February 6th, 2011

CCNet update Feb 4

CCNet  - 4 February 2011, The Climate Policy Network
Europe's Industry May Be Left Behind By Shale Revolution

The head of Dow Chemical Co. said Thursday that the U.S. can become a low-cost leader for the global industry as shale gas production increases and cheap natural gas from the Middle East is diverted to produce power. –The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2011

1) Europe's Industry May Be Left Behind By Shale Revolution - The impact of shale has the potential, if we are smart enough to grab it, to ripple through the entire European economy. Energy is a key economic marker, and if Europe turns it back on shale it also concedes a significant economic advantage to the rest of the world. This underlines even more how slowing down Europe shale production by looking the gift horse of shale in the mouth will end up shooting the chemical industry and many others in the foot.—No Hot Air, 4 February 2011

2) Peanuts! Europe Faces €2.9 Trillion Bill To Meet 2020 Climate Targets - European firms and governments will need to spend €2.9 trillion over the next decade to deliver the renewable energy and low-carbon infrastructure necessary to meet 2020 emissions reductions targets. That is the stark conclusion of a new study from Accenture and Barclays Capital released today, which aims to quantify the cost to Europe of meeting climate change targets that aim to reduce emissions across the bloc by 20 per cent against 1990 levels. –BusinessGreen, 2 February 2011

3) Ernest Istook: "Green Jobs" Cronyism and Cannibalism - Simply put, the green jobs agenda spends billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy existing jobs and replace them with jobs in politically-favored businesses, raising the costs of energy along the way. The politically-connected win. Existing job-holders and companies lose. Home electric bills go up. It's cronyism that is building a political power structure based on false claims about clean green jobs. It's cannibalism because creating the green jobs requires killing off existing jobs.- Huffington Post, 3 February 2011

4) Michael Graham: Meet The Global Weirdos - For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke. Which is exactly what the environmental movement has become. –Michael Graham, Boston Herald, 3 February 2011

5) New Study: Malaria In Africa Likely To Decline With Global Warming - Science Daily, 2 February 2011

Carbon credits a global currency via the back door? The falsity of their imposition

What differentiates a tally stick or sea shell (both have been used as currency) from say a GB pound note, dollar or carbon credit certificate? You can't pay your taxes with the former. This means that carbon credits are in fact a currency form and the desperation of the EC and UN, and banker cartel to maintain the credit fraud despite the mountain of evidence that makes them unjustified and unjustifiable tells me that they are part of an agenda. Because the morals of the EC-UN have been demonstrated wholly absent from many aspects such a fraud and confidence trick is entirely within their self designated purview.

Carbon credits are promissory notes, the promise to pay is (I believe illegally) written into legislation coded as obligation to reduce emissions of CO2 or offset the emissions by buying credits. The extra money needed to buy credits is by revenue taken from end users. Because the energy supply companies and various retail businesses have increased user bills not as a result of regular business costs such as gas prices (that wholesale have fallen) that means the cost of the credit certificates has been paid by the end user with no equivalent service or good in return. The number of offsets required is determined by end users availing themselves of the goods provided (e.g. energy) any charges above that must be shown on the bill in the way that VAT is. The credit certificates belong to end users by right of purchase.
The e.g. energy supplier must provide credits to the end user commensurate with the price increment due to their purchase.

Consumers should demand the certificates from the carbon credit purchasers and use them to settle tax bills.

Because wind turbines fail to reduce emissions as shown in study after study, because their fabrication, transport, erection, operation and maintenance creates a carbon debt as well as real pollution the turbine operators must bow to the law of the land, get their carbon debt calculated and pay the same as other plant food producers. Credits created by investment in them are unlawful. They must be recovered by the sellers and destroyed. The proportion bought with public monies via subsidies must be handed over to public ownership.

The unjustifiable penalty of carbon credit purchase or emissions reduction must be applied to all or none otherwise the government and the authorities are guilty of unlawful exclusions and must answer to the courts.

Unjustifiable? There is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that human CO2 emissions affect climate temperature variation as a so-called greenhouse gas in any way. All CO2 based model scenarios used by the IPCC to predict the climate have failed repeatedly, and the IPCC is also guilty of bias and deceit in their advice to governments, performing as an advocacy rather than an independent reviewer of climate research.

As plant food a NASA study showed that increasing vegetation due to enhanced growth offsets warming. 'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming

Multiple studies have shown that increasing the atmospheric CO2 content increases the rate of growth and yield of crops. Another benefit carefully avoided by advocates of guilt by opinion is that plants use less water as CO2 volume increases due to stomata being open to absorb CO2 for a shorter time. With the growing population and increasing water shortage as underground resources run out, these benefits are vital to the world community. What on earth the UN is doing in calling for emissions reduction one can only speculate. It is neither for the good of nature, the control of the climate nor the well-being of the human race.

Action needs to be taken by the justice system (if it still exists) to protect humanity.

A very good source of wind energy studies and study reviews that show fairly and competently the negative aspects of wind energy inclusion in the energy mix can be found at Master Resource.

CER certificates are permits to emit carbon dioxide and so do nothing to reduce emissions. Their purchase supposes carbon emissions will be offset elsewhere to an arbitrary value set by unelected bodies or the market.

David Suzuki "...many environmentalists oppose the use of tree-planting to mitigate climate change"

Christian Science Monitor "...often, those who get the “green credits” thinking their own carbon emissions have been offset, are fooled.
The Vatican was among them."

Washington Times "Unfortunately, proving that emissions cuts are reductions that would not have occurred absent the offset payments is proving difficult."

Breakthrough Institute "...accuse the companies, based largely in China and India, of creating greenhouse gas emissions for the sole purpose of earning credits from destroying them." 

Guardian "Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme"

There are many other instances.