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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)