earth would an American president work so hard against American economic interests, especially in difficult times with such large numbers of people unemployed and under-employed? It’s almost as if he sees American power as a problem, something to be solved by managed decline… Nah, couldn’t be.

I sorely wish more people in those coal-mining states had seen the danger Obama poses to their own livelihoods and the nation’s well-being; I’ve little doubt we’d be in a better situation right now, if they had. But that’s done, and now we have to work to convince voters that any Democrat nominee in 2016 is going to be beholden to the same radical environmentalist interests that Obama is placating with this initiative. Those factions are not interested in mitigating the problems with coal use until a genuine replacement comes along or with good conservation practices in its mining: they want to ban it outright, now, and the consequences be damned for communities reliant on its extraction and an economy dependent on the energy it produces.

And, right now, they have their guy in office.

Read the rest of Preston’s report for the international implications of this agreement.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Demon-fearing Los Angeles city council blames fracking for earthquake


**Posted by Phineas

Drill, baby, drill!

Drill, baby, drill!

Remember, kiddies, liberals are the party of science!

Los Angeles City Council members have discovered how to cause earthquakes. Three councilmen think fracking may be the cause of Monday’s earthquake in the Santa Monica Mountains, and they want the city, state, and feds to do an in-depth review.

Councilmen Paul Koretz, Mike Bonin, and Bernard Parks Tuesday introduced a motion calling for the city, the U.S. Geological Survey, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources to report on whether hydraulic fracturing caused the moderate 4.4-magnitude earthquake, the Los Angeles Times reports.

“It is crucial to the health and safety of the City’s residents to understand the seismic impacts of oil and gas extraction activities in the City,” the motion says. “All high-pressure fracking and injection creates ‘seismic events.’ . . .  Active oil extraction activities are reportedly taking place on the Veteran’s Administration grounds in West Los Angeles, nearby the epicenter of the March 17, 2014, 4.4 earthquake.”

Parks, who seconded the motion, tells National Review Online that while fracking is “reportedly” happening near the epicenter, those who signed the motion weren’t completely sure. However, he adds that “earthquakes are happening in areas that are not historically earthquake prone, but they are in places where fracking is going on.”

I’m sorry to say Mike Bonin is my city councilman.

Let’s be honest, here. If Koretz, Parks, and Bonin genuinely think fracking caused an earthquake, they know nothing about earthquakes and are just fearing demons in the night. Earthquakes happen when adjoining tectonic plates, which are constantly in motion against each other, suddenly break and move with a jolt. Sometimes a little bit, as in Monday’s quake, sometimes a lot, as in the 2011 Tohoku quake in Japan. In seismically active areas, such as the western coast of North America, small quakes occur every day and have since long before anyone thought of the words “hydraulic fracturing.”

Here’s the technical information for Monday’s shaker. Note the depth: six miles. This is what a USGS geologist had to say when asked about fracking causing that quake:

However, opponents of the moratorium argue that fracking has not been proven to cause any health risks and that claims that it caused this earthquake are not realistic.

“My first impression is that sounds implausible,” seismologist Lucy Jones said. “The earthquake was so deep. Induced earthquakes are almost always shallower than this.”

In other words, yes you might get hit by a bolt from the blue, but that’s no reason to ban walking outdoors.

This call for a study (borrowing from the neverending studies tactic of NY Governor Cuomo) is just another delaying tactic in furtherance of their earlier motion to ban fracking within city limits.  Hydraulic fracturing opponents are using what’s called the “preventative principle” (1) to stop a promising technology that could do wonders for the economy, because the idea of oil and gas exploration goes against their hardcore environmentalist agenda. And then they find lackwit politicians who know nothing about the subject matter, but who are ever so happy to take activists’ donations and campaign help, and get them to pass laws serving that agenda — to the public’s detriment. Their hope is that through delay after delay and more and more burdensome regulations, they can kill what they oppose altogether.

No matter how discredited their propaganda, no matter how safe fracking is shown to be, no matter that even the Energy Secretary of the most left-leaning administration in US history declares it safe, no matter how much this city, this state, and this nation need the economic boost intelligent exploitation of our vast oil and gas resources would provide, fracking opponents continue to throw anything against the wall in the hopes of finding something that will convince people to support a ban.

And sometimes they find the fools they need.

RELATED: Ten myths about natural gas drilling. The UK government thinks fracking is safe. Nancy Pelosi’s daughter even thinks the evil magic of fracking can cause earthquakes far out at sea.

(1) Watch for words like “may,” “might,” “possible,” “could” and other weak words that don’t require any evidence to back them up, just the doubt and fear they create in the (they hope) credulous listener.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

New York: the Enviro-Luddites’ Fracking Insanity


**Posted by Phineas

"Treasure map"

“Treasure map”

One of the things about the environmental Left that drives me most nuts is its resistance to reason and empirical fact. Global warming is a good example: what started as a theory many years ago, that the Earth is warming dangerously and the climate heading for disastrous changes because of the carbon dioxide Man has been adding to the air, has been shown time and again in recent years by empirical observation to be false. There has been no statistically significant warming since the mid-90s, the polar bears are not dying out, and prediction after prediction made by the warming alarmists has failed to pan out. But, in the face of overwhelming evidence that should at least cause strong skepticism, they cling bitterly to their computer models — which haven’t been right, yet.

Similarly with radical environmentalists who oppose any and all development of hydrocarbon resources (coal, oil, natural gas), no matter what the actual research shows of its safety, no matter the reasonable measures taken to protect the environment, and no matter –perhaps especially regardless of– the economic benefits to people.

Take hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for example. That’s the extraction of natural gas and oil by forcing water into cracks in underground rock formations and widening them to release the resources. New York State is one of the states sitting atop the Marcellus Shale formation, which has been estimated to hold immense reserves of natural gas. In an article in the June 17th print edition of National Review (1), Ian Tuttle talks about Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) Hamlet-like coy reticence (2) to develop the shale, in spite of the evident economic benefits from fracking for counties that have been hit hard by the “recovery” from the Great Recession and in spite of his own Health Department’s certification that fracking is safe. The article overall is worth reading, but one fact jumps out and that I want to share:

“Twenty-eight New York counties sit atop the Marcellus Shale, a natural gas bearing subterranean rock formation that also stretches across part of Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Geologists estimate that the entire region contains 489 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Given that a third of the Shale’s 55,000 square miles is in New York, the Empire State has access to a sizeable portion of that — certainly enough to supply much of its own in-state natural gas demand: a mere 1.1 trillion cubic feet each year.”

Think about that for a moment and let the implications sink in. Assuming for a moment that the natural gas is evenly spread throughout the Shale (I’m sure it isn’t, but what is there is substantial), there are roughly 163 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under New York, enough to meet the state’s needs for 140-150 years. Natural gas is cheap, clean fuel that could replace coal and oil in homes and businesses. Even if New York’s consumption suddenly doubled, there’s enough for decades, at least. And let’s not forget the the jobs created: in counties where fracking is underway, guys driving water trucks make $60,000 per year. I imagine New Yorkers would like to enjoy the cheap, safe fuel and the good-paying jobs, but their governor and their legislature have more important things in mind, like keeping the Green lobby happy.

New York isn’t the only state where this environmentalist madness has taken hold: my beloved California is sitting atop its own fracking pot of gold, but the Cult of Gaea is spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (as well as campaign cash) to fight it here, too.

I can’t tell you how frustrating it is: the United States and many of her 50 states are in an economic mess, and yet radical environmentalists fight tooth and nail against one very powerful tool that can help rebuild prosperity, and they do it in the face of all evidence that the process is safe.

How much do you have to hate humanity to do that?

(1) Sorry, no direct link is available. The issue has a five-article section on resource development. I highly recommend buying it or hunting it up at your local library.
(2) Meaning he’s afraid to go against a legislature largely owned by the enviro-lobby, and he wants the lobby’s cash and campaign work for when he runs for president in 2016, what’s right for his state be damned.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Britain’s Green chickens are coming home to roost, as will ours, soon


**Posted by Phineas

Christopher Booker in last Saturday’s Telegraph: “It’s payback time…”

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14?billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year.

Be sure to read the rest. Not only is the government in London heavily subsidizing uneconomic wind farms and granting needless subsidies in tribute to get nuclear plants built, but they’re doing all they can to drive coal plants out of business, even though coal plants are necessary as backup for those times when the wind doesn’t blow. Hence the warnings about blackouts in the dead of winter. Britain is looking at a new Dark Ages, one wholly of its own doing.

And before we cluck our tongues at our cousins’ folly, this is just the future Obama and the environmentalist movement would lead us to:

Booker is right that Britain’s energy policy is insanity. But what can we say about a nation —us— that sits atop almost unimaginably immense energy resources, enough to restore the cheap energy needed for prosperity and make us nearly energy independent, and yet fights tooth and nail  against developing it in the name of battling a problem that does not exist?


(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Oregon’s SoloPower: Another taxpayer-backed green energy program about to go bust?


Fox News reports on a story we’ve heard all too often the last several years – about the failure of a taxpayer-funded “green energy” business to the point of having to lay off workers due to poor sales/structure (bolded emphasis added by me):

When Solyndra went bankrupt and cost taxpayers up to $530 million, the Obama administration’s green energy loan program was subjected to congressional hearings and became an election-year issue. Now, another solar panel company may be headed for a similar fate.

SoloPower, which makes thin-film solar panels at a new plant in Portland, Ore., opened Sept. 27 with an upbeat ribbon-cutting ceremony. Local and state politicians gushed about the company eventually operating four production lines and creating 450 well-paid green jobs.

Just a few months later, those predictions, and SoloPower’s future, are on shaky ground.

The first production line was never completed. In January, the company had a round of layoffs. SoloPower won’t say how many of its 60 employees received pink slips.

A management shakeup soon followed — gone are the chief executive, president and chief  technology officer. The company is now trying to raise money by selling some of its equipment through a third party and is attempting to restructure its $197 million federal loan guarantee.

Has this failure to even partially live up to expectations caused the once-gushing Oregon state politicos – most of them Democrats – to have second thoughts about investing even more tax dollars in SoloPower? Of course not:

Despite the warning signs, the state of Oregon is continuing to put taxpayer money at risk. In December, the agency Business Oregon issued SoloPower a $20 million tax credit. The company sold the tax credit for $13.5 million in cash.

In order to secure the money, SoloPower had to employ 39 people and convince bureaucrats that it would still be in business in five years. The state is not giving up hope.

Solar industry analysts are not optimistic. The same economic factors that took down Solyndra and a host of other U.S. solar companies still exist. A glut of cheap solar panels on the worldwide market has driven prices so low, U.S. companies with their higher production costs can’t compete.

The former mayor of Portland seems to suggest the answer is more help from U.S. taxpayers.

“They survive by downscaling and being responsible with the resources they have,” said Sam Adams, “by reducing costs and being able to wait out, hopefully, until Congress passes new energy tax credits.”

The city of Portland issued SoloPower a $5 million loan along with other tax incentives. All told, the state and local investment is $58 million.

First things first: Since taxpayers helped foot the bill here, why isn’t SoloPower required to notify the public as to exactly how many layoffs they had last month?  This is basic information about the company’s financial operations that I believe the public should have the right to know.

Secondly, would someone pretty please lure Democrat advocates of government-funded green energy companies to one big giant room – complete with a dinner consisting of tofu, arugula,  and water served in stainless steel containers – and explain to them, make them repeat it out loud over and over again, how “tax incentives” are supposed to work as it relates to attracting business to their respective states?  The Oregonian gets it:

The economic principles are simple. The market, not government, picks winners and losers. Emerging industries are riskier than established ones. And it’s harder to succeed in a shrinking economy than in one that’s growing.

So, why did government officials rush to invest in emerging green industries amid one of the worst U.S. recessions?

Starting in 2009, green companies found an ideal political climate as they sought to expand. Concern about global warming was mounting and Democrats controlled the White House after eight years of oil-friendly energy policies under President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, the financial and housing collapse devastated the U.S. economy and put policy-makers in a mood to embrace the “next big thing.”

So governments at all levels hugged solar companies. And for a brief period the U.S. solar industry bloomed. Then it wilted. Solyndra, which received a federal loan for a California plant, filed for bankruptcy. SolarWorld, which received state and local tax incentives for a factory in Hillsboro, began bleeding jobs. SoloPower struggled to fulfill its promises in Portland, as detailed by The Oregonian’s Molly Young.

To be sure, government should encourage economic development. Sometimes, that requires incentives — including tax breaks. But incentives must be widely available and awarded based on potential for success, not based on non-economic policy agendas. Otherwise, the government is using taxpayer money to speculate.

Any questions?

NC’s Celgard, a green biz touted by Obama & showered w/ stimulus $$, to cut jobs


Why? The demand for electric vehicles is not even close to meeting expectations. I know – shocking, right? Via The Charlotte Observer:

Company spokeswoman Beth Kitteringham said the [40] jobs lost come from among the company’s more than 700 Charlotte-region employees. Celgard has plants in Charlotte and Concord, where it makes key components for electric vehicle batteries.

“Demand for (electric drive vehicles) has not increased as quickly as our customers and their customers originally projected,” said Kitteringham via email. She said the decision was taken to align staffing with business needs. “However, the long-term trend for the market remains positive.”


Celgard is a subsidiary of Charlotte-based high-tech manufacturer Polypore. In its most recent quarter, Polypore reported that net sales slumped 6.5 percent, to $177.6 million, and profits fell to $14.2 million. That’s down from $23.6 million in profits during the same quarter last year.

Sales of the company’s electric drive vehicle and electronics products fell to $43.5 million, down from $56 million in the same quarter last year. Operating income for the segment was down by more than 50 percent, falling to $10.5 million from $26.5 million a year ago. Lower production levels of electric drive vehicles were cited as the main cause.

Politicians have touted Celgard as an example of a successful clean energy company. Celgard received a $49 million grant from President Obama’s stimulus program, and he made a speech at the company in 2010.

Am I laughing here? Of course not. People will be losing their jobs, and close to home – both here in Charlotte and next door in Concord. But the failure of green biz stimulus “experiment” was predicted by many … and is coming to pass, to the tune of billions of dollars to the US taxpayer.  This is further proof that government being in the “investment” business only benefits them, not you. As another example of that, let’s not forget that millions of our taxpayer dollars were awarded to green energy companies who had cozy relationships with the White House – including the failed Solyndra, for starters.

Move along here, nothing to see ….

We are awash with oil


**Posted by Phineas

How much do we have? Try more than the rest of the world, combined:

The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.


“The Green River Formation–an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming–contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.

“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.

Sadly, most of this sits on federal lands, and we know what that means: no drilling, no fracking, no how. This administration is enslaved to a chimerical “Green agenda” that treats anything to do with fossil fuels the way a vampire would garlic, and instead wants to flush billions down the drain in pursuit of alternative energy sources that are nowhere economically viable. In fact, boondoggles like wind farms and solar can only exist via taxpayer subsidies, increasing costs for everyone and destroying genuinely productive jobs in the process.

Meanwhile, we sit figuratively chained, forbidden to take those rational steps to develop and exploit our vast resources (1) safely and with due regard for environmental stewardship, all while restoring prosperity to our economy and pushing us toward energy self-sufficiency.

The Obama administration’s energy policies aren’t just stupid and they aren’t just destructive — they’re immoral.

RELATED: More from Hot Air. Power Line demolishes the president’s “two-percent lie.”

(1) And this doesn’t even include Canadian resources, or that available in the Bakken formation.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Obama White House: Who’s responsible for high gas prices? The JOOOOZ!!


**Posted by Phineas

Oh, honest to Pete! Once again, it’s “hug your enemies and slap your friends:”

The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the recent rise in global crude oil prices, according to a Sunday report in The World Tribune. The rise in fuel prices is deemed as harming the U.S. economy and has also hurt Obama in the polls as he seeks re-election in November.

The report cited a leading U.S. analyst, Robert Satloff, who returned from talks with Israeli officials.

Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said, according to The World Tribune, that the Israeli leadership saw Washington as attributing the higher gas prices to “Israel’s posturing” on Iran.

This is ridiculous. Blaming Israel for high gas prices is like blaming a man for finally standing up to the gang of thugs who’ve been threatening his neighborhood and family — “if only he wouldn’t provoke them, they’d leave us alone!” his spineless, querulous neighbors cry.

Iran’s government and military are dominated by the followers of a militant strain of Islam who see it as their duty to bring about the Islamic End Times in order to institute a global theocracy. Part and parcel of this is eternal hatred of and war against the Jews. They are developing nuclear weapons. Their leaders have openly speculated about how one bomb could destroy the Jewish state and have called for wiping Israel from the map. Recently, a high-ranking Iranian official produced an analysis justifying the annihilation of Israel under Islamic law.

And yet Israel is to blame for increased gas prices and harming the president’s reelection chances (1) because, for some strange reason, they make it clear they’re not going to let their people be slaughtered again and they take steps to do something about it.

How dare they??

Now, I’m not one of those who think the government has total control over fuel prices; external factors, such as the law of supply and demand the progressives so wish they could ignore, play a huge role. China’s appetite for oil is enormous, and they’re buying a lot. And the threat of disruptions to global supply —created by Iran’s maniac actions— also drive up prices because of the increased risk in extracting and transporting oil from the Gulf.


The administration’s policies still have a major effect: the open hostility toward exploration and extraction on federal lands; the slow-walking of permits already in the works; the refusal to issue new ones; and the refusal to obtain oil from friendly, stable, next-door neighbors. All these affect fuel prices because the price is as much about expectations of future supply as it is about current stocks. A more liberal, rational, and intelligent resource-development policy that would use safe modern technology would inevitably cause a dampening of prices because of the expectation of greater, more secure future supply.


We can’t do that, because Obama is dependent on radical environmentalists for donations and campaign help, and his administration has invested too much (literally) in “alternative energy” to back away. So, the president needs a scapegoat. Now, who’s handy? Hmmm…

Enter the Jews Israelis. Tailor-made for President Short-Pants’ needs.

via Evan Pokroy

UPDATE: This must be Israel’s fault, too: “Thanks to Obama’s “no” on Keystone, the price of Canadian crude will go up for the U.S.


(1) Which is, of course, the most important consideration in the world. He’s even enlisting the Russian’s help.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Dear Sanctimonious Greens: your beloved electric cars harm Gaea!!


**Posted by Phineas

Your goddess will be angry with you…

According to a recent study by researchers at UT-Knoxville, electric cars have a greater pollution impact than comparable (and evil, EVIL, EVIL!!) gasoline-powered vehicles:

“An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles,” [Chris] Cherry said. “Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to. Prior studies have only examined environmental impacts by comparing emission factors or greenhouse gas emissions.”

Particulate matter includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. It is also generated through the combustion of fossil fuels.

For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used. In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 percent of that is from coal. The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emit fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. However, because the emissions related to the electric vehicles often come from power plants located away from population centers, people breathe in the emissions a lower rate than they do emissions from conventional vehicles.

Still, the rate isn’t low enough to level the playing field between the vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometer traveled in China than conventional vehicles.

(Emphasis added)

The key is that the electricity needed to charge the batteries of those virtuous electric vehicles has to be first generated somewhere; in China, the vast majority comes from plants using fossil fuels. The effect is simply to transfer the generation of pollutants from where the vehicle is used to where its power is created.

Bear in mind, this study was conducted in China, which relies overwhelmingly on coal. While the US generates far less of its electricity from coal, it’s still significant — about 46%. (See Table 1.1) And China’s pollution controls are notoriously weak, so coal-fired plants in the US probably generate far fewer pollutants than their Chinese counterparts. Still, coal is a dirty fuel source, one of the great demons in the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and air pollution does not respect national boundaries.

Preening Greens charging their Volts and Leafs and Priuses and oh-so Smart ED cars should perhaps remember that their virtue comes at the cost of (environmental) sin.

RELATED: It’s similar to that other fetish object of the Green cult — wind power. The wind is so unreliable a source that, to make sure the power grid stays up, backup coal, gas, and even nuclear plants have to be kept running on standby for those times when the wind stops or blows too fast. Kind of defeats the purpose, no? Unless that purpose is just to make oneself feel good, or profit from government subsidy… or both.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

More Green dreams shattered


**Posted by Phineas

Two posts at Watts Up With That bring news that that ought to turn the Gaea-cultists’ sweet dreams into nightmares. First, a study from Civitas in the UK demolishes any idea that wind-power is a practical, economic alternate energy source:

The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.

(Full report here (PDF))

They have to pay lip-service to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there’s no credible evidence of a man-caused greenhouse effect from CO2, because of the success the Green Statists in and outside of government have had in demonizing a gas that’s essentially plant food. The key takeaways, though, are these: because of the unreliability of wind, conventional power stations have to be kept running on standby to handle those times when the turbines aren’t running, either because there’s no wind, or the wind is blowing too fast. That means costs to the consumer skyrocket, as UK residents are finding out. (And we will, too, if Obama and the Eco-lobby in the US have their way.)

But wait, there’s more! It turns out that wind-turbines actually increase the use of CO2 -spewing fossil fuels:

In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]


Second, you know all those fears of “ocean acidification,” the Green Left’s latest environmental bogeyman? Turns out it’s another …say it after me… natural process:

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.

pH varies widely and often, yet life adapts and prospers, in a process that’s gone on for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. No need to invoke the Demon Man and his evil capitalism to frighten people into obedience and submission to a bunch of liberty and economy-killing transnational bureaucracies.

Though I’m sure they’ll try, anyway.

Keep dreaming, cultists.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)