'Time to ditch climate policies' (BBC)
Eric Gisin
Crude at $70/bbl is $500/tonne, and supply is limited and eventually will drop.
Thermal coal is $10-50/tonne, and usage growing fast. I can easily be replaced by 2050.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm
By Roger Harrabin - Environment analyst, BBC News
[scary image] Policies are failing to decarbonise economies, the report says
An international group of academics is urging world leaders to abandon their current policies
on climate change.
The authors of How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course say the strategy based on overall
emissions cuts has failed and will continue to fail.
They want G8 nations and emerging economies to focus on an approach based on improving energy
efficiency and decarbonising energy supply.
Critics of the report's recommendations say they are a dangerous diversion.
The report is published by the London School of Economics' (LSE) Mackinder Programme and the
University of Oxford's Institute for Science, Innovation & Society.
LSE Mackinder programme director Gwyn Prins said the current system of attempting to cap
carbon emissions then allow trading in emissions permits had led to emissions continuing to rise.
He said world proposals to expand carbon trading schemes and channel billions of dollars into
clean energy technologies would not work.
"The world has been recarbonising, not decarbonising," Professor Prins said.
"The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having
no meaningful effect whatsoever.
"Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than
trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a
hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment."
The report has drawn an angry response from some environmentalists, who acknowledge the
problems it highlights but fear that the solutions it proposes will not work.
Tom Burke, from Imperial College London and a former government adviser, said: "The authors
are right to be concerned about the lack of urgency in the political response to climate change.
"They are also right to identify significant weaknesses in the major policy instrument
currently being negotiated.
"But nothing could be more harmful than to propose that the world stop what it is doing on
climate change and start again working in a different way," Professor Burke contested.
"This is neither practical nor analytically defensible - and it seems to have been born more
out of frustration than understanding of the nature of the political processes involved.
"This is a far more complex, and urgent, diplomatic task than the strategic arms control
negotiations and will require an even more sophisticated and multi-channel approach to its
solution. Stop-go is not sophisticated."
G8 leaders will discuss climate change on Wednesday before joining leaders of emerging
economies on Thursday for a meeting chaired by President Obama.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> I'm surprise nobody focuses on coal and ignores oil&gas in CO2 reduction.
> Crude at $70/bbl is $500/tonne, and supply is limited and eventually will drop.
> Thermal coal is $10-50/tonne, and usage growing fast. I can easily be replaced by 2050.
If the cranks were interested in the cost of energy, clean coal
could be done.
But since the only thing cranks are interested in making sure the
Micheal Jackson
Estate gets duly photographed by a Space Shuttle overpass, the
people
with economic brains are still working on GPS, Self-Replicating
Machines,
Self-Assembling Robots, Electronic Books, Hologrpahics, Laser
Disks, XML, USB,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, HDTV, Biodiesel, Pv Cells, and
Hydrid Electric.
phil scott
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:12 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm surprise nobody focuses on coal and ignores oil&gas in CO2 reduction.
coal oil and gas lobbies....in bed with the faux enviromentalists
such as gore.
Nuclear of couse is non poluting... the fuel is reprocessed.
> > Crude at $70/bbl is $500/tonne, and supply is limited and eventually will drop.
> > Thermal coal is $10-50/tonne, and usage growing fast. I can easily be replaced by 2050.
>
> If the cranks were interested in the cost of energy, clean coal
> could be done.
Im in the business..no such thing as clean coal.
> But since the only thing cranks are interested in making sure the
> Micheal Jackson
> Estate gets duly photographed by a Space Shuttle overpass, the
> people
grow up
> > economies on Thursday for a meeting chaired by President Obama.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PseudoCyAntz
b5be6b...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Nuclear of couse is non poluting... the fuel is reprocessed.
>
Bury the waste in your own backyard then,
and leave Yuccca Moutain alone.
Fran
> On Jul 7, 10:12 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 11:12 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm surprise nobody focuses on coal and ignores oil&gas in CO2 reduction.
>
> coal oil and gas lobbies....in bed with the faux enviromentalists
> such as gore.
> Nuclear of couse is non poluting... the fuel is reprocessed.
>
I'm in favour of much wider resort to nuclear power, but please don't
start lying about it. It is polluting and it does lead to elevated
carbon dioxide emissions. It's preferable to coal by a long margin and
may well be the cleanest of the baseload technologies that can be
installed widely at a viable cost but it's far from clean.
It's also not something you could roll out in a hurry for reasons that
are largely economic and partly political and technical.
Fran
Eric Gisin
"PseudoCyAntz" <nume...@IntelligenceDecline.us> wrote in message
news:Xns9C41F0E691D6...@198.186.190.165...
prometheuspan
"people
with economic brains are still working on GPS, Self-Replicating
Machines,
Self-Assembling Robots, Electronic Books, Hologrpahics, Laser
Disks, XML, USB,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, HDTV, Biodiesel, Pv Cells, and
Hydrid Electric. "
People with economic brains would know that hydro electric is not
green nor sustainable, nor economical
compared to solar, wind, and geothermal power.
Further, those same economic brains would find that in terms of cost /
benefit analysis, geothermal wins hands down across the board.
Nuclear power is polluting, in several different ways.
There is no good reason to use nuclear power, or fossil fuels, or
biofuels, the only reason any of these bad energy ideas continue is
that they
are messy and thus easy to have middlement making their bucks off of,
whereas geothermal power would produce energy too cheaply and then
there'd be little means by which for evil rich jerks to go on
collecting dough.
Economic minds might like the idea of electric cars that get a
thousand miles to the penny.
Its just propaganda artists and their dupes who have a hard time with
the facts, be they economic or otherwise.
AZDuffman
wrote:
> phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote in news:73a55699-c2cf-4ccd-8756-
> b5be6b831...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Nuclear of couse is non poluting... the fuel is reprocessed.
>
> Bury the waste in your own backyard then,
> and leave Yuccca Moutain alone.
Yucca Mountain is a location made safe to bury it, most backyards are
not.
Last Post
> Crude at $70/bbl is $500/tonne, and supply is limited
•• bullshit
> Thermal coal is $10-50/tonne, and usage growing fast.
> I can easily be replaced by 2050.
•• LOL ~Yes Eric, you can be replaced any old time.
•• Coal needs to be conserved~~
Coal and coke are essentials in steel making
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm
>
> By Roger Harrabin - Environment analyst, BBC News
>
> Policies are failing to decarbonise economies, the report says
•• That is right on and should be encouraged
> An international group of academics is urging world leaders to abandon their current policies
> on climate change.
•• Yes all those carbon reduction policies need to go
before they do serious damage to the environment,
and the health of the populace and our livestock
>
> The authors of How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course say the strategy based on overall
> emissions cuts has failed and will continue to fail.
•• As well it should.
>
> They want G8 nations and emerging economies to focus on an approach based on improving energy
> efficiency and decarbonising energy supply.
•• That is just as stupid as the current plans.
>
> Critics of the report's recommendations say they are a dangerous diversion.
•• Indeed both plans are disastrous.
> LSE Mackinder programme director Gwyn Prins said the current system of attempting to cap
> carbon emissions then allow trading in emissions permits had led to emissions continuing to rise.
•• Actually rising emissions is a good thlng. We need
all we can get
> He said world proposals to expand carbon trading schemes and channel billions of dollars into
> clean energy technologies would not work.
•• I definitely agree to that.
>
> "The world has been recarbonising, not decarbonising," Professor Prins said.
•• As it should be!
>
> "The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having
> no meaningful effect whatsoever.
•• Of course Kyoto was useless from the gitgo.
>
> "Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than
> trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a
> hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment."
•• A nice 37 word sentence translated says: Shitcan all
those stupid, useless and unenforceable policies &
practises and leave the climate to nature where it
belongs.
>
> The report has drawn an angry response from some environmentalists, who acknowledge the
> problems it highlights but fear that the solutions it proposes will not work.
•• Of course if there is no global warming the so called
"environmentalists" don't eat. Heaven forbid, they
would have to get an honest job.
>
> Tom Burke, from Imperial College London and a former government adviser, said: "The authors
> are right to be concerned about the lack of urgency in the political response to climate change.
•• They too would have to get honest jobs instead of
sucking on the government funding tit.
> "They are also right to identify significant weaknesses in the major policy instrument
> currently being negotiated.
>
> "But nothing could be more harmful than to propose that the world stop what it is doing on
> climate change and start again working in a different way," Professor Burke contested.
•• Not true provided that they stop screwing around
and leave the climate to nature. Global warming
is a myth and does not exist. On the other hand
"Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
million years or more.
> "This is neither practical nor analytically defensible - and it seems to have been born more
> out of frustration than understanding of the nature of the political processes involved.
•• Nothing in the IPCC report is defensible or practical.
Time to ditch that shitcan of lies and shoot the
politicians that run it.
Last Post
> "people
> with economic brains are still working on GPS, Self-Replicating
> Machines,
> Self-Assembling Robots, Electronic Books, Hologrpahics, Laser
> Disks, XML, USB,
> On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, HDTV, Biodiesel, Pv Cells, and
> Hydrid Electric. "
>
> People with economic brains would know that hydro electric is not
> green nor sustainable, nor economical
> compared to solar, wind, and geothermal power.
>
economical in remote locations where
connection to the grid is not viable. Solar as an
accessory is only economical in locations where
your site faces due south and you have 120+ sun
days each year.
–– ––
Bret Cahill
Anti-AGWers are _always_ hyping coal as a source of CO2.
Bret Cahill
Last Post
> On Jul 8, 3:31 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 11:12 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm surprise nobody focuses on coal and ignores oil&gas in CO2 reduction.
>
> > coal oil and gas lobbies....in bed with the faux enviromentalists
> > such as gore.
>
> start lying about it. It is polluting and it does lead to elevated
> carbon dioxide emissions.
•• ROTFLMAO:
Poor Fran forced to make unpalatable choices, but
if it does lead to elevated carbon dioxide emissions
it is a very good thing. We need all the CO2 we
can get.
> It's preferable to coal by a long margin and
> may well be the cleanest of the baseload technologies that can be
> installed widely at a viable cost but it's far from clean.
•• We really need to conserve the coal for steelmaking
•• Oil and natural gas are still and always will be the
safest and cheapest and most readily available fuel.
–– ––
What A. Fool
<promet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"people
> with economic brains are still working on GPS, Self-Replicating
>Machines,
> Self-Assembling Robots, Electronic Books, Hologrpahics, Laser
>Disks, XML, USB,
> On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, HDTV, Biodiesel, Pv Cells, and
>Hydrid Electric. "
>
>People with economic brains would know that hydro electric is not
>green nor sustainable, nor economical
>compared to solar, wind, and geothermal power.
Maybe you could explain that, at least it can be an
"anytime" source of power, solar and wind may or may not be.
Most geothermal energy will be low temperature,
meaning it can't be used for power, only for space heating
and process heat and hot water and usually with
heat pumps for heating and air conditioning.
>Further, those same economic brains would find that in terms of cost /
>benefit analysis, geothermal wins hands down across the board.
Describe where, when, and how.
>Nuclear power is polluting, in several different ways.
You are an extremist.
>There is no good reason to use nuclear power, or fossil fuels, or
>biofuels, the only reason any of these bad energy ideas continue is
>that they
>are messy and thus easy to have middlement making their bucks off of,
You are goofy to think that any existing grid power source
can be replaced in less than 10 years.
>whereas geothermal power would produce energy too cheaply and then
>there'd be little means by which for evil rich jerks to go on
>collecting dough.
You are obviously a stupid socialist nut if you think
like that, even if a new instantaneous grid power source
was available, most power plants would have to run for
years just to get back the investment.
>Economic minds might like the idea of electric cars that get a
>thousand miles to the penny.
No, those would be goofy fantasy dreamers, not minds.
>Its just propaganda artists and their dupes who have a hard time with
>the facts, be they economic or otherwise.
There may be opinions expressed, but the only
propaganda (meaning not factual) is put out by nuts,
socialists, communists and environment nuts who
should rethink some of what they do.
Just getting the courts to shut down part of
the irrigation in California is causing vegetable prices
to be so high many people can't afford them and
many stores don't even stock them.
Do you express these stupid ideas face to
face with any thinking adults?
Rod Speed
> On Jul 8, 4:08 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 3:31 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 10:12 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 7, 11:12 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm surprise nobody focuses on coal and ignores oil&gas in CO2
>>>>> reduction.
>>
>>> coal oil and gas lobbies....in bed with the faux enviromentalists
>>> such as gore.
>>> Nuclear of couse is non poluting... the fuel is reprocessed.
>>
>> I'm in favour of much wider resort to nuclear power, but please don't
>> start lying about it. It is polluting and it does lead to elevated
>> carbon dioxide emissions.
>
> Poor Fran forced to make unpalatable choices, but
> if it does lead to elevated carbon dioxide emissions
> it is a very good thing. We need all the CO2 we
> can get.
>
>> It's preferable to coal by a long margin and
>> may well be the cleanest of the baseload technologies that can be
>> installed widely at a viable cost but it's far from clean.
> We really need to conserve the coal for steelmaking
Nope, most of the coal isnt suitable for steelmaking
and the US has vast reserves of coal anyway.
> Oil and natural gas are still and always will be the
> safest and cheapest and most readily available fuel.
Wrong with power generation.
Last Post
> You are obviously a stupid socialist nut if you think
> like that, even if a new instantaneous grid power source
> was available, most power plants would have to run for
> years just to get back the investment.
>
•• ROTFLMAO
Most utility companies issue convertible bonds
or convertible preferred shares which allows them
to write off capital costs 3% ~ 5% at a time.
What A. Fool
Breathing is a source of CO2.
Aren't you against Global Warming?
Eric Gisin
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:8c4234c9-d95c-47bb...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What A. Fool
wrote:
>On Jul 8, 4:26 pm, What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>> You are obviously a stupid socialist nut if you think
>> like that, even if a new instantaneous grid power source
>> was available, most power plants would have to run for
>> years just to get back the investment.
>>
>•• ROTFLMAO
Why did you snip who I was responding to?
> Most utility companies issue convertible bonds
> or convertible preferred shares which allows them
> to write off capital costs 3% ~ 5% at a time.
Isn't that what I said, that would take 20 to 33 years
to pay back the investment, how many plants are newer
than that (or are you agreeing with me ?).
With all the government regulations recently a lot
of power plants may have had to refinance in some
way, although it must be a pretty good business if
British big oil is acquiring power plants.