Cuddly carbon keeps koalas & all animals, including us, alive.

CO2 is essential for life. More CO2 will do much good and no harm. If it is allowed to increase at the current rate it will feed the world’s coming peak population with NO more land, seed, cultivation or water.

For a beautifully illustrated article on the many benefits of carbon dioxide for the all life see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdf  [PDF, 2.7 MB] [Now updated 2^nd edition.]

By John Robertson 2010
Mount Tamborine, Queensland, Australia

John Robertson was born in Scotland. He was an Open Scholar at Cambridge and has a Masters degree in Engineering. He has spent his life in farming, as a fighter pilot and is now an Australian citizen living at Mount Tamborine. He and his wife are active in many community volunteer organisations.

He says “The note on CO2 is an extension of volunteering and my response to the ridiculous attacks on carbon dioxide by those who should know better. Pollutant indeed!

“This is all my own work (except where otherwise acknowledged in the text) with my own funds. I have no connection whatsoever with fossil fuel or other outside interests.” JR

Further reading:

The Positive Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/10/co2-positive-social-cost/

By Ray Evans and Tom Quirk

The story of how a combination of green missionaries and vested interests have distorted and crippled the Australian electricity industry.

Evans and Quirk conclude:

“By 2020 annual electricity consumption in eastern Australia is estimated from NEMMCO data to be 347 Twh. If renewables are to provide 20 per cent, and no new hydro is to be permitted, electricity production from wind farms (or other renewable sources) must provide 53 TWh. Ignoring for the moment the insuperable problem of unpredictability, and assuming a Load Factor of 25 per cent, this will require a total of 27,000 MW of windmill capacity. Every bit of coastline, every mountain ridge, and much else that can be secured for windmills will have to be pressed into service to meet this target.

“The capital cost of wind power is considered to be $2000 per kW, and so an extra 26,000 MW will cost $52 billion. And back-up will be required. So in addition to new coal plant required to provide an additional 60 TWh, back-up generation of at least 23,400 MW will be required. All of this will have to be paid for by the electricity consumer. These numbers could not appear in any Commonwealth budget; no government could justify that sort of expenditure.

“On top of all this we have system stability problems created by widely dispersed power sources, spread over tens of thousands of square kilometres; whose output can vary dramatically as the wind gusts and dies down; that are connected to the main grid by long, weak transmission lines—a system operator’s nightmare. Such a transmission network, weak and unreliable as it will be, will cost at least $30 billion.”

For the full article see:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/3/the-high-price-of-PC-power

“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

Last Friday, I attended a conference for a multinational bank in Oman.

It is an annual event to update the region’s clients about the bank’s latest views on local and global conditions and, of course, to tell us about its latest products.

For the first time, I heard about the Chicago Climate Exchange (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/)

I had thought that “green derivatives” was just myth or bad idea, not something able to be sold. But I was shocked to learn that the volume of trades has reached to one trillion dollars!

It seems we are just creating another speculative industry, which will attract huge funds, the whole thing far removed from basic and essential social investments.

I am not against real green initiatives that reduce the pollution, make use of energy more efficient, offer cleaner/better water or improve the healthy environment that surrounds us. I am against the linkage between those useful things and “climate change”, which just seems to put restrictions and taxes on some industries just to fund something not real.

“Climate Change” is something universal. It will keep changing and is more powerful than any human actions. This is my own personal view.

The joke of the conference was this:

When one of the attendees asked the instructor: “What if the investment is lost, how I can justify that to my manager?”

The answer: “Tell him that your company was supporting the fight against global warming!”

I wonder if that answer would be enough to keep feed me in future, if I will lose my job, or will I blame the weather for my decision!

I wonder how the carbon taxes collected in past and future will be justified to the future generations, when they discover that they were used to fund unnecessary and non-productive expenditures like trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange?

R H, Our Middle East Correspondent

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot (December 08, 2010)

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

More: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

The Independent, 20 March 2000:

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

The Daily Telegraph, 29 November 2010:

Britain is shivering in record-breaking cold weather for November despite data from the Met Office that we could be in for an unusually dry and mild winter.

To reduce the number of dead ducks found in oils sands tailings ponds, I propose Syncrude construct an array of wind turbines around the margins of the tailings ponds.

Ducks would be humanely shredded by green-friendly blades and fall to the Earth where they would form neat piles that could be retrieved using carbon neutral electric vehicles. The carcasses would have less contamination and could be served in the Syncrude cafeteria in building 41-B, thus reusing the carbon that would have been released into the atmosphere had the ducks been left to decay in the wild. Electricity from the wind turbines could be used to cook the birds.

Boats for duck recovery would become unnecessary, the ducks would not be coated in oil and Greenpeace could feel happy that the collection vehicles are recharged by power supplied by the bird shredders.

For the entertainment of “greens” all over the world, web cameras could watch in awe as the ducks fly into the collection area. This would reduce the need for smug, self-satisfied hypocrites to burn oil sand-derived fuel up to Fort McMurray to protest for the benefit of jet-set fuel-wasters such as David Suzuki, Al Gore and James Cameron.

I am all for alternative energy, but to rely on the wind, for cities, is just plain stupid. Not a single fossil fuel plant has been made obsolete by the present subsidized wind power. As long as hospitals expect 24-hour power, we will need proper power plants.

Richard Haley
Edmonton
Canada

First Published:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/duck+death+proposal/3775063/story.html

Windmills and Electricity Supply

Allan Duffy (Press and Journal, August 26), makes a number of assertions and claims which invite challenge.

First, there are far more than a “small number of people” opposing “windfarm sites”.

Second, the cause of this opposition is about more than the potential impact on tourism.

And, finally, they will never generate “excess power” that can be sold to the national grid to enhance Scotland’s economy.

Much of the opposition to windmills relates to their inability to produce electricity when required, combined with their negligible impact on CO emissions because of the expensive associated need for “spinning” back-up from conventional CO-emitting generators.

In his time in Germany, Mr Duffy may have noted that, for all their thousands of windmills, the Germans have not shut down one conventional power station and, in fact, are having to build new coal-fired power stations to meet demand.

If he were to look at the NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements) website, he would see that, with all the windmills at present operating in the UK, wind contributes only about 0.1-2% of daily national demand.

Yes, renewable energy must be a component of our future energy mix, but unreliable and expensive windmills are not the answer.

G.M. Lindsay,
Whinfield Gardens,
Kinross, Scotland

Idle Windmills Enrich Some

Yet again, while travelling through the Glens of Foudland, I was struck by a distinct lack of movement by even one of the many wind turbines you drive past.

Another bad day in Scotland’s fight against global warming… sorry, I forgot for a moment that climate change seems to have been adopted as a more appropriate term now.

In the meantime, the landowners, renewable-energy companies – through massive subsidies – and overseas manufacturers of said turbines continue to get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. Strange times indeed.

Chris Davis,
Maryhill, Orton,
Fochabers, Scotland

Source: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1890438/

This paper provides a factual and objective view of the reality of the effects of some of the world’s greatest oil spills. It particularly deals with the geography of the region in which the spill occurred, the climatic effects on the spill, the probable volume oil spilled, the cleanup actions that followed and the long-term environmental effects.

As an introduction, Part 1 of the paper deals with some of the commonly held beliefs that the world is about to run out of fossil fuels, that oil spills and leaks are universally ‘environmental catastrophes’ and challenges the long term view that the effects are persistent and adverse to the environment. The seemingly endless alarmism that follows each spill is highlighted and the reader is asked to read the remainder of the paper with an open mind, comparing the predictions of doom with the evidence revealed by the reality of hindsight.

It is concluded that the effects of the relatively few spills that have occurred have been exceptionally exaggerated for political purposes by both politicians and environmental activists. Both these alarmist cliques loudly report claims in every case that go far beyond the actual effect of the spill itself. Some of the unfortunate claims by scientists are also exposed as political activism unrelated to scientific method.

Finally the paper provides a ‘prophesy’ (based on the history of previous spills) as to the long-term results and effects of the recent BP Macondo Well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that commenced on 20th April 2010 and was capped on 29th July 2010, 100 days later.

The author writes under a pseudonym to protect his privacy. However any comments or corrections will be passed onto him. He has experience and contacts in this field and is skilled at extracting and documenting facts.

The report is presented in six parts, with subsequent parts appearing over time:

Part 1: A Summary of Oil Chemistry and the Environmental Effects of Oil.
Available as PDF, 73KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-1.pdf

Part 2: The World’s Largest Oil Spill – The Gulf War, Kuwait, 1991. The spill, the prophets of doom and the reality that unfolded.
Available as PDF, 596KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-2.pdf

Part 3: The Exxon Valdez Spill, Alaska. A small spill with huge publicity and extensive cleanup activity, much of which probably made things worse.
Available as PDF, 561KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-3.pdf

Part 4: The Ixtoc I Well Blowout, Gulf of Mexico, 1979. Despite forecasts of disaster for the environment, within five years the effects of this huge spill were undetectable. In fact the fisheries recovered quickly because they were relieved of fishing pressure, and locals swapped low paying fishing jobs for high paying cleanup or oil industry jobs. As in all spills, the biggest loser was the well owner.
Available as PDF, 88KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-4.pdf

Part 5: The BP Macondo Well Blowout, Gulf of Mexico, 2010. This may be the second largest man made oil spill in history, and at times the slick covered 6,500 sq km. However about 74% of the oil lost evaporated, dissolved, bio-degraded, or was burned, skimmed or captured. Just 5 days after the leak was plugged, the US government agreed that the oil was no longer a problem. Once more the damage was forecast to be catastrophic, once more it was not. The Gulf of Mexico copes with natural leaks of this size every year. The real costs were political and losses by BP shareholders.

Available as PDF, 133KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-5.pdf

Part 6: Conclusions & Comments. In 2009, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rohm Emanuel said: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste… it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a marvellous crisis used by the Obama administration and extreme environmentalists to weaken Big Oil, demonise carbon fuels, and drive the so-called “clean fuel” agenda. Foreign oil producers and the green energy promoters are the beneficiaries. Innocent local businesses and BP were the victims, both of the oil spill but more so of the government actions designed to benefit from the crisis.

Available as PDF, 1200KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-6.pdf

Note: This 6 part article can be printed from the 6 PDFs and then bound into one indexed report.

UPDATE 9 April 2013:

Those who wish to check the accuracy of the forecasts in these articles should check this reference:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22075182

Oil is a natural product and the oceans have been coping with it for millennia.

Author’s Profile

The author retired from the Australian Army as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1986. He served in various postings in Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. He is a frequent contributor of book reviews, short stories and the occasional article to several journals. He works internationally as a self-employed project manager and project management trainer and consultant.

He has worked part-time for 9 years in the oil and gas industries in the Middle East (Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi) and in North and Central America, and has made it his business to question the experts. Everything he quotes is on the web (except where it is stated as an opinion.)

The ABC 7.30 Report on 23.09.10 featured Tim Flannery, introduced by Kerry O’Brien as Scientist, Writer, Explorer.

It was a blatant example of the ABC’s push to establish a carbon tax. But Flannery himself revealed what it is all about – controlling human populations everywhere.

It is about “changing human nature”.

For instance Dim Tim assured the audience that free markets are the most dangerous spin off from Darwinism. He assured us that markets have to regulated. Free markets allowed some people to become very very rich, but this was at the expense of the rest of the population. He is not in favour of abolishing markets, but, he insists they must be intelligently regulated.

On the subject of climate change he assured the audience that “Yes, there will be a cost to suppressing Carbon, but it is absolutely necessary.”

One of Tim’s heroes is James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet.

Tim’s manner very positively indicates to us that he will be one of the chosen few to organise and run society.

Ronald Kitching
Frenchville Rockhampton, QLD Australia.

Interested people can read the transcript and hear the disturbing and revealing interview at:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s3020434.htm