Greening the Globe with CO2


Carbon Dioxide is not Pollution

The Carbon Sense Coalition has accused those waging a war on carbon dioxide of being “anti-green”.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that carbon dioxide is the gas of life, feeding every green plant, producing food for every animal and in the process releasing oxygen, another gas of life, into the atmosphere.

A recent report on measuring global vegetation growth notes that data from remote sensing devices show significant increase in annual vegetation growth during the last three decades. They also report that CO2 fertilization is more important than climate variation in determining the magnitude of the vegetation growth. “The CO2 fertilization effect of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil, is beginning to assume its vaulted position of being a tremendous boon to the biosphere…”

More, as well as:

  • Correlation, Causation or a Carbon Tax Con-Job?
  • Carbon Tax gets two Vetoes
  • Absolute Safety is a Terrible Risk – the Costs of Environmental Scaremongering
  • The Last Word: The Big Dollars are against us

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/greening-the-globe.pdf [PDF, 50KB]

Keywords: Pollution, London, Pittsburgh, Asian smog, carbon dioxide, plant fertiliser, climate correlations and causes, carbon tax, electoral veto, Climate Council, safety and risk.



Absolute Safety is a Terrible Risk – the Costs of Environmental Scaremongering


Environmental exaggeration and scare campaigns are a danger to our health, happiness and prosperity and usually harm the environment.

The media are rightfully sceptical to anything said by private corporations. But they believe without question everything served up by self-serving green entrepreneurs and corporations.

Prepare to be shocked about fracking, green energy, nuclear power safety.



Greenpeace has Selective Blindness


The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said he was surprised that a group supposedly protecting the environment are so viciously attacking the energy source that has done more to protect the environment than any other.

“Without coal, humans would have stripped every tree from every populated area to provide heating, cooking, building materials, steam power, and charcoal for smelting metals.

“Their silly opposition to coal in Britain means that now one large UK power station (Drax) is converting to burn wood, harvested in North American forests, and shipped to Britain to be burnt. Their selective blindness does not compute the net energy waste involved in this stupidity.

“Does Greenpeace support burning the forests?

“Green policies have also caused such high power prices that poor consumers in Europe’s bitter winter were stripping forests for firewood, even burning old books to keep warm.

“Does Greenpeace support high power prices, wood-poaching and book-burning?

“Green promotion of wind power is defacing the rural environment with networks of roads, power lines and whirling scythes that slaughter millions of bats and raptors all over the world. And causing duplication of generating equipment for the 70% of the time wind turbines do not deliver planned power.

“Does Greenpeace support this environmental destruction and waste of community resources?

“Greenpeace probably also believe that coal-fired power generation causes city smogs. It does not.

“Air pollution is nothing new. King Edward I complained about London pollution in 1306, as did Queen Elizabeth I in 1578, long before the first steam engine operated.

“The Asian smog is not caused by producing electricity in modern power stations with closed boilers, pollution controls and using high-quality washed coal such as exported by Australia to Asia. The “power station pollution” pictured so eagerly in ABC and Greenpeace propaganda is actually steam from the cooling towers.

“The main products of burning coal are water vapour and carbon dioxide – both are essential life supporters. The carbon dioxide produced by burning coal has done more to encourage the growth of plants and the greening of planet Earth than Greenpeace Pirates will ever do.”

bayswater

Bayswater Power Station at Full Production.
The wispy white vapour is steam, from the cooling towers, as harmless as what comes out of a boiling kettle. The tall stacks are the Exhaust Stacks, emitting mostly invisible harmless natural gases including nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen and argon. They all came from the atmosphere in the first place. Where is the pollution?

“Today’s Asian smogs have many sources – forest fires in Indonesia; open air cremations in India; dust from volcanic eruptions and the Gobi desert; soot, ash and other pollutants from millions of domestic cooking fires and heaters using anything combustible – cow dung, wood, paper, cardboard, plastic or cheap unwashed coal; and soot and unburnt hydro-carbons from millions of vehicles, many with engines needing maintenance and no pollution controls.

“Clean, silent, non-polluting, low-cost electricity (“Clean coal by wire”) into every home is the one thing that could solve most of the Asian air pollution. Greenpeace will be believable when they can demonstrate that they use nothing made by coal energy and they can survive with their pleasant western lifestyle in world bereft of carbon energy from coal, oil and gas.”

PDF version: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/greenpeace-selective-blindness.pdf [PDF: 30KB]



Blackout Dangers in Germany


What Happens during a Blackout – an assessment of the consequences of a prolonged and wide-ranging Power Outage in Germany

Infrastructures such as a reliable energy supply, functioning water-supply and wastewater-disposal systems, efficient modes of transport and transport routes and also information technology and telecommunications technology that can be accessed at all times represent the lifeblood of high-technology industrialised nations. The Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment therefore commissioned the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) to investigate the possible effects of a prolonged and widespread power blackout on highly critical infrastructures such as drinking water, wastewater, information and communications systems, financial services and health services, especially against a backdrop where the blackout has a cascading effect spanning state and national boundaries.

In Germany, several recent natural disasters and technical malfunctions (Elbe and Oder floods in 2002/2005, power blackout in the Münsterland in 2005, the Kyrill storm in 2007) have highlighted the population’s dependence on such (critical) infrastructures. Supply bottlenecks, public safety problems and disruptions to road and rail transport have revealed the vulnerability of modern societies and made extreme demands on health, emergency and rescue services.

Since almost all critical infrastructures rely heavily on a power supply, a scenario of a widespread and prolonged power blackout involving massive disruption to supplies, economic damage and risks to public safety is a very serious matter. In 2004 the National Crisis Management Exercise (LÜKEX) highlighted the problematic consequences and chains of consequences and also the enormous difficulties faced by federal structures in managing such a crisis and threat situation that strikes without any advance warning.

As far as can be seen, however, the possible consequences of such an event have not yet been subject to an in-depth, systematic analysis in the literature or in official documents.

The analyses conducted by the TAB reveal that the consequences of such a power blackout could at least be akin to a national disaster. All internal and external civil protection forces would need to be mobilised in order to at least mitigate the effects.

The TAB report indicates how the resilience of critical infrastructures could be strengthened and how possible courses of action within the national system for disaster management could be improved. The report thus makes a valuable contribution towards heightening awareness of this issue within industry and society and offers the committees of the German Bundestag a sound basis for further consideration.

The Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment The German Bundestag retains the copyright to this publication. Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, but full acknowledgement is requested.

Source: http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/publications/books/petermann-etal-2011-141.html

Report: http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/pdf/publications/books/petermann-etal-2011-141.pdf [PDF, 7.4MB]



Taxing Fire


By Carl Brehmer

“Evidence of widespread control of fire dates to approximately 125,000 years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

Many people assert that environmental extremists want to take civilization back to a pre-industrial state some 150-200 years ago, but the achievement of a “carbon free economy” would take humanity back at least 125,000 years before the discovery and control of fire, because that is the source of the carbon dioxide emissions that have now been declared “pollution.” Even as the somewhat obscure term “cap-and-trade” is a little more clear when called a “carbon tax”, even more clarity would be achieved by calling it a tax on the use of fire, because that is what it is. In their role as fuels, all hydrocarbons are useless until they are burned, which produces the energy that has fuelled human progress and provided the following benefits, which even the environmental extremists and various “rent takers” take for granted:

1) Light; even kerosene lanterns burn fossil fuel and produce carbon dioxide.

2) Heat; ask the victims of hurricane Sandy or anybody who experiences a power outage about the value of heat. Even primitive people use fire for heat.

3) Communication; all modern forms of communication depend upon the power provided by the energy derived from fire.

4) Rapid travel; what form of travel today isn’t powered by the use of fire? Trains, planes and automobiles are all powered with fire.

5) Escape from countless hours of physical labour. Prior to the discovery and use of fire, especially that used to produce electricity, disparate groups of human being were stuck in separate small communities around the world forced to spend most of their time in physical labour.

6) Inventions such as the modern computer and the rapid, worldwide communication network, which includes cell phones, e-mail and the internet would not have been developed nor could they be sustained by the intermittent, low density energy derived from solar cells and wind mills.

7) Satellites, both communication and weather; how many satellites have been launched into space without the use of fire? Many, but not all, are sent to space by hydrocarbon fuels. (Even those satellites that study outgoing long wave radiation and have futilely been attempting to prove that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change.)

8) One of the consequences of using fire as an energy source is that it has provided many people with enough time on their hands to debate whether or not fire is a good thing, i.e., the global warming AKA climate change AKA biodiversity AKA sustainable development debate.

(Remember also that environmental extremists not only want to ban the use of fire for energy production; they want to ban the use of nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy as well.)

The vast amount of energy that the use of fire has placed at the disposal of humanity has been used to revolutionize the nature of our existence. The mere fact that fire was a source of light and heat independent of the sun meant that humans could roam beyond the tropics into the damp, cold regions of the north with seasons of snow and long freezing nights. It was fire and fire alone that enabled man to become a creature native to the entire world and not just the tropics. In addition, the heat of the fire, i.e. cooking, brought about changes in our food supply that made otherwise inedible food palatable and nourishing. Fire has not only increased the variety of food that humans can eat, it also powers the diesel tractors used in modern farming. Our food supply has consequently multiplied beyond the wildest dreams of our ancient ancestors. Current world hunger problems are primarily distribution problems not quantity problems.

Nor has the importance of fire diminished with time; rather the reverse. Wood was no doubt the first fuel used in building and maintaining a fire, but coal took primacy over wood in the 17th century. In the 20th century these two fuels were join by gasoline and oil. In the 21st century shale oil and natural gas are gaining importance.

If the “powers that be” really thought that the continued use of fire was causing a climate catastrophe they would ban its use all together, but it would seem that they just want a piece of the action. The cap-and-trade scheme is not unlike property tax in which the government just lays claim to your property and starts charging you rent, i.e. property tax. (If you think that you own your home just stop paying your property tax and see what happens.) The cap-and-trade scheme is the government just laying claim on all fossil fuel resource within its jurisdiction and charging people a fee to burn them as an energy source.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” (John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 327)

It could be that humans will eventually run out of things to burn, but that day keeps getting pushed back by innovation. For the present I can’t think of a more efficient way to destroy our society’s prosperity, which has brought us all of the above benefits, than to impose a tax on the use of fire. It leaves me wondering; in what kind of society do we now live in which we have to buy a license to use fire as an energy source, something that has been free for 125,000 years? And who exactly are we paying these fees to in order to obtain the privilege of burning that which nature provides?

Carl Brehmer

(Slightly edited from the original.)



What the Greens Really Want – no more power plants


“The Sierra Club is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.”

“This is where the environmental movement will make the most progress in the next five years,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005874.html


© 2007-2017 The Carbon Sense Coalition. Material on this site is protected by copyright. However we encourage people to copy, print, resend or make links to any article providing the source, including web address, is acknowledged. We would appreciate notification of use.
The Carbon Sense Coalition is proudly powered by WordPress and themed by Mukka-mu