Elbiler er giver ingen miljø fordel

Dansk Folkeparti, Diverse, Grøn energi, Klima, Sort energi, Videnskab, miljø, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on February 22, 2015 at 10:02 am

Finans skriver at der kun er 10 måneder tilbage af el-bilernes fritagelse for afgift, hvilket skatteminister Benny Engelbrecht “er meget opmærksom på”. Så der skal findes en løsning - åbenbart

»Det er vigtigt at skubbe elbilmarkedet i gang. Men det skal være for en kortere årrække, indtil vi kommer igennem med en omlægning af registreringsafgiften, så bilerne generelt bliver billigere,« lød det dengang fra Brian Mikkelsen.

Hos Dansk Folkeparti er Dennis Flydtkjær mere fortaler for en generel omlægning af bilafgifterne.

»En forlængelse af afgiftsfritagelsen giver ikke stabile rammevilkår for elbilbranchen, men skaber derimod usikkerhed om, hvordan vilkårerne vil være på længere sigt. Løsningen er derfor en generel omlægning af bilafgifterne, hvor elbilerne også er passet ind,« lød hans begrundelse.

Frank Aaen fra Enhedslisten er også tilhænger af en samlet løsning for bilafgifterne. Men alternativt er han indstillet på en særløsning for elbilerne. Den kan så finansieres ved at ophæve fradrag i bilbeskatningen.

Frank Aaen har eksempelvis peget på, at der gives et fradrag på 1.000 kr. for at sætte en radio i bilen. Sikkerhedsudstyr som selealarmer og airbags giver også fradrag i afgiften.

Men Bjørn Lomborg gør sit til at ødelægge den gode stemning ved i USA Today at påpege at el-bilen som et økologisk alternativ er en myte. “For every dollar of cost, the electric car does less than half a cent of good.” konkluderer Lomborg og giver nogle eksempler

The most popular electric car, a Nissan Leaf, over a 90,000-mile lifetime will emit 31 metric tons of CO2, based on emissions from its production, its electricity consumption at average U.S. fuel mix and its ultimate scrapping. A comparable diesel Mercedes CDI A160 over a similar lifetime will emit 3 tons more across its production, diesel consumption and ultimate scrapping.

The results are similar for the top-line Tesla car, emitting about 44 tons, about 5 tons less than a similar Audi A7 Quattro.

Subsidies vs. savings

Yes, in both cases the electric car is better, but only by a tiny bit. Avoiding 3 tons of CO2 would cost less than $27 on Europe’s emissions trading market. The annual benefit is about the cost of a cup of coffee. Yet U.S. taxpayers spend up to $7,500 in tax breaks for less than $27 of climate benefits. That’s a bad deal.

The other main benefit from electric cars was supposed to be lower air pollution. Yes, it might be powered by coal, but unlike the regular car, coal emissions are far away from the city centers where more people live and where damage from air pollution hits hardest.

However, new research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that while gasoline cars pollute closer to home, coal-fired power pollutes a lot more.

(…)

Of course, electric car proponents would venture that the perceived rapid ramp-up of renewables will make future electric cars much cleaner. This, however, is mostly wishful thinking. Today, the U.S. gets 14% of its electric power from renewables. In 25 years, Obama’s Energy Information Administration estimates this will have gone up just 3 percentage points to 17%.

(…)

Proponents could also argue that the more mileage an electric car logs, the more its carbon footprint is reduced because the battery production is a significant part of their total emissions.

Yet, it hardly matters. The added mileage saves little in the way of emissions, and the electric car’s extended use might mean it would have to replace its batteries, entirely blowing the climate benefit.

Hvad Lomborg dog glemmer er den følelse af moralsk overlegenhed en afgiftsfri Tesla giver. Og hvis ikke det kvalificerede til et fradrag…

En fremtid for skifergas

Frederikshavn byråd har givet tilladelse til prøveboringer af skiffergas. Og det er man ikke glade for på venstrefløjen, hvor Modkraft argumenterede således

Et af hovedproblemerne ved udvindingen af skifergas er, at der i udvindingsprocessen er et udslip af metan til atmosfæren på mellem 3-7 %.

Metan er 20-30 gange mere potent end CO2 i forhold til den globale opvarmning.

Den nyeste rapport fra IPCC, FN’s klimapanel, har netop slået fast, at metangasser er endnu værre end først antaget.

Derudover viser erfaringerne fra andre lande, at udvindingen af skifergas kan føre til forurening af grundvand, ødelæggelse af miljø og lokalsamfund, og at udvinding af skifergas desuden fjerner fokus fra den nødvendige omstilling fra fossiler til vedvarende energiformer.

Udvinding af skifergas kræver ekstreme mængder af ferskvand, kemikalier, og vil desuden generere en massiv lastbilstrafik.

Ved kommerciel udvinding af skifergas vil der være brug for højt specialiseret arbejdskraft, der sandsynligvis vil komme fra Frankrig, derudover skal der bruges et antal lastbilchauffører.

Om den arbejdskraft vil blive hentet lokalt, er et åbent spørgsmål.

Da den globale temperatur ikke er steget de seneste 17 år kan man glemme hele klimaargumentet og i stedet bekymre sig om nærmiljøet. Faktisk er skiffergas bedre for CO2 regnskabet end de grønne løsninger argumenterer Lomborg i Forbes

Compare this to the fact that all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO? emissions, at a maximum, by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution has by itself reduced global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.

Men der er også gode grunde til at udvinde skiffergas - også selv om det vil betyde fracking

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Europe gets just 1.3 percent of its energy from renewables like solar and wind, whereas it gets about 75 percent from fossil fuels and most of the remainder from nuclear. Even an extremely optimistic scenario from the IEA suggests that by 2035, Europe will only be able to generate 8 percent of its energy from these renewables. Focusing on them is simply populism without realism.

Moreover, subsidizing ever more green energy is becoming unaffordable. Spain is already paying more in subsidies to wind and solar than they spend on their higher education, making a dramatic increase exceedingly unlikely. But perhaps the best illustration comes from Germany, the EU’s largest economy with the biggest focus on renewables.

Last year alone, German consumers subsidized renewable energies to the tune of $27 billion, contributing to an inflation-adjusted 80 percent rise in household electricity prices since 2000. Yet the intermittency of renewables has increased the country’s reliance on fossil fuels since the nuclear phase-out of 2011. As Spiegel pointed out: “Consumer advocates and aid organizations say the breaking point has already been reached. Today, more than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills.” Economic models for Europe show that the current climate policies will cost an excruciating $280 billion annually.

Og det gider ingen i længden påstår finansmanden Per Wimmer i Information. Han advarer om at statsstøtte til den grønne energisektor har skabt en boble der vil briste når de politiske vinde skifter

»Jeg tror ikke på, at den politiske eller folkelige opbakning er der for evigt. Jeg tror stadig, at folk gerne vil have grøn energi, det vil jeg også gerne, men der er en meget bedre måde at gøre det på, hvor vi får mere smæk for skillingen.«

Når opbakningen forsvinder, så vil boblen briste. For hvis støtten fjernes fra en række af de vedvarende energiformer, for eksempel vindenergi i Danmark, så vil projekterne ikke længere være rentable.

Og så står man med en masse projekter, der økonomisk er kollapstruede. Og er projekterne ikke rentable, men må lukkes ned, så står man også uden grønne energikilder, fordi man ikke satsede på de kommercielt rentable projekter.

– Forudsætningen for, at boblen brister, er, at der kommer et oprør mod støtten. Hvordan kan du vide, at det kommer?

»På et eller andet tidspunkt er der en, der siger, at nu gider jeg ikke tage hånden i lommen mere,« siger Per Wimmer.

Men der er et andet og endnu vigtigere argument for skiffergas og andre realistiske energiformer, nemlig forsyningssikkerhed. Den grønne bølge er både urentabel og utilstrækkelig og vi har i Vesten for længe forladt os på ondsindede og fjendtlige magter til at forsyne os med energi, noget som de til stadighed bruger til afpresning. For at fastholde Vesten som marked og indflydelsesfære har Rusland og Opec landene en interesse i at støtte de organisationer, der vil bremse fremskridtet

Så vi kan lade den tidligere KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov forklare hvorledes man benytter sig af frie samfunds nyttige idioter og forrædere

En radikal fornøjelse

Danmarks Radio, Diverse, Grøn energi, Klima, Politik, Sort energi, Videnskab, miljø, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on February 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm

for husholdningerne udgør [energiafgifterne] ikke noget større problem“, fortalte en eller anden Helveg, der er klimaminister til Nynne Bjerre i DR2’s Deadline, da han skulle forklare, hvorfor Vismændene tager fejl i at underkende effekten af den særlige danske CO2 reduktion, når vi alligevel er en del af EU’s kvotesystem. Som Jyllands-Posten summerer vismændene op

….den netop offentliggjorte rapport fra Det Miljøøkonomiske Råd, (…) er det hidtil mest ætsende opgør med årtiers dansk energipolitik.

»Anvendelse af vedvarende energi som vindmøller, halm og træpiller er generelt dyrere end fossile brændsler, selv når der tages højde for CO2-afgifter og kvotekrav ved udledning af CO2,« fastslår Det Miljøøkonomiske Råd.

Danmark er forpligtet til at honorere EU’s klima- og energipolitik, men en »fortsat overmålopfyldelse koster velstand«, påpeger vismændene. Skarpere kan det ikke siges.

Danmark fører en dybt forfejlet energipolitik, der har påført danskerne verdens højeste energipriser og ifølge Det Miljøøkonomiske Råd forværret konkurrenceevnen og reduceret velstanden, simpelthen fordi danskerne må aflevere milliarder i energiafgifter og dermed berøves forbrugsmuligheder uden at have fået noget håndgribeligt til gengæld.

Ikke nok med det: Den CO2, som danskerne måske sparer, kan sælges som CO2-kvoter til andre europæiske lande, der bruger den til at etablere nye kulfyrede kraftværker – og Europas kulforbrug er i disse år stigende.

Selv hvis alle tilskud til nye vindmøller samt direkte tilskud til solenergi, biogas og biomasse i el-produktionen ophører, som vismændene anbefaler, vil Danmark i 2020 »være meget tæt på« at leve op til EU’s krav om en andel af vedvarende energi på 30 pct.

Og Jyllands-Posten konkluderer videre at lytte til Helveg Petersen, som han leder an i den massive kritik af fagfolkene er “som at lytte til talsmanden for en nyreligiøs bevægelse“. Nynne Bjerre’s tilgang i Deadline var da også at få Helveg til at indrømme at han havde taget et politisk standpunkt, der kostede urimeligt med knapper. Men som Helveg arrogant afviste at gå ind på vismændenes præmisser indrømmede han ufrivilligt alligevel den barske virkeligheds penge og ressourcespild

Vi vil gerne i tyve halvtreds være helt fri af fossile brændstoffer. Hvis ikke vi laver noget teknologiudvikling, hvis ikke vi går igang allerede nu med at udfase den sorte energi, jamen så når vi simpelthen ikke vores mål og det vil klimaet ikke kunne holde til.

(…)

[Vismændene] er nærmest ude i et halsløst ærinde når de siger at vi bare skal stoppe for støtte og udbygningen af havvindmølleparkerne osv. Tænk på alle de arbejdspladser der er derude lige nu, som er bygget på omkring denne her grønne økonomi, som både eksporterer, men som søreme også producerer til Danmark.

Støtte er radikalt slang for statsstøtte. Bjerre indskød listigt at det vel ikke alt sammen afhang af statsstøtte og Helveg gik hovmodigt lige i fælden helt uanfægtet af realiteternes betydning

Den teknologiudvikling der har ført til alle de arbejdspladser vi har i dag, den er eksportdrevet, men den er simpelthen kommet fordi vi selv har haft et hjemmemarked. Det er klart at i en kort periode, der ville du kunne klare dig uden et.. noget udvikling på hjemmemarkedet. Men den teknologi og den industri vi har fået bygget op i Danmark, den er jo et produkt af en 30-årig satsning - hvis du holder op så begynder det straks at forvitre.

Hjemmemarked er også radikalt slang for statsstøtte. Og 30 års støtte er radikalt slang for helt afhængighed af statsstøtte.

Det scenarie der ville opstå, hvis man gjorde som [vismændene] forslår og fra den ene dag til den anden holdt op med at støtte vedvarende energi… det ville være et blodbad af arbejdspladser ud over det ganske land.

(…)

Den branche vi har opbygget samlet set omkring grøn teknologi fylder nu 11% af vores eksport.

Her indskød Bjerre at det også var medregnet succesprodukter som Grundfoss Varmepumper og fortsatte sit pres på at få ministeren til at indrømme modsætningen mellem hans politiske ønsker og de økonomiske realiteter. Men det rystede ikke Helveg, der lyriks fortsatte “For mig er det en fornøjelse at vi gør begge dele, at vi opbygger en teknologisk styrkeposition med mange gode arbejdspladser samtidig med at vi baner vejen for at få gjort noget ved klimaet“.

Religiøst motiveret pengespild er muligvis en radikal fornøjelse, men på et tidspunkt vil belastningen for husholdningerne kræve en Thatcher der tager opgøret med de forældede industriers privilegier. Og det vil gå ud over ganske mange arbejdere i det ganske land, hvis ekspertise vil være så relevant som bødkernes.

Miljø-evangelisten David Suzuki

Diverse, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Satire, Vandmelon, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on October 19, 2013 at 10:43 am

‘Det religiøse højre’ i USA, er en fast forklaringsmodel for hvorfor amerikanerne ikke kan komme til fornuft og indrette deres samfund efter europæisk forbillede. ‘Det religiøse højre’ udgør ofte en moralsk forkastelig vælgerbase for de mest upopulære republikanske præsidenter og den står i naturligt ledtod med ‘den jødiske/israelske lobby’, der gør mod Mellemøsten og verdensfreden, hvad ‘det religiøse højre’ gør mod USA. Men populære abstraktioner er intet at regne for den rene levendegørelse og tele-evangelister er selve billedet på amerikansk åndelig afstumpethed (selv om det er svært at stå for Jimmie Swaggert).

Men der religiøse er ikke isoleret til højre i USA. Det er lige så rigt repræsenteret til venstre og i Europa dominerer det religiøse netop til venstre. Men det religiøse venstre er en uerkendt religiøsitet thi de tror sig vaccineret i dyrkelse af gudløsheden. For det religiøse handler ikke om hvilken tro på det der ligger ud over det menneskeligt erkendtlige, men om man sorterer og manipulerer virkeligheden efter hvor godt den passer ind i den fortælling man antager som faktuel såvel som moralsk sandhed. Med Reagans ord handler det om man er bange for at se det man ser. Konklusionerne kan vi altid siden skændes om.

I forrige uge henviste jeg til Ezra Lavant, der gjorde sig kostelig på en af venstrefløjens store miljø-evangelister, canadiske David Suzuki og hans manglende viden om klimaet, som det blev eksponeret i et australsk debatprogram. Lavant forsøger i dette opfølgende show at gå en undvigende Suzuki på klingen, som han også opruller det ernorme økonomiske og moralske hykleri, der følger af den ukritiske tilbedelse af et selvbekræftende evangelium

Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

Akademia, Diverse, FN, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

FN’s klimapanel IPCC barsler med en ny rapport, der skal tjene beslutningstagere over hele verden, som en vejledning i hvilken trussel menneskeheden står overfor og subsidiært hvorledes vi kan beskattes for at kunne beskyttes. Men 17 år uden global opvarmning, uden mere ekstremt vejr og uden en eneste klimaflygtning har sået tvivl i de ellers ubetvivlelige konklusioner. Ross McKitrick skriver i Financial Post

Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

IPCC

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

(…)

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.

This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.

And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.

But forecasting the future state of the climate system was always a risky business. The Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, was correct: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Unlike daily forecasts made by meteorologists, the advantage to climate prognosticators of multi-decadal forecasts is that few people will remember how wrong you were when your forecast finally goes bust.

Yet, here we are, with over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But it’s been nearly 20 years since Al Gore privately blamed us (now, the UAH satellite temperature dataset) for the failure of his earliest attempt at CO2 legislation. Multiple attempts at carbon legislation have failed. The lack of understanding of basic economic principles on the part of politicians and scientists alike led to the unrealistic expectation that humanity would allow the lifeblood of the global economy — inexpensive energy — to be restricted.

Tyske Fritz Vahrenholt siger i et interview med bloggen No Tricks Zone

It’s now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What‘s false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn’t been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth’s radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a “missing heat” cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we’ve been hearing speculation about the deep ocean.  On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.

NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world’s leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there’s a problem with climate science?

FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That‘s why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years – never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to “prove“ the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They’ll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.

NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?

FV: Certainly. That’s what’s so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don’t fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.

NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany’s media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?

FV: This process is fully under way. But it’s going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.

NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?

FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.

Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.

It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.

On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.

The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.

NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media – even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?

FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there’s been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it’s man’s fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That’s why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.

NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC’s tunnel vision is growing. But let’s not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

More seriously, rather than engaging in proxy wars over media reporting and the short-term PR spin associated with it — which may in fact just make things worse — it would be in the long-term interests of the climate science community to take a step back and consider the role of their spokespeople (official or otherwise) in aiding and abetting the skeptics, deniers and other nefarious evil-doers.

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

Joanna Nova tror ikke at klimamiljøet tager imod sådanne gode råd og minder i stedet om at  ”They offer no credit to those who were right”

We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

Og nu Joanna Nova anbefaler Matt Riddley, der kalder bortforklaringerne af den manglende varme for “a cottage industry in climate science“, i Wall Street Journal

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (”very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Og han fortsætter

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that “the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius.”

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That’s uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar’s model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that “hindcast” the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Forleden sagde Connie Hedegaard at selv om videnskaben skulle være forkert er politikken stadig rigtig. Selv om patienten alligevel ikke var syg var det rigtigt at operere? Selv om den anklagede alligevel var uskyldig…. Mon ikke absurditeten i at underkende præmissen for en beslutning vil fremstå mere tydelig for selv de definerende klasser de kommende år?

Håbet for en klimakatastrofe svinder

Akademia, FN, Globalisering, Grøn energi, Politik, Pressen, miljø — Drokles on March 1, 2013 at 8:59 am

Den generelle stemning, konsensus kunne man vel kalde det, blandt verdens folkeslag for en snarlig klimakatastrofe ser ud til at være stærkt aftagende. Globescan meddeler at interessen for miljøet generelt tager et dyk i disse år

Environmental concerns among citizens around the world have been falling since 2009 and have now reached twenty-year lows, according to a multi-country GlobeScan poll.

(…)

Climate change is the only exception, where concern was lower from 1998 to 2003 than it is now. Concern about air and water pollution, as well as biodiversity, is significantly below where it was even in the 1990s. Many of the sharpest falls have taken place in the past two years.

The perceived seriousness of climate change has fallen particularly sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Climate concern dropped first in industrialized countries, but this year’s figures show that concern has now fallen in major developing economies such as Brazil and China as well.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-02-28-kl-183800

Det er nok også krisen der kradser og tvinger folk til at koncentrere sig om virkelighedens prosaiske problemer. Men med til historien hører også det tåbelige budskab om undergang i sig selv. De færreste kan forholde sig til fortællingen om at gennemsnitstemperaturen stiger nogle grader over niveauet fra før industrialiseringen. Her i Danmark svinger temperaturen gerne 55 grader Celcius hvert halve år. Og når så temperaturen ikke steget de seneste 17 år hæmmer følelsen det af en ukontrollabel udvikling. Derfor griber man til en masse små sidefortællinger om de katastrofale konsekvenser for at gøre rædslerne levende for de små mennesker, hvis tillid man desværre stadigt grundet det ulykkelige demokrati er nødt til at vinde.

Men man skal kende træet på dets frugter og de små gyserfortællinger bringer kun en kortlivet forskrækkelse som efterhånden bliver afløst af grin og siden skuldertræk. Som f.eks. historien om hvorledes klimaforandringer truer morgenkaffen, som Watts Up With That ironiserer over MSN News ildevarslende historie

A cup of morning coffee could be much harder to find, and much more expensive, before the century is out thanks to climate change and the possible extinction of wild Arabica beans.

That’s the warning behind a new study by U.K. and Ethiopian researchers who say the beans that go into 70 per cent of the world’s coffee could be wiped out by 2080.

Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Environment and Coffee Forest Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia looked at how climate change might make some land unsuitable for Arabica plants, which are highly vulnerable to temperature change and other dangers including pests and disease.

They came up with a best-case scenario that predicts a 38 per cent reduction in land capable of yielding Arabica by 2080. The worst-case scenario puts the loss at between 90 per cent and 100 per cent.

There is a “high risk of extinction” says the study, which was published this week in the academic journal Plos One.

Hver dag er 1. april når man læser om klimaet, selv om det ikke er sjovt at spøge med folks helbred, som klimatalsmand George Luber for det amerikanske Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gør

Climate change threatens polar bears and is rapidly melting Arctic ice, but the effect it is already having on people’s health is what might cause them to take action, a federal official said Tuesday.

Global warming has caused more severe heat waves, increased pollen counts and lengthened allergy seasons, said George Luber, associate director for climate change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a webinar presented by the The Ohio State University Climate Change Outreach Team on Tuesday.

And the effects will only get worse in the future, as temperatures in the Midwest alone could increase 5.6 to 8.5 degrees by the end of this century, he said.

“We should be promoting climate action for people’s sake,” he said.

Kom ihu den seneste tids historier med overbelægning på danske hospitaler fordi vinteren blot er værre for folks helbred end sommeren. Det har vist noget at gøre med kulden. Og for lige at korrigere for den ofte luftede bekymring for bestanden af isbamser, så giver Polar Bear Science 10 gode grunde til at lade være.

Men tilbage til undergangen. En flok amerikanske generaler, politikere og embedsmænd på tværs af partierne (dem begge to) advarer om at folk vil flygte i millionvis når de løber tør for is - eller noget i den retning. Det skriver Responding to Climate Change

“We, the undersigned Republicans, Democrats and Independents, implore US policymakers to support American security and global stability by addressing the risks of climate change in vulnerable nations. Their plight is our fight; their problems are our problems,” it says.

“Without precautionary measures, climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world.

“In fact, we may already be seeing signs of this as vulnerable communities in some of the most fragile and conflict-ridden states are increasingly displaced by floods, droughts and other natural disasters.”

(…)

“If we have difficulty figuring out how to deal with immigration today, look at the prospects for the glacial retreats in the Andes,” said R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, at an event to launch the letter.

“The glaciers are not doing well…If that starts to go away, we will have millions upon millions of southern neighbours hungry, thirsty, with crops failing and looking for some place in the world they can go,” he said.

Hvis man læser Guardian kan man måske finde et åndeligt slægtskab mellem ovenstående vrøvl og præ-menneskeretsforkæmpere

In the abolitionists’ fight for what they knew to be true, I saw deep parallels with the work of modern leaders fighting for action on climate change. I’m thinking of brave activists such as Bill McKibben, who gathered 50,000 people last week to march on Washington, scientists such as Jim Hansen and Michael Mann, and many other leaders in politics, business, and civil society. The metaphor of slavery to climate change is not perfect. But there’s a strong sense of déjà vu about the people working for change, their uphill battles, the arguments they face and, unfortunately, how long it takes them to win.

Nej, metaforen er vist ikke helt perfekt. Den hænger dels på at Rom, som så meget andet, ikke blev bygget på en dag

The foundations of climate science go back more than 100 years, and carbon dioxide measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in 1956. But the real climate movement probably started 25 years ago when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began.

Given the 40-year march to a constitutional amendment on slavery, it’s not surprising that we don’t have a global price on carbon yet. Especially when the forces arrayed against climate action put up significant roadblocks – hurdles that look and sound really familiar.

Og dels på ren idioti

There were many supposed arguments against abolition. The most absurd ideas generally were about not rocking the boat: ideas such as “slavery is natural and has always existed,” or the enervating idea that it’s impractical to change such a big system. On energy and climate, the status quo pitch goes like this: “We’ve relied on these fuels for so long and will for a long time to come.”

Således retfærdigjort er der jo ikke langt til at forlange et diktatur af “the just and wise“, som akademikere jo gerne gør.  The New Nostradamus of the North har læst professor David Shearmans og økofilosoffen Joseph Wayne Smiths bog The Climate Change Challange and the Failure of Democracy

We have known about these impending problems for several decades.  Each year the certainty of the science has increased, yet we have failed to act  appropriately to the threat. We have analyzed the reasons for this indolence.  This understanding will lead you to ask yourself if Western civilization can  survive in its present state of prosperity, health, and well-being, or will it  soon suffer the fate of all previous civilizations—to become a mere page in  history?

We will demand from you the reader, far more than your comprehension  of the consequences of climate change and the workings of democracy. You  will need to examine the limits of your introspection and the motivation  bestowed upon you by biology and culture. The questions to be asked are  dif?cult. You have a commitment to your children, but are you committed  to the well-being of future generations and those you may never see, such as your great-grandchildren? If so are you prepared to change your lifestyle  now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a  necessary solution? -

Chapters 6 and 7 demonstrate that the inherent failures of  democracy that have lead to the environmental crisis also operate in many  other spheres of society. They are inherent to the operation of democracy.  Furthermore, we come to share Plato’s conclusion that democracy is inherently contradictory and leads naturally to authoritarianism.

In chapters 8 and 9 we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of  humanity, and it may be better to choose our elites rather than have them  imposed. Indeed Plato, on seeing the sequelae of democracy’s birth, observed that it is better that the just and wise should rule unwillingly, rather  than those who actually want power should have it. We analyze authoritarian structures and their operation ranging from the medical intensive care  unit and the Roman Catholic Church to corporatism with the conclusion  that the crisis is best countered by developing authoritarian government  using some of the fabric of these existing structures. The education and  values of the new “elite warrior leadership” who will battle for the future  of the earth is described.

De burde hellere skrive om The Failure of and Old Idiot Sir Ranulph Fiennes, der ville krydse Antarktis om vinteren for at “draw attention to global warming“. Hans forsøg blev ikke hindret af hedeslag eller pollenallergi, skriver Washington Post

British explorer Ranulph Fiennes on Monday pulled out of an expedition to cross Antarctica during the region’s winter after developing frostbite — a bitter disappointment for an adventurer who had spent years preparing for one of the last great polar challenges.

Hvis han havde krydset Ækvator, kunne han have siddet med åben kaleche i skjorteærmer og drukket champagnecocktails hele vejen. Det er ikke overbevisende at frygte for at Jordens mest livløse sted bliver let tilgængeligt.

Energi

Grøn energi, Klima, miljø — Drokles on December 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Det svarer til det samlede forbrug for USA og Rusland i dag.

“Trods mange landes ambitioner om at begrænse afhængigheden af kul, så fortsætter den globale efterspørgsel med at vokse. Frem mod 2017 vil forbruget af kul stige i enhver region på Jorden, bortset fra USA, hvor kul bliver erstattet af naturgas,” skriver IEA ifølge Ingeniøren.

Dermed vil kul overgå olie som det mest brugte brændsel på Jorden.

 

5. These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.

Virkeligheden har talt.

Svære tider for grønne jobs

Grøn energi, Klima, USA, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on October 21, 2012 at 7:14 am

Fremtiden tilhører el-bilerne og hvem er bedre end staten til at skubbe fremtiden frem? Wall Steet Journal skriver om den store amerikanske batteriproducent A123’s lovende start

Massachusetts-based A123 is — or was — part of President Obama’s grand design to build a U.S. electric-car industry more or less from scratch. The company was founded by entrepreneurs in 2001 to make lithium ion phosphate batteries and attracted private investment from the likes of Sequoia Capital and GE. Then Washington picked up the green energy fad.

As Mr. Obama put it in August 2009, the government would create an “infrastructure of innovation” by doling out “$2.4 billion in highly competitive grants to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks, powered by the next generation of battery technologies, all made right here in the U.S. of A.”

In a September 2010 congratulatory phone call to A123?s Livonia, Michigan plant, Mr. Obama called it “the birth of an entire new industry in America.”

Democrats were explicit that this was an attempt to rehabilitate the idea that government could nurture new industries. As Michigan Senator Carl Levin said in a 2011 speech, A123?s factories “are a forceful rebuttal to those who argue against public investment in this field, people who label this ‘industrial policy.’ In the not too distant past, that label—’industrial policy’—was the kiss of death for any proposal. That’s an ideological hang-up that we’ve now overcome.”

Trods alle de gode intentioner og de mange penge fra skatteyderne gik selskabet dog konkurs (National Legacy And Policy Center har en tidslinje, for de der måtte være interesseret i fremtidens dødskramper). Bloomberg skriver bl.a

A123 Systems Inc. (AONE), the electric car battery maker that received a $249.1 million federal grant, filed for bankruptcy protection and said it would sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI)

(…)

A123 has posted at least 14 straight quarterly losses. Its shares had fallen 85 percent this year to 24 cents as of yesterday’s close in New York.

Det var nu ikke fordi ledelsen lå på den lade side fortæller Washington Guardian

Even as advanced battery maker A123 Systems struggled for financial viability, it played the Washington insider game, where political money and access go hand in hand.

The Massachusetts firm dished out nearly $1 million to hire a powerhouse lobbying firm with close ties to President Barack Obama between 2007 and 2009, and two of its top executives made personal donations to several high-profile Democrats in Congress as it won federal funding for its efforts to build the next generation of lithium batteries for electric vehicles.

And its president and CEO, David Vieau, an early financial backer of President Barack Obama, scored five invitations to the White House in 2009 and 2010, including a meeting he attended with the president, White House logs show.  And when the company opened a new Michigan plant, Obama made a high-profile call to congratulate.

The Foundry har en liste over de selskaber, som Obama har set en fremtid i (eller er det de selskaber, som har set en fremtid i ham?)

So far, 36 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
  17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  28. Vestas ($50 million)
  29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  31. Navistar ($39 million)
  32. Satcon ($3 million)*
  33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Grønne jobs.

Monokultur kører på WordPress