Electric Cars Still Need Energy

In the rush to go green, people have lost sight of common sense.

Investors.com: Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars

It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely

Sorry to spoil the party.

Saturdays With Rex Murphy's Column

Bacon, eggs, Rex Murphy's column. It's not Saturday in Canada without them. When I read it, I always hear his Newfie voice in my head. He hits a home run today. (Read)

Unfortunately even the most glassy-eyed idealism can be confronted by reality, and such was the case with Carbon Neutral's expedition. They hit a bad patch of weather. Their poor boat was thrice capsized. And the fickle Gods of Global Warming must have been taking a siesta, for in one of those incidents one of the team "hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht." I can only imagine them at this moment, staring soulfully into the hurricane-whipped sky, and pleadingly imploring: "Al Gore, Al Gore, why has thou forsaken us?"

They were in a powerless pickle. Solar and sail had failed them and green intentions will not float your boat - they were not so much "carbon neutral" as carbon deprived. Bobbing around the North Atlantic in a gale without motor power of any kind is not the most soothing experience. Fortunately, Providence, in one of its most artful facsimiles, was on hand in the shape of the Overseas Yellowstone - a ship that was, to put it mildly, not relying on solar power or a wind turbine.

It was a 113,000-ton oil tanker, carrying 680,000 barrels of crude oil. We may reach for many adjectives to describe the Overseas Yellowstone but "carbon neutral" will not be among them. Indeed, the Overseas Yellowstone, looked at from a carbon-neutral perspective, is the Life Raft from Hell. Nonetheless the oil tanker picked up the eco-people.

I'll be back blogging later tomorrow. Have a good weekend.

Green Policy Fantasy

Czech President Vaclav Klaus once again proves that he is the voice of reason amoung western statesmen. Here is his op-ed: Green policies = economic decline

So I am amazed to see people going along with the currently fashionable political argument that policies like cap-and-trade, government mandates, and subsidies for renewable energy can actually benefit an economy. It is claimed that government, working together with business, will create "a new energy economy," that the businesses involved will profit, and that everyone will be better off.

This is a fantasy. Cap-and-trade can only work by raising energy prices. Consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for energy will have less money to spend on other things. While the individual companies that provide the higher-priced "green" energy might do well, the net economic effect will be negative.

Exactly. I would have a lot more respect for environmentalists who will come out and say: "It will hurt growth, but that is the price we have to pay." Fair enough. Then we can decide if we want to make that trade off. But please don't say it will create more growth and make the economy better. If it did, then nobody would oppose it. Lying to advance your argument will not work and is ruinous to your credibility.

Hat tip: Pat

Climate Change "Deniers" Seen as Enemies

The man-made climate change absolutists at the Guardian are ratcheting up their demonization of people who don't agree with them. Here they have a slideshow of "top deniers" faces on cards, like the US Army did for Saddam's henchmen during the Iraq War. If environmentalism is the new religion, then the Guardian is accusing these people of blasphemy. That's not science. I realize it's meant to be a joke, but it creeps me out. (See the whole show here.)

Green Collar Jobs Bust

I've said on this site many times that politicians and environmentalists are full of it when they tout all the "green collar jobs" boom that are going to come with new environmental regulations. The results will end up being the opposite. Bloomberg news has a case study with Spain:

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic
energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics.

The environmentalists have to be honest with this debate. I would have much more respect for them if they came clean and said, 'we want a cleaner environment, but it's going to cost us.' Instead they say the opposite.

Any layman knows that cheap energy fuels industry.

On a semi-related note: Dennis Miller made a good point on his radio show when he was interviewing Global Warming skeptic Steven Milloy this week. To paraphrase: Al Gore has invested his very life, and self-esteem into this issue. No matter what evidence is given, he simply can't give in because his entire life would crumble.

He's right. The madness will be going on for a long time, because it's more than just an issue to people, their essence of being depends on it. Like a religion. Try to point out inconsistencies in the Bible to religious people? It's pointless. They won't hear it.

Politically Incorrect Garbage

The old magazines were building up. I didn't feel like recycling them, as well as the wine bottle and beer cans. Straight into the dumpster with this kitchen catcher. That's the great thing about private garbage collection.

Judge Rules in Favour of Green Kook in UK Court

I had to read this report in the Independent twice to fully understand it. A man sued a company that made him redundant, on the grounds that they punished him for his environmental beliefs. And they didn't laugh him out of court:

An executive sacked from a giant property company can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change", a judge ruled yesterday.

In the first case of its kind, employment judge David Sneath said Tim Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination against him for his conviction that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem.

That conviction amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, the judge ruled on a point of law at a pre-hearing review of an employment tribunal in London.

(...)

Grainger had sought to have Mr Nicholson's attempt to use the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations struck out. Counsel for the company, Harry Trory, contended at length that Mr Nicholson's views on climate change and the environment were based on fact and science, and did not constitute a philosophical belief. But the judge found in favour of Mr Nicholson. "In my judgment, his belief goes beyond a mere opinion, he said,

Mr Nicholson told the hearing that his green beliefs affected how he lived his life, "including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and my fears".

So, if I understand this correctly, the judge ruled that his environmental beliefs were a form of religion, and therefore he was discriminated against for his beliefs? Note the company argued that his beliefs were based on science, but the judge over-ruled that assertion.

What an absurd precedent! It sounds like a make work project for the employment judge. Either that or he's been smoking crack.

Harnessing the Sun and the Wind and the Soil

David Frum has a breakdown of Obama's speech in the National Post today.

He takes note of this point:

And indeed the address itself delivers an ominous early warning of how wasteful Obama’s spending will likely be:

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

Obama wants to move away from coal-fired electricity on environmental grounds. Fine. The best alternative, hydropower, is largely tapped out in the United States. (Although there remain some large potential projects in Canada, especially in northern Manitoba.)

So what should be used instead? As a rule of thumb, nuclear power costs about 50% more than coal; windpower, at least three times as much. Solar power costs even more than wind, at least with existing technology.

Those basic cost factors imply that the money Obama wishes to invest in energy technology will almost certainly reduce US economic growth rather than accelerate it. Obama promises that his government will aid the private economy. In reality it will be burdening it.

That needs to be said. Whenever the argument of so-called clean energy comes up, wind, solar and ethanol, the politicians and environmentalists never say that it will hurt the economy. There would be more credibility for the movement if they were up front and said, we think it's worth it, even if it means recessions and unemployment. Instead we hear that it will help the economy, all those "green collar" jobs.

All Those 'Green Collar" Jobs

It seems the last few elections there's always a Liberal or NDPer in Canada or Democrat in the US who tout up all those "green collar" jobs that are going to be created by alternative energy. What they didn't mention was that those jobs would come directly from subsidies because the business is not profitable. Already the industry is asking for hand outs on top of the subsidies they're already getting:

They argue that the economic downturn has limited the effectiveness of a tax credit that supports the wind and solar industries. They want to change the credit to a refund in the economic stimulus package. Credits help investors minimize their tax liability. Refunds act more like a direct payment.

The economic downturn, which has hit the financial sector particularly hard, has meant far fewer profits to offset with the help of a tax credit. That means interest in funding solar and wind projects is drying up.

There are merits to trying to wean off oil, but let's be honest about this and say it's a drain on the economy, not a boon to it.

Liberal Spin-Meister Engages in Wishful Thinking

I check into Warren Kinsella's website from time to time. To start the year he does his Ten Predictions. I couldn't help but chuckle at a few. (here)

1. There’ll be an election. A minority government, and a country in a near-Depression, are mutually-exclusive concepts. As things get worse, the pressure on the Opposition parties to topple the Conservative administration will be enormous. Personally, I’m all for toppling ‘em right now.

OK, so the Coalition is back then? Since Kinsella works directly for Iggy, this is no doubt what the boss thinks. But I thought the Globe and Mail told me that Ignatieff had successfully distanced himself from the unsuccessful and unpopular coup d’état? Canadians are going to be upset if we have another election. The Liberals are also hopelessly unprepared for one.

2. The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together. We’ve also got the best team: we’ve got a Rae, a LeBlanc, a Trudeau, a Dryden, a Garneau, a Hall-Finlay, a Dhalla…I could go on. (I will, too.)

Please do go on! I forgot to warn you not to have a mouthful of coffee when reading that. Bob Rae, is less known outside of Ontario, where the Liberals don't get seats, and well known inside of Ontario where he was a disastrous NDP Premier. Justin Trudeau looks like he should be in a boys band. Ken Dryden, the great goalie is a laughably bad public speaker. I've heard of Garneau because he was an astronaut but couldn't pick him out in a police lineup, etc., etc. A note on Iggy too: He's still unknown. We don't know if he's a good politican. He seems pretty wooden to me.

4. The Reform Conservative Party of Parts of Western Canada will lose the election, because they’ve got an angry leader that people – women and young people in particular – just can’t warm up to. They’ll lose because they’ve got a pretty unremarkable team, too. Apart from Jim Prentice and a couple others, I’m guessing 99 per cent of Canadians couldn’t name five ministers in the federal cabinet. When the face of your entire political organization is one man – and a man whom voters are increasingly unenthusiastic about – you’ve got trouble, baby.

Parts of Western Canada? No, the massive majority of western Canada. (And calling them the Reform Party, reaching into an old bag of tricks there.) I guess that Kinsella didn't read the polls that after the coup Harper's numbers were huge and could have secured him a majority if the election were held at the time.

9. We’re overdue for some sort of environmental calamity. That, when combined with the Reform Conservatives’ complete disinterest in things like climate change, will make people angrier. John Baird will wish he had listened to Al Gore. So will everyone.

The Liberals try to push the green agenda and get burned every time. They aren't learning from past mistakes. With the economy bad, everybody is going to be happy not to have listened to Gore and implement wasteful measures that hurt the economy and do nothing to change the environment. You think they would have learned, after having their worst electoral showing since Confederation that their "Green Shift" was not popular. (And Warren, try not to sound like you want a natural disaster so badly.)

Also with Gore, more and more people are starting to realize his film was exaggerated alarmism.

UPDATE: Looks like the polls confirm that Kinsella is dillusional:

Despite the quick replacement of Stéphane Dion with Michael Ignatieff as party leader, Liberal support remains in the doldrums with 30% of national vote intentions. Conservative support is at 43%--more than enough to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons if an election were held today.

Washington Times: World Temperature Cooling?

I feel like piling on today against the Global Warming Theory. Over the years, I got tired of hearing about this unarguable truth. Here's a great commentary from David Deming:

These cold weather events were not abnormal or isolated incidents. Global measures of climatic conditions indicate significant cooling.

A preliminary estimate by the British Met Office says 2008 will be the coldest year of the last 10. The extent of global sea ice is at the same level it was in 1980. The mean planetary temperature, as monitored by satellite, also is the same as in 1980.
Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom.

Recently, I had walked into the kitchen at work and two women co-workers were talking. One of them was saying: "There are actually people out there who don't believe in global warming!? How ignorant can people be?"

Try saying that you don't believe in global warming to co-workers. You might as well say that you support genocide. People get very upset.


David Suzuki took it further this year when he said deniers should be jailed:

What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."

I Thought All Scientists Agreed About Global Warming?

Maybe the world isn't ending after all. More skeptics in the scientific community are emerging. Now hopefully the hysteria will die down.

Here is a US Senate Minority Report on the subject:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

I'm curious how green militants read this type of thing? Do they even consider the possibility that there might be more to this issue than they think? I wonder what David Suzuki would say about this?

Fear and Hysteria at the Guardian

One hears a lot from the leftists that people on the right exploit fear. For example, Noam Chomsky says:

The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.

Michael Moore often plays this card as well. It's as if terrorists are mostly just bogeymen made up by the right.

But where else can you find anything more hysterical than the fear mongering about Global Warming doomsday scenarios? I was taking a look at The Guardian today, and they take fear to a new level in this article:

If it is too late to prevent runaway climate change, the Bush team must carry much of the blame. His wilful trashing of the Middle Climate - the interlude of benign temperatures which allowed human civilisation to flourish - makes the mass murder he engineered in Iraq only the second of his crimes against humanity

....

Is it too late? To say so is to make it true. To suggest there is nothing that can be done is to ensure that nothing is done. But even a resolute optimist like me finds hope ever harder to summon.

....

The trajectory both Barack Obama and Gordon Brown have proposed - an 80% cut by 2050 - means reducing emissions by an average of 2% a year. This programme, the figures in the Tyndall paper suggest, is likely to commit the world to at least four or five degrees of warming, which means the likely collapse of human civilisation across much of the planet. Is this acceptable?

My brother made a good point that Environmentalism is the new religion. Built in is the clause that if you don't believe, the WORLD WILL END! So start believing now!

Hard Times Tends to Hatch More Honest Dialogue

Looks like EU members are starting to talk realistically about expensive environmental regulations:

Italy, Poland and a few other nations in mid-October threatened to veto ambitious new E.U. goals to fight climate change slated to be approved at the end of this year, saying that the measures were expensive. Italy asked for a new assessment of costs, and for more flexibility in their implementation.

The climate change measures are expensive, and hurt the economy, can we admit this? So let's stop talking about how it's better for the economy, the "green collar" jobs boom, etc.