Why is the EU not tough on CO2 emissions from ships?

Denmark is the home of Mærsk, the world´s largest container shipping company

The European Union has taken (too) tough measures against CO2 emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes. But why has the EU been so passive with regard to emissions from ships (with estimated 5% of global greenhouse gases, and double the carbon pollution from aviation.)?

The key person for keeping shipping out of the CO2 emissions controls is the Climate Action Commissioner from Denmark, Connie Hedegaard. That is why the New Europe Magazine
recently sent an open letter to the commissioner:

There is something rotten in the Kingdom of “Denmark,” indeed, dear Commissioner, and in this case Denmark stands for certain Commission services responsible for CLIMA and MOVE. Otherwise, how can one explain that in legislating for the CO2 emissions tax on maritime transport, the Commission assigned the issue to the International Maritime Organization, IMO, while refusing to assign the same issue in aviation to the corresponding International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)?

As a consequence, aviation (which counts for 1.6% of global emissions) will be taxed as of 1 January 2012 while shipping (responsible for 2.7% of total emissions), God knows when will be taxed, if ever, certainly not before 2050 (according to your Communication COM (2011) 112).

The result of this situation, dear Commissioner, is that the EU budget is losing millions every day, which it will never recover, while you fail to exert any kind of control over an industry, which systematically and heavily pollutes the EU and the world. “Intellectually speaking” dear Commissioner, someone under your nose, has granted preferential treatment to the shipping industry with several billion Euros lost to the Community and Member States budgets every year.

Hedegaard has lately been speaking about a "possible" EU level proposal in case the IMO does not come up with a solution:

In a statement on 28 June, Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said it was "high time" for an agreement with the IMO.
"Much as we prefer a global solution, the member states and the European Parliament have asked the Commission to present a possible proposal to reduce shipping emissions for 2012 in the case the IMO fails to find a solution," she said.

Not very strong words, from this lady, who always has been demanding strong action against all kind of "polluters".

Could it be that there really is something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark, as New Europe thinks?

Before trying to answer the question, it may be useful to know that Mrs. Hedegaard´s native country is the home of  Mærsk, the world’s largest container shipping company.

John Bolton on the Libya mess

John Bolton (who served as ambassador to the United Nations in the administration of President George W. Bush) has written an excellent article about why there does not seem to be any end to the mess in Libya:

Obama set the tone for this exercise in Libya at the outset. He limited the military mission to protecting civilians; by his own admission, he waited to act until the very last minute when rebel strongholds were under imminent attack; he declared publicly there would be no U.S. “boots on the ground”; and he insisted on advance approval by the UN Security Council and the Arab League.

Then, after U.S. forces dominated the first days of the “kinetic military activity,” his administration abruptly ceased most U.S. strike missions, even as it continued to supply the logistical, operational and intelligence backbone for air operations by NATO. By pretending to abdicate to our alliance partners, we behaved as if NATO hadn’t from its inception been U.S.-led and dominated, leaving our allies shaking their heads.
On March 18, Obama expressly said he wanted Qaddafi removed from power, but that we wouldn’t use force to do so: “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.” This is the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which countenances force for humanitarian purposes, at least as defined by those dropping the ordnance.

Subsequently, NATO strikes have killed one of Qaddafi’s children and three of his grandchildren, and the regime claims numerous other civilians have also died. NATO has admitted to mistakenly attacking rebel convoys on more than one occasion.
Even humanitarian interventions can cause tragedies.

This inherent confusion among our stated goals, the numerous restrictions imposed on NATO forces, and Obama’s unwillingness to do what is necessary -- namely, removing Qaddafi -- means that the Libyan operation has no end in sight.
---
The lesson for the U.S. is that it shouldn’t always ask permission from foreigners when pursuing its interests, but can ask forgiveness later if necessary. That, of course, is the conclusion Obama is least likely to derive. The absence of clear U.S. leadership on Libya has produced the current impasse, both diplomatically and militarily. Although NATO should ultimately prevail, it is wrenching that our president has caused so many of the problems we now confront.

Read the entire Bloomberg article here

Harvest problems in India - the real world vs the alarmist dream world

Flashback January 2011:

WASHINGTON: The Earth will be 2.4 degree Celsius warmer by 2020 if the world continues with the business-as-usual approach to climate change and India would be one of the hardest hit countries witnessing upto 30 per cent reduction in crop yields, a new study has claimed.
The rising temperatures will adversely affect the world’s food production and India would be the hardest hit, according to the analysis by the Universal Ecological Fund (FEU-US), the US subsidiary of FEU founded in Argentina in 1990.
The report titled ‘The Food Gap -- The Impacts of Climate Change on Food Production: A 2020 Perspective’ predicted that crop yield in India, the second largest world producer of rice and wheat, would fall up to 30 per cent by the end of this decade.

While the global warming hoax establishment continues its scaremongering about the huge reductions of India´s crop yields, the situation in the real world of Indian agriculture is somewhat different - and sad (but not in the way the warmists maintain):

In a country where millions go hungry every day and where food prices are breaking the back of the common man, a bumper harvest is rotting in godowns. Headlines Today correspondents across the country found the shocking truth.

Instead of trying to solve the problem, the government plans to increase procurement and has also disallowed exports to meet the projected requirement of grain under the proposed Food Security Act.

Estimates are that foodgrain production including wheat, rice, pulses and coarse cereals will go up to a record 235.88 million tonnes this year compared to the earlier record of 234.47 million tonnes in 2008-09.

Hundreds of tonnes of wheat and rice are rotting in godowns across the nation - the reason being there is simply no space. So, while paddy sacks are dumped inside classrooms in Andhra Pradesh, wheat is left to rot on the roadside in Kurkshetra and sacks can be seen lining up parking lots of residential areas in the fertile wheat belt of Punjab and Haryana.

The current storage capacity is 62.8 million tonnes, which is proving inadequate. India had record rice and wheat stocks of 65.6 million tonnes in its godowns in early June. Officials say the problem will only get worse after the kharif harvest arrives by September-October.

Read the entire article here

PS

Would it be too much to ask that a miniscule amount of the enormous EU "climate change" aid would be converted to support for building adequate storage facilities for bumper harvests in India!

I am afraid that is wishful thinking. The EU global warming believers live in their own dream world - all messages from the real world are immediately removed from their sight.

Poland must fight German-French attempts to prevent shale gas exploration

Poland must not let this smiling former activist prevent its energy future!

One must hope that the Polish EU Presidency succeeds in its two central goals: blocking all attempts to impose EU-level regulation of the shale gas industry, and opposing any tightening of EU´s carbon emission targets.

Kash Burchett, energy analyst at Datamonitor, describes the challenges ahead for Poland:

The other defining feature of the Polish rotating presidency will be staunch opposition to EU-level regulation of the nascent European shale gas sector, notably the practice of hydraulic fracturing (the process by which shale gas is recovered from the ground). Calls to regulate (or even ban) hydraulic fracturing have gained surprising momentum surprisingly quickly in recent months. France has imposed an indefinite moratorium on its shale gas projects following a sudden surge in public opposition to hydraulic fracturing, amid fears of water table contamination (seeFrance: 18 April 2011:). This prompted a fierce rebuke from the Polish energy establishment (including Poland's state-owned oil and gas company, Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA--PGNiG), which sees the country's potentially significant shale gas reserves as a way out of dependence on Russia for gas imports (seePoland: 13 May 2011:).
Yet despite Poland's warnings to the EU against meddling in internal energy policy, consensus in the headquarters in Brussels behind hydraulic fracturing legislation appears to be growing. In particular, an influential member of the European parliament (MEP) Jo Leinen is said to be preparing a new "Energy Quality Directive" that would mean fuels with adverse environmental impacts--such as shale gas and oil from tar sands--were stringently regulated within the EU. The German Social Democratic Party MEP chairs the EU parliamentary body that oversees environmental regulation and thus holds the power to bring forward proposals on new laws.
Polish policymakers can be expected to oppose any such moves tooth and nail. Although coal is set to continue to dominate the Polish generation mix in the near term the government clearly expects shale gas to alter the energy landscape radically in the next decade. Conventional gas production in Poland is negligible and although the Swinoujscie LNG terminal on the Baltic Coast will add 5 bcm of import capacity from 2014, increased gas demand from industry and residencies will still imply increased reliance on Russian gas imports--anathema to policymakers. Consequently, the Polish government has sought to promote the development of domestic unconventional reserves and is bullish on the expected timeline for domestic production.
Indeed, a minister suggested recently that research and development should qualify as a project of European interest, arguing shale development would be crucial to Europe's future energy security of supply, especially in the wake of a stalled European nuclear renaissance (seePoland: 9 May 2011:). This reveals how Poland's support for shale will manifest itself in its rotating presidential policy: drawing attention to Europe's increasing reliance on Russian gas imports. Despite a relative rapprochement in Russo-Polish energy relations in recent months, the government can still be expected to use its time at the Council's helm to talk up the collective risks of dependence on Russian energy exports, as a means to justify implicitly shale gas development irrespective of potential environmental costs.

Read the entire article here

Indeed, the German socialist Jo Leinen is doing his best in order to prevent Poland and Europe in general from getting rid of the dependence on Russian energy. The real reason why Leinen is against Polish and other European shale gas exploration is that he wants to block anything that would be a threat to the Russian-German Nord Stream gas pipeline. The Chairman of the board of Nord Stream (picked by Vladimir Putin), former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, is an old supporter of Leinen´s, already from the time (1981) when "container-Jo" climbed a container in order to coordinate a violent anti-nuclear power protest action. When charges were raised against Leinen in a German court, his influential socialist friend Gerard Schröder came to his help. The charges were later dropped.

Now it is payback time for Leinen; the Putin-Schröder pipeline - with former Stasi spy Matthias Warnig as CEO - must not be allowed to fail, even at the expense of  Europe´s energy security and the enormous Polisch economic interests. 

The danger is that Germany, which for the time being is controlled by green enviro-fundamentalists, and France, which wants to sell nuclear electricity to the soon almost "powerless" Germany, will try to force the European Union to make shale gas exploration de facto impossible.

The Polish government - and other sensible governments in Europe - must not let Leinen and the shady Russian-German-(French) axis stop the shale gas revolution in Europe. No price should be too high for Poland on this matter - not even membership in the EU! 

And there is an added bonus for those who believe in human caused global warming: shale gas is an excellent choice with regard to the environment, too.

PS

Here is another recent example of Jo Leinen´s radical socialist agenda:

The establishment of a world parliament elected by the world’s population was proposed at an event

at the World Social Forum in Dakar, Senegal. “A democratic and representative world parliament would be

an institution with unprecedented political legitimacy. It is needed to bring globalization under democratic

MAY 2011 World Federalist Movement - Canada

www.worldfederalistscanada.org

If there is a "world parliament", then clearly there must be a "world government", too! The next step for Leinen is probably to call for a global revolution in order to achieve this dream of his. Leinen and other former activists (like former maoist José Barroso) should be stopped before they ruin what is left of a functioning Europe!

control,” explained Jo Leinen, one of the speakers at the event

Global parliament urged at World Social Forum

"Rent-a-roof" solar panels - another renewable energy scam exposed

´three quarters of solar panel salesmen used "dodgy sales tactics" and misled customers on potential savings´

The world of renewable energy has already for years been associated with half truths, misleading marketing, scams and outright criminal activities. The Telegraph has now exposed the latest scam:

 Solar panels 'save just £70 a year'

The benefits of solar panels have been called into question after the Energy Savings Trust (EST) reduced the estimated saving on electricity bills to just £70 a year.

The EST had previously estimated the savings to households at around £120 annually, but after trials carried out by the government-funded Carbon Trust, the energy advice group amended its estimates.

The admission will be a blow to the growing number of "rent-a-roof" schemes, where households receive free solar panels in return for savings on their electricity bill. However, as many of these schemes lock households into a 25-year contract, many householders are expected to be reluctant to take part for such paltry savings.

Under "rent-a-roof" schemes, the company that installs the panels, which typically cost around £14,000, keeps the income generated from selling the surplus energy back to the grid via the Government's feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme – typically earning more than £1,000 each year.

Launched last year, the FIT scheme means that home owners who install solar panels will receive money for any energy that is generated at home. Payments are index-linked for 25 years and at present generate 41.3p for every kilowatt hour produced by the system, plus an additional 3p per kWh as an "export tariff".

With free solar panel installations, the company that owns the panels will receive the income from the generation and export tariffs from your panels, while the homeowner will benefit from reduced energy bills.

----
The news comes after a Which? investigation found that three quarters of solar panel salesmen used "dodgy sales tactics" and misled customers on potential savings. In an undercover investigation, the consumer group found that 75pc of companies overestimated how much energy the solar panels would produce and most of them underestimated how long it would take for the system to pay for itself.
Which? found that the Government's rules to work out energy output did not take into account key factors such as where people live.

Read the entire article here

The Energy Choices website has some additional information about the "rent-a-roof" scam:

Back in April 2010, Which? warned consumers after conducting an undercover investigation.
The consumer champion accused some rent-a-roof companies of mis-selling and said that over 70% of the solar panel installers had overstated the potential savings of having panels fitted.
At the time, Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive at Which?, said: “Most of the firms in our investigation behaved like true cowboys - they promised huge savings that bore no relation to reality, and some really piled pressure on the homeowner to sign up immediately or risk losing a one-off ‘special offer’.”

PS

Usually customers are not properly told about additional administration charges which make the "saving" even less. The companies which install the panels will of course take almost all of the profit. They can take advantage of the govenment´s highly dubious "feed in tariff" scheme, which guarantees installers 41,3 p per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by the solar panels. Without these "feed in tariffs" - subsidised by the taxpayers - nobody would be able to make any money from solar power.  All this madness in the name of non-existent human caused climate change!

American professors: Newspapers should not try to be objective on global warming

The Reuters news agency continues its climate change crusade. This time they have given two European warmist newspaper editors, Dutch Peter Vandermeersch and Belgian Wouter Verschelden, an opportunity to praise European media and criticize US media for being too friendly to opponents of the climate change orthodoxy:

For Peter Vandermeersch, editor-in chief at the traditionally conservative daily NRC Handelsblad in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, there is no debate about climate change.
"Absolutely, that's a given," he said. "The conviction has grown that climate change does exist, and that humans play a major role in how it evolves."
"There's almost no discussion about it," agreed Wouter Verschelden, editor-in-chief at the progressive daily De Morgen in Brussels, Belgium. "The nonbelievers have been marginalized, and they aren't taken seriously anymore. We don't have to convince our readers anymore of the fact that there is climate change, and that it's caused by humans."


According to Vandermeersch and Verschelden, who are both alumni of Columbia University's vaunted Journalism School in New York, American news media still make the mistake of giving climate skeptics a disproportionate voice and perpetuating a debate that has long been settled among scientists.
"In a sense, you're lying to your readers," says Verschelden. "You're creating a 'he said, she said' story, and looking for an argument that just doesn't always exist."

It has apparently not been difficult for the writer, Tom Vandyck, to get hold of two alarmist professors, who wholeheartedly share the the view of these European climate change believers:

the Europeans' position has merit, says Max Boykoff, a professor at the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research in Boulder, who has done extensive research on the issue.
"Within the top U.S. daily print media there has been this reliance on the journalistic norm of balanced reporting that worked to the detriment of accurately reporting whether or not humans contribute to climate change," he said. "I found over in the U.K. press, that hasn't been as much of an influence — in fact, that they’ve been reporting it quite accurately."
"I think the objectivity standard that U.S. newspapers apply has probably outlived its usefulness on this particular issue," said Mark Neuzil, a professor of environmental communication at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. "At some point you're not being a decent and good journalist when you're giving equal weight when 97 percent say one thing, and 3 percent say the other, unless you point that out really clearly."

Read the entire article here

The two naive Dutch and Belgian editors are, of course, typical representatives of the politically correct, often anti-American views of many mainstream European dailies. And the two American professors are shining examples of what´s wrong with the academic establishment in the US today. All four have a very strong common denominator: utter stupidity. They just do not know what they are talking about.

If you want to send professor Boykoff a message, he can be reached here:
boykoff@colorado.edu

Neuzil can be reached here:
mrneuzil@stthomas.edu

The new Greenpeace yacht afloat - at least for the time being

Greenpeace´s new €23 million  "don´t call it a yacht" Rainbow Warrior III has gone afloat in Germany. Among the greenie cultists present, was "longtime Greenpeace crew member" Rien Achtenberg, who seems to have gone into a state of extacy at the event:

"As I walked into the ship construction hall, and saw the new Rainbow Warrior standing outside, beyond the partly opened door on a high platform, I felt a shiver of emotion and felt immensely proud and impressed by her - and Greenpeace as an organisation. She looked shiny and new (of course) in her familiar green paint, the dove and the rainbow all carefully already painted on her hull".

And maybe not without a reason, because Achtenberg´s successors on board the new yacht will enjoy the comfort of a luxury yacht. Here are some of the amenities the sailing cultists will be able to enjoy while on board:

"One of the more insistent requirements, particularly from long-term crew members with the scent of old voyages to the Arctic or up the Amazon still vivid, was for a shower in each double cabin, as opposed to the scant communal facilities that had characterised previous boats.
Keen attention was also paid to ... the galley facilities" (= a gourmet kitchen)

(Of course the single cabins also have a private bathroom)

And this is how Greenpeace describes the beds for the crew:

"Not content with a bed these activists will also have a mattress to lie on! It does make sleeping a lot more comfortable and the days of lying in a hammock smoking ciragarettes and talking about the war are long gone"

It is easy to believe what Greenpeace says; the price of one mattress is 300 euros (about 440 USD). You can still "buy" these luxurious mattresses for the crew here, if you think it´s a great idea that these cultists should sleep well while on board.

And, of course, when the greenies are not out e.g. harassing legal oil exploration workers, they can relax by watching Al Gore´s films on 900 euro (1300 USD) 46 inch HD flat screen TVs.

A number of the yacht´s interior details appear to be somewhat less expensive  - toilet roll holders e.g. cost only 10 euros. Cheap imports from China or Vietnam (hopefully not made by children)?

Of course, the ships more warship-like features are state of the art:

the advanced technology that will drop smaller inflatable speedboats from its sides at record speed for the quickest possible advance or getaway; the helicopter pad that can be created on deck; the below-deck radio room with its reinforced door built to allow at least 30 minutes transmission time in the event of the ship being boarded – as it has been in the past – by SAS-style commandos wielding axes

Maybe the "activists" need the advertised 75 euro "camouflage jackets" when they go hiding into the radio room?

Below deck the ship will house one of the most sophisticated communications operations anywhere on the ocean.

Read the entire article here

PS
In order to uphold the overall  level of luxury on board, a Michelin star chef to head the galley operation would appear to be the obvious choice. Gone are the days when activists could survive for weeks on "Babu´s palak paneer things"!

Merkel´s agenda today: "A dance to the music of the enviro-fundamentalists"

 

Merkel´s agenda today: A dance to the music of the enviro-fundamentalists

There were great expectations, in Germany and internationally, when Angela Merkel took over as Chancellor of Europe´s most powerful country. However, things did not turn out so well for Frau Merkel: A growing number of  Germans - as well as international observers - are frustrated with her lack of leadership. The main source of frustration is probably Merkel´s total cave in to the "green" enviro-fundamentalists, who now appear to have taken over Germany.

One of  Merkel´s former supporters, conservative essayist Cora Stephan, a regular contributor to Die Welt and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, finally lost her patience with the Chancellor, and wrote a book "Angela Merkel. Ein Irrtum" (Angela MerkelA Mistake), which has been quite well received and reached the top lists for political books in Germany.

P. Gosselin describes what Stephan has to say about Merkel´s top climate change adviser:

Ms Stephan is concerned about Schellnhuber’s extreme views and has good reason for that. She begins by quoting Schellnhuber on freedom of science and democracy:

Core questions such as these, and questions on human rights, deserve a place in the Constitution. That would mean there would be judges who would vote against the majority when it is right to do so in regards to our constitutional consensus. This would require a very few ethical elites.”

Stephan puts Schellnhuber’s dictator-speak in plain language:

On the subject of climate change, democracy has to be switched off in favor of control by ethical elitists because most people are too removed from the long-term future (and its possibly dying children with whom Schellnhuber likes to threaten us.”

Schellnhuber claims that a few select elites (like his bozos at the PIK) can see 100+ years into the future and to assess the impacts that our actions today will have. The guy is way beyond megalomania. Either we do as he tells us, or millions of future children will die. (Ironically, much of what Schellnhuber proposes means millions of children would be denied birth, so I’m not sure how unborn lives could be saved).
Ms Stephan calls Schellnhuber’s type of climate activism an attempt at creating an “above the law state of emergency”, and involves a new climate religion operated by “high priests”:

The new religion promises the Last Judgement already today – that is we endeavour one last huge and dramatic effort to save humanity from a well-deserved downfall. As is the case with other religions, the best is repentance, humility and self-restriction – preferably through emission payments without end.”

Unfortunately, Merkel appears to be deaf to the growing criticism. During the weekend she was again busy preaching the climate change agenda for a group other climate religion believers in Berlin:

"We are determined to move forward boldly," she said, noting that the current voluntary reductions of carbon dioxide were insufficient. Climate-damaging emissions were a worrying development and talks had so far been progressing at a snail's pace, Merkel said.

Top Australian climatologist: Extreme weather NOT caused by global warming

Another eminent climate scientist, Australian professor Neville Nicholls, has confirmed that the extreme weather events of the last few years were NOT caused by global warming:

CANBERRA, July 4 (Xinhua) -- The remarkable weather extremes of the past decade were not directly caused by global warming, President of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Professor Neville Nicholls said on Monday.
Professor Nicholls, who is one of Australia's most eminent climate scientists, said such extremes as the heat wave in Victoria of Australia that accompanied the Black Saturday bushfires, similar heat in Pakistan and Russia, and the devastating tornado ripped through parts of the U.S. earlier this year are, in many cases, unprecedented in modern times.
However, he said that global warming should not be blamed for these events.
"Whenever these things happen, people ask 'was it caused by global warming?' The short answer is no," Professor Nicholls told the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) conference in Melbourne on Monday.
"They were all caused by well-known and reasonably well- understood weather and climate events, even with some predictability."

However, professor  Nicholls would proably have put his career at risk, had he not made this required bow to the climate change religion:

While global warming does not cause the weird weather, Professor Nicholls acknowledges its part in making some of the extreme weather more severe.
"Global warming doesn't produce these events, however, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that global warming has exacerbated the frequency and the intensity of these heat waves," Prof. Nicholls, who is also a Monash University professorial fellow, said

Read the entire article here

Strauss-Kahn is no contemporary Casanova

Strauss-Kahn is definitely not a contemporary Casanova

In France people seem to think that Dominique Strauss-Kahn still has a political future:

Despite all this, a poll published by Harris Interactive on Sunday showed a majority of 49 percent of French people now approved of Strauss-Kahn returning to politics, with 45 percent opposed.

Read the entire article here

Important people in the French socialist party now even talk about the possibility of a Strauss-Kahn candidacy in the forthcoming presidential elections. It appears that DSK is now looked upon as some kind of a contemporary Casanova in his native country.
However, the French socialists might do well to think twice about his candidacy. Strauss-Kahn is neither a Casanova, nor a very honorable man, if what the New York Post writes is true:

Multiple versions have emerged of what happened next, but nobody disputes that the 32-year-old maid performed oral sex on the Frenchman known as "the Great Seducer."
Sources now tell The Post that when the two were finished, the woman demanded cash from Strauss-Kahn -- but he refused to pay.

If this socialist could afford a $3000 a night suit (courtesy of his rich wife) in a luxury New York hotel, he should have been able to pay the maid for the sex he bought.