Drivhusgassen er gået af ballonen

Diverse — Drokles on July 17, 2011 at 3:34 am

Weekendavisen havde i weekenden, sjovt nok, en artikel, der forsøgte at kaste lys over, hvorfor Klimatopmødet i København - Cop-et-eller-andet - ikke blev til noget. En top embedsmands insiderhistorie om en lang række komplekse dagsordner mellem delegerede, forhandlere og politikere overfor en journalists bestsellervinkel om et statsministeriums arrogante overtrumfning af klimaministeriet. Men mon forklaringen på de manglende bindende aftaler skal findes i memoer og sladder? Mon ikke blot man ikke gider lege med mere.

Connie Hedegaard kommenterede ifølge Danmarks Radio for nylig på den seneste måling af CO2 udledningen, der er gået over al forventning, således

- Det bør jo være et wake-up-call. Der er jo en grænse for, hvor længe verdens ledere kan hævde ét, nemlig at de vil holde sig under to grader, og så gøre noget andet, nemlig at føre en politik, der gør det usandsynligt at man kan blive under de to grader, siger Connie Hedegaard til DR Nyheder.

Bindene mål virker
Ifølge Connie Hedegaard er det, der mangler, nogle bindende klimamål.

- Når der pludselig kommer en krise, får folk jo travlt med andre ting, og der hjælper det, hvis vi har bindende mål. Det kan vi se i Europa, hvor vi da mildest talt også har krise, siger hun.

Klimakommisæren henviser stolt til, at mens udledningen er steget i resten af verden, er den fra 2008 til 2010 faldet med otte procent i EU.

- Det synes jeg jo burde fortælle resten af verden inklusive USA og de store udviklingsøkonomier, at når man opstiller mål, når man gør dem bindende og når man sætter en pris på CO2, så virker det faktisk, siger hun.

Og hvis vi flytter hele industrien til Asien kan vi komme helt ned på nul, men det ændrer ikke noget ved det samlede regnskab. Men ja, folk for travlt med andre og vigtigere ting, som f.eks. reelle problemer i den virkelig verden. Vækst, velstand og fremgang. Det kræver produktion og produktion kræver energi og energi er fossil. Fra Huffington Post

Since 2001, global energy use is up by 27% and carbon dioxide emissions are up 28%. Put another way, over the last decade, global energy use increased by about 51 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; that’s equal to about six Saudi Arabias’ worth of daily oil output. Energy use is soaring as more people from Hanoi to Hangzhou move into the modern world. And that means that huge cuts in carbon dioxide emissions — by 80%, as Obama claims the US must — simply will not happen.

Like it or not, the world economy runs on hydrocarbons — coal, oil, and natural gas. And that will remain true for many decades to come. Energy transitions happen over decades or centuries, not years. Countries like Vietnam, China, and India, will never agree to any tax or limit on carbon dioxide. Nor does it make much sense at all to impose heavy levies on the US, and other developed countries. Why? Well, over the last decade, US carbon dioxide emissions fell — by 1.7%.Every once in a while, we need to focus on the numbers and put aside the hype. The scale of current global energy use — about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day — is the same as 28 Saudi Arabias of energy production. The great cities of the world, whether it’s Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, or Durban, run on highly processed forms of energy: electricity, ultra-low-sulfur motor fuel, and natural gas. And they need lots of it.

Løsningen på det imaginære klimaproblem har været mildt sagt latterlig. Fra Town Hall

The Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement signed since the global warming scare began, expires after 2012. Canada, Russia and Japan have publicly declared they will not renew; China and the United States never signed it; and the US has made it plain it is not about to. And poor countries are becoming less enamored about signing on, as they realize hard economic times mean there will be little climate “mitigation” and “restitution” money coming their way from (formerly) rich countries.

Even die-hard warmists increasingly recognize that bureaucratic solutions hatched at these conferences are rife with waste, fraud and abuse. They may enrich a few, at the expense of everyone else, especially the poor. But they are powerless to control Earth’s climate.

In March, German investigators reported that 850 million Euros disappeared, when shady companies swarmed into carbon trading, emissions and energy businesses. Criminal enterprises raked in tens of millions, fended off regulators with delaying tactics, and then announced bankruptcy or vanished. An Italian sting operation resulted in arrests of wind farm developers who billed the country for subsidies, but never produced a kilowatt of electricity.

London’s liberal Guardian newspaper was aghast to learn that the World Bank’s Biocarbon Fund had arranged to pay European “entrepreneurs” $1 million to establish a system under which 60,000 Kenyans would restrict themselves to farming under rigidly controlled, inefficient, “sustainable” techniques. For that they will receive $1.4 million over 20 years.

That’s right, the beneficent World Bank will enrich more Europeans, so that 60,000 Kenyans can receive $23.83 apiece annually for 20 years of drudgery, poverty and misery: a princely $1.19 a year!

Even the European Union finally understands how little energy deprivation and bureaucratic dictates affect the climate. “It is not enough for the EU to simply sign up for another commitment period,” EU climate representative Jurgen Lefevere admitted. “We only represent 11% of global emissions.”

Burning fossil fuels contributes only a fraction of total annual atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, and the EU contributes just 11% of that. The EU’s commitment to slashing CO2 emissions by 20% invites corruption, has no control over Chinese or Indian emissions, and has no effect on the climate.

The biggest divide evident in Bonn was between the USA and large emerging economies. Even Obama administration officials who are thoroughly committed to manmade global warming catastrophe claims finally recognize the fraud problem. In Bonn the US insisted that all countries subject their emission reduction claims to verification.

Og omkostningerne fremover vil være astronomiske. Fra Fox News

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let’s do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years — or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Og lysten til at lege med er svindende. Fra Guardian

The government’s energy bill, which was expected to be debated before parliament’s summer break, has been shelved. That means the “green deal“, the flagship scheme to cut domestic carbon emissions, will not make it onto the statute books for many months. Ministers at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) have lost their argument with the government’s business managers, and the centrepiece of climate change policy has been sidelined.

We should not be surprised. This government has form in delay and dither when it comes to its green policy agenda. There was so much promise. The “greenest government ever” was the prime minister’s pledge. That’s the same PM who has not mentioned green issues since the election. When asked questions on petrol prices or energy bills he does not ever venture into the wider discussion about a greener, cleaner world. And since Chris Huhne was appointed as climate and energy secretary we have seen promises delayed and initiatives re-announced so often it’s not surprising if you’ve lost count.

(…)

The reality is that the government is not serious about its green agenda. In recent weeks they have scrapped the zero-carbon homes scheme, abandoned plans for a network of electric car charging stations, and now delayed the green deal. A recent survey of readers of the ConservativeHome website named the green deal as one of their most disappointing policies. Only Decc ministers within government ever talk about climate change. As we see from this turn of events, that is just hot air.

Det er håbløst, ligegyldigt og ødelæggende. Men derfor kan man da godt deltage i en konference eller to, hvor man kan få gratis mad og drikke og chancen for at købe toldfrit mod at spille lidt politisk teater for verdenspressen, blot man ikke forventer resultater. Det er vist det Sir Humpfrey Appleby kalder kreativ inerti.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress