Britain’s unilateral carbon tax should be scrapped before it causes blackouts, pushes up household bills and makes the UK uncompetitive, ScottishPower argues. Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer, warns that the “carbon price floor” (CPF), which taxes companies for burning fossil fuels, will make Britain’s remaining coal plants “largely uneconomic by around the middle of the decade”. With Britain’s spare power margin already forecast to fall as low as 2pc by 2015, the carbon tax will force more closures and “threatens to make us even more vulnerable to the risk of blackouts”, he warns. --Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 9 December 2013
Popular perceptions about climate appear surrealistic to me. I'm a seasoned science geek who has been involved in big-time climate modeling, serious mathematics, theory, and more. Popular discussions of this subject have come to look like a Salvador Dali painting, as once noted by Dr. Robert Carter, a well-known Australian marine geologist and paleontologist.
Here's just a taste of the surrealism. Culture has not only given us oxygen-free carbon dioxide (e.g. "carbon credits," "carbon taxes," and of course President Barack Obama's own "carbon pollution"), but also "carbon-free sugar." Check out the latter yourself at Domino Sugar. I especially like the official-looking seal on the package that declares it "certified carbon free." Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's relentless drive to "decarbonize" led one of Australia's best political cartoonists, John Spooner, to draw her as a cup of water. I give him full credit for lifting the credibility of journalism singlehandedly.
Canada is running out of time to offer U.S. President Barack Obama a climate change concession that might clinch the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, as the country's energy industry continues to resist costly curbs on greenhouse gas emissions.
Two years of negotiations between the Canadian government and the energy sector to curtail carbon pollution have not produced an agreement. Oil producers have balked at anything more than the 10-cents-a-barrel carbon tax imposed by the province of Alberta.
Late last month, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq pointed to "good progress" in the talks but was unable to say when a resolution might come.
[h/t Ken] The Obama administration is about to approve a rule that will ensure the death of golden and bald eagles for the next 30 more years.
Hundreds of thousands of birds die each year flying into the deadly turbine blades atop the soaring towers that compose wind farms. The rule will give wind farms thirty year permits for the “non purposeful take of eagles-that is where the take is associated with but not the purpose of, the activity.’’ The take of eagles is also a euphemism for the slaughter of them.
A new study warns of sudden changes in climate from global warming, but one skeptic says the study is all about getting more money.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined warming that can occur over a period of years, not centuries, adding that the extinction of some species and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean is already occurring. Even so, Marc Morano of Climate Depot is skeptical.
"The organization [NAS] is virtually 100-percent dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this – and they've done other studies in the past – you know the outcome of these studies before they do them," he argues. "When the president is advocating for a carbon tax, it's not too surprising that all the [government] reports are going to fall in line."
No, were not talking about healthcare, or Obamacare, or the president's unbridled use of "executive" orders. Obama's been slowly, methodically dismantling the coal industry, won't budge on the Keystone pipeline, and uses the EPA to pass stifling regulations to appease the Goreaphiles. All the while the economy is stagnant, millions have given up looking for work, and 52% of Americans get some form of entitlement (whether merited or not). From the National Journal:
President Obama is forging ahead with rules controlling carbon emissions. Major companies, including ExxonMobil and American Electric Power, are beginning to price carbon into their budgets. The nation's legal system, led by the Supreme Court, has mostly held up the authority to regulate carbon emissions.
It’s 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Littleton, CO, sunless and snowing. Colorado isn’t the only state in the grip of a deep freeze. NBC reports that residents of Duluth, MN got two feet of snow yesterday and are bracing for another foot today. The real treat will be the expected minus 22 degree temperature Friday. Parts of Nevada and Arizona are experiencing snow and freezing temperatures. Ice has covered Dallas, TX, and cold temperatures in California’s Central Valley have citrus growers looking nervously at the tender fruit still ripening on the branch.
This isn’t quite how Chancellor George Osborne defended his decision yesterday but it is perhaps the way he should have. For he’s decided to abolish the “fuel duty escalator” and there’s an extremely good climate change related argument for his having done so. Indeed, if we take the scientific consensus on how to deal with climate change seriously then the UK has already done everything that is necessary: all we need to do now is see how the incentives work through the system and change it.
Here’s the actual announcement:
Motorists and rail passengers received some respite from expected extra costs on Thursday when the chancellor cancelled a planned rise in fuel duty and limited average train fare rises to inflation.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants, and forthcoming regulations for existing plants, will inflict higher energy costs on American families and businesses.
by Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna and David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D.
The regulations, which will provide no meaningful environmental benefit, have a weak scientific underpinning and face much legal scrutiny. Three Heritage Foundation energy policy experts explain why Congress should remove the EPA’s and any other agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has re-proposed its desired regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for future power plants. The agency also plans to finalize standards for existing plants by summer 2015. If implemented and combined with other proposed and newly implemented regulations, these GHG regulations would significantly reduce the use of coal as a power-generating source in America.
Neil Stenhouse, lead author of a paper accepted for publication by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, trashed the ability of American Meteorological Society meteorologists to understand global warming after they failed to validate Stenhouse’s mythical global warming consensus. Stenhouse’s criticism of AMS meteorologists in the UK Guardian puts dues-paying AMS members in the odd position of supporting and publishing the work of a non-scientist who is bashing their credentials.
Stenhouse, a psychologist and doctoral student in communications at George Mason University, emailed all full members of the American Meteorological Society for whom he could find an email address and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey.
An analysis released in October by the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative revealed that every day in 2012, $1 billion was spent across the world on ‘climate finance’. But that incredible sum is not nearly enough, according to delegates at the recent United Nations climate conference in Warsaw. Far greater funding is needed to save the world from what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calls the “greatest threat facing humanity.”
Consequently, delegates at last month’s UN Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to vastly increase the financial burden on taxpayers of developed countries to stop extreme weather and other problems they blame on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. That climate science is highly immature and global warming actually stopped 17 years ago was never mentioned.