The leading German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung appears - rightly - to be wondering about the future of the euro - and the EU co-operation in general:
"Instead of being the motor of European integration, the single currency now looks more like a bomb ticking away within the EU."
"Amid the sea of uncertainty, only one thing is certain: The EU is at a crossroads. It has become clear that the economic and monetary union does not have the tools at its disposal to act quickly and decisively in crisis situations. The crisis also shows just how far the financial and economic interdependence of the EU's member states has developed in recent decades. Countries are happy to receive the advantages of this integration, such as free movement of labor, development funds from the Brussels pot or low interest rates on the capital markets, even for highly indebted countries. But they also like to circumvent those things that they should accept in return, such as fiscal discipline and tougher competition. Only now has it become clear to everyone that you cannot simply pull threads out of the fabric of European integration without risking tearing the entire thing apart."
Read the entire article here
PS
The Frankfurter Allgemeine could have added that the "bomb" is totally of the EU´s own making.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Barron´s: Germany risks dependence on Russian energy
In this video the CEO of Nord Stream, former East German spy Matthias Warnig speaks about the Russian-German gas pipeline project.
Barron´s editorial page editor Thomas G. Donlan is not impressed by the German government´s decision to close down the countries nuclear power stations, which Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2008 classified as "safe and among the best in the world". In an editorial commentary, Donlan makes the same point as this blog has made earlier: There is a real danger that Germany becomes dangerously dependent on Russian gas:
There are two theories about how Germany will replace 20% of its electricity supply. The Green scenario holds that renewable fuels, such as wind and solar, plus more efficient use of energy, are realistic substitutes for nuclear power. The economic scenario denounces that as more expensive than nuclear power, if it's not outright wishful thinking. If Germany denies itself the benefits of nuclear power, there is an alternative—in large imports of natural gas from Russia.
Economically, Russian gas makes sense. Politically, it's a threat to German autonomy—and the Greens should answer for that. The rest of the Germans should ask the Ukrainians how comfortable they are being dependent on Russian gas.
Read the entire article here
PS
Not only should the Germans ask the Ukrainians, but also e.g. the Poles, who are now doing their best to get the shale gas revolution going, in co-operation with US companies. Portland prepares for millions of climate refugees from Las Vegas and Los Angeles
 |
| Soon to be the new home for Hollywood and the Las Vegas casinos? |
Millions of desperate climate refugees from Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver and other cities are expected to flee to Portland in the next decades, if we are to believe Kat West, director of the Multnomah County (incl. the city of Portland) Office of Sustainability:
Climate disruption will be the defining issue of this century and probably for centuries to come. No famine, no war, no plague, not even natural disasters will compare with the impacts of this event on human civilization.
---
University of Arizona studies indicate that if greenhouse gases continue to go unchecked, the overused Colorado River – which supplies municipal and agricultural water to seven western states – may be reduced to half of its current flow under a plausible worst-case scenario.
---
The great cities of Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas could start to empty out after desperate measures to import water from other areas (including ours) fails. And it’s not just the Southwest that will be impacted; the populations of Denver and Salt Lake City also will face serious water shortages.
---
Millions of displaced Americans could be on the move. They will not be the first climate refugees in the world, nor the last, but they certainly will be knocking on our door.
---
We really have only two choices: stamp our feet in frustration or seize this opportunity to prepare for these inevitable guests. If we choose opportunity, we need to start incorporating a revised population estimate into our planning scenarios immediately. We could be facing a population that tops 6 million people in the metro region in the not-too-distant future
Read the entire article here
PS
It is, of course, quite OK for city and county officials anywhere to make plans for dealing with possible natural disasters and other unexpected events. But when a highly paid official describes the future in the way Ms. West does, at least a few taxpayers in Portland may begin to wonder, do we get value for our money?
Multnomah County, the most populous county in Oregon, including the city of Portland, employs 4500 people. The Office of Sustainability modestly describes itself in this way:
"Multnomah County, headquartered in Portland, OR, is a national leader in promoting sustainability"
Future climate refugees may want to contact the director:
Friday, 10 June 2011
The International Energy Agency wants to stop the shale gas revolution
The International Energy Agency continues its climate alarmist crusade. Now the agency (founded in response to the oil crisis in the 70´s) has launched an attack on natural gas in general and shale gas in particular:
Natural gas is not the “panacea” to solve climate change that fossil fuel industry lobbyists have been claiming, according to new research from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Gas is likely to make up about one-quarter of the world’s energy supply by 2035, according to the study, but that would lead the world to a 3.5C temperature rise. At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states.
The IEA´s chief economist - in reality much more its chief climate alarmist - Fatih Birol, described as "one of the world’s foremost authorities on energy and climate" is doing his best in order to prevent the American shale gas revolution from spreading to other parts of the world:
But Birol pointed to evidence that exploiting unconventional gas could bring severe environmental damage. In the US, there are many reports of contamination in the water supply near shale gas sites, and dangerous leaks of natural gas. In the UK, two small earthquakes have taken place near sites where a company is using “fracking” – the process of releasing gas from dense shale rocks by blasting it with water and chemicals. Fracking operations have been halted while investigations take place to establish whether there is a link.
Here is the reason, why Birol and his colleagues do not like the shale gas revolution:
“If gas prices come down, that would put a lot of pressure on governments to review their existing renewable energy support policies … We may see many renewable energy projects put on the shelf.”
Read the entire article here
PS
The IEA´s chief alarmist has got the point in Michael Lind´s article about why renewable energy could soon be a thing of the past, and is now, together with the enviro-fundamentalist lobby, trying to prevent the world from having clean and cheap energy - shale gas - urgently needed in order to eradicate poverty in the developing world. Improving the lot of poor people must be sacrified in order to keep the climate scare alive!
Natural gas is not the “panacea” to solve climate change that fossil fuel industry lobbyists have been claiming, according to new research from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Gas is likely to make up about one-quarter of the world’s energy supply by 2035, according to the study, but that would lead the world to a 3.5C temperature rise. At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states.
The IEA´s chief economist - in reality much more its chief climate alarmist - Fatih Birol, described as "one of the world’s foremost authorities on energy and climate" is doing his best in order to prevent the American shale gas revolution from spreading to other parts of the world:
But Birol pointed to evidence that exploiting unconventional gas could bring severe environmental damage. In the US, there are many reports of contamination in the water supply near shale gas sites, and dangerous leaks of natural gas. In the UK, two small earthquakes have taken place near sites where a company is using “fracking” – the process of releasing gas from dense shale rocks by blasting it with water and chemicals. Fracking operations have been halted while investigations take place to establish whether there is a link.
Here is the reason, why Birol and his colleagues do not like the shale gas revolution:
“If gas prices come down, that would put a lot of pressure on governments to review their existing renewable energy support policies … We may see many renewable energy projects put on the shelf.”
Read the entire article here
PS
The IEA´s chief alarmist has got the point in Michael Lind´s article about why renewable energy could soon be a thing of the past, and is now, together with the enviro-fundamentalist lobby, trying to prevent the world from having clean and cheap energy - shale gas - urgently needed in order to eradicate poverty in the developing world. Improving the lot of poor people must be sacrified in order to keep the climate scare alive!
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Australia considers killing 1,2 million camels in fight against climate change
These animals are on the Australian death list
Australia considers killing some 1,2 million camels in order to fight global warming!
This is not a bad joke:
Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate
change.
The suggestion is included in Canberra's "Carbon Farming Initiative", a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, seen Thursday.
Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, proposed culling some 1.2 million wild camels that roam the Outback, the legacy of herds introduced to help early settlers in the 19th century.
Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of greenhouse gases.
In its plan, Northwest said it would shoot them from helicopters or muster them and send them to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.
"We're a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges -- this is just a classic example," Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press.
Read the entire AFP news story here
PS
It will be interesting to see, what the alarmist WWF - an organization that used to care about animals - has to say about this new Australian "innovation". One wonder , which animals are next to be on the "innovative" Australian global warming death list? .
Australia considers killing some 1,2 million camels in order to fight global warming!
This is not a bad joke:
Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate
change.
The suggestion is included in Canberra's "Carbon Farming Initiative", a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, seen Thursday.
Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, proposed culling some 1.2 million wild camels that roam the Outback, the legacy of herds introduced to help early settlers in the 19th century.
Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of greenhouse gases.
In its plan, Northwest said it would shoot them from helicopters or muster them and send them to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.
"We're a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges -- this is just a classic example," Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press.
Read the entire AFP news story here
PS
It will be interesting to see, what the alarmist WWF - an organization that used to care about animals - has to say about this new Australian "innovation". One wonder , which animals are next to be on the "innovative" Australian global warming death list? .
World record harvest forecast for 2011 - but warmist FAO tries to hide the good news
Bumper harvest in India
Excellent news from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations):
World cereals output is expected to rise to a new record in 2011 due to more planting and improved yields
Current prospects for cereals in 2011 point to a record harvest of 2,315 million tonnes — a 3.5 percent increase over 2010, which marked a one percent drop over 2009.
World production of coarse grains is set to climb 3.9 percent, exceeding the record set in 2008. Most of the increase is expected from the Russian Federation and the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Although preliminary, world paddy production prospects are for a record harvest of 463.8 million tonnes — a two percent increase over last year on expectations of improved weather conditions.
Read the entire article here
One would think that the FAO would eagerly spread the good word about the new world record harvest. But we have to remember that the FAO is part of the main climate alarmist organization in the world, the United Nations, which means that this kind of positive news is not at all welcome; it does not fit into the UN´s alarmist global warming agenda, according to which climate change is seriously decreasing harvests. That is why the FAO hides the success story under the headline "World food prices to remain high".
In addition, the FAO simultaneously publishes another of its "politically correct" surveys, "Climate Change, Water, and Food Security", which is said to be "a comprehensive survey of existing scientific knowledge on the anticipated consequences of climate change for water use in agriculture". The new survey includes all the familiar "forecasts" which fit into the alarmist agenda:
Increased temperatures will lengthen the growing season in northern temperate zones but will reduce the length almost everywhere else. Coupled with increased rates of evapotranspiration this will cause the yield potential and water productivity of crops to decline.
And the loss of glaciers - which support around 40 percent of the world's irrigation -- will eventually impact the amount of surface water available for agriculture in key producing basins.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
"Where’s The Global Warming?"
James M. Taylor ( senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute) asks, where is the global warming in his Forbes article:
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
---
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.
---
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
---
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.
---
The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
Oh well, back to the old drawing board
Read the entire article here
"Barroso´s question time"
Honor Mahony, editor of the EUobserver has attended Jose Manuel Barroso´s question time in the EU Parliament:
To all those of you thrown by that occasional out of left field question – to which you have no idea what the answer is – there is a stock response. It comes courtesy of Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President.
“What we are going to do is: we’ll come up with a position at the end of this month for the financial perspectives, including for *culture. And of course obviously we will be making some thoroughgoing proposals for the future, with some rationalization of instruments while at the same guaranteeing the ambitions of the programmes (…)”
Look: All these words on piled up on top of one another and they still don’t mean anything.
Read the entire post here
PS
No wonder that the unelected EU Commission President earns more than Barack Obama. Only a few people master the art of speaking convincingly withour actually saying anything ....
To all those of you thrown by that occasional out of left field question – to which you have no idea what the answer is – there is a stock response. It comes courtesy of Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President.
“What we are going to do is: we’ll come up with a position at the end of this month for the financial perspectives, including for *culture. And of course obviously we will be making some thoroughgoing proposals for the future, with some rationalization of instruments while at the same guaranteeing the ambitions of the programmes (…)”
Look: All these words on piled up on top of one another and they still don’t mean anything.
Read the entire post here
PS
No wonder that the unelected EU Commission President earns more than Barack Obama. Only a few people master the art of speaking convincingly withour actually saying anything ....
The arrogance of former maoist José Manuel Barroso
EU Commission President, former Portuguese maoist José Manuel Barroso is living proof of the mindboggling arrogance of the Brussels grandees. This is what he today had to say about the worries of foreign airlines, who are opposing plans to force them to participate in the costly and useless EU Emissions Trading Scheme:
Barroso also said the European Commission had no intention of revising the plan to include foreign airlines in its Emissions Trading Scheme despite threats it could spark a trade war with China and others.
"We certainly don't have the intention to revise a very important directive," he said, although Barroso added that the EU will listen to the concerns of the industry.
Read the entire article here
PS
So speaks the unelected leader of an "empire". His Majesty must have been in a good mood today; he was prepared to "listen to the concerns of the industry" - although at the same time letting it be known that the listening of course would not lead to any change of policy.
Barroso also said the European Commission had no intention of revising the plan to include foreign airlines in its Emissions Trading Scheme despite threats it could spark a trade war with China and others.
"We certainly don't have the intention to revise a very important directive," he said, although Barroso added that the EU will listen to the concerns of the industry.
Read the entire article here
PS
So speaks the unelected leader of an "empire". His Majesty must have been in a good mood today; he was prepared to "listen to the concerns of the industry" - although at the same time letting it be known that the listening of course would not lead to any change of policy.
German finance minister: real risk of the first full-blown bankruptcy inside the eurozone
The never ending saga of the euro continues:
German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble believes Greek bankruptcy is imminent, according to a leaked letter, and argues that restructuring of the country's debt is necessary.
"We are standing before the real risk of the first full-blown bankruptcy inside the eurozone," Schaeuble said in a letter addressed to European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet and leaked to the German press.
In the starkest language yet by a European official, the German minister called for additional aid to be made available to Greece, adding that private banks should participate in the cost of the Greek rescue.
EU officials and member states are understood to be currently working on a second bail-out agreement for Greece, in addition to the €110 billion pledged last year, with estimates suggesting the new aid package could total €60 billion.
Read the entire piece here
PS
Even the bill for the hundreds - if not thousands - of euro crisis meetings attended by ministers, eurocrats and other people, must by now have risen to tens of millions. On can only wonder, how long this madness, costing billions of EU taxpayers money, can go on?
German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble believes Greek bankruptcy is imminent, according to a leaked letter, and argues that restructuring of the country's debt is necessary.
"We are standing before the real risk of the first full-blown bankruptcy inside the eurozone," Schaeuble said in a letter addressed to European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet and leaked to the German press.
In the starkest language yet by a European official, the German minister called for additional aid to be made available to Greece, adding that private banks should participate in the cost of the Greek rescue.
EU officials and member states are understood to be currently working on a second bail-out agreement for Greece, in addition to the €110 billion pledged last year, with estimates suggesting the new aid package could total €60 billion.
Read the entire piece here
PS
Even the bill for the hundreds - if not thousands - of euro crisis meetings attended by ministers, eurocrats and other people, must by now have risen to tens of millions. On can only wonder, how long this madness, costing billions of EU taxpayers money, can go on?
Global warming quiz - guess who is financing leading climate alarmist site?
Here is a quiz for you:
Take a look at the link list below. Then try to guess where it comes from.
a) Greenpeaceb) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)c) World Wildlife Foundationd) Al Gore.come) Voice of America
US Extreme Weather Consistent With Climate Change
Climate Change Already Reducing Crop Yields
Researchers Try to Help Prevent Climate Change Conflict
Climate Change: New Report Outlines How Africa Can Adapt
Money Key To Tackling Climate Change
Climate Change Conference Focuses on Energy for Poor Nations
Africa to Seek Billions in Climate Change Compensation
Experts Probe Urban Growth, Climate Change Links in Africa
West Africa Explores Ways to Mitigate Climate Change's Effects
Climate Change Impacts India's Tea-Growing Region
UN Climate Experts in Australia to Finalize Landmark Report
Climate Change Threatens Heat-Intolerant Species
Climate Change Debate Continues for Scientists, Politicians, News Media
Sinking Island Highlights Effects of Climate Change
Here is a quiz for you:
Take a look at the link list below. Then try to guess where it comes from.
a) Greenpeaceb) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)c) World Wildlife Foundationd) Al Gore.come) Voice of America
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Chinese and US airlines not happy about joining the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
From the start of next year, the European Union plans to make all airlines using European airports pay for their carbon "pollution" under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). However, the Chinese and the Americans are not not just happily joining the EU airlines in this new showcase of European Union climate madness, which will considerably increase the costs for already hard hit airlines:
On 6 June, the China Air Transport Association (CATA) said that it would back legal action to prevent the ETS from being applied to the 16 Chinese airlines which have the right to operate between China and Europe.
Germany and France have both complained to Brussels about an escalating row over bringing foreign airlines into the EU's cap-and-trade scheme. Diplomats say Berlin will not rule out a challenge to the flagship EU legislation involved.
"If nations and regions do not defend their legitimate right to legislate," Hedegaard says, "it would send an extremely unfortunate signal and create problems not just for the global climate but also for European companies and businesses".
Signed by Commissioner Hedegaard, the letter was also approved by Transport Commissioner Kallas and Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, and it was supported by Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Valero said.
On 6 June, the China Air Transport Association (CATA) said that it would back legal action to prevent the ETS from being applied to the 16 Chinese airlines which have the right to operate between China and Europe.
A legal challenge by a US air industry group is also due to be heard by the EU Court of Justice on 5 July.
Particularly the Chinese reaction has got both the German and the French governments worried, because the Chinese - with big Airbus orders -
Chinese threats of trade retaliation against European airlines has now got both the French and the German government as well as Airbus (with China as a major customer) worried:
The Danish EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is still playing tough:
Signed by Commissioner Hedegaard, the letter was also approved by Transport Commissioner Kallas and Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, and it was supported by Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Valero said.
Commission officials believe that if Brussels backs down on the third and most critical phase of the ETS, its flagship policy will lose momentum, and it will lose international respect.
Read the entire article here
PS
The main argument of the EU bureaucrats seems to be that backing down would mean that their climate change "flagship policy" will "lose international respect"! It is difficult to see how this bogus global warming project could lose any international respect, because it never had any respect in the real world. On must hope that the Chinese and the Americans will be able to postpone - or still better - to prevent this new climate madness from ever being introduced!
Enviro-fundamentalistic "cult of fear" behind Germany´s decision to phase out nuclear plants
Poland and other EU countries should not let German enviro-fundamentalists stop future shale gas exploration in Europe
Dr. Frank Furedi (professor of sociology at the University of Kent) has written an interesting background article about the German government´s hasty decision to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022. Furedi points out that the anti-nuclear movement has old roots in Germany and that the now so powerful German green movement grew out of the anti-nuclear protests in the 70´s. During the last two decades the green ideology has dominated public life in Germany. All political parties - including Merkel´s CDU and the Social Democrats - have internalised the core values of environmentalism:
Since the 1970s, protests against nuclear power have enjoyed considerable support from a heterogeneous coalition of students, youth-activist movements, trade unions, far-left and communist organisations and rural conservative lobbies.
Anti-nuclear power sentiment has become normalised to the point that it is difficult to encounter any German who does not subscribe to the popular slogan Atomkraft? Nein danke! (Nuclear power? No thanks!)
It is important to recall that the powerful modern German environment movement grew out of the 70s anti-nuclear protests.
Unlike any other cause upheld by radical protesters, hostility to nuclear power resonated with the mainstream of German society. Public opinion regarded nuclear power and the NATO nuclear missiles sited on its soil as merely different forms of the same threat.
By the end of the 70s the term nuclear had become the focus for German existential insecurity. Hostility to nuclear technology resonated with the traditional German idealisation of nature and its romantic cultural imagination. The historic valuation of nature as something that is morally good in its own terms drew a significant section of the conservative intelligentsia and political class towards an anti-nuclear standpoint.
At the same time the German Left, particularly its more radical section, regarded this issue as an opportunity to overcome its own isolation and gain public influence. One reason the German Green Party has succeeded in gaining so much prominence is because from the outset it succeeded in bringing together a coalition of otherwise hostile constituents.
In Germany the significance of the Greens should not be seen merely in electoral terms.
During the past two decades their ideas have dominated public life. Their influence in education, the media and cultural life is palpable. Public relations companies rely on green messages to sell their products and companies insist that the environment is their principal concern.
The CDU, similar to its Social Democrat and Liberal counterparts, has internalised the core values of environmentalism: the sacralisation of anything natural, aversion to risk and the celebration of precaution and of safety.
These values validate the fear-mongering that has erupted in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake.
Merkel has always played the green card. Last year she argued for maintaining nuclear power stations to realise a cleaner and greener future. Her argument was that this technology would help save the planet because nuclear plants did not emit any CO2.
Merkel took the view that the fear of global warming would trump anxieties about nuclear power.
For a while, at least, it appeared that a risk-averse environmentalist consensus obsessed with climate change would come around and accept this argument. However, our culture of fear is still surprisingly pragmatic. It tends to privilege nuclear phobia over apocalyptic visions of planetary destruction in the distant future.
The main beneficiary of German nuclear hysteria could be France, whose growing nuclear power industry may well be exporting energy to its very green neighbours. And the Germans will be unlikely to say, "Nein danke."
Read the entire article in the Australian here
PS
Probably the French nuclear power generators will be able to benefit from the German nuclear phase out, but the greatest winner is Russian state owned energy giant Gazprom. Already now Gazprom provides 30% of Germany´s natural gas. In the future this dangerous dependence will grow considerably. Instead of relying on Russian gas, Germany should, of course, by all means encourage the exploration and future production of shale gas, both in Germany and in neighbouring Poland, where the government with the assistance of US companies is actively promoting shale gas. The present danger is that the German enviro-fundamentalists in co-operation with the Russians will try to prevent European shale gas exploration on bogus environmental grounds. Poland and the US must not let German and other European misguided green fanatics stop Europe´s unique chance to diversify its energy future!
Gasland director admits hiding facts in his shale gas documentary
Josh Fox, the director of the "Gasland" documentary has admitted hiding facts that contradict his scaremongeering about shale gas exploration:
Josh Fox has responded to valid journalistic questions about his documentary Gasland by stifling the freedom of the press.
I travelled to Chicago for a Q&A where Fox admitted hiding facts from his documentary that contradicted his scaremongering about drilling for natural gas.
And Fox's response when we posted the video on YouTube - he got his lawyers to have YouTube pull it down.
That's right - he has tried to use lawyers to silence journalist from asking difficult questions and putting his answers to those questions on the Internet.
Fox's excuse is a breach of copyright. In a video that is 3:10 minutes long we used 26 seconds of Gasland only to show how Fox was being unethical and misleading. It is a classic case of "fair use" of someones work for the purpose of criticism and is totally legally allowed if not encouraged under fair use law.
But Fox does not want any criticism. He does not want any freedom of speech.
Watch the video now on Vimeo here
Josh Fox has responded to valid journalistic questions about his documentary Gasland by stifling the freedom of the press.
I travelled to Chicago for a Q&A where Fox admitted hiding facts from his documentary that contradicted his scaremongering about drilling for natural gas.
And Fox's response when we posted the video on YouTube - he got his lawyers to have YouTube pull it down.
That's right - he has tried to use lawyers to silence journalist from asking difficult questions and putting his answers to those questions on the Internet.
Fox's excuse is a breach of copyright. In a video that is 3:10 minutes long we used 26 seconds of Gasland only to show how Fox was being unethical and misleading. It is a classic case of "fair use" of someones work for the purpose of criticism and is totally legally allowed if not encouraged under fair use law.
But Fox does not want any criticism. He does not want any freedom of speech.
Watch the video now on Vimeo here
Global warming and last year´s grain harvest in Russia - new facts
Flashback: Putin announces ban on grain exports in August 2010
Last year world media were full of reports linking the Russian summer heatwave and the reduced grain harvest to global warming:
Since summer, signs of severe food insecurity — droughts, food riots, five- to tenfold increases in produce costs — have erupted around the globe. Several new reports now argue that regionally catastrophic crop failures — largely due to heat stress — are signals that global warming may have begun outpacing the ability of farmers to adapt.
Read the entire article here
Government officials are pointing to the drought and wildfires in Russia, and the floods across Central and East Asia as consistent with climate change predictions. While climatologists say that a single weather event cannot be linked directly to a warming planet, patterns of worsening storms, severer droughts, and disasters brought on by extreme weather are expected as the planet warms.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has put a ban on grain exports from Russian in order to keep prices low domestically until 2011. Putin's announcement aggravated fears of a global food crisis as wheat prices have almost doubled since June.
On Thursday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told a Russian Security Council meeting, "Everyone is talking about climate change now. Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past. This means that we need to change the way we work, change the methods that we used in the past."
Read the entire article here
Now it turns out that the reports about the sharply reduced grain harvest were exaggerated:
Russia grain losses exaggerated by up to 6m tonnes
Farmers and officials in Russia may have exaggerated drought losses of grains last year by up to 6m tonnes to cash in on compensation packages, implying the country may have more of the crops to export than had been thought.
Some growers who reported their crop has a wipeout to claim from disaster relief funds in fact achieved some harvest, even if only of 0.2-0.3 tonnes per hectare, US Department of Agriculture attaches in Moscow said.
"Analysts point out that reliable, unbiased data on grain production is still absent in Russia," the attaches said in a report.
The under-reporting may have resulted in the actual harvest being some 3m-6m tonnes higher than the official estimate of 61m tonnes.
Read the entire article here
PS
This piece of news will almost certainly not get any attention in the alarmist mainstream media, because it does not fit into their global warming gloom scenario.
Is Pope Benedictus a closet euro-sceptic?
In September 2009 Pope Benedict spoke about liberty and Europe´s Christian heritage in Prague
TheVatican has during recent years rightly criticised the European Union for failing to recognise Europe´s Christian heritage (there is no mention of it e.g. in the EU´s constitutional treaties). Now Pope Benedict XVI has voiced some more general criticism of the EU, which is interesting:
In a conversation with reporters who accompanied him on a June 4 flight to Croatia, Pope Benedict XVI said that Croatia’s entry into the European Union should help to reinforce the sense of Europe’s Christian heritage.
“European identity is precisely an identity of the richness of diverse cultures, which converge in the Christian faith,” the Pope said. “It seems to me that it is one of the missions of the Croatians who enter in now: to make this visible and efficient.”
Answering a reporter’s question about the growing skepticism toward the European Union, the Pope said that attitude was understandable in light of “a central bureaucracy that may be too heavy, or of a rationalistic culture which does not take history sufficiently into account.” He said that Croatia, with its deep roots in Christian faith, might help to counterbalance “a certain abstract rationalism.”
Read the entire piece here
PS
The Pope is, of course, right: The EU´s central bureacracy is much too heavy, and it is scandalous that the EU failed to recognise Europe´s Christian heritage in its constitutional treaties. On can only hope that Pope Benedict will return to these, and other, eurocritical themes in the near future. Anyway, welcome to the informal club of eurocritical observers, Your Holiness!
Monday, 6 June 2011
The energy revolution: The real world versus Ban Ki-moon´s world
While the United Nations is busy scaremongering about "climate change", condemning the free market system, celebrating the official "Mother Earth Day" and discussing Bolivia´s draft treaty to give "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans (including a Ministry of Mother Earth, and providing the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state!) things are happening fast in the real world.
In several earlier posts we have described the US-led shale gas revolution. Shell has recently announced the arrival of another revolutionary natural gas development:
This is how Shell´s Malcolm Brinded (Executive Director, Upstream International) describes the world´s first off-shore facility to produce and liquefy gas:
We will be deploying this revolutionary technology first in Australian waters, over the Prelude gas field, where it will cool the produced gas into a liquid on the spot. Oceangoing carriers will then offload the LNG as well as other liquid by-products for delivery to market.
This is big, ladies and gentlemen. Not just the decision to build the FLNG facility but also the facility itself. From bow to stern, Shell’s FLNG facility will be 488 metres. That’s almost half a kilometre! It will be the largest floating offshore facility in the world – longer than four football fields laid end to end. Almost as long – or so I’m told – as three MCGs end to end. When fully equipped, and with its storage tanks full, it will weigh around 600,000 tonnes – roughly six times as much as the largest aircraft carrier.
FLNG will change the rules of the game. It will allow us to access stranded offshore gas fields that otherwise would be too costly or difficult to develop, because it avoids the need for long underwater pipelines and new coastal infrastructure.
It also enables LNG projects to go ahead more quickly and with less certainty about the volume of the gas resources being tapped, since an FLNG facility can be reused elsewhere at the end of a field’s life.
Mr. Brinded´s speech is at least a thousand times more important than all of Mr. Ban Ki-moon´s empty propaganda lectures put together when it comes to eradicating poverty in the world, because you cannot improve the lot of poor people without giving them the energy that is required for real progress.
PS
It is sad to see that the United Nations has become a playground for all kinds of leftist enviro-fundamentalists, anti-capitalist crusaders and climate change scaremongers. (Remember: the US pays 22% of the UN budget!). It is also sad, that the liberal/leftist main stream media are mostly quiet about what is going on at the UN. Neither are they properly reporting the great progress that is taking place in the world energy market.