The colossal, hugely expensive windfarms that are spread across huge areas of Europe's land and sea, which are projected to drive up household energy bills by more than 50 per cent in coming years, have achieved ... almost nothing in terms of reducing EU carbon emissions.
We here on the Reg energy desk only noticed this particularly this week because of a chirpy press release that flitted past us just the other day, claiming that "wind energy provides 8 per cent of Europe's electricity."
Hey, we thought, that sounds almost like it's getting somewhere! So we looked into it. The eight per cent figure comes from the latest Wind Status Report (pdf) from the EU Joint Research Centre, and sure enough, it's claimed therein that all those massive wind farms produced no less than 238 terawatt-hours of the 2,942 TWh of 'leccy used in the EU nations last year.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the climate change debate Sunday, setting ambitious goals to "decarbonize" America and blasting her Republican rivals for ignoring scientists who warn of a looming disaster from global warming.
Mrs. Clinton announced what she described as the first pillars of a comprehensive energy and climate agenda with a three-minute Web video that presented a montage of scenes of children on playgrounds, farmland and windmills juxtaposed with footage of wildfires, a blazing sun and flood damage.
LomborgEarlier this year, I reported how a handful of green activists at the University of Western Australia had nixed a $4 million policy centre just because it was vaguely associated with “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg.
Now they’re at it again, this time at Flinders University in South Australia, where the student association’s general secretary Grace Hill has vowed to lead students in killing the project.
The University of Western Australia was to host the think tank, to be aligned with Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre and work in areas ranging from food security to social justice, but reversed its decision amid howls of protest from students and staff.
The Environmental Defense Fund raises money by lying about global warming. Here’s your guide to its latest fundraising letter.
Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions to get attention and raise money, but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may have set a new low. The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook. Each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make! Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmists’ playbook.
George Orwell's epic book, "1984," a nightmarish future is depicted in which government, largely through what's known as "Big Brother," engages in "doublespeak" to manipulate and deceive citizens. "Lies are Truth," and, "War is Peace." The government even manufactures an imaginary war as propaganda to justify misery inflicted upon citizens.
Orwell's parallels to modern global warming hysteria are self-evident.
Last month, I wrote about Marxist influences by providing actual quotes from world leaders boasting "climate science" provides their most powerful tool in their fight against free-market capitalism.
As expected, climateers shrilly responded with religious fervor, insisting man-made global warming is serious and there is a "scientific consensus."
Hillary Clinton was in Iowa, talking about the subject foremost on everyone's mind. No, not the tremendous national debt, or illegal immigration, or Iran getting nuclear weapons, but global warming.
She praised Iowa for its success with wind energy, which she said was an example of good environmental and economic policy. She said she favored a wind-production tax credit
How is it good economic policy when the championed energy source requires taxpayer subsidies? How is it good energy policy when the championed energy source stops working when the wind dies down?
Britain will go no faster than other countries in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the government has signalled. In a speech setting out the government’s position on climate change, Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, said that the need to cut emissions had to be balanced against the requirement to protect the economy and keep down energy bills. --Ben Webster, The Times, 24 July 2015
Amber Rudd also signalled that she would stop Britain’s policy of unilateral decarbonisation at a faster rate than other countries, as mandated in Mr Miliband’s Climate Change Act of 2008. Supposing the Paris conference produces its expected fudge, what should our energy policy look like? The Poles and other Eastern European countries are opposed to going it alone again, even before a non-binding agreement in Paris. That will give the British government the opportunity to revisit its own targets. According to part 1, section 2, of the Climate Change Act, the secretary of state has the power to amend the act’s CO2 targets if there is a significant change in international climate policy. She should grasp it. --Matt Ridley, The Times, 27 July 2015
The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.
“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”
(h/t raining sky) The former chairman of the U.N. climate panel has been removed from his job as head of a top energy institute in India following allegations of sexual harassment.
The governing council of The Energy and Resources Institute announced late Thursday that Rajendra Pachauri would be replaced as director-general of the renowned environment think-tank by Arun Mathur, an energy efficiency expert.
Although no reasons were given for Pachauri's replacement, the council said the decision was taken keeping in view the interests of the private institute and its 1,200 employees working in different parts of the world.
Pachauri, 75, resigned from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February, after a 29-year-old woman accused him of stalking and sexually harassing her while they worked together at the institute. He denies the allegations.
A new Gallup poll released on Wednesday shows that the pope's popularity has taken a steep downward spiral, with only 59 percent of Americans saying they viewed the pope favorably, down from 76 percent in February 2014. Fueling this lower rating are declining opinions of the pope among Roman Catholics and conservatives. Worse still, 16 percent of Americans disapprove of the job the pope is doing, up from 9 percent in the same period.
The Gallup poll was done three weeks after the pope released his much-ballyhooed climate Encyclical, which denounced capitalism (free markets) and criticized humankind for turning the planet into a sewer. Critics say that much of his Encyclical was largely ghost-written by environmental activists and United Nations' ideologues. Prior to the Encyclical's release, the Vatican held a controversial climate summit, and invited people like pro-abortionist Jeffrey Sachs and population-control proponent Ban Ki-moon to speak.
The government has signed the death warrant for another environmental scheme, this time the Green Deal energy-saving programme that ministers once called the biggest home improvement measure since the second world war. A day after moving to axe solar farm and woodchip power subsidies, Amber Rudd, the energy and climate change secretary, said the government was pulling funding for the finance company that delivers the Green Deal scheme, in order to “protect taxpayers”. --Pilita Clark, Financial Times, 24 July 2015
Households face cuts in “feed-in tariffs” for new solar panels on roofs under government plans to prevent subsidies for renewable energy spiralling out of control. Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, said the renewable energy industry could not be given a blank cheque and the level of subsidies should be reduced because of a fall in the cost of solar panels. Ms Rudd said: “We can’t have a situation where industry has a blank cheque paid for by people’s bills. I’m going to ensure that bills are kept down.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 23 July 2015