Do green jackboots hurt less when descending repeatedly onto your face? The reason I wonder is this:
The boys in green are coming as the Environment Agency sets up a squad to police companies generating excessive CO2 emissions.
The agency is creating a unit of about 50 auditors and inspectors, complete with warrant cards and the power to search company premises to enforce the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which comes into effect next year.
Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills and examine carbon-trading records for an estimated 6,000 British businesses. Ed Mitchell, head of business performance and regulation at the Environment Agency, said the squad would help to bring emissions under control. “Climate change and CO2 are the world’s biggest issues right now. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is one of the ways in which Britain is responding.”
And there is this special feature:
It will also be able to demand energy bills from utilities without the companies under investigation knowing they are being watched.
The UK is about to discover that the easiest way for companies to reduce energy usage is to off-shore much of their labor. This will not end well for them.
Here is a report in the NYT about how bio-fuels are not the environmental panacea that they are made out to be. From the article:
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
This is almost always what happens when politics trumps engineering.
Steven Milloy of Fox News and JunkScience.com gives his thoughts on the latest and final IPCC report. It’s a very good article and well worth reading. My favortite part:
That key issue, of course, is whether or not manmade CO2 emissions drive global temperature. In its shockingly brief and superficial treatment of this crucial issue, the U.N. states, in relevant part, that, “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures, since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over every continent (except Antarctica).”
This glib statement overlooks that fact that from 1940 to 1975 globally-averaged temperature declined (giving rise to a much-hyped scare about a looming ice age) while manmade CO2 emissions increased. Global temperature has fallen since 1998 despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions. So for 27 of the last 50 years, globally-averaged temperatures have declined while CO2 emissions have increased.
Here is a great commentary likening Al Gore’s global warming religeon to Jim Jones. The world is drinking the kool-aid:
Al Gore, the Jim Jones of this new religious cult, preaches doom and gloom from his pettifogger pulpit, all the while living the lifestyle of an energy hog. He actually uses twice the amount of electricity in one month at his Nashville home than the average household uses in an entire year. He has two homes in Tennessee, one in Virginia, at least. He flies all over the world on his Magical Hysteria Tour, sucking down resources and belching out tons of carbon, all to tell us we need to conserve. We’re trying to make ends meet just to afford gas in our cars while Al Gore has a carbon footprint the size of Sasquatch. And no one seems to care.
Here is a headline that says a lot more about newspaper editors than it says about Califormians:
Californians better informed on global warming threat, poll finds
And how do we know they are better informed? Because a Field Poll found:
Californians are more likely than the rest of the nation to see global warming as a threat, but also are more optimistic that greenhouse gases can be cut while creating jobs and expanding the economy, according to a Field Poll released Friday.
State residents are more likely than other Americans to back efforts to address climate change, with large majorities favoring government regulations, tax incentives and other efforts by industry and individuals to curb their emissions, the poll showed.
Californians are more likely to share the same view of Global Warming as the San Francisco Chronicle, ergo they must be better informed.
Further proof Deductive Logic is not a required course in the J-School curriculum.
Of course the same poll found a good number of Californians are also somewhat naïve in how business works:
A similar majority supports government regulations requiring businesses to cut their emissions, although that support dropped from 81 percent to 61 percent if the new rules increased the cost of goods and services.
That means 20 percent of Californians believe that increasing the costs for a business won’t increase the costs to the end consumer. But hey, they are better informed so who am I to judge?
Andrew Bolt awards a Gold Medal in hypocrisy to the United Nations, despite stiff competition from other global warming alarmist (hat tip to JunkScience.com):
What is it with global warming prophets and jets? And luxury? And tropical islands?
I ask because what Flannery is doing on his luxurious lonesome, entire jet-loads of global warming activists are about to do in a gluttonous mass-orgy – the most spectacular demonstration of warming hypocrisy yet seen.
The gold medal performance.
I’m talking about the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference 2007, to be held next month at Bali’s luxury tourism precinct of Nusa Dua.
How wonderful it will be there in balmy Bali – with its beaches, its shopping, its tennis courts, its golf courses, its balmy weather, its five-star service and its high-minded chatter about how to make people back home go without for the sake of the planet.
No wonder the conference has been extended to last a leisurely fortnight.
Even better for UN staff, they may travel to Bali in business class, where no doubt they’ll bump into many other delegates off for a little pre-Christmas conference cheer, courtesy, in most cases, of taxpayers.
Now guess how many people are jetting to this Balinese paradise to demand we cut our emissions?
Let me quote a newspaper report in which Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar gives the startling numbers: “He said 189 countries to be represented by some 10,000 delegates and 2500 foreign journalists had officially registered to take part.”
That’s right, 12,500.
To fly to a conference that will cost more than $70 million to stage.
I can hear the oinking from here. This gathering of jet-set hypocrites is guaranteed not to cut emissions, but increase them, Al Gore-style.
In fact, I’ve worked it out on the Climate Care emissions calculator: just flying all those people to the conference and back will send around 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air.
That’s more than the greenhouse gases that 7000 family cars typically emit in an entire year.
Remember: You can’t save the world until your ready to make other people sacrifice!
There is this interesting article by John Christy, who by participating in the IPCC could be considered to share a small fraction of the Nobel glory bestowed on Al Gore. He coins and then promptly discards the phrase “0.0001 Nobel Laureate”. He has an interesting take on what it all means:
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, “Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with ‘At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'”
I haven’t seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.