Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
I thought that Lord Turnbull’s speach in front of the House of Lords on December 8, 2009 was very well done. It does an excellent job of praising many in the community for their efforts in addition to appropriately questioning the correct next action. As this is a public forum paid for by British taxpayers, I feel that I can include his complete comments here.
I especially like the realism in his comments about the exporting of carbon usage to China (or other less developed countries) and then blaming those countries for their dramatic increase. This is an issue that is often overlooked in the discussion of curtailing carbon output in any individual country.READ MORE
Here is an excellent interview with famed scientist James Lovelock. Dr. Lovelock is best known for formulating the controversial Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s, which states that organisms interact with and regulate Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Later this year he will travel to space as Richard Branson’s guest aboard Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo.
If you read this site often, you know that I really don’t like carbon trading. I don’t think it will help solve any problems and it is only a way to tax people and push industries into doom. Dr. Lovelock appears to agree with me and he is a fairly strong supporter of the theory that global warming is man made.READ MORE
Dilbert is trying to do his best to reduce his carbon footprint but he may have gone a bit over the top on his efforts. Click on the image to go to the Dilbert site and see it as full size.READ MORE
Wall Street Journal – May 14, 2008
I really do not like the concept of trading in carbon. I think that carbon offsets trading only reward bad processes that are extremely cheap and are a band-aid to the real problem. If it is assumed that we need to vastly reduce the carbon footprint then the buying public should be encouraged to buy energy and products that result from lower carbon emissions and discouraged from buying the carbon rich ones.
Allowing a utility that has a coal burning plant in one part of the world to offset that footprint with a geo-thermal plant in another part of the world really doesn’t solve anything. If the two plants served the same marketplace, then their energy would compete but if the two plants are separated by oceans then we really haven’t solved any problems, we have just allowed a company to financially afford a carbon-rich coal plant.READ MORE
FOXNews.com – December 6, 2007
Steven Milroy is the author of Junk Science which is a great site for exploring more information on scientific concepts, particularly on global warming. He also writes a regular column for Fox.
In this column, Steve itemizes the top ten greatest “green” hypocrisies. Personally, I think he is stretching on several of them – especially number 4 since it is impossible with today’s current technology to truly have a worldwide active discussion without physically being co-located. Yes, it is easy to get half a dozen people together online but getting hundreds together is simply a nightmare and not easily handled with today’s bandwidths.READ MORE
The Independent – September 23, 2007
It seems that all politicians want to get involved in climate control on one side or the other. The Pope (whom many will say is not a politician) is not immune to this effort.
On one side of the equation, I think this is appropriate but on the other, I have some concerns. If the Pope restricts his comments to saying that humanity is obligated to care for the world then I think this is appropriate. I am not a theologian but even I can find several references in the Bible to support this argument.READ MORE
Los Angeles Times – September 2, 2007
P.T. Barnum supposedly said that there was a sucker born every minute. Sometimes, when I read about carbon credits, I am not sure who the sucker is – the person buying, the person selling, or the general public for thinking it is helping!
I really don’t like carbon credit schemes. I have written about them multiple times and most of what I read simply doesn’t make sense and is closer to scam than it is to solution.
In order for credits to be feasible and to be more than a “feel good” gesture, we need solid accounting, accountability, and penalties. We have none of that now and this article makes this painfully clear. We cannot allow credits to be used for minor contributions to a project. The credit must go to the cost of reducing the greenhouse gas.READ MORE
Reuters – August 6, 2007
How much does it cost to save the planet? According to Energy Information Administration the current bill to reduce the carbon footprint of the US would cost the US economy $533B. Is that too much?
I rarely trust these numbers as they always seem to be wrong. When have you ever heard of a study like this being correct? I think the models for economic prediction are almost as bad as the models to predict the climate!
Also, the article states that gasoline prices will only be 23 cents higher in 2020 than 2009. That would be a bargain compared to the steep increase in gasoline in the last 3 years! Statements like this only make me question the authenticity of the study.READ MORE
the Daily Mall – July 23, 2007
For those that read my site regularly, you will know that while I am uncertain as to the cause of climate change, I am fairly certain that carbon offset credits are a bad idea.
The basic premise on carbon offsets is to pay money to have something done that is a positive for the environment compensate for something that is bad for the environment. The problem with this is that it is difficult to do a complete accounting for all of the bad and all of the good to come up with the carbon amount to be calculated. As a simple instance, when factoring the amount of CO2 from a gallon of gasoline, do you also factor in the amount of CO2 that was spent to get the fuel to your local gas station? What about the CO2 that was created at the refinery? Do you get to spend less or more if the fuel was pumped from the ground in Texas, the North Sea, or Saudi Arabia?READ MORE
Washington Post – July 8, 2007
I tried to do the math on the big quote from this article and couldn’t make it work. John Buckley of Carbon Footprint says that it would take 100,000 trees to offset the effects of the Live Earth concert from this weekend. While I am not sure on his math, I am sure that it is a big number.
The problem with saying this is that I don’t think carbon offsets are effective. To say that you can buy your way out of pollution by planting trees is, at best, a short term consideration. The trees are barely carbon negative over their entire life and death, even though they can have a big impact in their first years of fast growing.READ MORE