greenhouse gas emissions

Richard Branson hands in his man card to become a fussy eater

Richard Branson has decided that he won’t eat meat anymore.

Richard Branson gave up beef earlier this year.

“More and more people recognise that conventional meat production can have truly devastating environmental impacts,”?he wrote?in a blog about producing food for future generations as part of?World Food Day?on Thursday.

“It’s one of the reasons I gave up eating beef earlier this year, and it looks like I am not the only one. Surprisingly, for myself, I haven’t missed it at all.

“If we could get many other people to do the same, we would be healthier, and we would help sustain the beautiful biodiversity we are losing in the rainforests.”

Branson is referring to the increasing demand for meat as the world’s population of ?7 billion grows and the impact this has on the environment. ? Read more »

The climate essay warmists are trying to suppress

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of ?conflicting views from the scientific community? over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity?s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to ?wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,? while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that ?unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.??

Really? Is Earth?s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?

In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth?s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report?Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). ?? Read more »

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 »

How does Labour’s policy on wood match their ETS policy?

Labour has decided that they want to give tax breaks to forestry companies. Their premise is that it will build capacity in the industry and increase their ability to produce higher grade products that are worth more.

They don’t extend this to other industries though, and bizarrely the policy which would necessitate the chopping down of more trees is in stark contrast with their ETS policy which penalises people who cut down trees. They use weasel words about encouraging growth, but the mechanism involved heaps penalties upon landowners if they cut down their own trees.

As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as wood (with forests therefore sometimes being referred to as ?carbon sinks?). When forests are felled, they release carbon.

Forestry is rewarded under the ETS. That is because forests, as carbon sinks, have a big role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and in helping New Zealand meet its international climate change obligations.

Labour will therefore encourage increased forest cover, and particularly the planting of native forest that will not be harvested.

Labour will encourage landowners to plant forests to act as carbon sinks, and provide incentives and information on suitable trees to plant.

Several schemes are already in place to encourage the planting of forests. However, trees vary in their ability to capture and store carbon. There are also biodiversity issues to consider when determining the optimal mix of planting.

Is that going to change or are the new tax breaks a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other? ?Labour’s ETS policy says nothing of promoting wood as a produce, which by necessity must come from trees, which they want to grow more of. The two policies are incompatible.

The ETS is a red herring in forestry terms – overly complicated – but the forester is largely revenue neutral providing they replant… however, the processing industries that Cunliffe is promising tax breaks to are not neutral and will pay through the nose. ?So there is a question about how much of the tax breaks they’ll actually see once Labour’s super-charged ETS is imposed on them.

Read more »

Rude and Wrong

Rodney Hide gives Russel Norman a kick in the slats for being both rude and wrong about climate change and politicising a condolence speech for the Philippines.

Out poured a diatribe of how Typhoon Haiyan has reminded us we haven’t done enough to combat climate change. We can’t afford to procrastinate: we must deal with the “climate crisis madness”. Vote Green was his message. And cut greenhouse gases.

He tried to excuse the speech by quoting the head of the Philippines delegation at the UN Climate Change talks in Warsaw. But it made me queasy that a political leader was making political points at a solemn time set aside to honour and to respect the thousands killed and a country that is reeling.

It struck me that it takes a special kind of political coldness to do that. Norman demonstrated an extraordinary heartlessness and an unappealing drive to push his own political barrow, no matter the circumstance.? Read more »

Chart of the Day – Proof of global warming

Christopher Booker looks at the mounting evidence that global warming is real.

Read this and wonder why seemingly intelligent people like David Farrar make silly statements like:

My position on climate change is that greenhouse gas emissions beyond doubt cause warming. There is a legitimate debate about how much warming will occur, as we do not know for sure how the rest of the very complex climatic system will respond.

And about that warming that David says is beyond doubt?

In convincing the world that we must make such a dramatic response to man-made climate change, nothing has been more persuasive than those graphs that purport to show global temperature soaring to dangerous levels.

That iconic ?hockey stick? graph, showing temperatures recently shooting up into the stratosphere, may now have been discredited. But just as important have been all those graphs showing how temperatures have changed in recent decades. These have the effect of greatly exaggerating those changes, by narrowly focusing just on what are called temperature ?anomalies?, showing how they have risen and fallen round their average level in the past 30-odd years.

What the graphs do not show is the actual level of global temperature, as it is measured above freezing point. In other words, they leave out by far the greater part of the total picture. So the respected Canadian environmental writer, Lawrence Solomon, recently had the bright idea of publishing in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective, using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre.? Read more »

129 scientists write open letter to Ban Ki Moon about Climate Change

129 scientists have signed an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon about his comments regarding climate change:

On?November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: ?Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal ? Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to ? even larger climate shocks ? and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 ? This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.?

On November 13 you said at?Yale: ?The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.?

The following day,?in Al Gore?s ?Dirty Weather? Webcast, you spoke of ?more severe storms,?harsher droughts,?greater floods?, concluding: ?Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars.?The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.?

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period,?according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?(NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The ?even larger climate shocks? you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2?have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.?s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its?Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012)?that there is ?an absence of an attributable climate change signal? in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

Continue reading

Chart of the Day

Carbon markets are rooted. Is anyone surprised at this graph?

WHAT would you say about a market that has helped reduce carbon emissions by a billion tonnes in seven years, attracted $215 billion of green investments to developing countries (more than any private environmental fund) and cut the cost of climate-change mitigation by $3.6 billion? The answer, to judge by a United Nations panel looking into the workings of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is: you?d say it is a shambles.

The CDM was set up under the Kyoto protocol to get developing countries to do their bit to reduce carbon emissions. The mechanism allows projects that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in poor countries to earn a carbon credit (a ?certified emission reduction?, or CER) for each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided. The credits can be sold to firms in rich countries which are obliged under Kyoto to cut their emissions. The idea was to encourage carbon saving where it was cheapest (ie, in developing countries), increasing efficiency.

The trouble is that the supply of credits has far outstripped demand. The one-billionth CER was issued on September 7th. But the largest greenhouse-gas emitters either did not ratify the Kyoto protocol (America) or were not obliged by it to cut emissions (China and India). That has left Europe as the main source of demand for credits, and the CDM has become a sort of annex to Europe?s cap-and-trade scheme, the Emissions Trading System. But the euro crisis has reduced industrial activity (cutting pollution) and European firms were anyway given overly generous carbon quotas under the cap-and-trade scheme. So carbon prices have collapsed, falling from $20 a tonne in August 2008 to below $5 now (see chart).

Obsession with wind power costs big time

? Daily Mail

Pretty much anything the Greens tout costs you money…big money. Take wind farms, they are becoming a millstone around Britain’s neck:

Britain’s ‘obsession’ with wind farms will push up family electricity bills by more than ?300 a year, a report claimed today.

The Government’s green energy plans for the next eight years are a ?124billion ‘blunder’ that will hit every UK household, a senior British economist has also said.

In a stark warning Professor Gordon Hughes, who has produced a study on how wind energy will hit energy costs, said that British consumers simply cannot afford to subsidise wind power.

Prof Hughes is one of the UK’s leading energy economists and works at the prestigious University of Edinburgh. He was also a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank.

By 2020 average electricity bills will be around 58 per cent higher – a ?320 increase – just because of the flood of wind turbines planned for Britains’s coastlines, fields and seas, he said.

Completing the gloomy picture, Professor Hughes?believes for all the huge investment in wind farms?Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions may not even fall.

Ugly Celebs

Remember the Aussie joke about it being funny that our Prime minister has a girls name? Well they go one step further now.

On Ninemsn’s site in celebration of World Youth day held recently in Sydney they have posted of the Ugliest Celebs to remind us that God’s creatures come in all shapes and sizes.

Amy Winehouse is number 1

Kelly Osbourne is number 8

There is Camiila Parker-Bowles-Windsor at number 9

Number 12 is Uncle Helen just edging out The Pgoues frontman Shane McGowan

Michael Jackson is number 18