…and where are all the environmental problems? From the WSJ:
Are you listening Alan Jones? The main issues I see are three-fold: respect for private property rights, payment for water usage and bringing state regulations up to speed with those in the USA. Other than that I have no problem with fracking for coal seam gas. We need energy independence as much as food independence. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Bio-mass power generator Tilbury power plan in the UK burnt out of control for 4 days this month. Apparently it is still burning:
As many as 120 firefighters were sent to the site after the incident at 7:45 a.m. London time, Kelly Brown, a company spokeswoman in Worcester, said today in an e-mailed statement. Battling the blaze is to be “a protracted incident” as the local fire brigade covers the burning wood with high-expansion foam, it said in an update on its website at 2:48 p.m.
The power station has three wood-pellet burning units and can produce as much as 750 megawatts of electricity. The U.K. is encouraging utilities to burn biomass as a way of curbing carbon-dioxide emissions and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The fire follows a blaze at a 100,000 cubic-meter wood-pellet storage facility at the Port of Tyne in the north of England in October.
The emissions don’t look too good. Tilbury used to be a ‘dirty’ coal fired power station.
Why has Alan Jones bought into this Green scare?
Here is the other video:
Article can be found here. The economic highlight:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
The ABC laments:
There are concerns new planning guidelines for wind farms in New South Wales will kill off the industry.
Using the word ‘industry’ very loosely. It gets better:
…draft planning guidelines which give landowners the right to veto wind farms proposed within two kilometres of their homes… noise levels from new wind farms will be more strict, with a limit of 35 decibels…
How sweet it is.
The Government is currently considering 17 wind farm applications. Mr Hazzard believes 13 that have not yet gone to public exhibition will be covered by the guidelines once they are finalised.
Similar laws have been introduced into Victoria. The Greens of course are angry that their Big Green industry pals won’t be able to cash-in on higher energy prices and violating other people’s private property rights. The Greens really are a collection of totalitarian fascists.
Fairfax Press, the media outlet that hacked into an ALP database, becomes desperate in trying to explain the opposition to wind farms:
THE anti-wind farm movement that is gaining influence in the NSW Parliament is being ”aided and abetted” by climate sceptic groups and some mining figures.
So apparently it is okay for Big Green Spanish and Indian multi-national corporations to capture public policy making, but anyone else is in league with mining and therefore bad. The anti-wind farm movement is gaining traction because they are being aided and abetted by the reality of high wind farm prices and unreliability of service. There is also the considerable impact on the landscape.
The Premier, Barry O’Farrell, said in August it was his opinion that no new wind farms should be built in NSW, but it is understood there are divisions in cabinet about the issue.
The Nationals MP and Roads Minister, Duncan Gay, said yesterday his anti-wind farm views were well known and he hoped yesterday’s cabinet meeting ”addresses the sins of the past”.
Follow Abbott’s lead – just say no.
From Scotland this week. Apparently wind turbines can’t cope with high winds.
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientsts:
………….meeting the world’s total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would takean estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today’s largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That’s a heckuva lot of neodymium.
Unfortunately, “renewable energy” is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven’t discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.
How would you describe the following environmental opinion? From the UK-based Optimum Population Trust:
“The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child,” he said.
It is fascism: condemning and shaming the innocent and restricting freedom over very personal choices.
