Halloween Murder Mystery: Who is killing Copenhagen?
With premature obituary notices popping up all over, it's probably time to ask: who is killing Copenhagen? Who is responsible for the slasher attacks on the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December?
The wound have been oozing for a couple of weeks now, with the most recent and most worrying being revealed by the United Nations itself.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said last week that it is “unrealistic” to expect a binding treaty from Copenhagen. Janos Pasztor, director of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's Climate Change Support Team, followed up saying there was no time left to seal deals that will commit the world to actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This bit of pessimism caused such a stir that the secretary-general himself jumped out on Wednesday to resuscitate the Copenhagen corpse, saying - unconvincingly - that, "we are still keeping ambitious expectations and targets." Then he redefined "success" to include a conference result that did NOT yield a legally binding agreement.
So, what zombie army is responsible for the world coming into a long-anticipated climate conference with no intention of making the long-delayed climate commitments?
Well, one scary picture might feature the face of Christopher Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a poster boy for groundless climate change denial.
Lord Chris has no scientific background whatever (he graduated with a diploma in journalism) and yet reaps a fortune in speaker and consulting fees from “think” tanks that really don’t want to think about climate change. His most recent outing, a Halloween horror flick in its own right, was rendered on behalf of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. It’s a textbook example of the energy-industry sponsored climate confusion effort that Richard Littlemore and I have documented in our book Climate Cover-up.
The perpetrators, as in this case, are most often dressed in costume. Everyone knows you can’t believe oil and coal industry executives when they question climate change, so those execs fund front groups and think tanks to masquerade as credible experts. Sometimes they also set up phony front groups, like the one that the Astroturf champions at Bonner & Associates are in so much trouble over.
But the think tanks are around all the time, concealing the source of their funding and offering “independent” advice from behind that mask. Here’s a few of the most active:
American Enterprise Institute. AEI once offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is a co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute's annually climate deniers conference. AEI has received close to half a million from ExxonMobil. And former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.
Cato Institute. Cato is the main front for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels, a man who featured prominently in the now famous Vampire memo. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding from Koch Industries - the second largest private corporation in the United States whose main business is refining oil.
Americans for Prosperity. AFP has been running the "Hot Air" tour across America, bringing a hot air balloon to cities and small towns for an event at which they try to frighten small children by “exposing” what they say will be the massive costs and job losses that will result from global warming legislation. AFP is run by Tim Philips and is the third largest recipient of funding from Koch Industries.
Heartland Institute. Heartland’s main client seems to be big tobacco. It operates a “Smokers’ Lounge” But apparently that’s not scary enough to Heartland also organizes an annual climate change denial conference in New York City. It is on record as having accepted funding from ExxonMobil, as well as major grants from Koch Industries.
Heritage Foundation. Heritage is a D.C. granddaddy and a frequent funder of Dr. S. Fred Singer, a man who has denied the health risks of smoking, the risk of the ozone hole, the danger of asbestos, the hazards of DDT and, of course, the very existence of climate change. Heritage, with a budget of about $50 million a year, has received funding from from Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.
American Petroleum Institute. API is an industry association, rather than a think tank, but it’s still immersed in the world of costumes and fake science. For example, in 1998, it sponsored the Global Climate Science Communication Action Plan, a strategy document outlining how to set up fake grassroots organizations and hire rent-an-expert spokesters like Fred Singer and Pat Michaels to sow confusion about climate science. This year, API ran phony "Energy Citizens" rallies this summer across the U.S., paying energy industry employees to dress up like regular Americans and “trick or treat” for weaker climate legislation.
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. ACCCE is another more thinly disguised front group (they accidently put the name of their funding source in their actual title), but they are still capable of scary tactics. For example, they spilled $40 million during the last presidential election pretending that coal could be clean – sponsoring TV ad campaigns and paying people to dress up in “clean coal” costumes and try to get their pictures taken with politicians.
It is, of course, traditional for people to wander around on this particular weekend in masks and disguises. There should be a law against letting coal and oil company representatives do it all year around.
If these are what's killing Copenhagen,
...then what do you think are the things that can revive or give life to Copenhagen? Or what are the things that have been keeping Copenhagen alive so far?
http://cop15.ecoseed.org
NO
NO shutup you know what i meant and this new system with word verifications is awful
no it's good, it's probably
no it's good, it's probably cutting down on spam
- delete -
- delete -
Who are the real enemies of the West? The fossil fuel barons.
I'm anti-Western? That's a new one!
In case you don't know any history all, the Western industrialized nations have always lead the way when it comes to new energy technology, which is generally thought to be one reason why the Western nations had the highest quality of life.
Consider the use of liquid fuels - the technological progression is dung to wood to coal to oil to natural gas to fossil-fuel biofuels or what the DOE is calling "Direct Solar Fuels." Chemically speaking, these are all hydrocarbon fuels (fuels are fuels because they store energy in carbon-hydrogen bonds, energy which is released via combustion with oxygen).
Liquid fuels are useful because they are easy to store and transport. Generally speaking, the smaller the fuel molecule, the cleaner it burns - which is why the cleanest burning fuels include natural gas, methanol and ethanol.
Now, let's consider this allegation about me being anti-Western... which Tim Chase says "may be true." Isn't it true that the Western nations have largely exhausted their once-abundant reserves of fossil fuels, especially oil, and are now forced to pay usurious amount to foreign importers, which clearly hurts balance-of-payments and trade deficits? Isn't it dangerous to Western nations to be so reliant on imports for something as basic as the energy supply?
Now, to replace that dirty fossil energy supply with clean renewable energy will take a lot of work and investment, but at the end of the day, the Western nations will be set up with their own power generation systems and will no longer be held hostage to the agenda of OPEC or anyone else - which will certainly be a great benefit to western nations.
There will be a few who miss out - those who insisted on investing in fossil fuels instead of renewable energy, such as those involved in Canadian tar sand projects, which are filthy on all fronts, Colorado oil shale deals - I'm sure Chavez will be unhappy about losing his largest oil market, as will Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Central Asia and the Middle East - in fact, no fossil fuel supplier is happy about this new state of affairs.
But let's be honest - the real "anti-Westerners" are those who are trying to sabotage renewable energy initiatives and keep the nation addicted to fossil fuel imports.
A similar argument applies to electricity generation - for example, the new center of renewable energy manufacturing has moved to China, which has a $60 billion renewable energy program (by comparison, we probably spend $200 billion a year on fossil fuel related subsidies, including military protection of oil shipping routes, estimated at well over $150 billion).
This has happened because the coal & petroleum lobbies and their allies in the utility and financial sectors have lobbied for decades against renewable energy initiatives in the West. As a result, we have completely lost the technological edge, and have no depth in renewable energy technicians, engineers and scientists - such career paths do not exist in the post-Reagan, post-Bayh-Dole academic environment. All renewable energy research was steadily cut from 1980 onwards, and Clinton did little to reverse the trend - for example, the DOE cancelled all algal biofuel research project in 1997, when the National Renewable Energy Lab was handed over to fossil fuel-linked contractors (Bechtel and Battelle) - there are many similar examples.
China and Australia and Japan, however, did not sabotage their renewable energy programs. Australia has a large solar engineering research center (non-existent in the U.S.), and China is doubling renewable capacity and investment every year. If people start shutting down coal plants and replacing them with wind and solar, it's likely that they'll be working with Chinese manufacturers.
This shows that the Chinese have foresight, but it also shows that those who've been undercutting U.S. efforts in the same direction don't care at all about "The West", only about lining their own pockets as much as possible, period...
So, who are the real enemies of the West, again? That's right - the fossil fuel lobby and all that ride within it.
what a joke
As usual, Ike fails to point out that fossil fuels are much cheaper than renewables, which is a lie. Incredibly, he then goes on and uses China as a great "green" example, Hate to tell you Ike but the reason China can set renewable initiatives is because they aren't closing coal plants and they keep buying oil. I am really tired about hearing complaints about the fossil fuel lobby. I'll trust Exxon any day over Enron and Goldman Sachs. And that's basically what it comes down to; either you want oil prices to stay constant or you side with Goldman Sachs, maybe see a dollar tax hike on gasoline and watch the country crumble.
In other words, never mind.
"As usual, Ike fails to point out that fossil fuels are much cheaper than renewables, which is a lie..."
Thanks for refuting yourself in the same sentence, shooshmon
The fossil fuel industry is
The fossil fuel industry is the enemy? That's rich. How are the 20000 delegates getting to Copenhagen? Oh, that's right, fossil fuels.
Renewables are stll prohibitively expensive and the costs would punish citizens worldwide. Denigrating the fossil fuel industry which alone out of all energy sources provides us with affordable, reliable energy is why the label anti-western is appropriate.
You and Me are big oil
I am the industry.
Like everybody else I want to pull my car up to a pump, pour in some high energy yet inexpensive fuel. I also want to get in a plane that's headed to Hawaii. I want a good lifestyle and I want it now and I want it cheap.
Who is killing Copenhagen? => Falsehood
NATURE VERSUS CO2
For 1850, for the data from Hadley Centre, the mean global temperature anomaly was -0.44 deg C.
http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend
The above result also show linear global warming at a rate of about 0.44 deg C/Century since 1850.
This same rate of linear global warming existed for 100 years before 1910! So it is not caused by CO2 emission.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html
From the above results, the mean global temperature anomaly for 2008, as a result of the linear warming, is
= (2008-1850)*0.44/100 – 0.44 = 0.26 deg C.
The actual anomaly, from the first link above, for 2008 was 0.33 deg C, a difference of only 0.07 deg C from the linear warming value of 0.26 deg C.
How could CO2 be blamed for the natural global warming of about 0.44 deg C/Century that was going on for the last two centuries?
When you remove the long term linear warming of about 0.44 deg C, you can clearly see the global cooling that started from 1998 in the following chart.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.91/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.19
"Action" (Tax) must be based on fact. The fact does not exist!
Facts don't matter any more?
Falsehood is killing Copenhagen.
Kyoto, Copenhagen and the quest for rational behavior.
Atmospheric CO2 forcing from fossil fuel emissions has a clear physical basis. You'll want to read this to understand that physical basis:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
It's no different from wrapping yourself in a thin blanket on a cold, still night - the blanket absorbs the infrared light emanating from your body, warms up itself, and then radiates some of that heat back at you. You do not go on heating up indefinitely - but the blanket traps the heat. To someone far away with an infrared telescope, you appear cooler, although you reach a new radiative balance.
Halting CO2 growth in the atmosphere ensures that we reach that new balance sooner, rather than later. That will mean fewer impacts on agriculture, industry, ecosystems, and civilization in general, and a better chance of successfully adapting to new conditions. However, that will require the complete replacement of fossil fuel energy sources with renewables.
This is because the "burn the fuel and bury the emissions" schemes are
not plausible. Carbon capture and sequestration is an energy-consuming process - plants use it to store up solar energy as chemical fuel - and when coupled to electricity generation via combustion, it has a seriously negative energy return. It's been heavily promoted by gas & oil producers and coal-fired utilities because it sounds good - the same way a flying carpet sounds good - but it doesn't hold up under technical scrutiny.
Console yourself - we would have completely run out of those hundred million year old fossil fuels within the century, so the renewable replacement effort is needed anyway. Not yet, you say? The vast majority of people on this planet doesn't have that luxury - and if you look at the scale of long-term climate predictions, neither does the so-called privileged elite.
There are dozens of lines of physical evidence that show that warming is proceeding as predicted: thinning Arctic sea ice, melting mountain glaciers, warming air in the upper tropical atmosphere, a relatively greater warming signal in the nighttime and winter temperature data, oceans that have been warming since 1950.
In the 1990s, skeptics attacked climate predictions because some of those elements weren't showing up - and yet once those elements clearly appeared (rapid Arctic ice melt, for example), the skeptics (Baliunas, Soon, Lindzen, Michaels, etc.) didn't withdraw their claims - they just recirculated them to right-wing talk radio and similar formats, while ignoring dozens of published peer-reviewed scientific reports on the matter.
That's not honest science, that's propaganda. If you make a prediction in 1999, such as "there will be no rapid Arctic ice melt, in fact we're entering a cooling solar cycle," and that prediction is wrong, and ten years later you have not acknowledged you were wrong but are continuing to spread new false claims, then you are not doing science - you're just pushing fossil fuel lobby talking points.
That's really all the skeptics are doing these days, isn't it? A massive cut-and-paste effort, nothing more. "If we just say it enough, some fraction of the public is sure to believe it, especially if we deliver it via a trusted independent media outlet." Blah, blah, blah.
Moberg 2005 is one of several
Moberg 2005 is one of several *reconstructions*. If you choose to use it, I suggest you get a hold of the original paper rather than rely upon Steve Milloy and how he chooses to "present" its results. Furthermore, it might be wise if you were prepared to argue why this particular reconstruction is to be preferred over others -- based upon something other than your personal preference. Regardless, Moberg's analysis in no way invalidates the fact that the past decade has been warmer than any in the past 1000 years. If anything it confirms this.
Now I will rely upon the *temperature record* -- the very same temperature record you appealed to -- for the following analysis:
http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/
Looking at the linear trend from 1850 to 2008 in the Hadley variance-adjusted global temperature trend I find a warming per century of 0.44°C. Looking at the warming per century from 1850 to 1974 (i.e., the year before the beginning of the modern era of global warming) I find a warming per century of 0.26°C. Looking at the warming per century from 1975 to 2008 I find a warming per century of 1.73°C. It would appear that the rate of warming has sped up.
1998? You are cherry-picking the year of the super El Nino, presumably the year of the highest temperature on record, at least according to the people at Hadley. They take a conservative approach in estimating temperatures which largely omits the Arctic -- where the rate of warming is highest. In contrast, the people at NASA GISS, relying upon the fact that temperatures are highly correlated over large distances (particularly over the oceans) incorporate more of the Arctic into their analysis -- and 2005 is the year of the highest temperature on record.
But in terms of statistical significance, 1998,2005 and 2007 are tied -- and this is something which both NASA GISS and Hadley are agreed upon. Given the natural variability due to climate oscillations one should realize that trends in global temperature over less than a span of 15 years are rarely statistically significant.
Temperature records rely upon temperature as it is measured over a thin slice of the climate system, in this case at the surface of land (or roughly two meters up) and within the first meter or so of ocean. However, the heat within the climate system is constantly being moved -- with heat being stored in deeper layers of the ocean during a La Nina, but moving to the surface with heat being transfered to the atmosphere during an El Nino.
Likewise, but for the oscillations due to the solar cycle, solar radiance appears to have been flat since roughly 1950, with a slight dip within the past fifteen years or so. And the sun has been especially quiet the past few years -- with a decrease in solar radiance.
Five years is almost all noise. Ten years is half noise half signal. Fifteen years is mostly signal. The thirty years from 1975 to 2004 is almost all signal. Thus given an almost back-of-the-envelope analysis it would at least appear that the rate of warming has accelerated. Quite considerably as a matter of fact.
A credible source? - No!
Steve Milloy's JunkScience is part of the Denial Industry
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and manages the Free Enterprise Action Fund. He is a junk science expert, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
http://www.junkscience.com
See Milloy's involvement in spreading JunkScience to the masses.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Tell NOAA your facts
Lemme see, they find September was the 2cd warmest on record, other months near-record.
So you played some statistical games with a linear trend, with data that is visibly nonlinear (recent acceleration of warming)? Wow.
selti:
Member for
1 hour 21 min
Obama killed it.
Obama killed it. Obama is the guy the whole world was looking to last fall. Obama had more political capital than anyone in history over the past year. The world was so in love with the guy, they gave hima nobel peace prize for no reason at all.
He failed to convert that good will into anything useful.
It's Obama's fault
monckton killed it on glenn beck
monckton gave an incredible performance on Glenn Beck. By the way, who predicted that there would be nothing signed at Copenhagen? Who said the Chinese and the Russians wouldn't sign anything! HO HO HO! Merry Christmas!
Fossil fuel interests are controlling the debate at both ends
That would mean that backers of the United States Climate Action Partnership are just as opposed to binding climate legislation as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or the American Petroleum Institute.
Indeed, many companies are members of both the ACCCE, which works to kill climate legislation via dishonest tactics like those of Bonner & Associate, and USCAP, which attempts to control the actual climate legislation that is being written - and in so doing so, they've watered the legislation down to the point that it doesn't even meet Kyoto Protocol requirements, which were weak to begin with.
Some may be startled - isn't USCAP for climate legislation? However, this is a standard tactic in California's energy wars. We've seen many bill that were portrayed as promoting renewable energy, when in fact, the bills had little technical details that actually undermined renewable energy - for example, the "Million Solar Roofs" bill in California actually undercut new solar installations, because it took away rebates and net metering. Likewise, the latest solar-feed-in tariff program has rates so low that it won't work as advertised.
These dishonest tactics are used because every single poll shows that Americans favor the rapid development of renewable energy by a 75% margin. The only sector that disagrees is the fossil fuel sector, its advertisers, PR experts and lobbyists, and their financial backers and beneficiaries.
Development of renewable energy is needed to replace fossil fuels, entirely - and there's no doubt that this can be done, from a technical perspective. However, government agencies are not starting a new renewable energy research program - the many calls for "clean energy" made by DOE officials seems to really be calls for "clean coal" - and if you follow the money, you see that coal & oil subsidies in the Obama Administration outweigh solar & wind subsidies by a factor of ten or so - which is better than the Bush Administration, where the subsidy ratio was about a thousand to one in favor of fossil fuels, but it still a gross distortion of energy markets.
If solar and wind were allowed to compete on an even playing field, they'd beat coal and oil hands down. Most of the fossil fuel money spent on various PR tactics is really aimed at perpetuating this situation - "grassroots organizing" financed by billionaires, recruitment of "expert scientists to speak on our behalf", recruitment of sympathetic reporters at leading newspapers to spin climate stories in our favor, etc. etc.
One of their main tactics, one that climate activists have fallen for, is to focus on the end-of-the-pipeline, i.e., carbon emissions, rather than the front of the pipeline, i.e. fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
Without an active program to eliminate both fossil fuel combustion and deforestation and replace those energy and material sources with renewable and recyclable ones, all efforts to slow CO2, CH4 and N2O growth in the atmosphere are doomed to failure.
Thus, let's drop the misleading term "carbon emissions" - every time you breathe, for example, you are emitting CO2 that your body produced as it metabolized sugar - but since that sugar was photosynthesized from atmospheric CO2 by a plant, there is no net change - in goes from the air to the plant to the animal and back to the air, zero sum, renewable and recyclable.
That's not how fossil carbon emissions work - the carbon goes from stable geological deposits to the engine to the air - and thus, atmospheric CO2 increases.
It's a critically important point that the media refuses to discuss - they just stick to "carbon emissions" and "clean energy" as the be-all and end-all. Seriously, when was the last time any media figure talked about eliminating all fossil fuel combustion and replacing that with renewable energy? Most scientists working on climate will tell you that this is what needs to be done - but the media can't accept it.
This is because the same financial interests that control the fossil fuel corporations also exert significant control over the media corporations. Recall how CNN's entire science team was fired after they started doing accurate coverage of global warming science?
We'll probably have to have an antitrust movement directed at the media in order to break up the conglomerates - and then we might see scientifically accurate reporting again from U.S. media again, instead of the endless parade of industry-financed skeptics that is the current norm.
It's people like you that are
It's people like you that are the reason Copenhagen is going to fail. Not only are you anti-corporate, you are anti-Western.
As the recently released Suzuki/Pembina report shows, reducing CO2 emissions will result in massive dislocation to Canada's economy. As Canadians, we are not yet prepared to go that down that path.
"massive dislocation to Canada's economy"?
Deal? No Deal
Sorry Richard, Saskatchewan and Alberta don't feel like carrying the brunt of Canada's AGW efforts and Alberta providing all the money for foreign offsets. If you ever want a chance at an agreement, BC will have to sacrifice a lot more, as will Ontario and Quebec.
Canadian tar sands are the filthiest of the lot.
Paul S, you seem woefully misinformed about tar sands, from both the ecological and the economic viewpoint.
There may be a handful of Canadians involved in tar sand cash flows, but a quick overview of the situation shows that Canada is really just playing the same role that Ecuador did for Texaco, or that Chad did for Exxon, or that the Ivory Coast did for UK oil company Trafigura (and their now-famous law firm, Carter-Ruck), or what BP is doing to Alaska's Prudhoe Bay and North Slope.
In all cases, the local economic benefits were minimal, the damage was maximal, and the companies walked away without cleaning up their mess and then used every dirty trick in the book to avoid paying for it.
Trafigura and Carter Ruck were once unknown, but thanks to their efforts to gag the Guardian newspaper in UK from reporting Parliament, that's no longer the case. Essentially, they just did to the Ivory Coast what Texaco did to Ecuador decades ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/17/trafigura-libel-laws
Exxon is actually the best of the lot - they refused to go into Chad without the full support of the U.S. government and the World Bank, which they got. It's true, they mostly did this to avoid the Chevron-Ecuador situation and get legal cover - which is now the norm for all new international fossil fuel projects, they are less likely to happen without IMF or World Bank involvement. Has Exxon paid for the Valdez spill yet? Yes - all $500 million. That's what the fine was reduced to. Exxon understands the value of buying off the government, at least - talk about return on investment, too. What was the original fine? $5 billion?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/energy/stories/DN-valdez_26bus.ART.State.Edition2.4e176ea.html
"After 19 years, Exxon Mobil Corp. succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to slash the additional amount it must pay Alaskans harmed by the 1989 Valdez oil spill from the original $5 billion to $500 million."
Chevron-Ecuador involved dumping oil drilling waste in shallow pits where it continually leaks into the rivers. Texaco's response was first to bribe government officials to drop the matter, and then they merged with Chevron, and then they ran some weird covert bribe-videotape operation in an effort to discredit the Ecuadorian legal process. Obviously, none of this was good for the Ecuadorian economy or ecology - although the $27 billion award due them by Chevron might help out a bit.
Chevron and ConocoPhillips are also reworking refineries in California to accept dirty Canadian tar sand oil shipments, with all that implies - economic dependence, higher levels of air pollution, manipulated gasoline prices, more toxic effluent pumped into rivers and bays - and as Californians, many of us are not prepared to accept that kind of ecological & economic impact just so some Wall Street bankers and oil CEOs can keep their Gulfstream jets, Japanase golf club memberships, third mansions, and the like.
http://cbenewsarchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/judge-deals-setback-to-chevron-refinery.html
We can go into the massive oil spills in Prudhoe Bay that BP was responsible for - the point there being that in the frenzy to cut costs and whip up share value for Wall Street investors, they decided not to maintain their pipelines any more - cost-cutting, you know - and so they corroded and broke. BP has not changed this practice, but instead is accelerating it due to the economic turmoil:
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/920764.html
Now, plenty has been written about Canadian tar sand ecological impacts - the giant poisonous lakes that kill any bird unwise enough to land on them, the slowly moving plume of water-soluble toxins that is heading towards the major river basin in the region, the Athabasca (naphthalenic acid, alkylated benzene derivatives, various metals, etc.), the ever-increasing demand on local water supplies, the increased CO2 emissions from burning huge volumes of natural gas to melt and process the tar sand.
What about the much-ballyhooed economic benefits, however? The nature of the partnerships between Canadian companies and Conoco, BP, Total, etc., most of the profits will be vacuumed off to Wall Street coffers. After all, how many people do you need to hire to operate those giant trucks and draglines? Cost-cutting is all the rage, isn't it?
Compare all that to clean renewable energy, which Canada could also have invested in. Which do you think is the better option for Canadians, in the long run? What would have been better for Chad, Ecuador, Nigeria, Sudan, and many other places? After the party's over, who will pay to clean up the mess?
"Clean" energy will impoverish millions
Green groups have been slandering oil companies for decades. Your rant is no different.
Oil and coal, minus the CO2, are relatively clean sources of energy with minimal ecological disruption. And the tar sands aren't filthy except in some Greenies imagination. At most, producing tar sands oil emits 15% more CO2 then regular oil.
And saying that local economic benefits are minimal highlights how deluded many anti-western environmental groups truly are. Thousands upon thousands of Newfoundlanders are earning high wages in the oil sands and we aren't going to let you destroy their livelihood like government destroyed their fishery.
relatively clean
"Oil and coal, minus the CO2, are relatively clean sources of energy with minimal ecological disruption."
Relative to what, burning television sets?
Remember this?
http://www.desmogblog.com/massive-coal-ash-spill-tennessee-puts-lie-clean-coal
And of course there is the minimally disruptive
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4405
Then there is this current story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8336564.stm
Of course you are against
Of course you are against hydroelectric power too, no? What with its flooding and devastation of thousands of square kilometers of pristine land to construct an unnatural dam, permanently displacing wildlife and destroying the ability of the land flooded to absord CO2.
I'm not sure what Gaian fantasy world you live in but oil and coal have provided a great benefit to humanity. If we rashly shifted over to the much more expensive duo of solar and wind, hundreds of millions of earth's citizens would be impoverished.
Strawman
You were telling me that oil and coal are clean, what has hydroelectric got to do with that? And then an ad hominem.
But surely you have noticed that billions already live an impoverished lifestyle compared to you comfortably ensconced behind your keyboard. As Brewster points out, a number that is set to increase under BAU.
And as for your much more expensive..."A recent report by the Environmental Law Institute found that the fossil fuel sector receives about $70 billion from taxpayers in the form of subsidies every year, the renewable sector gets only about $12 billion."
http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-bill-of-rights
$70 billion a year to provide
$70 billion a year to provide us with 99% of our energy needs versus $12 billion in subsidies for less then 1% of our energy needs?
Sounds like renewables are even more expensive then I thought!
Impoverished Citizens
That's versus the Billions who will be impoverished if we continue BAU.
I'm sure in its time hunting mammoths provided a great benefit to humanity as well, but we outgrew that (And ran out of mammoths).
It's time we outgrew fossil fuels, and got a more suitable source of energy that can supply ALL the world without ruining the planet. (And before we run out of oil.)
How long do you want to remain on the trailing edge?
That's possible...
paul s. writes, "It's people like you that are the reason Copenhagen is going to fail. Not only are you anti-corporate, you are anti-Western."
Perhaps. But do you have anything with which to back up these charges? All I see above is someone who is dissatisfied with the fossil fuel industry and the corporate media -- and who believes that anti-trust may be the only way to get some good reporting from the latter. People on both the left and the right have considered bringing anti-trust against corporate media before -- suggested that it was no longer keeping the public informed, but had turned news into entertainment -- or reflected the interests of shareholders. There is nothing particularly broad or sweeping against corporations per se in any of this, let alone anti-Western.
Do you see something else, or were you simply arguing ad hominem?
*
paul s states, "As the recently released Suzuki/Pembina report shows, reducing CO2 emissions will result in massive dislocation to Canada's economy."
Fortunately I managed to find a copy:
Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity
Final Report on an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada
http://www.pembina.org/pub/1909
I believe you meant page 3, where it states, "The analysis by M.K. Jaccard and Associates shows that with strong federal and provincial government policies, Canada can meet the 2°C emissions target in 2020 and still have a strong growing economy, a quality of life higher than Canadians enjoy today, and continued steady job creation across the country."
No, that doesn't seem quite right.
Perhaps you meant page 4, where it states, "The analysis shows that Canada's economy is projected to continue growing steadily under the policies needed to meet the 2°C target. With the implementation of our policy package, Canada's GDP is projected to grow 23 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.1 per cent annually, while meeting the 2°C emisssions target. By comparison, under business as usual conditions, Canada's GDP is projected to grow 27 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.4 per cent annually, with GHG emissions in 2020 rising to 47 per cent above the 1990 level. This means that when meeting the 2°C target, Canada's economy in 2020 is 3.2 per cent smaller than under business as usual."
Probably not. Do you have some other passage in mind?
*
paul s writes, "As Canadians, we are not yet prepared to go that down that path."
Well, it certainly seems that you are not yet prepared to do so. Then again it appears honesty is somewhat beyond your current purview.
Somehow you missed the part
Somehow you missed the part of the Suzuki/Pembina report that shows western Canada suffering disproportionately from the policies, or the billions of dollars annually that would be sent overseas. You may have missed it but Canadians haven't, which is why we will be pressing the Pause button at Copenhagen.
Lastly, when did Suzuki and Pembina become economists? Shouldn't we talk to qualified experts about this? Why wasn't their work peer-reviewed?
There are more florists than coal miners in the United States...
That's an illustrative factoid from "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell, worth keeping in mind when "the benefits of jobs" are talked up.
"Somehow you missed the part of the Suzuki/Pembina report that shows western Canada suffering disproportionately from the policies."
The actual fact is that the economic gains from a transition to renewable energy would be felt everywhere, but some regions would likely gain more than others. For example, Arizon and California would gain more from a large-scale solar power program than Alaska would, simply by virtue of location nearer the equator - but you call this suffering?
Read the Suzuki-Pembina report, would you? or try your local Canadian press, the Edmonton Journal, OCt 31 2009, by Graham Thompson:
"Politicians and others who are doing their best to frighten people about the report are inadvertently or deliberately misreading its conclusions. According to the report, Canada's gross domestic product would grow by 27 per cent in the decade from 2010 to 2020 if we did nothing at all to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and simply continued with business as usual. By following the federal government's moderate plans to reduce emissions, the GDP would grow by 25 per cent. If Canada got serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aimed for more stringent, internationally recognized goals, our GDP would grow by 23 per cent."
Second, you say the tax penalties for large emitters will hurt western Canadian citizens - but let's look at the details:
"The money collected would not be a cash grab to enrich Ottawa's treasury but would be directed back to Canadians, according to the report: "Almost half of this revenue is returned to Canadians in the form of reductions in the rate of personal income tax. Smaller portions are used to fund public investments to reduce GHG emissions, to make payments to individuals to compensate regional variations in household energy cost increases, and to protect the international competitiveness of the most vulnerable manufacturing sectors."
Let's say that again: "Almost half of this revenue is returned to Canadians in the form of reductions in the rate of personal income tax."
This is actually a wealth transfer from Big Oil to the public, isn't it? Not a wealth transfer to Ottawa, no matter how you try to spin it.
We've been trying to get similar oil taxes passed in California for years - but no go, even though that's the norm in Alaska.
P.S.: Do you know if California is permitted to ban imports of Canadian tar sand oil under NAFTA rules? Perhaps we can just remove the licenses of any refineries that start importing the stuff...
It would be best to just drop all investment into Canadian tar sands, and thus limit the eventual losses.
It's a daylight robbery
="This is actually a wealth transfer from Big Oil to the public, isn't it? Not a wealth transfer to Ottawa, no matter how you try to spin it."=
Like I said, it's NEP2. It is a massive intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, a massive tax grab which will primarily benefit Ontario, and a massive transfer of wealth to foreign countries paid for by Alberta.
Uh, we say "No thanks". And if you don't want Canadian oil, fine. There are lots of Middle Eastern countries you can rely on for your supply.
paul s wrote, "Somehow you
paul s wrote, "Somehow you missed the part of the Suzuki/Pembina report that shows western Canada suffering disproportionately from the policies, or the billions of dollars annually that would be sent overseas. You may have missed it but Canadians haven't, which is why we will be pressing the Pause button at Copenhagen."
I can quote relevant passages to back up my points. Can you do the same for yours -- or are you stuck simply waving your arms madly about?
*
paul s wrote, "Lastly, when did Suzuki and Pembina become economists? Shouldn't we talk to qualified experts about this? Why wasn't their work peer-reviewed?"
Suzuki and Pembina are not economists. They are organizations.
The paper is merely a summary report of the study:
Exploration of Two Canadian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
25% Below 1990 and 20% Below 2006 Levels by 2020
http://www.pembina.org/pub/1910
Performed by:
Dr. Chris Bataille
http://www.mkja.ca/Chris-Bataille.html
Michael Wolinetz
http://www.mkja.ca/Mike-Wolinetz.html
Jotham Peters
http://www.mkja.ca/Jotham-Peters.html
Michelle Bennett
http://www.mkja.ca/Michelle-Bennett.html
Nic Rivers
http://www.mkja.ca/Nic-Rivers.html
All but Michelle Bennett hold degrees in economics. But I wasn't the one who was referring to the summary as some sort of authoritative document.
You were -- at least until I pointed out it really didn't support your views. Only then did you begin to question academic credentials of organizations -- as if the organizations themselves were individuals -- complete with their own social insurance numbers.
Gutting the West, Rewarding the East
So gutting Western Canada is now the goal? On top of being the top payer per capita in equalization payments, Alberta alone would be required to pay $5 billion more each year under this plan.
And Saskatchewan? After pulling itself up by the bootstraps, it would now be kicked in the teeth.
Of great curiousity is the fact that Ontario would not suffer at all. Fancy that. Especially considering how Canadian taxpayers just spent $10 billion bailing out the Ontario auto industry so they could keep producing gas consuming vehicles!
Since we are supposedly all in this together, it is odd how two provinces in particular are singled out for such punitive measures while Ontario alone emerges unscathed.
Is this instead a plan to tear apart Confederation??
paul s writes, "So gutting
paul s writes, "So gutting Western Canada is now the goal? On top of being the top payer per capita in equalization payments, Alberta alone would be required to pay $5 billion more each year under this plan.
"And Saskatchewan? After pulling itself up by the bootstraps, it would now be kicked in the teeth."
You yourself were calling our attention to:
Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity
Final Report on an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada
http://www.pembina.org/pub/1909
On pages 4 it states,
"Growth rates vary significantly among regions, as is the case under business as usual. The urgent need to address the enormous GHG emissions from the coal-fired electricity and petroleum sectors in Alberta and Saskatchewan accounts for the reductions in the projected rates of growth in these provinces. There is, however, continued expansion of oil sands operations in Alberta, but it occurs with large-scale use of carbon capture and storage. It should also be noted that Alberta's per capita GDP continues to be much higher than that of any other region, and Saskatchewan's per capita GDP stays close to the Canadian average."
If Alberta's per capita GDP continues to be "much higher," it is difficult to see how this translates into it being gutted. If per capita GDP Saskatchewan remains "close to the Canadian average" it is hard to see how this corresponds to being "kicked in the teeth."
There are numerous points at which the report speaks in terms of billions of dollars. Reductions in tax rates, expenditures to maintain benefits, and so on.
Perhaps rather than having you filter the report for them (when you have made it eminently clear that you have very little idea of what is in it or who is responsible for it) people should look at it for themselves.
That is, the report and the study it summarized:
Exploration of Two Canadian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
25% Below 1990 and 20% Below 2006 Levels by 2020
http://www.pembina.org/pub/1910
Good thing I made available "links" to "your sources."
However, if it were the case that such a plan did in fact involve placing an unfair burden upon one region or another, surely there would be ways of making things more equitable. But it looks like the authors of the study were already seeking to insure a fair degree of fairness.
Oh no Canada
Carbon capture is not part of the "expansion" of the oil sands, it is part of the destruction of it. On top of funding that enormously expensive technology, Alberta alone will be providing the billions sent outside the country for offsets.
This whole plan is an agenda to punish Alberta and Saskatchewan under the guise of some consultant's idea of "fairness". And other then Atlantic Canada, no region will suffer slower job growth then the duo of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Ontario would be rewarded with the highest job growth rate in the country (for doing nothing) and wealth would be consolidated in eastern Canada. It's like an NEP 2, except worse.
The question remains, why isn't the rest of Canada being asked to pitch in? If AGW is the greatest threat ever to face mankind, it seems odd that only Saskatchewan and Alberta would be contributing for Canada.
But as it stands, the "plan" is a recipe for national discord. The consultants can take their version of "equitable" and stuff it you know where.
Try some numbers.
Here's an economist who points out that the Pembina/Suzuki report predicts 3.3% GDP growth for Alberta, as compared to 3.4% for 2004-2008. Not a lot of pain there, paul.
"...Pembina is effectively stating that Alberta can have its cake and eat it, too, because we’ll maintain the same pace of economic growth while meeting our climate goals..."
http://www.grandinite.com/2009/10/30/ed-meet-data-data-ed/
Not a chance. This is a
Not a chance. This is a massive confiscation of wealth from Alberta and Saskatchewan to other parts of Canada and to the rest of the world.
This assault on one region of Canada will not stand. Like I said, it's NEP 2.
Yeah, yeah, go start another
Yeah, yeah, go start another separatist party; maybe you'll get 20 members.
Seperatists are scumbags. But
Seperatists are scumbags. But violating the Canadian constitution to plunder a province can stoke those kinds of emotions. And punishing Saskatchwan and Alberta punitively would ignite a lot of anger. You'll have to come up with a plan that has all Canadians sacrifice, not just two provinces.
Getting desperate, are you?
Getting desperate, are you?
Hardly
Hardly desperate VJ. Didn't you notice the plan was dead on arrival? Even the Globe and Mail said so.
Scaife, Bradley, Koch and Coors foundations...
When Exxon "donates" money to an organization that is active in denying global warming, the connection between higher levels of carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the fact that what is raising carbon dioxide levels are our emissions, the seriousness of climate change, etc., you can be pretty sure that the reason for their donations lies in the denial. This isn't true of the Scaifes, Kochs or Coors as they used some of the very same organizations (as well as plenty of other organizations which have little or nothing to do with fossil fuel) to push the religious right in US politics. (The Bradleys are much more invested in libertarianism, and from what I can see have little to do with the religious right -- except when it is convenient.) Nevertheless I believe it is instructive to look at what their foundations have donated to organizations in the Exxon Secrets database...
I took the list of organizations that the Scaife Foundations have donated money to between 1985 and 2006 (according to Media Transparency -- their website is down, but it is still in www.archive.org )and checked it against the list of organizations in the Exxon Secrets database.
The following is what I found:
Aggregated Grants of Scaife Foundations
Includes: Scaife Family Foundation, Carthage Foundation, Allegheny Foundation and Sara Scaife Foundation
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1468
For the period from 1985 to 2006…
1. A Total of 41 organizations found in the Exxon Secrets database where each organization received at least $100,000.
2. Number of individuals belonging to multiple organizations according to the database? 148.
3. The total grants for all causes by Scaife Foundations for this period was $471,475,733 according to Media Transparency. Looking only at organizations that received $100,000 or more over this period that were in the Exxon Secrets database I have $121,418,540. As such, while only 41 of the 434 organizations that received total grant amounts of at least $100,000 were in the Exxon Secrets database, thus constituting only 9.45% of the 434 organizations, 27.75% of the grant money went to organizations that are in the Exxon Secrets database.
*
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1469
27 organizations on the Exxon list have received $100,000 or more from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation from 1985-2005, with 95 individuals belonging to 2 or more of those organizations. The grand total given by the foundation to these 27 organizations for this period is $64,707,196.
*
Aggregated Grants from the Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, and Claude R. Lambe Foundations
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1467
20 organizations on the Exxon list for have received $100,000 or more from the Koch/Lambe foundations from 1986-2004. Total number of individuals belonging to 2 or more of these organizations in the Exxon Secrets DB is 77. Total given: $36,815,538.
*
Coors Castle Rock Foundation
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1466
18 organizations on the Exxon list for having received $100,000 or more from the Castle Rock foundation from 1995-2006. A total of 69 individuals on the Exxon list that belong to 2 or more of these organizations. Total given $7,068,760.
The total from these sets of foundations: $230,010,034
You really should get a
You really should get a hobby. Wasting time tracking down the pennies Exxon has given to organizations seems like a waste of time when Big Green has spent far more pushing environmental alarmism. In one year alone, Greenpeace, a single organization, spends more on AGW advocacy then Exxon has spent on (supposedly) its opposite in 10 years! Following the money leads to Big Green.
So paul, Tim must have scared
So paul, Tim must have scared you with all those facts. Hundreds of millions of dollars, paul, not pennies.
Big Green outspends them all
Tim has listed donations, not money spent related to AGW. And on that count, Big Green vastly outspends any corporate entities. Greenpeace alone vastly outspends any corporation concerning AGW every single year.
On that count paul, those who
Looking at things that way, paul, those who make charitable contributions to Greenpeace presumably aren't spending any money, either. Greenpeace is -- as are the foundations to which Exxon is making its "charitable contributions." And on that count a great deal more gets spent on denialist propaganda than the science or the literature promoting the science. Besides, do you have any numbers on what Greenpeace spends -- specifically on global warming? I gave you a few big numbers -- and I added those up from a great many smaller numbers -- personally.
And incidentally, the comment of mine that you were initially responding to wasn't about Exxon's "charitable donations." It was about the "charitable donations" of a few billionaires -- the Scaifes, Kochs, Bradleys and Coors -- made through their "charitable foundations" to other "charitable foundations." It is a shell game meant to whitewash dirty money -- just like the mob.
Please see for example: "According to Ernest Hearst, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter, two writers who helped uncover Scaife's funding techniques were scholar Karen Rothmeyer and journalist David Warner, who were the first to note that Scaife funded conservative projects in a very strategic manner to maximize the propaganda value of his dollars. Scaife accomplishes this by simultaneously funding several different projects at different groups on the same topic. According to Rothmeyer, the result is that in matters of defense and economic policy Scaife has helped to foster the illusion that there is a far greater diversity of views than actually exists."
RightWeb: Richard Mellon Scaife
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Scaife_Richard_Mellon
And all but the Bradleys were largely responsible for funding the religious right in the US -- getting it started and keeping it going. Scaife in particular. But there at least they had some help from Ahmanson and the DeVos family. They have a lot of money, paul, and they are willing to spend it if it means that they can decide which way the United States turns and thereby serve their interests and direct the course of world events.
Money which is getting spent is getting spent. Just looking at the four families I was looking at over $230,000,000 -- nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worth. And thanks to a lot of detective work on the part of a great many individuals we know where much of it is coming from.
Big Green rules
You took a lump of money and did nothing with it. Greenpeace alone spends over $100 million A YEAR of environmental matters, and $25 million A YEAR alone on AGW advocacy. Nobody can touch those sums and we haven't even gone into the spending by hundreds of other environmental groups. Big Green rules.
They spend money on various
They spend money on various programs, not on denialist lies.
= delete= doublepost =
= delete= doublepost =
Riot and Turmoil will prevent protest at climate summit
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/10/protest-danish-plans-to-smash.html
is a post about how the Danish government are passing a law to outlaw protest at Copenhagen please take a look at write in protest!