Environment

The seppos are looking at fart taxes now

We managed to defeat Helen Clark’s plans to impose fart taxes on the nations cattle.

The battle is only beginning in the US where a wider ranging fart tax is being proposed.

Last month, the President released a climate action plan designed to cut methane emissions.

If you are a cow, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The same goes for humans.

The plan outlines voluntary measures, such as a “Biogas Roadmap,” to reduce dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. There’s concern though that these measures merely represent the tip of the iceberg.

Agriculture accounts for only about 8 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Within that 8 percent, the second largest source of agriculture emissions is enteric fermentation—the digestive process that leads to cow methane emissions, which are emittedin ways that are not appreciated at dinner parties. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, while covering numerous livestock animals, are overwhelmingly from cows. Read more »

Want to combat global warming? You need to agree to fracking and nuclear power

I wonder if Gareth Hughes would care to comment on this news.

To be consistent with the MSM breathlessly reporting all doomsday IPCC predictions (most of which never eventuate) will we see headlines of fracking saving the environment and insightful comment from global warmists backing the IPCC findings ?

I think probably not.

Climate scientists have backed Britain’s shale gas revolution – saying it could help to slow  global warming.

The world’s leading experts on climate change say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions and should be made central to the country’s energy production.

It will help the UK move away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment, according to a report by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report says it is ‘quite clear’ that fracking is ‘very consistent with low-carbon development’ and the technology could ‘significantly’ reduce emissions.

The unexpected endorsement from 235 eminent United Nations scientists and economists will be a welcome boost to David Cameron, who is a keen advocate of the new technology.

It is also a blow to green activists, who seek cuts in greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about the effects of fracking.  Read more »

Which political party supports this sort of ecological damage?

Massive man made scar across mountain side

Massive man made scar across a mountain side in a designated wilderness areas

A political party supports and is promoting this sort of ecological damage to pristine mountainsides in designated wilderness areas?  Read more »

How are the Germans getting on with green energy? …Not so well it turns out

The German economy is almost on its knees as a result of green energy policies that are failing to deliver.

Germany is in the middle of one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments a major industrial economy has ever attempted: To swear off nuclear power and run Europe’s largest economy essentially on wind and solar power.

There’s just one problem — it’s not really working.

The energy transformation, known as “Energiewende,” was meant to give Germany an energy sector that would be cleaner and more competitive, fueling an export-driven economy and helping to slash greenhouse-gas emissions. On that count, the policy has floundered: German emissions are rising, not falling, because the country is burning increasing amounts of dirty coal. And electricity costs, already high, have kept rising, making life difficult for small and medium-sized businesses that compete against rivals with cheaper energy.  Read more »

Mitigation or adaptation, choices with Climate Change

The left wing wants to push ahead with mitigation policies for climate change, it is their unerring belief that the state and governments can control the climate through control and taxes.

The other side says that the climate will always change and we should look at adaptation rather than expend vast quantities of cash on ultimately futile efforts.

Las Vegas couldn’t exist without air conditioning, neither could Dubai or other cities in the middle east. Human beings are great at adaptation, it is why we are top of the food chain.

Still there is no evidence yet presented that the predicted climate changes have actually happened, or if they are happening at the rates the alarmist have stated. In fact he opposite is true.

So what is it to be? Mitigation and huge costs, or adaptation?

The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due out next week. If the leaked draft is reflected in the published report, it will constitute the formal moving on of the debate from the past, futile focus upon “mitigation” to a new debate about resilience and adaptation.

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP. At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

Those are massive costs…I doubt the world could sustain them, let alone have them work at all.  Read more »

More from Krauthammer on Climate Change and ‘settled science’

Yesterday I posted a video from Charles Krauthammer…today we can read a bit more from his Washington Post article.

I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

The science is never settled…as we learn more we discover more.

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.   Read more »

Charles Krauthammer on Climate Change and ‘settled science’

Central Hawkes Bay Council thinks their sh*t doesn’t stink

Effluent pouring into the Waipawa river

Effluent pouring into the Waipawa river

The dodgy socialist council in Central Hawkes Bay keeps sticking their hand out for money to “save” their district, as long as someone else pays for it.

They have bludged off the regional council so they can stop pouring shit into the rivers, because they won’t pay for it themselves.

Now they are claiming that their shit doesn’t stink, and hasn’t stunk up the river.

The council’s technical services manager, Steve Thrush, says the new plant in Waipawa has been offline for adjustments since before Christmas, but it is still meeting the conditions of its resource consent.  Read more »

How’s that global warming feeling in the US right about now?

Global Warming is bathing the US in snow…over two thirds of the contiguous USA is covered in global warming.

nsm_depth_2014020705_national Read more »

Climate Change is actually good for humanity

At The Atlantic they have recruited 21 economists to assess global problems and come up with a scorecard to asses whterther challenges will be positive or negative for humanity.

[R]ather than cherry-picking anecdotes to fit an overarching narrative, we should find a new way to compare global problems. Together with 21 of the world’s top economists, I have tried to do just that, developing a scorecard spanning 150 years. Our idea was to measure the damage inflicted by 10 important problems—including health, education, air pollution, and climate change—on a comparable scale, without reinforcing one viewpoint or the other.

Using classic economic valuations of everything from lost lives to bad health, considering factors including forfeited income from illiteracy and increased hurricane damage from global warming, the economists found the cost of each of our problems for every year from 1900 to 2013, and then made predictions out to 2050. To estimate the size of the problem, they then compared the challenge to the total resources available to fix it. This gives us the size of the problem in percent of gross domestic product (GDP).   Read more »