Renewable energy .......again...... :-)

[j4bberw0ck]

Anyone surprised?

Don't tell Karia I read the Grauniad from time to time .

Love the bit about investing in solar farms in Africa. As has been pointed out before, the best way of relieving African debt and poverty isn't subsidies and loans (which all end up in Swiss bank accounts anyway) but by allowing and encouraging Africa to build up an economy that earns money. That needs infrastructure, like roads and railways; you can't build or maintain or run that sort of infrastructure on solar cells.

So the poor old Africans are expected to carry on living their poverty-ridden, desperate lives in perpetuity, so the EU can meet some climate targets which aren't backed by theory anyway - only conjecture.

Madness.

[Boozeburglar]

Anyone surprised?

Don't tell Karia I read the Grauniad from time to time .

Love the bit about investing in solar farms in Africa. As has been pointed out before, the best way of relieving African debt and poverty isn't subsidies and loans (which all end up in Swiss bank accounts anyway) but by allowing and encouraging Africa to build up an economy that earns money. That needs infrastructure, like roads and railways; you can't build or maintain or run that sort of infrastructure on solar cells.

So the poor old Africans are expected to carry on living their poverty-ridden, desperate lives in perpetuity, so the EU can meet some climate targets which aren't backed by theory anyway - only conjecture.

Madness.

I agree that in the short term at least Africa needs high output conventional power stations, but for outlying areas solar could be very effective in providing energy for schools, communications and the like.

It is a good idea for Europe to make investment in the countries in Africa that need it. I agree it would be much better to look in the long term at what help is needed rather than looking at how we can absolve our responsibilities in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

The idea that countries have to make money to be successful is interesting. Do you mean a surplus?

We should remember that Africa is a continent of many disparate countries, with equally distinct economies and political systems; not some amorphous mass relying on the rest of the world to give it shape.

[j4bberw0ck]

The idea that countries have to make money to be successful is interesting. Do you mean a surplus?

In the sense of a balance of trade surplus, yes. That way they generate the revenue not to depend on loans and credits and grants, which means they get to decide for themselves how to spend the money instead of some Europolitician coming along and saying "here's money to build a solar farm".

We should remember that Africa is a continent of many disparate countries, with equally distinct economies and political systems; not some amorphous mass relying on the rest of the world to give it shape.

Absolutely; we should also remember it was us (in the sense of the nations of Europe as they were 100+ years ago) that made it as it is. I don't advocate apology; that's pointless. I do believe that given the tribal nature of African culture and the hostility and mistrust between tribes in the same country, the best way of encouraging Africans to raise their game is for them to develop something valuable - valuable enough to rank higher in the list of priorities than tribal tensions, for instance. It worked in Europe, after all - the EU claims one of its greatest achievements is a peaceful Europe but in reality, it was increased trade and the Age of Communication that secured the peace. Too costly in lost trade and too propaganda-resistant a population to go to war against Germany now.

Africa has huge economic potential but it's not being allowed to develop it.

[karia]

Anyone surprised?

Don't tell Karia I read the Grauniad from time to time .

That's why you're making so much sense!

Karia

[Tubthumper]

In Africa, the Eurocrats
A stately power-dome decree
Where once a mighty river ran
Through poverty-stricken, drought-struck land
Down to a lifeless sea

For Euro-Kyoto targets meet
Such benefits to tribesmen proud
Huge continent dependent still
Resource and asset raped and ploughed

While private equity gets rich
Each nation’s masters salt away
West politicians scratch the itch
In Switzerland raw cash holds sway

Just buy a man a fish, you see
And he can eat, survive this day
But buy a man a net and he
Can earn and feed his family

Provided that there are, of course
Some fish to catch, in nearby sea
Just hope that Euro fishing force
Has not robbed all for you and me

Regarding greenish aims evading
By the nations of the west
With poor countries Carbon Trading
Line their crooked master’s chest

Does it seem to you a wee bit
Like a big publicity scam
We will do the least we can cos
We in West don’t give a damn

[Angela]

Nice one, Tubby! You've done old Coleridge proud!

[MadPict]

Well I have been pushed over the edge today. I therefore declare, that from this day forward, I don't give a rats tail end about global warming. Bring it on - the warmer the better for my creaky old bones.

The sight of the hypocritical protesters at Heathrow today with their polluting vehicles parked up demanding that the airlines cut emissions has been the straw which broke my camels back.
Who are they to demand that people should travel less when these people probably use air travel and cars to get around?

So from today the only reason I will turn off a light bulb will be to save ME money.........

[EDDIE]

For me im all for useing renewable energy but at the moment its not cost effective and it would take years for u to get your money back and start saving money after buying all the equipment thats the big downfall with
renewable energy

[j4bberw0ck]

>>>This<<< makes interesting reading if you're a "swivel-eyed eco-loony" as Jeremy Clarkson memorably described the global warming, er, enthusiasts.

Do read to the bottom before giving vent to your head(s) of steam

[George Brims]

[ts.QUOTE=j4bberw0ck;256427]Do read to the bottom before giving vent to your head(s) of steam [/QUOTE]

OK, I read to the bottom. Near the bottom I found the following:

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

That statement is a lie. Not a bit off, not putting a slant on things, purely and simply a lie.

[JAWS]

What I find most amusing is that the "experts" are quite happy to state with certainty about periods in the past which “prove” global warming is a recent event.
Whenever it is pointed out that, in the recent past there have been periods when the Earth also had periods when it is even warmer than now they suddenly state that you cannot be certain of that because the methods to measure such things are imprecise.

If it “shows” global warming is a recent man made event then the measurements of past climatic events are considered accurate but if something does not show that then measurements cannot be made which are accurate enough to show that. Magic, absolute magic, where I come from that is called, "Having your cake and eating it".

Can anybody tell me the extent of the hole in the Ozone Layer was in even 1900 never mind five hundred years ago? I would be interested to know.

[j4bberw0ck]

That statement is a lie. Not a bit off, not putting a slant on things, purely and simply a lie.

Interesting word, "lie". It's an almost entirely emotional word because the premise is an intent to deceive, wilfully. As an emotional word, it's almost completely devoid of scientific objectivity.

Me? I'm not in a position to know whether the statement's a lie, or not. But I do know that there's no Theory of Climate Change, because to rank as a theory it would have to produce forecastable results from data and assumptions; it doesn't. Never has. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Were it a Hypothesis, it would have to explain, through an unknown mechanism, how assumption matches observation. It doesn't. Never has.

If it's Conjecture, then nothing has to be proved other than the loosest association, and that's what we have (it seems to me). Pure conjecture. And on the basis of it, government is taking huge and fundamentally important economic decisions which can screw us all into the future.

NASA, the other day, re-released climate change data corrected for a programming error; the effect of the error correction was that the hottest summers of the 20th century now occurred 50 years ago instead of in the 1990's. NASA has also released data which indicate that there has been no warming of the planetary surface since 1998.

It's a little difficult to glue it all together, eh, George? So whether we have a "lie", or a dubious representation of data, or a representation of data intended to put a different spin on some people's conclusions, I have no idea.

But I do know that the climate change argument and the claims of the causes of climate change are very far from a cohesive theory, and a lot less far from grant-seeking conjecture.

Perhaps you can enlarge on your assertion that it's a "lie"?

[j4bberw0ck]

The Grauniad carries this story about biofuels and how they'll release up to 9 times the CO2 into the atmosphere (equivalent, I presume) that fossil fuels will, because developing countries are deforesting at a huge rate to make foreign exchange from biofuel, which places like Europe will have to buy in to reach targets the EU has set.

Along the way, the article talks about 20% of agricultural land in Britain being used to grow biofuel crops by 2010, and 40% of European agricultural land, so the EU target of 10% of all fuel burned by 2020 being vegetable in origin. The only vegetables here are the politicians who proposed the targets and those who accepted them; this is another case where billion-dollar economic decisions are being made on the basis of back-of-a-fag-packet analyses, a whole truckload of non-scientific conjecture, and the desire to be seen to be doing something - doesn't matter what, just something.

Here's another thought about biofuels, not covered by the Grauniad. The wheat-growing States in the US are the first to return their votes in Presidential elections, which has a huge effect on the patterns of voting in other States. So candidates need to keep the wheat farmers sweet. So the US Government is promoting bio-ethanol made from wheat, as a fuel, and paying huge subsidies to growers.

So there'll be much less American wheat for export. So wheat prices will rise, taking with them the cost of your loaf, cakes and other stuff. And if in this country farmers switch to biofuel crops and grow less wheat, barley, oats etc. then the price of them will rise too, so the cost of cattle feed rises, so the price of meat goes up, fewer people buy it, and farmers go out of business. Imagine the UK having to import wheat in competition with the Chinese and India.......... and the price of it..........

So, all you eco-warriors, reflect on what happens when governments get involved in trying to micro-manage things on the back of a whole raft of unproven "scientific" lobbying. Complete chaos. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes back.

[MadPict]

While the idea of growing fuel seems like a good green one I was shocked to discover that rain forests were being ripped up to make room for these bio crops to be planted. Millions of tons of CO2 are released as a result of the slash and burn clearing of the planets lungs.

Yet another thing that the government is trying to push - how many more white elephants can Labour pull out of their hats?.......

[Bobbyian]

nice one J4bbw0ck I agree with you on this one ... we are already feeling thew pinch these Poloticians in Germany are only looking for that special effect rtather than taking things forward... last week we had bread and butter price rises of in part nearly 40% because of reduced agricultal area the farmers are getting morte money to grow Raps than wheat or make milk and the the board rooms flog our butter and milk to the chinese ( nothing against the chinese) but hang on then it will become worse they`re only after our money

[JAWS]

There was an Eco-warrior on Sky News earlier. Whilst he was giving forth with the usual propaganda the information strip across the bottom of the screen (Can't recall it's correct name) gave an incite into the con tricks being used. It announced that 8% of the UKs energy needs is supplied by renewables and from abroad.
That tells me that, in order to try and deceive people into believing that we get 8% of our energy from renewables an amount of energy which we obtain from sources outside the UK has been included in order to boost the apparent use of renewables.

One of the sources of that energy from abroad is via an agreement with France for us to draw electricity from them, which one would assume is included in that 8%, during our peak times.
Don't mention that most of France’s electricity production is provided by nuclear power stations. (Oops, did I accidentally let that slip out?)

[j4bberw0ck]

Here's another thought about biofuels, not covered by the Grauniad. The wheat-growing States in the US are the first to return their votes in Presidential elections, which has a huge effect on the patterns of voting in other States. So candidates need to keep the wheat farmers sweet. So the US Government is promoting bio-ethanol made from wheat, as a fuel, and paying huge subsidies to growers.

So there'll be much less American wheat for export. So wheat prices will rise, taking with them the cost of your loaf, cakes and other stuff. And if in this country farmers switch to biofuel crops and grow less wheat, barley, oats etc. then the price of them will rise too, so the cost of cattle feed rises, so the price of meat goes up, fewer people buy it, and farmers go out of business. Imagine the UK having to import wheat in competition with the Chinese and India.......... and the price of it..........

So, all you eco-warriors, reflect on what happens when governments get involved in trying to micro-manage things on the back of a whole raft of unproven "scientific" lobbying. Complete chaos. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes back.

Sometimes, it's good to be proved right. I know I get it wrong sometimes - though unlike most here I'm always prepared to apologise and accept it when I do - but the biofuels mess will run and run. More evidence of governmental eco-lunacy emerges! And this time it's actually pointed to by one of the arch-eye-swivellers himself; ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr George Monbiot.

And look who's popped up in Swaziland (a country that has to import food with money it barely has) to promote biofuel crops; Bob Geldof......

[Rheghead]

Sometimes, it's good to be proved right. I know I get it wrong sometimes - though unlike most here I'm always prepared to apologise and accept it when I do - but the biofuels mess will run and run. More evidence of governmental eco-lunacy emerges! And this time it's actually pointed to by one of the arch-eye-swivellers himself; ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr George Monbiot.

And look who's popped up in Swaziland (a country that has to import food with money it barely has) to promote biofuel crops; Bob Geldof......

Yes, the whole biofuels thing is in a PR mess, depending on which literature you wish to read. Obviously, burning down virgin forest to cultivate biofuels is madness. I would think that buying cooking oil specially to put in your car is madness as well, this is just as bad as the aforementioned. It is a good idea to just think if 'everyone' was doing it, to realise if there is a future in something. But since everyone is 'me, me, me'...?

There is a way though to help. Freeing up pasture land by changing the way we live and farm will give a lot of land for biofuel crops, but bad habits die hard. But again biofuels aren't a panacea to the global warming crisis, it is just another slice of the problem. Like windfarms, I suppose.

[j4bberw0ck]

There's a simpler solution, Rheghead.

Get the Government (and Governments) out of the whole equation. That removes the biggest raft of incompetence there could be.

[Rheghead]

There's a simpler solution, Rheghead.

Get the Government (and Governments) out of the whole equation. That removes the biggest raft of incompetence there could be.

No I am sorry, I do not agree. More state control (with economist and scientific consultation)is needed because liberal market forces won't solve the problem, they haven't done so far. I can see liberal market forces helping once every government on the planet recognises a 'carbon unit' in their economies, but that will require a measure of state control to put in place.

For twenty years, climate change has been frontpage news, for twenty years, governments have done little or nothing, individuals have done less than nothing (except the ideallists) and nothing has been done. Nuff said.