Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
By Shannon Bell
Anyone who’s looked into installing solar panels for their home know that solar power for the entire home is very expensive. At minimum, most homeowners can expect to pay at least $15,000. At maximum, homeowners may pay as much as $45,000 or even $60,000 for a solar panel array that will power their entire home.
However, both federal and state tax credits aim to encourage homeowners to take on a solar project anyway. The federal government, according to the US Department of Energy, will kick in 30% of the cost for a solar project registered before December 31, 2016. A 30% tax break would bring the cost of a $15,000 solar project down to $10,500.READ MORE
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
This is absolutely unbelievable. It now appears that Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and Nobel prize winner for his theories on global warming, may be stepping back from some of his strong beliefs.
“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” Gore told Newsweek . “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.”READ MORE
As nations around the world begin to plan for Copenhagen to discuss the next generation Kyoto treaty, it is increasingly obvious that they will be ineffective.
Chief among the reasons for this ineffectiveness is that with the price of oil at its current state, it is simply not cost effective to use alternative fuels that will dump less CO2 into the atmosphere. The oil producing nations are probably not maintaining crude at this level to doom the planet to disaster, they are simply smart business people that are providing their “drugs” to the “addicts” at a price and in a way that will insure that no one can ever move off.READ MORE
Treehugger recently did a slideshow on the World’s Dirtiest Rivers and Lakes. While the slideshow doesn’t have anything to do with global warming, it should be important to all and especially the readers that stop by this site each week. If you are concerned with global warming then you should be concerned with most things where we have screwed up the environment to our own detriment.
Recently, there was a rather foolish announcement that said that said global warming kills over 300,000 per year already. I didn’t talk much about this report here, as I thought it didn’t merit my time. However, I do wonder how many real deaths (as opposed to Kofi’s fictitious 300K) are caused by poor drinking water. If you have ever been in a Starbucks, you have likely seen the bottles of Ethos water which donate part of the proceeds to clean drinking water to poor countries. Their site says:READ MORE
A new report from Oxfam has been released that states that the UK and the US must cut its output of carbon dioxide by 45% to prevent the catastrophe that awaits us. In addition, the poorer nations of the world would need to receive $148 billion US (90B £).
There does not appear to be any new scientific evidence of global warming in this paper. Instead it references the 2007 IPCC findings and then studies that financial impact of those assertions.
The UK needs to cut greenhouse gases by 45 per cent by 2020 to prevent the world “lurching into climate disaster”, according to a new report from Oxfam.
Very good article in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding the use of ethanol and how it costs a great deal to add it to our liquid fuel supply. The article points out that depending on the technique used to create ethanol, it adds 5%-34% more greenhouse gas to the environment than pure petroleum.
There is also a case to be made that there is pressure put on food prices due to ethanol production as well.
I am not totally against using ethanol as an additive. I think there is some advantage to keeping the market alive and viable to spur development of new techniques of creating the liquid and new crop energy sources other than corn.READ MORE
I will repeat the title with the full quote:
“Spain’s experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.”
Tony Blankley opines on RealClearPolitics (and elsewhere) that using government funding for creation of “green” jobs will reduce the net number of jobs in the US. If you are not familiar with Mr. Blankley, you can find his editorial work on The Washington Times, hear him occasionally on The MacLaughlin Group and he is the most intelligent voice on the nationally syndicated Left, Right and Center.READ MORE
I am shocked and dismayed! (Not really – just being a bit sarcastic and melodramatic)
One of the foundations of predicting the climate is that we have some idea of how water moves around the planet. That water can be in the form of water vapor or liquid water that is flowing in streams, lakes and the oceans. Since the Earth is approximately 2/3 water and water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas, the way it acts is very important for understanding climate and predicting the future of climate.READ MORE
The LA Times is running with an article that says that the Obama administration will not reverse the Bush administration in using the scarcity of polar bears to curb emissions. About a year ago, the US listed the polar bear as a threatened species. The concern of many was that this ruling would be used to control, tax, and sue individual companies to reduce their CO2 output. The Bush administration said that wouldn’t be happening and now the Obama administration appears to agree.
I originally found this article by reading Watts Up With That so go over there and check out his handling of this story.READ MORE