The EPA Wrecking Ball

Guest post By Alan Caruba

The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.

“This standard isn’t the once-and-for-all solution to our environmental challenge,” said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, “but it is an important commonsense step toward tackling the ongoing and very real threat of climate change and protecting the future for generations to come. It will enhance the lives of our children and our children’s children.”

This is a boldfaced lie. Its newest rule is based on the debasement of science that is characterized and embodied in the global warming hoax. It will deprive America of the energy it requires to function.

Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming—now called climate change—and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced. The ball was put in motion with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocols when many nations agreed to this absurd idea and carried forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since.

The Environmental Protection Agency was created to clean the nation’s air and water where it was deemed that a hazard existed. Like most noble ideas and most Congressional mandates, the initial language was vague enough to be interpreted to mean anything those in charge wanted it to mean. Add in the global warming hoax and you have the means to destroy the nation.

Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.

This is evil writ large.

Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built fits in perfectly with all the Green pipedreams about “renewable” energy. Solar and wind presently provide about two percent of the nation’s electricity and, without government subsidies and mandates requiring their use, they would not exist at all.

How stupid is it to not build more nuclear power plants when this form of power doesn’t emit anything but energy?

How stupid is it not to use coal when the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal?

How stupid is it to begin to find reasons to regulate and thwart fracking, the technology to access trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that has been in use for decades?

How stupid is it to cover miles of land, far from any urban center, with hundreds of solar panels or huge, ugly wind turbines that kill thousands of birds every year?

The sun does not shine all the time, nor does the wind blow all the time. In the event of overcast skies or a day without wind, traditional plants—those using coal, gas, nuclear or generating hydroelectric power—have to be maintained as a backup. Take away the coal-fired plants and there were be huge gap in the national grid.

Darkness will descend and Americans will begin to live with blackouts and brownouts that will undermine every aspect of our lives. It’s bad enough when a town or even a city briefly loses power because of a storm, but imagine that occurring on a regular basis because there just aren’t enough utilities generating power!

What kind of people stand by idly while its own government conspires to take away the primary source of energy that everything else depends upon? The answer? You. The answer is the many elected politicians that have done little to rein in a rogue government agency intent on undermining the nation by denying it the ability to generate power with the least expensive source of electricity, coal.

The EPA, an unelected bureaucracy, has just ensured that all Americans, industries, small businesses, and individuals will begin pay far more for electrical power.

Richard J. Trzupek, the author of “Regulators Run Wild” and an environment policy advisor for The Heartland Institute, said of the new rule, “With around 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired power set to be forcibly retired in the next few years—thanks to the draconian policies of Obama’s EPA—this rule ensures that no new modern, efficient coal fired power plants will be built to fill the gap.”

In a triumph of crony capitalism, Trzupek notes that “The big winner will be Obama’s good friend, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt. Since solar and wind cannot fill a 50,000 megawatt baseload gap, the only way to ensure continued reliability of the grid is to build a lot of natural gas-fired plants quickly. And who is the biggest supplier of natural gas-fired combustion engines? GE of course.”

If you think that environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, among many others, are seeking to “protect” the Earth, you are seriously mistaken. They have been among the leading opponents of coal and they have had allies in Congress such as the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, (D-NV) who has said “Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick.”

NO! Coal provides the engine of our nation’s electrical power and oil provides the energy that fuels our transportation and is the basis for countless products that enhance and improve our lives every day.

We are witnessing the destruction of the nation by the environmental movement and the EPA has just provided you with the most dramatic example of that plan.

About these ads

140 thoughts on “The EPA Wrecking Ball

  1. I’m disappointed to see that the US is moving in the direction of cloud cuckoo land, presently the home of most of Europe and Australia. Very depressing.

  2. I don’t know if there was ever or would ever be a best time to have a showdown, across the board, with the Progressive Project, but I guess now is as good a time as any. There must be no cease-fires or armistices. This is to the finish.

  3. Obama rarely aknowledges that “pollution” by CO2 is the real reason behind ALL of his energy policies. Hopefully the ever-increasing public awareness of the “Climate Change” hoax will help to make Obama the one-term president this country so desperately needs.

  4. From the article:
    “How stupid is it to not build more nuclear power plants when this form of power doesn’t emit anything but energy?

    How stupid is it not to use coal when the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal?

    How stupid is it to begin to find reasons to regulate and thwart fracking, the technology to access trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that has been in use for decades?

    How stupid is it to cover miles of land, far from any urban center, with hundreds of solar panels or huge, ugly wind turbines that kill thousands of birds every year?”

    The Answer: Incredibly stupid.
    This is what happens when a nation is in the grips of a movement driven by people with a huge emotional, political and financial vested interest in an ideology that precludes them from being able to reason and think rationally using facts and sound science. They are so ideologically and emotionally driven that trying to reason with them is a waste of time and energy — much the same as it is trying to reason with a dedicated Communist. The only hope that we will someday have is someone in the White House with the brains and common sense to return sanity to our environmental and energy policies.

  5. The EPA does what it does because it’s the EPA. The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy explain most of it.

    Political cronies will exploit bureaucracies such as the EPA by producing the necessary perception of problems and in the same breath, offer their solutions to the “problems”. And bureaucracies will exploit those who are gullible; or the self-serving who are going along for the ride.

    EPA offices could do with having their electricity cut off 44% of every hour of the day so they can appreciate how much electricity is being produced by coal-fired powerstations. That’s why smart meters were installed. Right? ;-)

  6. There are many, many people who hope this will turn around next election. It will not. Regardless of who is elected, they may or may not change some of the rules and enforcements, but they will not strip the EPA of their authority. To strip the EPA of their authority would be for a president to cede power. There is none who will do so. And, no one is making it an issue.

    The fact is, until we find a party…. create a party, who will limit the power of the government, this will not stop. There may be some cessation of the regulatory enslavement, but, the authority will not be ceded by either party.

    Currently, we have, to be frank, anti-American people in power. It is their will to bankrupt the U.S. and they are succeeding. The very people assigned to protect our interests believe it is in our interests to fail.

    This nation holds more coal than any other nation in the world. It serves no other purpose…. (other than creating natural gas)…. than to keep this nation economically viable. IT IS HERE!!!! WE ARE HERE!!! And we’re pissing it away. Stupid, stupid bastards.

    The U.S. holds more coal and natural gas than anyone else in the world. We can make oil from shale…. more oil than any one else in the world holds. With a proper utilization mix, more wealth and economic development can be gained simply by providing for others than can be imagined. But, why would we want to advance the human condition? Malthusian misanthropists are communists. And communists are Malthusian misanthropists.

    It is becoming more and more clear that the oil and gas companies are the ones who funded this madness. Now the gas companies are having second thoughts…. stupid,stupid bastards…. may they rot in hell.

  7. With due respect Anthony,

    The environmental community has for at least a dozen years, held natural gas suspect, as a fossil derived product. We tried years ago to have fuel cells included in a state subsidized program to reduce air emissions (because there are none from fuel cells), and we were refused support because almost all fuel cells are powered by natural gas. Not a renewable fuel source. Crazy yes? But true.

    Natural gas will become the new demon once coal is curtailed.

    Watch, its already happening.

  8. There is an answer, clean sweep Mr. Green and his minions from the halls of government. If not Mr. Green’s policies will leave the nation without food, broke, cold and in the dark. A signature legacy if ever there was one.

  9. You said it well, but…
    Well it’s not me. I write my representatives on a regular basis. I cannot count the number of times I have pressed for impeachment of Obama- based on very rational and fact based arguments. Unfortunately for all of us Americans the Republican leadership is 2 parts coward and 1 part dumb.
    The good news is that there is an election in 8 months and it is not looking good for the PBO white house. With any luck his wretched healthcare plan will be trashed by the SCOTUS.

    Here in Texas I am supporting an excellent senate candidate to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison, by the name of Ted Cruz. I can only assume as well versed as you sound that you are already aware of Mr. Cruz and will support him as well.

    One step at a time we will remove the parasites lick ticks on a dog and with any luck have enough Republicans with a backbone to implement systematic reforms that will prevent any of this communist garbage from ever being seen in the daylight here in the US ever again.

  10. Small home gasoline and diesel powered generators are going to become a booming market in the next few years!

  11. North Texas had a record hot summer last year. We did have rolling black-outs. However, the wind mills out in West Texas produced no electricity because there was no wind because of the high which kept out the cool fronts. Where do I sign up for a 0% renewable electricity plan?

  12. Excellent rant, a perfect description of the folly engendered by militant Watermelons and their useful idiots in the Administration.

    Print this out, and send it to all candidates for federal office. We need a commitment from the leading Republican candidates for President, especially Mr. Romney, and the best way to get it is to make sure he understands that (despite James Sexton’s pessimism) the voters are going to insist that the EPA be reigned in—or abolished. Make sure that if the Congress takes the lead, there is no chance of a veto—unless, of course, The Puppet President is re-elected.

    /Mr Lynn

  13. carbon-based life form says:
    March 28, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Rise up! The Democrats are poisoned with the nanny-state mentality and the Republicans are slaves to the social conservatives. Is there another way?

    Hmmm … I don’t know that you really know what you are really talking about … The so-labeled sc’s are the ONLY salvation (they pulled the Repub party out of a stall in the mid 90′s); are you totally unawares of the state the go-along to get-along Repubs left congress in thru the 70′s, 80′s and into the mid 90′s?

    Do you know who ‘Bob’ Michels was?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Michel

    Robert Henry “Bob” Michel (pronounced “Michael”; born March 2, 1923) is an American Republican Party politician who was a member of the United States House of Representatives for 38 years. He represented central Illinois’ 18th congressional district, and was the GOP leader in Congress, serving as Minority Leader for 14 years (1981–1995) during an era of Democratic Party House dominance. If he hadn’t retired at the 1994 elections which saw his party regain control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, he could have become Speaker.
    - – - – - – - – - –
    “He who does not remember history is doomed to repeat it.” – G. Santayana
    .

  14. “Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming—now called climate change” Caruba quote.

    Pssst Alan — the “CC” in that organization formed in the 1980s, the IPCC, stands for Climate Change.

  15. Michael Barnes says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    North Texas had a record hot summer last year. We did have rolling black-outs.

    We did? You mean in February (recall that cold snap – for which the utilities had not sufficiently prepared for cold weather? And then nat gas supply/pressure through the network could not keep up too … all this also affected New Mexico as well.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/we-spent-billions-on-wind-power-and-all-i-got-was-a-rolling-blackout/

    We narrowly avoided ‘rolling blackouts’ several times during the summer owing to conservation measures … I monitored the ERCOT near-realtime state power consumption webpage pretty closely. I even called the city about some soccer field lights that were known to be on during the day (for whatever reason; mis-adjusted timers most likely.)

    .

  16. “Francisco Fernandez says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm”

    I seriously hope not. We don’t have to look too far to see how well that will work, try Lagos, Nigeria. Not only do most residents have to be connecetd to the “grid” and pay connection fees for no or very little reliable power, they have to run their own generators too.

  17. Hi guys, not sure you saw this in the Obamacare chaos, but

    Texas Wins Clean Air Act Fight with EPA
    Jonathan H. Adler • March 28, 2012 9:24 pm

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sternly rebuked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for overstepping its statutory authority in rejecting three air pollution control regulations adopted by the state of Texas for their alleged non-conformity with applicable Clean Air Act requirements. In Luminant Generation Company, LLC v. EPA, the Fifth Circuit the EPA had “no legal basis” for its decision and remanded the decision back to the agency.

    At issue in the case were three Texas regulations governing permit requirements that were a part of Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the federal Clean Air Act. According to the statute, the EPA is to decide whether or not relevant state regulations comply with SIP requirements within 18 months of their submission. In this case, however, the EPA waited years before claiming the three regulatory provisions were insufficient. More significantly, the EPA “did not identify any provision of the CAA or its implementing regulations that Texas’s program violated.”

    http://volokh.com/2012/03/28/texas-wins-clean-air-act-fight-with-epa/

  18. GE again. Quite possibly the worst company on the planet. The cause of, and solution to, virtually every major was-a-non-problem we face. The true face of the enemy within. It is sickening what has happened to this once great company, and what it is doing to this once great country.

  19. The Hockey Stick

    There was a crooked Mann
    Who played a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick

    By using crooked math
    That favored crooked lines
    Lysenko’s crooked path
    Led thru the crooked pines

    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    But all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means

  20. Policy Guy says: March 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm
    “The environmental community has for at least a dozen years, held natural gas suspect, as a fossil derived product”

    The planet Uranus has 199,663,000,000,000,000 kg of Methane (natual gas) and no fossils.

    If the ‘environmental community’ is saying that Methane is a ‘fossil derived product’, then I think they have some explaining to do.

  21. GE is not such a great company if you’re a common stock shareholder. DAMHIK. Or, how I did know, until a couple of years ago when I finally lost patience and sold my shares after seeing them essentially tread water for more than a decade.

    They’re executives may be making plenty of money in salary and bonus, and I suppose there could be preferred shareholders getting dividends I never saw, but you’ll never see me buy GE stock again. (Well, unless the Feds do so on my behalf–I suppose I AM a shareholder in GM now, right? Since the Feds are shareholders? And who are the Feds if not us?)

  22. Obama and the EPA sicken’s me!
    Obama is more like Hugo Chavez every day. A blatant Liar, Propped up by the Media. Truth is an unknown to this evil administration and it’s jack booted EPA.
    Obama deliberately lied by saying, “We only produce 2 percent of the world’s oil.”
    According to the federal government’s energy administration, the United States produces 10 percent of the world’s production, making it the third-largest oil-producing nation.
    This administration is the most inept ever, that’s a red herring to try and cover for it being the most corrupt ever. With this administration they go hand in hand–incompetent and corrupt.
    fake the ineptness to keep your attention away from their siphoning off the tax payers money. Ever notice all the ‘Green Energy’ corps. That get a giant pot of cash, and then almost immediately file for bankruptcy and disappear…..WITH the cash?
    They fake the ineptness to cover up the unconstitutional grabs at power that they keep doing. Actually they are inept even in their corruption, they keep getting caught.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/obama-touts-energy-policy-flubs-fuel-fact-video/#ixzz1pxbyEEno

  23. Rise up! The Democrats are poisoned with the nanny-state mentality and the Republicans are slaves to the social conservatives. Is there another way?
    Agreed. We need some small government advocates.

  24. Stopping Global Warming is just part of the statists’ program to remake the USA. Their bigger program is the UN Agenda 21, on sustainable development, drafted by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Statists now have managed to get many US cities paying money to the ICLEI and implementing its ideas. Groups are forming across the country now to defund ICLEI and fight Agenda 21. Learn more about Agenda 21 at http://www.sustainabledevelopment.com ,see if the ICLEI is active in your community, and prepare to fight back. For our non-US readers, the ICLEI, being a UN organization is also pushing its Agenda 21 in places like Australia and the UK.

  25. Bernd Felsche says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    The EPA does what it does because it’s the EPA. The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy explain most of it.

    And the EPA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Department of Justice (presently being run by people who feel no compelling need to obey *any* law), which explains the rest of it.

  26. Alan is wrong about only one important detail. This did not start with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This started with Our Common Future, the report of the Brundtland Commission in 1987 that formalized the concept of sustainable development. It was the principal philosophical input into UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. That conference and its infamous Agenda 21 created the entire international political impetus that led to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its offspring, the Kyoto Protocol..

    I know who was on the Canadian delegation to Brundtland, and I wouldn’t have trusted them to negotiate the price of seeds with a cage full of gerbils.

    This train has been thundering down the track for a very long time.

  27. of course, China is bulding these power plants, but US, Australia are NOT ALLOWED to do the same!

    1 July 2010: Climate Change and National Security: A field map and analysis of funding opportunities
    Prepared on behalf of the Planet Heritage Foundation
    by Christine Sherry
    (page 57) If these precautions are not taken, China will continue to build the estimated 600 new coal fired power plants by 2030, which will add about 60 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere
    (about a third of the world total amount added since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution)…

    http://www.sherryconsulting.com/Final%20Climate%20Report.pdf

    persons from Pew, Soros, Rockefeller, Energy Foundation, Chatham House, EastWest Institute, etc. were interviewed for the above report.

    as for GE, they are thrilled with Australia’s highly-unpopular carbon dioxide tax, ABC only mentions “wind turbines”, but GE are mixed up in every aspect of Australia’s energy markets:

    25 March: ABC: GE chairman praises ‘gutsy’ carbon tax
    GE’s vice-chairman John Rice says there needs to be a cost associated with producing carbon, whether it is through a tax or a type of trading mechanism.
    GE makes a range of products, including wind turbines…
    “I think that will help companies like ours shift more resources to the carbon-reducing technology.”
    Mr Rice says it is important that countries such as Australia take the lead on carbon emission reduction.
    “If you wait for the world to act in unison, it will never happen. Look at the leadership that the Europeans provided in the nineties that basically resulted in today’s wind turbine market,” he said.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-25/ge-chairman-praises-carbon-tax/3910974

    GE don’t mind providing equipment for China and India to import coal!

    23 March: BusinessWeek: David Fickling: GE’s Rice Sees Activist Governments as Free Markets Fail
    General Electric Co. Vice Chairman John Rice said he expects governments worldwide to become more activist and increase regulation because they fear discontent from populations who believe free markets have failed them…
    In Australia, GE expects to double its business in the four years ending 2014 because of demand for equipment to support Chinese and Indian purchases of coal, iron ore and natural gas, with sales expected to rise by as much as 30 percent this year alone.
    The country is now GE’s third-largest market by sales and is only behind the U.S. and China, Rice said…

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-23/ge-s-rice-sees-activist-governments-as-free-markets-fail

  28. Why should I pay any attention to an op ed from Alan Caruba? He has no scientific credentials — he is a PR guy with an axe to grind.

  29. I’m not sure how many have read or heard of the new report from the IPCC put out yesterday (Australian time) in which the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events is presented as the new danger. This is presumably because, as is stated by Professor Will Steffen Australia’s climate commissioner:

    “The rather modest changes in average temperature and average rainfall that we’ve seen so far really manifest themselves in terms of things that matter for people in terms of these extreme events,”.

    It appears that even if the prognostications of an inexorable increase in global temperatures may be incorrect then there is always something else to prove the points made by the pro CAGW lobby.

    Other extreme weather events blamed on climate change include “killer heatwaves in central Europe in 2003 and southern Australia in 2009 “that led to more deaths in Melbourne than the Black Saturday bushfires”.

    There was also “little doubt” that recent flooding in southeastern Australia was made worse by sea temperature warming and higher evaporation rates”

    In 2007 Professor Tim Flannery (another government appointed climate change commissioner) during a long drought in South Eastern Australia stated the dams would never be full again. Now that South Eastern Australia has been very wet for the last two and a half years and dams are full to overflowing this is due to climate change. So no matter what happens it is all due to climate change

  30. isn’t this reassuring?

    29 March: ABC: Mark DeBono: CSIRO backs carbon capture technology
    The CSIRO has released a report saying carbon capture technology can work in Australian coal-fired power stations…
    CSIRO spokesman Dr Paul Feron says the system works but it reduces the efficiency of power stations by about 30 per cent.
    “That’s something that the power generators are very anxious about,” he said.
    But he is confident they can improve upon that…
    He says the technology could be in use in Australia within 20 years.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-29/csiro-backs-carbon-capture-technology/3920174

  31. In my opinion this article is far to shrill to hold WUWT standards. It is disheartening to see the usual bromides of Obama as a lying socialist, and pretending that the Obama Administration will “deprive America of the energy it requires to function.” No such thing will happen. That is borne out by surveys done among American energy companies. What it does do is to move energy production towards natural gas, which has less environmental impact than coal. The pollution rules apply to future energy plants, excempt existing ones, and even those that see construction begin in the next year.

    It is a disservice to the political discourse to use this alarmist language that we disparage when used on the other side. This Administration is working hard to solve the nation’s energy problems, and to do it in a responsible fashion. If you disagree with how it is doing it, great. Let’s discuss that.

    Look around you and you see a nation that is using plenty of energy in various forms. To even suggest that the political institutions of the country are working to shut down energy use is hyperbolic and hysterical.

    I am not saying for a second that no one can disagree with the rules the Administration has proposed, but let’s discuss the facts. That is what this site excels in, not partisan attacks.

  32. Sounds as though GE has been doing some successful lobbying, with billions of dollars now heading their way, thanks to the EPA.

  33. Just a note: The photo at the top is misleading. I don’t know if it is enhancement or a peculiarity of the imaging technology, but as someone who has flown high and low altitude for 30 or so years, the vast majority of North America is either desolate or sparsely populated.

    Woods, trees, grassland, rocks. Not this image of cheek-to-jowl urbanization blanketing the continent.

    Study google earth in detail to understand what I’m Sayin’.

  34. Mr Lynn above says “Excellent rant”. How true and how sad — it is a rant. Why do we have to degenerate into rants? For just one example, the article states “Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built … ” Massive exaggeration. The legislation does not shut down utilities that use coal … existing ones can continue as per usual. Neither does the legislation prevent new ones being built.

    My plea is this: argue against (or for) the legislation, but please, please at least do so in a coherent and rational manner without hyperbole.

  35. GE allegedly crippled the Intermountain Power Project, one of the largest coal fired plants in the US, through negligence during routine maintenance. A generator in one of the two units burned up last December, cutting the plant’s generating capacity of 1,900 MW in half. Conspiracy theoreticians, make of it what you will. I, for now, attribute it to incompetence.

    A third unit, to have generated an additional 900 to 950 MW, was scheduled to go online this year, but the City of LA (No Coal by 2020!) pulled out of the deal.

  36. Caruba-lies says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    “Why should I pay any attention to an op ed from Alan Caruba? He has no scientific credentials — he is a PR guy with an axe to grind.”

    So, what are your scientific credentials??

  37. Why can people not just accept that the CAGW debate is over and Al Gore is right. The carbon dioxide that we pump out does terrible things to our lives and the lives of others. Did you know it causes Mondays? There were no Mondays prior to the burning of fossil fuels. It does terrible things in other areas too, like causing plants to grow and stimulating the need to breathe, which of course just releases more carbon dioxide – catastrophic positive feedback if ever I saw it. Any more of this and we’ll be on perpetual Mondays. It’s not that I haven’t read skeptical articles; I read a paper blaming the sun during Earth hour last year. Okay, all my lights were off and it was pitch dark, so perhaps “read” is not the right word, but I just instinctively knew that it was totally wrong, so there was no real need to read it properly.

  38. @ Ian of Fremantle
    “The rather modest changes in average temperature and average rainfall that we’ve seen so far really manifest themselves in terms of things that matter for people in terms of these extreme events,”
    What the heck does that even mean??!!
    How can a man contradict himself in the space of one sentence?
    Oh, I forgot, warmista talk. It doesn’t have to make sense or be true. We’re just expected to believe it ’cause there’s a consensus, doncha’ know!
    Bahhh!
    And Maurice Strong hides out in China where he can’t be sued. I expect Algore will join him soon.

  39. Interesting article, and the parallels with Australia are quite amazing, no doubt there are similarities with Canada as well (except they are lucky enough in the political cycle to have the Left out of power). Ian from Freo has pointed out some of the madness of the prevailing Left in Oz, (Gidday Ian). But I thought our Yankee cousins had managed to avoid much of the Carbon Dioxide alarmism, and putting a so called ‘carbon price’ or Tax on our comparative economic advantage. The Left have some kind of Poverty Envy, but they want the Power, and if their enemies are in poverty, its easier for them to control. Just like Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Castro. It gets weirder when the Greens start broadcasting to other planets and pagan gods like Gaia.

    BTW, WUWT is really excellent place, read it all the time, but very rarely feel qualified to comment.

  40. I is time that the truth comes out and stays out about all this ‘Global Warming’ BS! We have a similar problem in South Africa, obviously not on such a large scale as in the US. However we were told this week by the ‘authorities’ that Johannesburg would run out of fresh water in the next couple of years. I have been hearing these stories since I was old enough to listen! As far a solar goes, I know the efficiencies are not where they should be and it is expensive, but it is a way for individuals to slowly cut the dependency on the grid and in turn these crazy schemes.

  41. How sad, a leftist, incompetent president supported by leftist,incompetent Democrats in the Senate and both propped up by a far left media are leading us down the road to destruction, all in the name of saving our environment. There is a solution if the voters are smart enough to see it. Vote straight Republican in every race nationwide. I am sure that the worst Republican elected will be far better that the best Democrat now serving or seeking election. That is the only solution. It is time for the Republicans to stop squablling and join to defeat the far worse enemy. This may be the voters’ last chance.

  42. @ policyguy re natural gas. If you believe in the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases (which include water vapor) then the combustion of natural gas or methane has a greater effect than the combustion of coal.for the same net energy use. The value judgement that natural gas is better than coal is one lie put out by the IPCC and the EPA. A second lie concerns the loss of methane from appliances, pipes and coal mining. The absorption wavelength band of methane is very much less than, CO2. It does not burn in the atmosphere because there is no source of ignition, the concentration is too low, and its temperature is too low. Methane maybe oxidised by ozone (from lightning etc) to methanol which is highly soluble in water (clouds, rain, sea etc). The level of CH4 in the atmosphere is am insignificant about 1.5ppm and has remained steady for some years. It has zero effect on temperatures in the atmosphere or at ground level.
    See my post my clicking my name.

  43. The only hope you lot in the US had was Ron Paul. I’m really surprised no one mentions him (here or in the media). It’s like a ‘conspiracy’… I’d love to know what his views on BS AGW are. I know he hates Big Government, war mongering, 9/11 and all the other crap Obomber, SanGritRom (are they actually different people?) and every other ‘contender’ is trying to sell.

  44. What I can’t figure out is why these people want to live in a country they’re about to destroy. Do they like being homeless? Do they like scrounging through the garbage for something to eat? Have they even endured a week of camping out in the forest somewhere just to get a taste of how difficult it would be to live like Indians did 300 years ago–because that’s where we’re heading if they have their way.

    Don’t these people have any appreciation for the origin of things–their homes (and all the raw materials that are in them), their food, their clothing, and their modes of transportation. Are they all that gung-ho on reverting back to the days of riding horse-drawn carriages and plowing their fields behind oxen? Are they that willing to work wicked hard from dawn to sundown everyday just to stay alive?

    It simply boggles the mind; it simply makes no sense. These people are so absolutely clueless about the world around them and how it all works there are no words to describe it.

  45. Ian of Fremantle says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    …So no matter what happens it is all due to climate change.

    Well, they’re right. But where they’re wrong, of course, is that a changing climate is always with us–and the degree to which mankind causes that change is so small as to be unmeasureable. Leave it to the watermelons to steal mother nature, invent a crisis and milk it for all it’s worth.

  46. Enough CRAP!
    Carbon Dioxide(CO2) makes up less than 4/100’s of 1% of the earth’s atmosphere and has increased less than 1/100 of 1% in the last century. How can so many so-called experts with so many letters behind their names be so ignorant to say that CO2 is the cause of global warming. There is no global warming, there’s only global warming and cooling cycles. It’s the SUN stupids!

    The earth’s atmosphere near the surface is composed primarily of Nitrogen and Oxygen. Together, the two comprise about 99% of the gas in the atmosphere. Here’s a listing of the key components of the lower atmosphere…
    Nitrogen – 78.084%
    Oxygen – 20.95%
    Argon – 0.934%
    Carbon Dioxide – 0.036%
    Neon – 0.0018%
    Helium – 0.0005%
    Methane – 0.00017%
    Hydrogen – 0.00005%
    Nitrous Oxide – 0.00003%
    Ozone – 0.000004%

  47. GE, Australia’s friend, only has our best interest at heart /sarc

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/ge-applauds-labors-gutsy-carbon-tax/story-e6frg9df-1226309687139

    (in part)
    THE Australian government had been “gutsy” to follow through on its pledge to introduce a carbon tax, according to the world’s top industrial conglomerate.

    GE vice-chairman John Rice said the $23-a-tonne tax applying from July 1 would prompt the company to allocate more resources to carbon-reducing technologies.

    Mr Rice said GE, which made the nuclear power plant reactors at Fukushima and was heavily involved in renewable energy, had long believed in a trading mechanism to reduce carbon emissions and encourage the development of new technologies.

  48. This comment is addressed to the anonymous troll who repeatedly posts in this thread under the alias “caruba-lies”.

    Your posts are irrelevant knit-picking and personal insults which add nothing to Caruba’s article and/or discussion of it.

    [snip . . . the moderators will moderate . . kbmod]

    Richard

  49. @Caruba-lies (March 28, 2012 at 9:44 pm)

    Why should I pay any attention to a panel led by Pachauri? He has no scientific credentials — he is a railroad engineer with an axe to grind.

    And btw, the CC stands for Crooks & Criminals

    @Alan Caruba:

    I couldn’t agree more. Keep spreading the word. We will prevail!

  50. Bernd Felsche – The Seven Rules of Bureacracy – this is brilliant as it 100% accurately describes today’s climate science’ industry. For those who did not see it, here it is, the mantras of the CAGW cult’s leadership.

    Rules of Bureaucracy

    Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
    Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
    Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition’s opportunity to review and critique.
    Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
    Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
    Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
    Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
    Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
    Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
    Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one’s own defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.

  51. Ummm:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fourth-largest-gun-maker-us-out-guns

    “In a somewhat sad and shocking slap of reality to the face of our ‘recovery’ and ‘freedom-based-debt-holdings’, today’s press-release-of-the-day (since we still haven’t heard from BATS) goes to Sturm, Ruger (the 4th largest gun-maker in the US) who after receiving orders for over one million units in Q1 has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders.”
    =============
    It must suck, being the 4th largest gun-maker, and having missed the biggest gun sales market ever ?, due to lack of workers.
    Talk about an upside-down economy.

  52. The EPA is not stupid. The POTUS is not stupid. They are intelligent people at the top of their field.

    I noticed long ago that when intelligent people were advocating seemingly stupid positions they were just running some hidden agenda. As long as we keep assuming that the EPA is stupid we will never disclose and discredit their actual agenda.

  53. “Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming—now called climate change—and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced”

    As others have pointed out, this kind of exaggeration doesn’t help, and is ammunition to the warming side that sceptics are reactionaries.

  54. Bob says:
    March 28, 2012 at 11:30 pm
    The only hope you lot in the US had was Ron Paul. I’m really surprised no one mentions him (here or in the media). It’s like a ‘conspiracy’… I’d love to know what his views on BS AGW are. I know he hates Big Government, war mongering, 9/11 and all the other crap Obomber, SanGritRom (are they actually different people?) and every other ‘contender’ is trying to sell.

    +1 Bob, I was thinking the same thing. Dr. Paul wants to end the EPA and turn the responsibility back over to the states. Too bad the media and republicans distorted his foreign policy views or he may well be in the running. The positive thing is that Dr. Paul is having an influence on the republicans. Hopefully they will take back the senate and presidency this year and then have the spine to do something.

  55. God help us. “The One” has chosen to use the Global Warming lie to advance his Socialist Agenda. Please pray for America!

  56. Energy should be the number one political issue this year. And every year until reality is addressed. Energy is the fuel that drives nations prosperity engine. It must be reliable, cheap and reliable and cheap and reliable and cheap…Germany is in the process of watching their industrial base decay due to their hallucinating about CO2. Companies are electing to simply not build or expand there because of their very shaky energy poliices. Energy is life. Cheap energy is properity.

  57. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    In agreement with just about all this post. In essence it sums up the situation very well.
    Regarding solar and wind power deficiencies – Part time energy is not necessarily enough reason to rubbish them. Any energy from true renewable sources is worthwhile, providing the embedded energy in manufacture is outweighed by the energy output. Whatever energy is produced reduces the amount produced by “fossil” fuels. Thre is nothing wrong about that.
    Alan calls wind power structures ugly. I disagree, I see them as magnificent. They are certainly far, far more asthetic than the high voltage power distribution towers and all the poles associated with distribution.
    Regarding nuclear, again I am not in agreement. Given the possibility that coal and gas supplies are perhaps not in such short supply as claimed and perhaps not as environmentally damaging as claimed, nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems. (IMHO)

  58. Heavens! There IS a hockey stick graph!

    But…..it is the value of Sturm, Ruger & Co stock!

    (See “u.k.(us) says: March 29, 2012 at 1:40 am” above)

    Dang, I missed out on another one. Maybe the MegaMillions on Friday.

    “HE whose MIDDLE NAME cannot be spoken” has been very good for the gun manufacturers.

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  59. @ Bernd Felsche – “The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy” is just the abbreviated version of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”…

    Gee — who’d have suspected that “progressives” would have so much in common with the entrenched, nay-saying, stasis-loving, obfuscatory class?

  60. Ken McMurtrie:

    I gasped in astonishment at the gall you display in your post at March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am. In case there are any readers who may have been misled by it, I provide this rebuttal.

    You assert:
    “Regarding solar and wind power deficiencies – Part time energy is not necessarily enough reason to rubbish them. Any energy from true renewable sources is worthwhile, providing the embedded energy in manufacture is outweighed by the energy output. Whatever energy is produced reduces the amount produced by “fossil” fuels. There is nothing wrong about that.”

    NO! There is a lot “wrong with that”!

    Higher energy cost reduces the affluence of all and, therefore, it increases the poverty of the poor. It kills people who cannot afford sufficient energy to meet their needs.

    So, no, merely providing more energy than is consumed does not make any source “worthwhile”. Adding so-called ‘renewables’ to a grid supply increases the cost of power supplied by the grid BECAUSE the power they supply is intermittent.

    The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. There needs to be a good reason to adopt something which is intended to “reduce the use of fossil fuels. And there is no reason – none, zilch, nada – to adopt “solar and wind power” as a method to reduce the use of fossil fuels: in fact there are many good reasons not to adopt them (most notably their high cost because of their intermittency).

    And you say;
    “Given the possibility that coal and gas supplies are perhaps not in such short supply as claimed and perhaps not as environmentally damaging as claimed, nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems. (IMHO)”

    Say what!
    Recently Japan experienced a major earthquake followed by a tsunami which killed more than twenty thousand people. The earthquake and tsunami also struck an old nuclear power station with lesser safety margins than modern nuclear plant. The power station suffered severe damage but this killed nobody.

    How much safer do you want nuclear power stations to be, and why?

    The market will decide the best balance between power supply technologies for most efficient and economic power supplies from an electricity grid. But ‘greens’ do not want efficient and economic power so they attempt to disrupt it by enforced adoption of expensive wind and solar while legislating to inhibit use of cheap coal-fired power.

    Richard

  61. Alan says
    and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced.
    ———
    Guess what Alan, I reckon this is a boldfaced lie.

    It’s funny, when Alan said “boldfaced lie” I was certain that I was going to find Alan making up a boldfaced lie somewhere in the next few sentences. People are so predictable.

  62. systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.
    ————
    If Alan can’t point to an Obama quote which actually says this I am calling lie again.

  63. Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business
    ———-
    And being replaced by gas powered power stations because gas is cheap.

  64. RockyRoad says:
    March 28, 2012 at 11:38 pm
    What I can’t figure out is why these people want to live in a country they’re about to destroy…It simply boggles the mind; it simply makes no sense.

    These are the same people who moved to rural areas to escape the trash heap their policies made of their original neighborhoods. Then, when they discover that their new neighborhoods don’t offer the same social entitlement programs (i.e., wealth redistribution) that their former ones did, they immediately begin campaigning to introduce those entitlement programs in the name of Progress. They eventually succeed, and, after wondering what happened to change the marvelous neighborhood they’d moved to into a pesthole like their old one, they shake their heads in wonderment and move on — to eventually settle in and destroy yet another neighborhood.

    These people are so absolutely clueless about the world around them and how it all works there are no words to describe it.

    There *are* words to describe them, but I’d get snipped if I used them here…

  65. carbon-based life form says:
    March 28, 2012 at 7:51 pm
    Rise up! The Democrats are poisoned with the nanny-state mentality and the Republicans are slaves to the social conservatives. Is there another way?

    Are the EPA’s powers actually constitutional, or variations on that theme?

    In Britain ‘they’ have created a fictional ‘person’ for every real human man and woman, and it is only by agreement (which in itself is fraudulent because they don’t tell you what this is), that one becomes ‘subject to’ their legal system and consequently, the legislation passed to which these fictional persons unknowingly agreed to be subject to. Legislation has no real legal standing in Common Law, I might not be explaining this too well..

    Anyway, here’s an example of the fight back from legislation: http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2011/03/08/roger-hayes-rise-like-lions-council-tax-lawful-rebellion-judge-arrested/

    “Context>>
    Roger Hayes of The British Constitution Group has long questioned the legitimacy of the council tax. Specifically, he asks how can one be made to perform – as in become legally obliged, to perform certain actions (payment) without a form of contract taking place?

    Duly understood, a contract must have a signature of the parties’ agreement. This has been Roger’s key to unlocking the fraud from the get-go. There is no signature on any contract, therefore no agreement, therefore no debt and no jurisdiction without c-o-n-s-e-n-t. Period. The end. Winning. Duh.

    The court cannot proceed as there is no debt, no case and no jurisdiction to hold Roger accountable under. The trick as we know involves steamrollering or getting Roger to consent to answering to ‘State your name’ – therefore agreeing to represent the corporate fiction on which the Judge operates. The trustee to the trust. The strawman. The birth certificate. The corporate you. Et-freaking-cetera. MR ROGER HAYES – a legal appelation or entity which can be held under Admiralty jurisiction and CONtract law, ancient mystery religion sacrifical voodoo law. Complicated shit which enslaves us through our ingnorance to the deception. Not any more.

    History >>
    Roger Hayes, nailing a previous hearing, forced the judge to demand the prosecution prepare their case adequately. He did so by repeadetly insisting on the fraudulent nature of the proceedings based upon invalid summonses. He insisted on remaining outside the Jurisdiction of the court and did so. ”

    http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/consent-most-important-word-english-language

    http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/legal-fiction-how-they-control-us

    Judges know how the ‘legal fiction’ applies to each of us, but barristers, solicitors, Magistrates and politicians mostly do not – it is a closely guarded secret. Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom.”

  66. I would say that this is not about stupidity; this is brilliant if your goal is to destroy the constitutional US capitalistic system, that has kept us the leader of the free world, and create chaos with the opportunity to step in through new “world view” regulations to transfer this once prosperous country into a UN socialistic puppet.

  67. LazyTeenager says:
    March 29, 2012 at 4:31 am

    systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.
    ————
    If Alan can’t point to an Obama quote which actually says this I am calling lie again.

    You may have a point there, Lazy. But Obama the candidate and Obama the president are diametrically opposed. For example his candidate-opposition to the Individual Mandate then his president-support for the Individual Mandate is documented here (click on the video):

    http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/03/president-obama-and-the-individual-mandate-he-was-against-it-before-he-was-for-it-video/

    But Obama’s assaults on the American people (except those feeding at the government trough) are numerous. Admittedly Obama wasn’t a big proponent of the Constitution as a candidate, but he’s gone out of his way to destroy it as president–whether it be individual freedoms, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, you name it:

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/02/calling-obama-on-his-assault-on.html

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/morning-bell-obamas-continuing-assault-on-the-constitution/

    http://theteapartynetwork.org/2012/02/obama-continues-assault-on-constitution-heritage-foundation/

    There’s always the serious contention that Obama isn’t and has never been a big fan of the Constitution, even though he’s supposedly a Constitutional Professor —he’s much like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who doesn’t think much of the US Constitution (click on video):

    http://ggthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/02/ginsberg-dislikes-our-constitution.html

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/justice-ginsburg-and-you-2-peas-in-a-pod/

    http://www.conservativefact.com/2012/02/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-joins-obama-and-admits-her-dislike-of-the-u-s-constitution/

    I’m willing to bet the ranch Ginsberg finds the Individual Mandate just fine–even though it represents an unprecedented and extremely dangerous reversal of the US Government’s role in the lives of its citizens.

    Bbut to counter: Name me just one thing the government has required that individuals must purchase in the past–just one. (And no, the requirement the infant government made on people go buy guns doesn’t count, for that applies to those in the militia.)

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/jldevae.html

  68. The real problem is “Big Coal” hasn’t ponied up enough money to the Obama campaign, the Democrat party or the PACs that support both.

    Give them enough “green” and suddenly coal will become Obama’s favorite energy source. Let them get in a bidding war with solar and wind.

    Big Coal deserves the best government they can buy, and the Team Obama is just the guys to sell it to them.

  69. LazyTeenager says:
    March 29, 2012 at 4:34 am

    Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business
    -
    And being replaced by gas powered power stations because gas is cheap.

    Looking forward to those L.T. (Lazy Teenager) natural gas powerplants. Let the fracking begin!!!

  70. Let us discuss the Obama administration’s actions!!!! This is so typical of the left — we are supposed to DISCUSS their ACTIONS. They ACT and we, afterwards, are confined to discussing their actions. They take and then they say — LIKE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LETS SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS!!!!. Then they take more and again call those who object unreasonable because they refuse to hold a civil conversation about their ACTIONS.

    The left, meaning the Democratic Party. has been stifling energy production in this country for over 30 years. In the past thirty years how much drilling has not been done that could have been done? How many pipelines have not been built? How much coal, how much nuclear, how much gas is unavailable today because they stifled such projects in the past?

    They act — and then they demand that like reasonable people we discuss their actions??? There comes a time when reasonable people pick up pitchforks.

    On the topic of the “science” of global warming.
    Going from town to town, shouting from the back of a wagon, the snakeoil saleman is a constantly moving target.
    The “science” of global warming, or whatever it is called today, really consists of nothing but numerous ever changing “big” declarations (I will not dignfy such by calling any such a theory or hypothesis) — shouted from the back of a wagon. When one declaration loses it selling value the “science” moves on. No matter what specific words are used the underlying pitch is always the same — buy this medicine or you are all going to die!
    The point real scientists must understand is that a snakeoil salesman has no interest in science whatsoever. He is interested in sales. It does not matter if the snakeoil salemans has degrees and teaches at a university — he is still a snakeoil saleman. You better realize that if you are going to debate such people. You may trunce such on the scinece but lose the audience.

  71. LazyTeenager says:
    March 29, 2012 at 4:31 am
    systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.
    ————
    If Alan can’t point to an Obama quote which actually says this I am calling lie again.
    —————
    LT:

    Is this what you are looking for?

  72. LazyTeenager:

    Your post at March 29, 2012 at 4:34 am is plain wrong. It says;

    “Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business
    ———-
    And being replaced by gas powered power stations because gas is cheap.”
    ——————————————————————————————————————————

    No!
    Firstly, the use of new coal-fired plants and nuclear plants is prevented by the same rulings which are closing the old ones.

    Secondly, you clearly have no idea why different technologies have advantages and disadvantages which encourage use of more than one technology for power generation. The following are some examples.

    Coal and nuclear are good for baseload supply because they are large so each supplies a large output (e.g. the efficiency of a coal-fired PF plant increases with increased plant size while the reliability of the plant reduces with increased size. So, the optimum plant size is a balance between efficiency and reliability and, at present, this optimum is over 2 GWe output).

    Combined cycle gas turbine plants can be built as smaller units so are most effective for peak load matching.

    A power station is constructed to operate for decades.
    Fuel cost is trivial for a nuclear plant, is significant for a coal-fired plant, and is the major coat for a gas-fired plant.
    Forecasting fuel costs decades in the future is not possible. But variation in fuel costs provides a risk to future electricity cost. This risk is negligible for nuclear plant, low for coal-fired plant, and very high for gas-fired plant. Indeed, this risk is enhanced by the high variability of gas prices relative to coal prices.

    A balance of used technologies minimises risk of future high electricity prices and price fluctuations.

    There are several other relevant considerations but the above is sufficient to show the lack of understanding displayed by your assertion.

    The important consideration is that the market would ensure the used the most efficient and effective balance of power generation technologies but ‘greens’ do not want efficiency and effectiveness so they are destroying the market options by use of legislations.

    Richard

  73. You nailed their modus operandi very well Eugene. They are a constantly moving target but what can nail them is their flawed policy actions, which always end up a complete disaster both economically and socially. That just leads them to slip away and try the next hair-brained scheme in order to keep the punters in a perpetual state of restless motion. We need to nail them down with their own hypocrisy and demand they take the first baby steps of their new world order.

    How so? Hoist them on their own petard and demand of every Left Green leader that spouts the CO2 snake-oi,l that forthwith they announce that no publicly paid official will remain airconditioned on their watch, just like in our grandparents’ day, all for the sake of the grandkiddies of course. This we demand as a shining example to all those who toil in the great outdoors and under the tin rooves of our factories and workshops. First people first and the taxeaters most removed from natur’es vicissitudes in their airconditioned offices and vehicles will be the ones to set the standard for us all. We demand this sacrifice from the loudest and most concerned and we demand it now for the sake of the future generation. How can they possibly refuse their pressing moral obligation.

    What do we want from you concerned graduazzi and movers and shakers?
    No publicly paid official to be airconditioned any longer! Show us your true environmental credentials now!

  74. On second thoughts airconditioned is a very inadequate term for our moral leadership. We hereby demand of them that none of them remain ‘climate controlled’ any longer. Let’s GETUP them all with their moral obligation. Twitter, email, facebook, youtube or whatever let’s keep them all to their natural lofty commanding heights.

  75. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am

    nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems.
    AP1000 Document -

    http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/AP1000_Plant_Description.pdf

    Predicted core damage frequency of 2.4E-07/yr is well below the 1E-05/yr requirement, and
    frequency of significant release of 1.95E-08/yr is well below the 1E-06/yr requirement.

    Is 100 times safer ‘good enough’?

  76. Lisa Jackson, Enviro-mouthpiece for the current socialist administration speaks for all these hippocrates. If they’re really worried about our children and grandchildren than stop borrowing a TRILLION dollars per year to piss away now. They’re not worried about the future. This is a right-now power grab. The Earth and it’s children be damned.

  77. Like most noble ideas and most Congressional mandates, the initial language was vague enough to be interpreted to mean anything those in charge wanted it to mean.

    If the Constitution can be reinterpreted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean (think Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause) then it’s no surprise that the EPA mandate can be reinterpreted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.

    What kind of people stand by idly while its own government conspires to take away the primary source of energy that everything else depends upon? The answer? You.

    True. As long as people have power they won’t pay any attention to what’s going on. But people want their power on and once the blackouts start they will scream bloody murder. There is evidence to support this.

    Back in the early 2000′s in California there were rolling blackouts and there was an immediate outcry. New power plants were approved and built in a short time. Politicians saw that the public was not going to put up with blackouts which meant they would be out of a job if something wasn’t done.

    Sometime back in the 1980′s during a series of large storms there were many power outages near the coast of Northern California caused by falling trees. The outcry was large enough for the CPUC to force PG&E to institute a tree trimming program.

    Just last year in my area there were several power outages during relatively minor snow events (up to 8″) again caused by falling tree branches. Complaints got PG&E to do more trimming and upgrade their breaker system so one fallen tree branch didn’t take out the entire area.

    I’ll bet there has been work done to improve the power grid after last years east coast snow storms.

    People take the power for granted until it’s not there and then and only then they’ll scream. They will vote out the idiots in government going along with the green agenda but unfortunately it won’t happen until we reach a crisis. Most people have such busy lives that they never consider issues like no power until there is no power.

  78. fredb says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm
    Mr Lynn above says “Excellent rant”. How true and how sad — it is a rant. Why do we have to degenerate into rants? For just one example, the article states “Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built … ” Massive exaggeration. The legislation does not shut down utilities that use coal … existing ones can continue as per usual. Neither does the legislation prevent new ones being built.

    My plea is this: argue against (or for) the legislation, but please, please at least do so in a coherent and rational manner without hyperbole. . .

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm
    In my opinion this article is far to shrill to hold WUWT standards. It is disheartening to see the usual bromides of Obama as a lying socialist, and pretending that the Obama Administration will “deprive America of the energy it requires to function.” No such thing will happen. . .
    Look around you and you see a nation that is using plenty of energy in various forms. To even suggest that the political institutions of the country are working to shut down energy use is hyperbolic and hysterical. . .

    Unfortunately, it’s not hyperbole. The oft-reported aims of this President, his Energy Secretary, and his Science Advisor, are to destroy the carbon-based-fuel industries: coal, oil, and yes, even natural gas (look how they are ramping up efforts to halt fracking). What is the point? The only logical answer is that their real aim is to destroy the economy of the United States, forcing us to turn to some kind of ‘global governance’, a drab and dreary World Soviet where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are kicked into the trash heap of forgotten dreams.

    By the way, Fredb, it’s not ‘legislation’; it’s regulation, a rampant abuse of too-vague authority granted to the EPA when it was created back in the ’70s.

    /Mr Lynn

  79. Antony Watts and others (as well as the CRU e-mails themselves) have shown the 2007 IPCC report to be a biased, improperly reviewed document at best, certainly not something on which to base public policy. Yesterday I had to look up a regulation on the EPA web page. Going to the EPA home page I see under “Popular Topics” “Climate Change”. Since the EPA’s far-reaching regulations governing greenhouse gases went into effect this week I figured I would see what they were feeding the public as their justification for these regulations.

    So I click the “Climate Change” tab, then under that, “Science” then “State of Knowledge”. Here is that link:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

    They cite one reference: IPCC 2007

  80. Policy Guy says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Natural gas will become the new demon once coal is curtailed.

    Watch, its already happening.
    ###

    Any workable source of energy will be demonized.

  81. Now that Lisa Jackson has delivered a death blow to the coal industry, she’s now off to Paris to take part in Agenda 21 planning.

    Her press release:

    CONTACT:
    Alisha Johnson
    Johnson.alisha@epa.gov

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    March 28, 2012

    EPA Administrator Leads U.S. Delegation to Paris for Meetings on Economic and Environmental Cooperation

    WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson arrived in Paris, France to meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability. During the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Environment Policy Committee’s ministerial meeting, Administrator Jackson will represent the United States in discussions about the upcoming Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, and talk about ways in which the environment committee can support the global conference’s efforts.

    EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. In recent years, EPA’s bilateral and multilateral partnerships have increased efforts to address environmental and governance challenges. In collaboration with other nations through the OECD, EPA is furthering its mission to protect the environment by ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, addressing climate change, and promoting sustainable development.

    Friday, March 30

    12:00 PM CET OECD Panel
    Participants: EPA Administrator Jackson, OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria
    Open Press
    OECD Conference Center
    2 Rue Andre Pascal, 75016 Paris, France

    Media wishing to interview Administrator Jackson can RSVP to Zoë Mezin at mezinzl@state.gov, +33 (0)6 07 90 43 84.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/oia/io/oecd.html
    About the U.S. Mission to the OECD: http://usoecd.usmission.gov/
    About the OECD: http://www.oecd.org/

  82. Doesn’t matter R or D, it all goes the same way in the end. Neither side of the aisle will do anything to dismantle the monster the EPA has become. Some will talk, yes, but in the end, it’s just posturing.

    As for the EPA actually carrying through on this – I say, bring it on. I’m fully prepared to live without the grid. Most of the EPA supporters, however, are not. (They THINK they are, but they’ve never really considered the ramifications – at least, none have who I’ve ever talked to).

  83. Policy Guy says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    With due respect Anthony,

    The environmental community has for at least a dozen years, held natural gas suspect, as a fossil derived product…..
    _______________________________________
    It is Boiling the frog a slow process of striping away our access to energy and therefore access to a decent life one at a time.

    What many people do not realize is that the stranglehold on energy and therefore the stranglehold on the USA economy started a long, long time ago with killing the Dream of Nuclear Power. The Thorium Aircraft Reactor Experiment (1954) was scuttled despite the fact the reactor itself was successful. Not only successful but much safer as a domestic power source. Various reasons are given, like it did not produce fuel for bombs but that did not have any bearing on its usefulness as an incredible power source. Do not tell me the Navy or Air Force could not see the advantage of a plane or ship that did not need to dock to refuel. The strategic advantage would be huge.

    Then there was the mass hysteria over the atom bomb for decades followed by Japan’s radiation scare. A scare that was hugely overblown by the Mass Media Propaganda machine just as Thorium was catching the eye of the environmentalists. If Thorium was pursued in the first place there would have been no scare and we would have had cheap “CO2 and pollution free” electrical power for the last half a century. However visible pollutions and atom bombs has been a really great stick to beat the public with have they not? The EPA was “born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, EPA was established on December 2, 1970.”

    Thorium would have been cheap because much of the cost of nuclear is not in the reactor itself but in the lawsuits, protests and regulatory burden. The big question one must ask is WHO BENEFITS? And the answer is the same as it is this time, nuclear powers competitors ~ OIL, natural gas…. It is no coincidence that Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953 That Strong is listed as a trustee in Annual Report – 1974 – Rockefeller Foundation It is no coincidence that Greenpeace gets large chunks of cash from the Rockefeller foundations or that I saw the help wanted ads in the Boston Global for nuclear protesters paying $10/hr.

    If you do not know who Maurice Strong is by now I suggest you start researching him because he is one of the keys to this mess. His name pops up in connection to CAGW, environmentalism, the world Bank, the Rockefellers, the United Nations and several scandals.

    A Quick on what happened to Nuclear:

    No nuclear power plants in the United States ordered since 1974 will be completed… large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million…Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier.

    Clearly, something other than incompetence is involved. Let’s try to understand what went wrong…

    Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in the way of safety? One point of view often expressed privately by those involved in design and construction is that it has bought nothing. A nuclear power plant is a very complex system, and adding to its complexity involves a risk in its own right. If there are more pipes, there are more ways to have pipe breaks, which are one of the most dangerous failures in reactors. With more complexity in electrical wiring, the chance for a short circuit or for an error in hook-ups increases, and there is less chance for such an error to be discovered. On the other hand, each new safety measure is aimed at reducing a particular safety shortcoming and undoubtedly does achieve that limited objective. It is difficult to determine whether or not reducing a particular safety problem improves safety more than the added complexity reduces safety.

    A more practical question is whether the escalation in regulatory requirements was necessary, justified, or cost-effective. The answer depends heavily on one’s definition of those words. The nuclear regulators of 1967 to 1973 were quite satisfied that plants completed and licensed at that time were adequately safe, and the great majority of knowledgeable scientists agreed with them. With the exception of improvements instigated by lessons learned in the Three Mile Island accident, which increased the cost by only a few percent, there were no new technical developments indicating that more expenditures for safety were needed. In fact, the more recent developments suggested the contrary (see Chapter 6). Perhaps the most significant result of safety research in the late 1970s was finding that the emergency core cooling system works better than expected and far better than indicated by the pessimistic estimates of nuclear power opponents. Another important result was finding that radioactive iodine and other elements in a water environment behave much more favorably than had been assumed…. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

  84. Torgeir Hansson says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm
    This Administration is working hard to solve the nation’s energy problems, and to do it in a responsible fashion.

    The only energy problems this administration is trying to “solve” are problems of their own making. The US has an over-abundance of coal, oil and natural gas that are not being tapped to their fullest potential. This is the “energy problem” of which you speak, one of the administration’s own making, and deliberately so.

  85. fredb says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Mr Lynn above says “Excellent rant”. How true and how sad — it is a rant. Why do we have to degenerate into rants? For just one example, the article states “Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built … ” Massive exaggeration. The legislation does not shut down utilities that use coal … existing ones can continue as per usual.

    Sorry Fred, he’s exactly right. I take it you don’t listen to NPR. If you exposed yourself to it for just 20-30 minutes a day you’d know he may actually be understating the case. That no new coal electric power plants will ever again be built in this country is a very clearly stated goal. That’s not surmise, that’s a direct quote. That existing coal generation will be regulated out of operation as swiftly as possible is not hyperbole. Again, that’s a quote.

  86. Michael D Smith says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    GE again. Quite possibly the worst company on the planet. The cause of, and solution to, virtually every major was-a-non-problem we face. The true face of the enemy within. It is sickening what has happened to this once great company, and what it is doing to this once great country.
    ________________________________
    And Obama named the GE CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, as his top Economic Adviser heading the “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness” Big American firms have cut around 3 million jobs over the last decade and GE is leading the pack. GE, under Immelt, GE has shipped tens of thousands of jobs out of the United States. And now GE has announced that it “is moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing”.

    The last GE factory in the U.S. making light bulbs closed September 2011. The new CFL light bulbs was supposed to create “green jobs” However CFLs, are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China. So much for Obama’s GREEN JOBS. The USA has lost 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2000.

  87. March 28, 2012 at 10:29 pmwikeroy says:
    March 28, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Curaba has a point. Just look here;

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html

    They are trying to enforce a global green governance. Controlled by the green morons, who just demand that “someone else” fix it.

    Basically it is the feminine brain demanding that the masculine brain fixes a 100% risk-free society.
    __________________________________
    I resemble that remark!

  88. Len says:
    March 28, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    How sad, a leftist, incompetent president supported by leftist,incompetent Democrats in the Senate and both propped up by a far left media are leading us down the road to destruction, all in the name of saving our environment….
    _________________________________________________
    That is another lie told by the media to keep the progressive/socialists from seeing what is actually happening. Obama is a Globalist and the economic mess in the USA and EU has been driven by the wishes of multi-national corporations from the start. National loyalty is not in their vocabulary. The want uniform laws and no pesky national borders that interfere with business. They see the USA and the EU as having labor costs that are way too high. Environmental regs are great for killing your competition when YOUR MEN are running the bureaucracies though. For example Obama appointed heads of the EPA and the USDA that have ties to Monsanto when the left was clamoring for the appointment of a much loved University Prof. (A whole long ramble on my take of what is actually happening with references in this comment.)

    Obama appointed Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase (Occupy Wall Street cough, cough) as White House Chief of Staff. In 1993, he served as Special Counsel to President Clinton on issues relating to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) WTO and the entry of China into the WTO. He was also Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce.

    Obama appointed Gene Sperling as Director of the National Economic Council. In Clinton’s admin. Sperling successfully negotiated and concluded the China-World Trade Organization agreement in Beijing. He was principal negotiator on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Act repealed the Glass-Stegall Act allowing banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge. Part of what cause the “TOO Big To Fail” Bank bailout.

    Obama appointed Lawrence H. Summers as Director of the National Economic Council (NEC) from 2009-2011. Summers was Chief Economist of the World Bank .

    Obama appointed CEO of GE Jeffrey Immelt to chair of his new Council on Competitiveness and Jobs.

    This article gives a glimpse into the mind set of global businesmen.

    CEOS SPEAK OUT ON WTO DOHA ROUND

    JEFF IMMELT , CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER , GENERAL
    ELECTRIC

    “The prize of a successful and ambitious Doha Round can still be won … (and) is well worth the intense effort it will take to conclude the talks … GE strongly supports that effort in the belief that the creation of substantial new business opportunities in a multilateral environment will translate into higher living standards across the globe”.

    CLAUDIO MURRI, CHAIR, AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
    “However difficult it may be, the WTO and the multilateral trading system must not be allowed
    to fail. We live in a global economy. A system of bi- and plurilateral agreements, although useful
    for some transactions, is no substitute for a sound, coherent international framework. Walking
    away from these WTO negotiations, which are the chance-of-a-generation to increase market
    access and set global trading rules, is not the legacy for which these negotiators should want to
    be remembered. It’s not too late, but it will take a stepping up of commitment, effort and political
    will.”

  89. RockyRoad says:
    March 29, 2012 at 6:02 am
    There’s always the serious contention that Obama isn’t and has never been a big fan of the Constitution, even though he’s supposedly a Constitutional Professor —

    Obie was an adjunct who taught a class on one aspect of Constitutional law. According to the U of C, it was school policy to refer to anyone teaching a class as “professor.”

    Name me just one thing the government has required that individuals must purchase in the past–just one. (And no, the requirement the infant government made on people go buy guns doesn’t count, for that applies to those in the militia.)

    Half-credit — a militiaman wasn’t *required* to purchase a firearm, merely to carry (and use) one in the common defense.

    Since the days of the Plymouth Colony, all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and (usually) 45 were required by law to be members of the militia. Since most families owned just a single firearm and having two or more “military-aged males” in a family wasn’t uncommon, the individual colonies established armories as a repository for state-purchased weapons and powder — in a muster, militiamen who didn’t own a personal weapon were required to report to the armory to receive a firearm and an individual issue of powder and ball. The militiaman was expected to maintain his weapon in good condition and he had the option to either return it to the armory after the emergency was over, or purchase it from the state at a reduced “fair wear” price.

    Naturally, each colony preferred that its militiamen own their firearms, because that reduced the expense involved in storing and maintaining weapons in the armories.

  90. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am

    …. nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems. (IMHO)
    _____________________________________
    The safer system is almost ready if we can manage to kick DOE and EPA in the rump. Energy Secretary Steve Chu has said he’s a big fan of small nuclear reactor technology… So he is half way there.

    …Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Argonne national laboratories are designing a self-contained nuclear reactor with tamper-resistant features. Called SSTAR (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor), this next-generation reactor will produce 10 to 100 megawatts electric and can be safely transported on ship or by a heavy-haul transport truck…. http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

    Frequently Asked Questions about Thorium: http://energyfromthorium.com/faq/
    Physics Forums.com Discussion: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=358038
    Thorium powered car (Concept) http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/the-thorium-laser-the-completely-plausible-idea-for-nuclear-cars

    HISTORY: http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html
    ….Meanwhile, research into a nuclear-powered airplane led to a stunning conceptual breakthrough in nuclear reactor design: a reactor whose fuel was entirely dissolved in chemically stable fluoride salts. First proposed by R.C. Briant of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1951, the liquid fluoride reactor was radically different from other reactors that relied on solid fuel. The liquid fluoride reactor had tremendous safety and performance advantages over solid-fueled reactors, as well as a remarkable versatility in potential fuels. A proof-of-concept fluoride reactor was built and operated in 1954 at Oak Ridge. It was called the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), and it demonstrated that fluoride reactors had the chemical and nuclear stability that Briant and his colleagues had predicted. After the success of the ARE, the fluoride reactor was baselined for the nuclear aircraft project, but the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles led to cancellation of the nuclear aircraft in 1960….

  91. @Bill Tuttle says: March 29, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    A state government can require you to buy something (as long as that requirement does not violate that state’s constitution, of course). The federal government, with enumerated and limited powers, cannot.

    This is why RomneyCare is legal and ObamaCare is not.

  92. “Basically it is the feminine brain demanding that the masculine brain fixes a 100% risk-free society.” –pmwikeroy says:

    “I resemble that remark!” –Gail Combs

    ROFLMAO! Best one-liner in a long time!

    Thanks for all the links, Gail, here and elsewhere; you’re an awesome one-woman research centre.

  93. @ fredb says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm
    ” Massive exaggeration. The legislation does not shut down utilities that use coal … existing ones can continue as per usual. ”

    FredB, you are basing your opinion on falsehoods, specifically the claim that existing plants can continue as usual. This behavior of yours is way worse than exaggeration. You are actually stating something that is the opposite of the truth.

    Many existing coal fired plants are going to be shut down in 2015 solely due to EPA regulation compliance overheads. These shutdown plans are publicly available right now on the very websites of the companies running these plants – all it takes is that you bother to look.

  94. HankH says:
    March 29, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Now that Lisa Jackson has delivered a death blow to the coal industry, she’s now off to Paris to take part in Agenda 21 planning.

    I think she may have delivered a death blow to the EPA’s foot.

  95. FactChecker says:
    March 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    @ fredb says:
    FredB…This behavior of yours is way worse than exaggeration. You are actually stating something that is the opposite of the truth.
    ———————————-

    It may just be that I’m misreading things, FactChecker, but could you be actually implying, or maybe even suggesting, that fredb, our fredb, is lying like cheap rug again? Naah, no way.

  96. u.k.(us) said, ” It must suck,being the 4th largest gun-maker,and having missed the biggest gun sales market ever ?,due to lack of workers. Talk about an upside-down economy.”
    I wouldn’t say they missed it. Just can’t quite keep up. Been good for their stock. A problem a lot of companies would love to have. So Smith & Wesson is moving now. Business should stay good right to and throughout the austerity measures that are coming eventually. This has been a very profitable trade.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RGR+Basic+Chart&t=my

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SWHC+Basic+Chart&t=my

  97. RockyRoad says:
    March 29, 2012 at 6:02 am

    even though he’s supposedly a Constitutional Professor

    He never was a “Professor”, of any grade. An assistant lecturer, part-time. And his only Constitutional expertise and involvement were in advising protest groups how to obtain “social justice” by harassing selected representatives of the evil banks that wanted only qualified borrowers, etc. As always, much less than and critically different from what meets the eye …

  98. “by harassing selected representatives of the evil banks”

    Are you implying, in a Limbaugh tone, that some banks are not evil? What does he have to do to convince everyone that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Big Banks? Since Obama lies all the time, why isn’t he lying when he says he’s for the people, not the corporations giving him money?

    I always wanted to ask Rush Limbaugh that last one, and watch his head explode like the robot “NOMAD” in the old Star Trek show. “Does not compute! Does not compute!! [smoke, sparks]“

  99. Ed Mertin says:
    March 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    ==============
    Time to bet (hedge), they have seen their peaks ??
    Or make an easier pick in another sector.

  100. To u.k.(us) , wish I had a crystal ball to be able to say. Smith & Wesson is improving earnings. Guns were never a problem, it was the self defense side of the business, which may soon be sold to concentrate on manufacturing guns. Never liked chasing a stock, especially with the tendencies to sell in May and go away for a while. They were an easy pick last fall. But for now there seems to be a lot of folks taking the opportunities to buy on any dip.
    This continues to be one of the most impressive bull runs I have ever seen. The large gains generated over such a long stretch of time without a real pullback is simply incredible.

    The market needs a new catalyst to make a break higher or lower.

    • It will be higher if economic news and corporate earnings keep showing growth.

    • It will be lower if the above falters or headlines about Europe, China or Iran stoke a flight to safety trade.

    I have been doing some trimming of other things and am ready and willing to go bearish if that’s in the cards. I’m watching Olin (OLN) looking to build a position.

    I can definitely tell you to stay away from this sector.

    TAN Technical Analysis | Guggenheim Solar ETF Stock – Yahoo! Finance

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=TAN+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=5y

  101. Regarding responses to my “Ken McMurtrie says: March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am”
    I have reblogged this WUWT post because it supports the continuation of “fossil” fuel combustion, it shows that to do otherwise, at this stage, means certain ruination of the US economy (actually cement the ruination, might be more accurate), and of any other country implementing the green agenda.
    I am agreeing with Alan Caruba, that “The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.”
    My added opinions that alternative energy sources did not deserve certain criticisms, and that support for nuclear power generation does deserve some criticism, were met with interesting and emotive reactions. I suggest that the reactions are a bit OTT.

    richardscourtney says: (March 29, 2012 at 4:26 am )
    “Ken McMurtrie:
    I gasped in astonishment at the gall you display in your post at March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am. In case there are any readers who may have been misled by it, I provide this rebuttal. ” and so on.

    Geez!. I only said that wind power generators looked good to me and HV distribution towers were an eyesore. Part-time ‘free source’ energy was useful and reduction of “fossil” fuel use was worthwhile. Solar energy might be much more efficient in the future. All related to the possible future need to supplement or perhaps eventually replace coal and gas energy sources. So, Richard, it costs more. That is the sole reason for criticising wind and solar energy generation. Please leave me in peace with my enjoyment of these worthwhile power sources. I run a “second home” facility in the bush isolated from the grid and I love it.

    That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion. It is my opinion that they make nuclear power generation undesirable. Am I not permitted to publish my opinion?

    harrywr2 says:
    (re Ken McMurtrie)
    “nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems.
    AP1000 Document -

    http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/AP1000_Plant_Description.pdf

    Predicted core damage frequency of 2.4E-07/yr is well below the 1E-05/yr requirement, and
    frequency of significant release of 1.95E-08/yr is well below the 1E-06/yr requirement.
    Is 100 times safer ‘good enough’?”
    Maybe we should ask the Chernobyl and Fukushima victims, past, present and future, their definition of safety.

    Gail Combs says: (March 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm)
    “The safer system is almost ready if we can manage to kick DOE and EPA in the rump. Energy Secretary Steve Chu has said he’s a big fan of small nuclear reactor technology… So he is half way there. ” and so on.
    Thanks Gail, for something sensible and constructive! I hope everyone reads that.

  102. Every time I hear “common sense” these days it tends to prove what an oxymoron that is.

  103. When are some people commenting here going to get it?

    Nobody is out to ruin anybody else. Nobody is out to destroy the country. Nobody is out to perpetrate a nefarious plot to ruin the economy and turn us into troglodytes in the service of a world government. Absolutely nobody.

    If you really believe this stuff, I can only recommend that you take your meds.

    Again, as a liberal I am already a climate change skeptic, as I consider warmist arguments hysterical and unfounded. When someone begins his or her discourse by calling an opponent a socialist liar, I just have to stop reading, for the same reason.

  104. Ken McMurtrie:

    Your post at March 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm is even more disingenuous than your original post..

    My rebuttal (at March 29, 2012 at 4:26 am) of your first post (at at March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am) was NOT “emotive” as you assert. Your post made assertions, and my post explained why those statements are wrong. Facts are devoid of emotion.

    This thread is about the EPA regulating against use of coal-fired power stations which supply the US electricity grid. I assumed your original post was talking about that, and I addressed why your claims about ‘wind and solar’ are plain wrong for that purpose. Indeed, your original post said it was about your desire to “reduce the use of fossil fuels”. But you now say you it was not about that but you were talking about your experience of living in a “second home” which is isolated from a grid in “the bush”.

    It is unreasonable for you to claim I made a mistake by assuming you were writing about what you said you were. The errors are
    (a) your claim to have been talking about reducing the use of fossil fuels,
    (b) your failure to mention that you were talking about your holidays living as a hermit, and
    (c) your failure to mention that you were not considering the subject of this thread.

    And you lie when you assert that I said wind and solar “costs more” is “the sole reason” for rejecting them. In fact anybody can read my post which says;
    “And there is no reason – none, zilch, nada – to adopt “solar and wind power” as a method to reduce the use of fossil fuels: in fact there are many good reasons not to adopt them (most notably their high cost because of their intermittency).

    “Many good reasons” are NOT a “sole reason”.

    Your request that I “leave [you] in peace with [your] enjoyment of these worthwhile power sources” is an offensive falsehood. You were the one supporting the EPA ruling to reduce the use of coal-fired power generation, and I pointed out the errors of your suggestion that there is “nothing wrong” with ‘wind and solar’ as replacements. I made no suggestion of any kind that you should be deprived of anything in response to your claim that Americans should be deprived of cheap and reliable grid-supplied electricity.

    And you wrote;
    “nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems (IMHO).”

    I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants. I concluded by asking you;
    “How much safer do you want nuclear power stations to be, and why?”

    Your response to my question says;
    “That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion.”

    Contrary to your assertion, I did NOT suggest those dangers “do not exist”. Everything has “dangers” (getting out of bed risks injury from falling). Your unfounded assertion that I made such a suggestion is merely an evasion of my question.

    And you are extremely offensive when you write;
    “It is my opinion that they make nuclear power generation undesirable. Am I not permitted to publish my opinion?”

    YES, you are entitled to publish your opinion, and I take umbrage at your suggestion that I implied otherwise. Importantly, anybody – including me – is entitled to explain why your “opinions” are disingenuous bunkum.

    Richard

  105. More Soylent Green! says:
    March 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    @Bill Tuttle says: March 29, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    A state government can require you to buy something (as long as that requirement does not violate that state’s constitution, of course). The federal government, with enumerated and limited powers, cannot.

    Absolutely correct. And even in the example of the colonial and post-Revolutionary militia, the individual colonies (and later, the individual states) did *not* require a militiaman to own his own long gun. They encouraged and facilitated individual ownership, but didn’t make ownership mandatory for the simple reason that not everyone subject to callup either had one as a family heirloom or could afford to purchase one outright.

  106. Torgeir Hansson says:
    March 29, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    When are some people commenting here going to get it?
    Nobody is out to ruin anybody else. Nobody is out to destroy the country. Nobody is out to perpetrate a nefarious plot to ruin the economy…

    You haven’t been paying attention over the last three years.

    Again, as a liberal I am already a climate change skeptic, as I consider warmist arguments hysterical and unfounded. When someone begins his or her discourse by calling an opponent a socialist liar, I just have to stop reading, for the same reason.

    Unwarranted namecalling is always suspect. However, when a politician repeatedly talks about “social justice” and wealth redistribution (i.e., giving someone a “bigger share of the pie”), that’s grounds for saying he’s a socialist (because those are socialist talking points), and when that politician is also noted for most of his statements being out-and-out lies, you’re justified in calling him a liar.

    Let’s say that you stopped at a market an purchased a dozen oranges. On the way out, your local mayor stopped you, declared that it was unfair that you had a dozen oranges while his two friends had none, and that (in the name of justice, of course) he would take six of your oranges to give to his two friends — then he removed eight oranges from your bag, gave four to each of his friends, then said, “Oh, wait — I said I would only give three to each of them,” whereupon his two friends each handed one orange back to the mayor.

    The mayor’s friends then walk off, the mayor thanks you for helping to fundamentally re-make the village into a more “just” place to live, and then turns to ambush the next customer leaving the market.

    I guarantee that “socialist liar” would be the mildest epithet you’d call him…

  107. Bill Tuttle says:
    March 30, 2012 at 4:16 am

    . . . The mayor’s friends then walk off, the mayor thanks you for helping to fundamentally re-make the village into a more “just” place to live, and then turns to ambush the next customer leaving the market.

    I guarantee that “socialist liar” would be the mildest epithet you’d call him…

    +1

    Thanks, Bill.

    /Mr Lynn

  108. Cameco sees restart of some Japan reactors soon | Business | The Guardian

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10164586

    * Just one of 54 reactors online in Japan, restart plan unclear
    * Cameco says Japanese utilities not selling excess uranium
    * Japanese partners still committed to mine development
    * Sees some reactors restarting in near future
    * Cameco eyeing “near-production” takeover targets in U.S. (Adds details)

    … Japan’s final operating reactor is scheduled to shut down in May and the timeline for restarts remains unclear. Stress test results are currently being reviewed by the country’s nuclear regulator; then the government will need to green-light restarts based on public and political support. Despite the lingering uncertainty, Cameco sees strong uranium growth going forward as China, India, Russia and Korea push ahead with aggressive nuclear build-outs.

    For its part, China should have some 40 reactors online by 2015 and another 20 or 30 in operation by 2020, said Gitzel.

    “We see the long term fundamentals of the business as very strong,” he said. “We see 96 net new reactors by 2021. That’s the best growth we’ve seen in the business since the 1970s.”

    U.S. POWER With 104 reactors, the United States is the largest consumer of uranium in the world and Cameco is the top uranium producer in the country, producing some 2.2 million pounds in 2011 from its mines in Wyoming and Nebraska. “We’re in a good space down in the United States and we think it’s an important place for us to be,” said Gitzel. “Our estimate for the U.S. is four to six new reactors by 2020.” …

  109. @ Richard.
    Things I have said:
    “I have reblogged this WUWT post because it supports the continuation of “fossil” fuel combustion, it shows that to do otherwise, at this stage, means certain ruination of the US economy (actually cement the ruination, might be more accurate), and of any other country implementing the green agenda.”
    “That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion.”
    “My added opinions that alternative energy sources did not deserve certain criticisms, and that support for nuclear power generation does deserve some criticism, were met with interesting and emotive reactions. I suggest that the reactions are a bit OTT.”

    Things you have said:
    “I gasped in astonishment at the gall you display in your post at March 29, 2012 …”
    “Your post at March 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm is even more disingenuous ”
    “your “opinions” are disingenuous bunkum”
    [Are these not emotive?]
    ” You were the one supporting the EPA ruling to reduce the use of coal-fired power generation”
    [Incorrect!, this is precisely the opposite of the truth. (see above)]
    “I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants.”
    [Now, who is being disingenuous? Not many people are likely to agree with you that the Fukushima incident demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations]

    Conclusion: This debate between you and I, is non-productive and, in many ways, illogical.
    I bid you Adieu! :-)

  110. http://www.mining.com/2012/02/14/why-not-thorium/#disqus_thread

    … There are at least seven types of reactors that can use thorium as a nuclear fuel, five of which have entered into operation at some point. Several were abandoned not for technical reasons but because of a lack of interest or research funding (blame the Cold War again). So proven designs for thorium-based reactors exist and need but for some support.

    Well, maybe quite a bit of support. One of the biggest challenges in developing a thorium reactor is finding a way to fabricate the fuel economically. Making thorium dioxide is expensive, in part because its melting point is the highest of all oxides, at 3,300° C. The options for generating the barrage of neutrons needed to kick-start the reaction regularly come down to uranium or plutonium, bringing at least part of the problem full circle.

    And while India is certainly working on thorium, not all of its eggs are in that basket. India has 20 uranium-based nuclear reactors producing 4,385 MW of electricity already in operation and has another six under construction, 17 planned, and 40 proposed. The country gets props for its interest in thorium as a homegrown energy solution, but the majority of its nuclear money is still going toward traditional uranium. China is in exactly the same situation – while it promotes its efforts in the LFTR race, its big bucks are behind uranium reactors. China has only 15 reactors in operation but has 26 under construction, 51 planned, and 120 proposed.

    The Bottom Line

    Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world’s thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.

    To top it all off, thorium would also be the ideal solution for allowing countries like Iran or North Korea to have nuclear power without worrying whether their nuclear programs are a cover for developing weapons… a worry with which we are all too familiar at present.

    So, should we run out and invest in thorium? Unfortunately, no. For one, there are very few investment vehicles. Most thorium research and development is conducted by national research groups. There is one publicly traded company working to develop thorium-based fuels, called Lightbridge Corp. (Nasdaq: LTBR). Lightbridge has the advantage of being a first mover in the area, but on the flip side the scarcity of competitors is a good sign that it’s simply too early.

    Had it not been for mankind’s seemingly insatiable desire to fight, thorium would have been the world’s nuclear fuel of choice. Unfortunately, the Cold War pushed nuclear research toward uranium; and the momentum gained in those years has kept uranium far ahead of its lighter, more controllable, more abundant brother to date. History is replete with examples of an inferior technology beating out a superior competitor for market share, whether because of marketing or geopolitics, and once that stage is set it is near impossible for the runner-up to make a comeback. Remember Beta VCRs, anyone? On a technical front they beat VHS hands down, but VHS’s marketing machine won the race and Beta slid into oblivion. Thorium reactors aren’t quite the Beta VCRs of the nuclear world, but the challenge they face is pretty similar: it’s damn hard to unseat the reigning champ…

    Current global uranium demand is about 180 million pounds a year, with mine output accounting for about 140 million pounds of that. The remainder comes from stockpiles and downgraded or decommissioned weapons-grade uranium.

  111. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm
    @ Richard.
    “I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants.”
    [Now, who is being disingenuous? Not many people are likely to agree with you that the Fukushima incident demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations]

    The installation withstood an earthquake greater than the specifications called for, but the tsunami took out the backup generators — the walls were designed to protect the installation against a tsunami 6 meters high, but the water peaked at twice that height.

    If you design your protections against reasonably-predicted threats, you can consider yourself reasonably safe. But you can never protect *anything* with 100% surety — to think otherwise is unrealistic.

  112. @ Bill Tuttle,
    I have said goodbye to Richard but am moved to respond further, to yourself.

    Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
    How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far.

    To use this as an example of safety boggles my mind completely.
    I agree that safety is relative, and nothing can be 100% safe. But to describe something catastrophically lethal that has actually occurred, in Richard’s words, as “a demonstration of safety”, sorry Bill, I have to disagree strongly with this aspect of your support of Richard.

    Sure, one can design a system having a degree of safety considered to be acceptable to the designer, the operator and the authorities. That is the way of of our world.
    BUT, if it does fail, as happened in this case, no matter what the reason, it cannot be logically argued that it was safe. Failure does not equate to safe!
    Nor can any future possibility of failure, that exists in the case of existing and future nuclear plants, be regarded as safe, only relatively safe.
    Maybe worth the risk, maybe not. The relativity (is it worth the risk?), of the safety level is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder happens to die or be maimed by radiation poisoning, they would understandably have a different viewpoint.

  113. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
    ….Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
    How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far…..
    _________________________________________

    But Ken, that is not what happen. The Fukushima incident DOES demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations. The station was old and it STILL withstood a natural catastrophe it was not designed to withstand. If it had the correct backup power system there would have been no real problem. The key issue is NO ONE DIED of RADIATION!

    However anyone with half a brain would rather move to Thorium. (I can see a nuclear plant cooling tower out my window BTW)

    ….The US built a reactor cooled by molten salt in the sixties. The project was headed by Alvin Weinberg, the father of the light-water uranium reactor. They ran it everyday for four years turning it off every night by turning off the fan on the freeze-plug. The salt in the pipe melted and the fuel emptied into a drain tank whose geometry did not support continued fission. In the morning they would turn on the fan and pump the fuel back into the reactor. But Dr. Weinberg ran afoul of the Atomic Energy Commission for claiming that molten-salt reactors were inherently safer than light water reactors. They asked him to leave and the project was shut down. Mixed in the discussion was the fact that they had determined that thorium was not very good for making nuclear bombs and the military favored 235U and 238U for its plutonium byproduct potential. When the cold war ended, no one reintroduced the issue of what the best approach to energy production should be.

    Reactor design has a lot of do with efficiency and safety. By using molten salt (thorium fluoride) you avoid a lot of traditional problems. If you have a spill, the fuel cools and turns solid; no ground water contamination. With the fuel in liquid you can recycle it continually; 100% utilization versus 1% with solid fuels. With no water and hydrogen in the reactor there is no chance of explosion; no need for an expensive, high-pressure containment facility. This allows for standard, manufacture-able designs with systematic quality control. Unlike today’s 104 plants, with 104 safety interpretations. And today’s nuclear waste can also be used and consumed with the waste half-life lowered to thorium proportions. A Thorium fluoride molten salt reactor provides passive safety features, like the freeze plug, that automatically move the reactor to a safer state during disasters without manual intervention…. http://www.greeneforoffice.org/thorium.html

  114. Ken McMurtrie:

    re your post at March 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm, I agree that our ‘conversation’ should end.

    Your disingenuous nonsense has hindered rational discussion, and I ask everybody to read our exchanges, then to judge for themselves my proofs of your lies, self-contradictions and misquotations of me.

    Please provide some evidence and/or logic in any future exchanges.

    Richard

  115. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
    @ Bill Tuttle,
    Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
    How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far.

    We weren’t discussing nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination — the sole point of discussion was what happened at Fukushima. As Gail pointed out above, the building survived what it was designed to survive.

    I agree that safety is relative, and nothing can be 100% safe. But to describe something catastrophically lethal that has actually occurred, in Richard’s words, as “a demonstration of safety”, sorry Bill, I have to disagree strongly with this aspect of your support of Richard…But if it does fail, as happened in this case, no matter what the reason, it cannot be logically argued that it was safe. Failure does not equate to safe!

    Then why are you still living in a house? I imagine you consider it safe, but if it were hit with a good-sized meteorite, it would suffer a catastrophic loss of structural integrity (iow, it would disintegrate — violently). However, being hit with a meteorite is a remote circumstance, so your house is, for all practical purposes, safe. Fukushima got hit with a freak tsunami — which was a remote circumstance — but it did *not* fail due to the earthquake.

    Nor can any future possibility of failure, that exists in the case of existing and future nuclear plants, be regarded as safe, only relatively safe.

    As is your house only relatively safe. Are you going to flee it within the next few minutes because of that?

    Maybe worth the risk, maybe not. The relativity (is it worth the risk?), of the safety level is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder happens to die or be maimed by radiation poisoning, they would understandably have a different viewpoint.

    And you would have a different opinion of houses, if one you were living in were hit by a bolide. Your only point seems to be that you insist on a nuke plant structured to be 100% certain-sure safe before you’ll accept it — which is illogical, since you already admitted that everything else in life is a calculated risk.

  116. @ Richard and Bill,
    I cannot believe what I am reading here. This is absurd.
    Richard’s “Your disingenuous nonsense has hindered rational discussion, and I ask everybody to read our exchanges, then to judge for themselves my proofs of your lies, self-contradictions and misquotations of me.”
    Readers, if this is of any interest to you, please comment on this. I would appreciate a second opinion.

    Bill, you don’t seem to have a clue what I am talking about.
    Like Richard, I would appeal to other readers to perhaps comment if interested.

    There is no reason why Anthony would wish to be hosting this personal debate, especially as it is so ridiculous. Maybe it amuses him. Anyway, thanks Anthony for providing the vehicle. Maybe it emtertains your readers.

  117. Bill Tuttle:

    It really is not worth the effort.

    There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

    Richard

  118. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:07 am
    Bill, you don’t seem to have a clue what I am talking about.

    Ah, but I do — you’re scared to death of nuke plants. Period.

    richardscourtney says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:58 am
    Bill Tuttle:
    It really is not worth the effort.

    True, but it’s more fun than watching the flight simulator run its self-diagnostics — which is otherwise what I’d be doing…

  119. @ Gail,
    Sorry, Gail, you disappoint me.
    On the one hand you do seem to have some concept of what the meaning of the word ‘safety’. Your previous comment on the safer types of NPP’s shows that.
    Even in your most recent comment you say “However anyone with half a brain would rather move to Thorium.”, indicates an acceptance of safety issues that exist and need to be taken into account.

    However, your response to my comment
    ” How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far…..
    Was –
    “But Ken, that is not what happen. The Fukushima incident DOES demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations. The station was old and it STILL withstood a natural catastrophe it was not designed to withstand. If it had the correct backup power system there would have been no real problem.”

    Sorry Gail, but that IS what did happen. Catastrophic failure with major radiation emissions into the atmosphere, ocean and ground. Regardless of why they failed, 4 nuclear reactor installations FAILED! Categorically and catastrophically! Actual reactor and stored fuel rod meltdowns. Haven’t you seen the photos and the radiation reports? There was no ‘withstanding’. Ifs and/or buts are irrelevant, unequivocal failure happened!
    Please don’t insult my intelligence by insisting that this represents a demonstration of a “safe” power plant. Only a nuclear bomb explosion could be worse than what has happened at the Fukushima Diachi NPP’s.

  120. Ken McMurtrie says:
    March 31, 2012 at 6:42 am

    @ Gail,
    Sorry, Gail, you disappoint me….
    _________________________________
    Ken, I do not get my news from sources like the Huffington Post who sell papers by over playing incidents. Panic Sells! Heck my husband’s family owns a newspaper and THEY told me never believe what they print unless it is a sports score.

    I got my “news” from the World Nuclear Organization and from a guy here on WUWT who lives near the reactor. Since I live within 10 miles of a nuclear plant and I grew up in the 1950 and 60′s with the threat of nuclear war hanging over my head, I am frankly relieved at the news from Fukushima. NO ONE WAS KILLED and only three people got a slight over dose but not enough for radiation sickness. On top of that the people can return to their homes soon. Measures were in place to handle the problems despite the massive damage to Japan.

    I am a chemist and worked in not one but THREE companies where we had vessels blow and take out people and walls. That does not include two other companies where an extruder blew and a processing line caught on fire. Therefore I may have a bit of a different outlook then you. Heck, I used to take a horse over 6 foot fences, rock climb, pit cave and I still train horses even though I am in my sixties.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html

    (updated 29 March 2012)
    KEY POINTS:

    * Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011.

    * All three cores largely melted in the first three days.

    * The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases in the first few days. Four reactors are written off – 2719 MWe net.

    * After two weeks the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition but no proper heat sink for removal of decay heat from fuel. By July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Reactor temperatures had fallen to below 80C at the end of October, and official ‘cold shutdown condition’ was announced in mid December.

    * Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task is to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units.

    * There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident.

    Japan moved a few metres east and the local coastline subsided half a metre. The tsunami inundated about 560 sq km and resulted in a human death toll of over 20,000 and much damage to coastal ports and towns.

    Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the quake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake….
    The main problem initially centred on Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3. Unit 4 became a problem on day five.

    The reactors proved robust seismically, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or backup generators, was available to run the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at eight of the eleven units, and despite some problems they achieved ‘cold shutdown’ within about four days….

    Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident….
    …The AC electricity supply from external source was connected to all units by 22 March. Power was restored to instrumentation in all units except unit 3 by 25 March.
    However, radiation levels inside the plant were so high that normal access was impossible until June.

    …By the evening of Saturday 12 March the evacuation zone had been extended to 20 km from the plant. Since then, evacuated residents have been allowed to return home for brief visits. The government is undertaking detailed radiation monitoring in the evacuation area to ensure the safety of those returning. Permanent return of most evacuees is envisaged early in 2012. From 20 to 30 km from the plant, the criterion of 20 mSv/yr dose rate was applied to determine evacuation…..

    France’s Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety (IRSN) estimated that maximum external doses to people living around the plant were unlikely to exceed 30 mSv/yr in the first year. This was based on airborne measurements between 30 March and 4 April, and appears to be confirmed by the above figures. It compares with natural background levels mostly 2-3 mSv/yr, but ranging up to 50 mSv/yr elswhere….

    Summary: Six workers have received radiation doses apparently over the 250 mSv level set by NISA, but at levels below those which would cause radiation sickness. There have been no harmful effects from radiation on local people, nor any doses approaching harmful levels….

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html

  121. Gail Combs:

    I agree all you say in your post at March 31, 2012 at 8:53 am.

    However, with respect, that post will have no effect because it details demonstrable facts. And facts do not assuage irrational fears; e.g. a person who knows a mouse cannot harm a human may scream at the sight of a mouse.

    A set of irrational fears becomes a belief. And belief trumps facts. Indeed, this is why we have such difficulty discussing energy issues with ‘greens’: we state facts and they trumpet their beliefs based on irrational fears.

    Richard

  122. Ed Mertin:

    Your posts at March 30, 2012 at 9:26 am at March 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm are very good.

    Unfortunately, the thread has been hijacked so people may have missed them.

    I commend everybody to read them, especially the latter one.

    Richard

  123. @ Gail et al,
    So you would believe a press release from the nuclear industry as an impartial, accurate and complete source for coverage of a nuclear accident.
    Wouldn’t that be somewhat akin to believing the IPCC reports?

    At least I can now understand my failure to gain credibility here.
    I must in future not assume that wuwt commentors are aware of the world around them, just because they recognize the AGW scam.

    Some internet sites that might just be a bit more informative:

    http://ex-skf.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/australia-is-ideal-for-contaminated.html

    http://fukushima-diary.com/

    http://rt.com/trends/fukushima-nuclear-disaster/?gclid=CLO3n7Gwy6wCFaiJ4godaiHsqg

    http://tgrule.com/2012/03/29/8050/

    Thank you for your patience.
    (And thanks Anthony, for accepting and putting up with my “disingenuous bunkum”)

  124. At least I can now understand my failure to gain credibility here.

    You mean your failure to gain converts. Citing websites that proclaim things like “the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Thousands lost their lives but the question is: if it all happened again, would things turn out any differently?” doesn’t help your argument.

  125. @ Bill Tuttle:
    I fail to see where “converts” enters into the conversation.
    My aim is to arrive at truths. Who does or doesn’t believe them is of little importance, as far as blogging is involved.
    It is, of course, useful if the decision-makers understand and act on facts rather than fiction, unknowns or speculation. In real life, that unfortunately does not happen often enough.

  126. Maurice Garoutte says:March 29, 2012 at 2:02 am

    “The EPA is not stupid. The POTUS is not stupid. They are intelligent people at the top of their field.

    I noticed long ago that when intelligent people were advocating seemingly stupid positions they were just running some hidden agenda. As long as we keep assuming that the EPA is stupid we will never disclose and discredit their actual agenda.”

    Maurice makes a VERY important point here.

    I have spent a lot of my life working in developing countries. In the early years I could not believe the stupidity, impracticality and incompetence of various authorities I had to deal with. Then eventually it dawned on me that they were far smarter than me, and every obstacle, every stumble, every misinterpretation was designed to make someone richer or more powerful. These people have been doing this forever and they are brilliant at it.

    And this opened my eyes to the weird decisions and bureaucratic incompetence I see in my own country: and I’m now sure there is a lot more corruption going on in the so called developed world (in dollar terms) than there is in the developing world. Most of us just don’t recognise it when we see it, because we don’t expect it.

  127. Well put Markx.
    “And this opened my eyes to the weird decisions and bureaucratic incompetence I see in my own country: and I’m now sure there is a lot more corruption going on in the so called developed world (in dollar terms) than there is in the developing world. Most of us just don’t recognise it when we see it, because we don’t expect it.”
    Especially the last line.

Comments are closed.