web analytics

Understanding ‘Carbon Ration Cards’

By ATWadmin On May 29th, 2008 at 3:15 am


We Report.

You decide.


Programming note: You won’t want to miss the conclusion.

See also Eco-lunacy: Brits Want To Force ‘Carbon Ration Cards’.

H/T: Mark

Just A Global Warming Sunday

By ATWadmin On April 13th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

kommandante%20weather.jpg

What more can possibly be said?

Sit back, relax and enjoy the Democrat Party’s version of the Bolshevik Revolution.

自由西藏

At Play In The Fields Of al-Gore

By ATWadmin On January 26th, 2008 at 4:11 am

Gore_Venture_Capitalist.jpg

New green taxes for ‘gas-guzzling’ cars


Motorists face having to pay new green taxes as ministers step up their war on “gas-guzzling” cars.

The Government wants to get people out of high-emissions vehicles by making them more expensive, while also cutting the cost of driving for more environmentally-friendly options.

Two recently published reports commissioned by the Department for Transport examine the impact of raising the cost of buying the most polluting cars, and of increasing running costs by raising road tax or fuel prices.

Let’s be honest. The increase in running costs will come about by raising the road tax and fuel prices.

Labour’s plans, although not as advanced, echo those announced by the Tories last year. David Cameron’s advisors drafted a series of “green supertaxes” which would add as much as £3,000 (US$5,940.89) in tax to the showroom price of bigger cars.

The first detailed report, by Cambridge Econometrics, sought to identify policies that “might be used to reduce CO2 emissions from road transport.”

It said its findings confirmed “the prior beliefs of the DfT”, that people buying cars in the middle tax bands were most likely to be affected by small changes in both purchase price and running costs.

A £3,000 ‘green supertax’ would be a small change in the purchase price. rofl

According to the report, these drivers are most likely to choose more environmentally friendly cars next time they go into the showroom.

This was reinforced by a second study, by the Economics for the Environment Consultancy, which examined what would happen if only 1 per cent was added to the showroom price of new cars.

The economists found the biggest impact on carbon dioxide emissions came when prices were hiked up for cars in the middle of the market, between 141 grams CO2 per kilometre and 225.

In this range – encompassing a Ford Fiesta 1.4 to a Ford Focus 2.5 – the change in price would see large numbers of motorists buying greener cars.

The DfT said the studies were “routine research” without any policy recommendations.

But the willingness of the DfT to commission them is significant, given that Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, has ordered his own report on how motorists can be encouraged to chose greener cars.

That study, from Professor Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston University, is due to be presented before the next budget.

Last night the Tories welcomed the Government’s readiness to adopt green motoring taxes.

[…]

But the AA voiced alarm at the prospect of yet more motoring taxes.

“National and local government are coming up with yet more schemes which are financially punitive for car owners and their families,” said a spokesman.

[…]

Read it all at The Telegraph

The American Left salivates.

Got ‘Global Warming’?

By ATWadmin On January 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 am

No small wonder that Gordon Brown is adamant about denying the Brits his previously promised referendum on the new EU Constitution Treaty of Lisbon.

Brussels demands thousands more wind turbines across the UK

Britain will be forced to build thousands more wind turbines in the countryside under a Brussels edict to be announced tomorrow.
Energy experts say new EU climate change targets mean the UK will have to generate 40 per cent of its electricity from green sources within 12 years.
In order to meet that target, the number of wind turbines on the land would have to rise fourfold. Thousands more would be needed at sea.
The move would be one of the greatest engineering projects in years – and dramatically change the skyline of Britain and its coastal waters.
But critics say onshore turbines are an expensive blot on the landscape that often fail to generate enough power to justify their existence.
The Government concedes that the shift away from coal and gas will cost up to £6billion [US$23.23 billion] a year. Most of that burden will be passed to consumers.

As the costs of most government mandates are.

The move is part of the EU’s commitment to generating 20 per cent of Europe’s energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Under the plans – approved by Tony Blair – every member state will be told its contribution to the “green energy revolution” tomorrow. Britain currently has one of the worst records for renewable energy in Europe.
Years of cheap gas mean that nine out of ten homes use gas central heating, while hydroelectric and wind power produces just 2 per cent of electricity.
Tomorrow, the petulant bitch known as the European Union Brussels is expected to demand that 15 per cent of Britain’s energy, including heating, transport fuel and electricity, comes from renewable sources by 2020. Because it would cost too much to convert homes and vehicles to green energy, the bulk of the target will have to be met by electricity companies.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that 40 per cent of electricity will have to be renewable within 12 years.
If it fails to meet the targets – described by civil servants as “difficult” – Europe will impose daily fines on the UK.
[…]
Read it all at The Daily Mail

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age. — Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

Also at JWF

Reality Confronts European Union

By ATWadmin On January 18th, 2008 at 4:28 am

The al-Goracle cult, otherwise known as the Religion of Environmentalism, has many devotees within the corridors of the European Commission and European Parliament.

That is, until a known eeeeevil – reality – jumped up and bit ’em on the ass.

eu_climate.jpg

EU Members Lobby against ‘Harmful’ Climate Plan

European countries and businesses have criticized a climate change action plan that COMINTERN the European Commission is scheduled to unveil next week. Their concerns about competition and carbon trading could undermine the EU’s commitment to confront climate change.

As the European Commission puts the finishing touches on a sweeping climate change policy package to be unveiled on Jan. 23, politicians and business leaders from the EU’s richest member states are lobbying to revamp draft policies that they believe could harm them in Europe and abroad.

Among the critics of the bill are France, which wants to protect its nuclear investments, Germany, which is worried about its renewable energy sector, and major European auto and steelmakers, who are concerned that Europe could lose its competitive edge.

But the Commission says it will not be bullied into diluting the climate change package. To back down, Commission President José Manuel Barroso told Reuters, would be an international embarrassment after the EU worked to promote itself as the international leader in addressing climate change. “We knew from the very beginning that transforming Europe into a low-carbon economy is not an easy task,” said Barroso. “But this is the moment to be serious, responsible and coherent with our commitment.”

In other words, Barroso believes that saving face is more important than the economic health and well-being of European Union member states. Nice to see that the consummate tax tick has his priorities straight.

Barroso was responding to complaints that include a letter from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy objected to a policy that would raise the share of energy that Europe derives from renewable sources from 8.5 percent currently to 20 percent by 2020. He said the policy “unnecessarily penalizes the prospects of growth.” France wants to have its huge nuclear energy program counted in the mandatory contribution it will be asked to make toward the EU goal, but atomic power, which produces toxic waste, is not considered a form of renewable energy.

Germany and Spain are protesting another proposed policy. Ministers in Berlin and Madrid sent a letter this week to the Commission criticizing a system [that] would encourage companies in Europe to trade renewable energy across borders. They are worried that an EU-wide system would undermine their existing national systems. “This will put a very successful development of renewables at risk, which is not acceptable to our governments,” read the letter in part. It was the second time this week that German officials criticized the forthcoming policies, after Bavarian politicians condemned (more…) a proposal to cap the amount of carbon dioxide that new automobiles produce per kilometer they are driven.

In an interview with the German magazine Capital published Tuesday, the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, denied that a new renewable energy trading system would infringe upon existing “feed-in” systems in Germany and Spain. “Don’t worry,” said Dimas. “We will ensure that Germany can keep its system without restrictions in (the) future and … we will construct it in such a way that it doesn’t hinder national promotion systems in Germany and other countries — that’s a promise.”

A politician making a promise. ROTFLMAO .

Private sector leaders also criticized the forthcoming policy package, saying strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions will hit major industrial polluters unfairly and encourage them to relocate outside of Europe. BusinessEurope, a lobby group that represents most of the Continent’s largest companies, said it had learned that the Commission will require industrial polluters to cut emissions to 21 percent below 2005 carbon emission levels by 2020.

EU officials explained that 2005 was chosen because it is the first year in which data includes the impact of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme; BusinessEurope says it is unfair because it does not take into account efforts to reduce emissions that companies made between 1990 and 2005. In a letter to Commission President Barroso, the group also objected to broader plans to strengthen the continent’s carbon trading scheme.

Many of the permits that a company must hold to emit carbon are currently distributed for free, but the Commission is proposing to auction those permits to the highest bidder by 2020. To offset the impact that might have on the competitiveness of a European business, the Commission is considering a carbon tariff (more…) on imports from outside the EU that were not produced within a carbon trading market. Still, BusinessEurope calls the prospect of an auction-based trading scheme “extremely worrying.”

The lobbying in Brussels this week is in sharp contrast to the proud tones in which European leaders announced last March their joint agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and make major investments in renewable energy and biofuels. As the Commission drafts policies that will make those goals a reality, Europe’s richer countries are frustrated that they will be asked to bear the brunt of the collective goal.

EU officials told Reuters this week that the Commission wants to allow the EU’s poorest member states to actually increase their emissions, by up to 20 percent above 2005 levels. That would help poor states like Romania and Bulgaria grow their economies – but could spell trouble for the strong European countries charged with making up the difference.

Via der Spiegel Online

See also Moonbats and Economics.

Also at JWF.

“Most of the models couldn’t predict the past”

By ATWadmin On December 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm

al-Goracle, line one, please.

Global Con-sensus

December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor’s Business Daily delivered by Newstex) —

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.

In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore’s assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.

Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.

Among the IPCC’s warming “deniers” is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.

I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit,” he said. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: “Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling — all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output.”

Brosnahan says he has “not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.” Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn’t even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), though she didn’t name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.

This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.

Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore’s warming theories, but the U.N. “censored” them.

By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its “failure to act” on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe’s output continued to grow. So who’s failing to act?

Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe’s 400 scientists and any one of Gore’s choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Via CNN

truth-gore.jpg
Also at JWF

“We are creating a new currency.”

By ATWadmin On December 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm

There will be dancing in the streets of the parallel universe for sure.

Ministers ordered to assess climate cost of all decisions

Coal-fired power stations, airport expansions and new road schemes could all be put on hold following a decision by Gordon Brown that ministers must in future take account of the true economic cost of climate change damage.

Ministers have been instructed to factor into their calculations a notional “carbon price” when making all policy and investment decisions covering transport, construction, housing, planning and energy.

That price – which will increase annually – is intended to frame all day-to-day policy and investment decisions for the next 30 years.

As a result carbon-free or clean technologies, including nuclear power, have been given a significant boost as they will now become relatively less expensive than polluting technologies.

The “shadow price for carbon“, representing the cost to society of the environmental damage, has already been agreed for every year up to 2050 by government economists. It will be set at £25.50 (£1=US$0.50 ed.) a carbon tonne for 2007, rising annually to £59.60 a tonne by 2050.

The climate change minister, Phil Woolas, said: “This will have huge implications for [the] government. If for instance a new power station is due to cost £1bn, but it will add £200m worth of carbon emissions, we will decide that the cost of the power station is £1.2bn, even though its cash price is £1bn. We are creating a new currency.”

In theory the carbon price will create a bias against roads and carbon-emitting coal stations and make new “zero carbon” building regulations appear more economic.

In other words, they won’t.

Decisions about investments in new nuclear power stations will be made exclusively by the private sector, but the social carbon price is likely to affect the role of regulators and make them more willing to back nuclear as opposed to other more carbon emitting energy technologies.

It has also been agreed that every major Whitehall policy and investment decision will be monitored over the next year to check that policymakers are actually incorporating the shadow price of carbon.

Woolas said: “This is far bigger than people realise. It is intellectually thought-through and very tough. Gordon Brown may not ride a bike, but by god he is showing a lead.”

My ass. Comrade Brown and his commissars have done nothing but create a cash cow for the government.

Tony Juniper, the head of Friends of the Earth, said the “carbon price” could change economic calculations around issues such as a third runway at Heathrow. He added: “At the moment there are gaping holes in government policy with them professing concern for climate change on one hand, and rushing to expand airports and widen roads on the other. If this helps to fill in that gap then it has to be a step in the right direction. Whether it works or not will depend on whether they have set the carbon price high enough.”

The price has been set at a level calculated to ensure the government can meet its major policy target of stabilising carbon emissions at between 450 and 550 parts per million carbon, the figure recommended by the review conducted for the Treasury by Sir Nicholas Stern.

The review found that the costs of addressing climate change now will be cheaper than the costs of doing so later.

The shadow price is partly drawn from new modelling on the scale of the threat posed by climate change and partly by economic work undertaken by McKinseys and the Stern review on behalf of the Treasury on the economic costs of failing to address climate change.

The price is intended to take into account the full global costs of the damage carbon causes over the whole of its time in the atmosphere.

Equivalent values will be used for other greenhouse gases.

Such as the vast amounts of carbon dioxide spewing from the mouths of politicians and bureaucrats?

A note setting out the government’s thinking prepared in part by the chief economist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Richard Price, says ministers must refer to the shadow price. It states: “It is important that the shadow price for carbon is applied consistently and universally across decisions in government with significant implications for emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases.”

Via the The Guardian

Also at JWF

Calling On All Good Danes (And Other Folks, Too)

By On November 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Denmark to Hold New Referendum on Euro

Denmark will hold a referendum on whether to adopt the euro and drop exemptions to closer cooperation with the EU on defense and law enforcement, the prime minister said Thursday.

Danish voters rejected the European common currency in a 2000 referendum. The Scandinavian country has also opted out of other key areas of EU cooperation.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a news conference it was time to reassess those exemptions, which Denmark was granted in the early 1990s.

“A lot has changed since,” he said. “It is the right time to take a decision.”

No date was set for a vote but it would be held during the next four years, said the prime minister, whose center-right government was re-elected last week.

It was not immediately clear whether there would be a separate vote for each of the exemptions.

Danes stunned fellow EU nations in 1992 by rejecting the Maastricht treaty on closer European cooperation.

A year later, Danish voters approved a revised treaty with clauses letting the Scandinavian country stay outside a single currency and banking system and refrain from joining a European defense structure or conform to EU citizenship laws and common law enforcement.

“We have always said that the Danish exemptions are a hindrance for Denmark,” said Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark’s prime minister since 2001.

He said the referendum would be held after Denmark had ratified the new EU reform treaty, which includes changes in decision-making rules designed to make the union function more effectively. The treaty replaces the failed EU constitution, which was rejected two years ago.

Fogh Rasmussen’s Liberal-Conservative coalition won the Nov. 13 snap election with support from its nationalist ally, the Danish People’s Party, and a smaller centrist group.

Denmark, a country of 5.4 million people, has held five referendums on EU-related issues since it joined the bloc in 1973.

In the latest one, on Sept. 28, 2000, Danes voted 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent against replacing the Danish krone with the euro. Recent opinion polls have shown a narrow majority of Danes now favor switching to the euro.

Via the AP

It appears that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is afflicted with a serious case of -isms. To better understand that from which Rasmussen and many Old Europe politicians suffer, clarity is found in New Europe, as demonstrated by President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic.

[…]

Ten-fifteen years ago I spoke many times in this country about this process of transition, about its non-zero costs, about its benefits, tenets and pitfalls. Now, when it’s over, we face a different problem.

As I said, we already succeeded in getting rid of communism. But – along with the predominant view at home and elsewhere – we erroneously hoped that the attempts to suppress freedom and to centrally organize, mastermind, regulate, control the whole society (and economy) were already matters of the past, an almost forgotten historic relic. They are, to our great disappointment, still there. I see more examples of them in Europe and in most of international organizations than in America itself, but they can be found here as well.

The reason is that there are new, very popular and fashionable “isms” which again put various issues, visions, plans and projects ahead of individual freedom and liberty. It is social-democratism (which is nothing else than a milder and softer version of communism), it is human-rightism (based on the idea of mostly positive rights applicable all over the world), it is internationalism, multiculturalism, europeism, feminism, environmentalism and other similar ideologies.

Communism is over, but attempts to rule from above, are still, or perhaps again, here.

The second main challenge I see is connected with our experience with the EU, but goes beyond it because it is part of a broader tendency towards denationalization of countries and towards world-wide supranationalism and global governance.

The special sensitivity, that I (and many of my countrymen) have, makes me view many current trends in Europe rather critically. My opponents do not seem to hear my arguments and a priori keep rejecting the views they don’t like. To understand my criticism requires familiar knowledge of the developments in the EU, its gradual metamorphosis from a community of cooperating nations to the union of non-sovereign nations and prevailing supranationalistic tendencies. This is not the standard knowledge in America.

I have always been in favor of friendly, peaceful, and for all of us enriching cooperation and collaboration of European countries. However, I have many times pointed out that the move towards an ever-closer Europe, the so-called deepening of EU, the rapid political integration, and the supranational tendencies without an authentic European identity and an European demos are not only necessary for the freedom and democracy in Europe, but damaging.

Freedom and democracy, these two, for us so precious values, cannot be secured without the parliamentary democracy within a clearly defined state territory. This is exactly what the current European political elites and their fellow-travelers are attempting to eliminate. And it bothers me.

This is from a speech Klaus delivered before the CATO Institute earlier this year and his ranking of the Religion of Environmentalism&#153 as the third main threat to individual freedom is a great read.

Or, kick back and see for yourself.

Writing in the Financial Times June 13th, Klaus stated that,

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:

    ■ Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
    ■ Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
    ■ Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
    ■ Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
    ■ Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
    ■ Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
    ■ Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

Amen, brother!

Also at JammieWearingFool