?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 May 2011 @ 06:30 pm
Shale Gas Shock & Climate Realism: We Are Winning  

CCNet – 4 May 2011

The Climate Policy Network

 New Report:

Shale Gas Shock Challenges Climate and Energy Policies

Abundant and relatively cheap shale gas promises to lower the cost of gas relative to oil, coal and renewables. It indefinitely postpones the exhaustion of fossil fuels and makes reducing emissions of carbon dioxide possible without raising energy prices. -–Matt Ridley, The Shale Gas Shock, 4 May 2011

Matt Ridley gives us a fair and even-handed account of the environmental costs and benefits of shale gas. The lessons to be learned are clear. The environmental costs of shale gas are much smaller than the environmental costs of coal. Because of shale gas, the air in Beijing will be cleaned up as the air in London was cleaned up sixty years ago. Because of shale gas, clean air will no longer be a luxury that only rich countries can afford. Because of shale gas, wealth and health will be distributed more equitably over the face of our planet. --Freeman Dyson, Foreword to Matt Ridley’s Shale Gas report, 22 April 2011 

CCNet - 5 May 2011

Britain’s New Climate Realism:
We Are Winning The Argument

 In the middle of the last decade 50 percent of Britons believed the risks of climate change outweighed the benefits by a considerably more than three-to-one margin. Fast forward to today. In Britain more people believe the benefits of climate change outweigh the risks than believe the risks outweigh the benefits. In fact, only about one-quarter of respondents seem to think the risks of climate change outweigh the benefits. --Eric Berger, The Houston Chronicle, 5 May 2011 

What shale gas really does is screw up a major environmentalist narrative: ‘We’re running out of fossil fuels, they’re really polluting anyway, so we should just use less energy or use renewables instead.’ But if there is a lot of potential energy out there, and it is also less polluting and more flexible than current energy supplies, where does that leave the greens? The shiver-in-the-dark alarmism is ruined. --Rob Lyons, Spiked Online, 5 May 2011

Imagine if we were to discover a new form of cheap, clean energy so abundant that it will provide our needs at least for the next two centuries, freeing us from the pervasive early 21st century neurosis of having to worry about “peak oil” or “conserving scarce resources”, causing a worldwide economic boom and with the added side-benefit of creating more fertiliser so that we can not only heat our homes more cheaply than ever before but also eat more cheaply than ever before. Imagine how Environmentalists would react if such a miracle came into being. Actually we don’t need to imagine for the miracle is already here. It’s called Shale Gas. --James Delingpole, The Daily Telegraph, 4 May 2011

George Monbiot has worked his way through to a cogent description of the dead end the global green movement has reached, but he has not yet diagnosed the cause.  In particular, he remains a staunch Malthusian.  Malthusianism is a religious conviction that desperately needs to think of itself as a science.  Malthusians have made confident predictions about the future and claimed scientific authority for statements that turned out to be contemptibly silly.  That is the brutal fate that often awaits people who can’t keep the boundaries between science and religion straight. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, Via Meadia, 3 May 2011

1) Only One-Quarter Of Britons Think Risks Of Climate Change Outweigh Benefits - The Houston Chronicle, 5 May 2011

2) James Delingpole: Don't Let The Watermelons Kill The Shale Gas Revolution - The Daily Telegraph, 4 May 2011

3) Matt Ridley: Cheap And Abundant Energy Is On Hand - The Times, 5 May 2011

4) Rob Lyons: Shale Gas: A Welcome Energy Shock - Spiked Online, 5 May 2011

5 ) Freeman Dyson: Shale Gas is Cheap And Effective - The Register, 4 May 2011

6) Walter Russell Mead: Top Green Admits: “We Are Lost!” - The American Interest, Via Meadia, 3 May 2011

7) David Whitehouse: 2011: The Temperature So Far - The Observatory, 4 May 2011


Courtesy of Dr Peiser, GWPF
----------

Following via globalwarming.org

Canadian Election Results: No Cap-and-Trade, No Carbon Tax
The stunning victory by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in Canada’s election means the death of cap-and-trade or a carbon tax in Canada.  The Conservative Party’s platform firmly opposed both cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. The Liberal Party, which was annihilated in the election, equally strongly supported imposing a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Conservatives won  a clear majority of 167 seats in the 308-member federal Parliament.  They had formed a minority government since 2007.  For the first time in Canadian history, the Liberal Party dropped to third place with 34 seats.
[Obviously Canadians are the most intelligent people on the planet. (Bouchard being the exception that proves the case.) ]

What a contrast between the sublime Canadian voters and the sleazy corporation welfare wind farm scam a bit further south


Global Warming: Good for Bad, Bad for Good — Except (Surprise!) Wind Energy
So the world is not coming to an end after all – at least not if you are an investor in taxpayer-subsidized, state-mandated wind energy. Global warming will change the monsoon season in southeast Asia. It will cause drought and desertification in Africa. It will flood millions of people out of their homes in Bangladesh. But it will not — repeat not — change U.S. wind patterns. In fact, global warming will have a “positive impact” on the wind patterns “currently being targeted” for wind-energy “production.”
Climate change “threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth,” according to Al Gore. But climate change will not disturb U.S. wind patterns and may even improve them. How convenient for corporate rent seekers and their congressional patrons!