Monckton's Mexican Missive #4

Mercury rising

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Cancun, Mexico

I am in the plenary session hall at the Moon Palace, where diligent readers of this humble blog will recall that Ms. Figurehead, the president of the UN climate conference here in Cancun, opened these quaint proceedings last week with a prayer to the Moon Goddess of the ancient dwellers in what is now Mexico.

The vast, characterless session hall is known – appropriately enough – as the Cenote hall. Those familiar with the Spanish dialects of the New World will recognize the appropriateness of this designation. For a cenote is a sinkhole. Cenotes are widespread in the Mexican jungle, beneath great limestone caps. They were regarded as sacred by the “first nations”, as the indigenous peoples are now coyly called, and archaeologists have had much fun diving beneath the waters in the cenotes to recover all manner of pre-Columbian artefacts and assorted archaeological knick-knacks.

It is in the Sinkhole Hall that the President of Mexico, Señor Felipe Calderon, has just announced to admiring gasps from 1000 gaping enviro-zombs that he is to launch a Grand Initiative To Smash Global Warming And Make It Go Away, So There. And what, you may ask with a trembling frisson of salivating anticipation, was the President’s Grand Initiative?

Wait for it … wait for it!

OK, I’ll tell you. El Presidente is – tell it not in Gash and Ashkelon – going to ban the use of proper light-bulbs throughout Mexico. Ban light-bulbs. Throughout Mexico. Really and truly. I kid you not. Gee wow golly gosh.

As I sat and listened to the President, who talks even faster than me, I wondered if there was anything else new in his speech. Most of it sounded not just old but stale – a kooky cookie of a speech, long past its sell-by date.

The worstest ever problem the world has ever faced. Heard that before somewhere. Rising temperature. Natch: yet Cancun this morning was so cold, at 54 Fahrenheit, that it set a new 100-year record low for this day of this month (but don’t expect to read about this in any of the mainstream media: it’s Off Message). Rising sea levels. Pull the other one, Excellencia: it’s got bells on. Melting glaciers. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Need for international co-operation, courage, vision, yada yada. Gimme the cash: huge amounts of money from Western nations in reparation for their “climate debt” to developing nations like – er – Mexico. And so, tediously, ramblingly, near-hysterically on.

[Note: see also the new record low for Cancun in December here. – Anthony]

I turned to the rather spectacular young lady on my left, from the Eco-Village Movement (83,000 self-sustaining villages and urban communities in 100 countries), and asked whether the President had said something interesting that my indifferent comprehension of Mexican Spanish had failed to catch. No, she said, with a shapely sigh. She rather wondered why she had come.

There was a question-and-answer session: the only moment in the entire two-week beano when us ordinary citizens were allowed a voice. I was called to speak, but could not because my microphone had somehow been disconnected. Funny, that. So I passed the opportunity to a Singaporean gentleman who, it turns out, has made a fortune peddling a fuel additive which, he told me enthusiastically, improved average gas mileage by 10-35%. The Duke of Wellington would have said, “Sir, if you will believe that, you will believe anything.”

To pass the time – policemen with guns were not allowing anyone to leave while the President was in the room – I decided to calculate just how much “global warming” his Grand Initiative would forestall. I have recently been preparing a learned paper for the Econometrics Journal on the so-far-unaddressed but surely not-unimportant question of how to determine the amount of “global warming” that might actually be prevented by any proposed strategy to mitigate future “global warming” by taxing or regulating carbon dioxide emissions, or by adopting alternative technologies. So all the relevant equations were to hand.

Here goes, then. Electricity accounts for 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Mexico accounts for 1% of world electricity consumption. Light-bulbs use at most 3% of that electricity. Mercury-vapor fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption per candela by – at the very most – 33% compared with incandescent bulbs that one can actually read by. So, once the President’s Initiativo Grande has been put into full effect throughout Mexico, world carbon emissions will have fallen by 40% of 1% of 3% of 33%, or a dizzying 0.004%.

So far, so good. We shall generously assume that 0.004% of the entire manmade greenhouse-gas contribution since 1750 will be forestalled by the Grand Initiative. Now for the equation. The amount of CO2 concentration forestalled by, say, 2100, is in the present instance, 0.004% of the difference between the CO2 concentration predicted for that year, 836 parts per million by volume on the IPCC’s A2 emissions scenario, and the CO2 concentration of 278 ppmv which the IPCC thinks was present in 1750.

So we’re looking at 0.00004(836-278), or 0.0223 ppmv. Not a lot, really.

Now we calculate the “global warming” that will be forestalled by reducing carbon emissions by this amount. For this we need another equation: 88% of 5.35 times the natural logarithm of [836 / (836 – 0.0223)]. And the answer? A little over 0.0001 Celsius, or around one five-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much if the IPCC’s exaggerated estimate of future warming is correct. If not, make that well below one ten-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree. Either way, extravagantly pointless.

In the UK, the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri department has already enthusiastically banned real light-bulbs in favor of the flickering, mercury-filled alternatives which – if the appropriate EU “Directive” is followed – require a specialist cleanup team at a cost of $3000 every time one of the wretched things gets smashed.

On my recent visit to the Department, formerly the down-to-earth Ministry of Agriculture and now the up-in-the-air Ministry of Fantastical Nonsense, I asked its chief number-cruncher whether he could show me his calculations demonstrating how much “global warming” the $1.2 trillion that the Ministry of Madness plans to spend over the next 40 years will forestall.

He harrumphed that he had done no such calculation, so I asked: “In that case, Professor, on what rational basis is any of this expenditure being made or proposed?” Red-faced with embarrassment, he couldn’t answer that one either. Neither can I, for only a fool hunts a reason for the doings of fools.

However, with my econometric equations I can now work out how much “global warming” the Ministry of Pointless Extravagance will forestall with its – well, with its pointless extravagance. We begin with two very generous assumptions: first, that the IPCC’s estimates of how much “global warming” CO2 causes are not absurd exaggerations; secondly, that the Ministry of Misplaced Munificence has not flagrantly underestimated the cost of shutting down 80% of the British carbon economy by 2050.

Once again, then, hold on to your sombreros, amigos. Using the same analysis as before, there will be 506 ppmv CO2 by 2050, or just 5 ppmv less if the Ministry of Mumbo-Jumbo gets its way. “Global warming” forestalled will be just 0.03 Celsius, or around a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And the cost per Celsius degree of warming prevented? A mere $34 trillion, or seven years’ total worldwide gross domestic product.

And that is why, Mr. President, one is less than impressed by your Grand Initiative. Don’t you think it strange, gentle reader, that after 22 years of The Process the very first serious calculations indicating just how spectacularly, gloriously futile is every proposed strategy for curbing carbon emissions are those that will appear in my forthcoming paper? No one, as best I can discover, has ever attempted to do this essential math before. Why on Earth not? Because, of course, the climate extremists know perfectly well what the answer will be.

Must stop now: time to pray to the Moon Goddess. At least the moon is brighter than those miserable new light-bulbs.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pull My Finger
December 10, 2010 5:56 am

Hopefully the US will repeal the ban on real light bulbs with Republican gaining more power. I was not anti-CFL by any means, seemed easy and reasonable, however the damn things, advertised to last 5 years, barely make it 1 if I’m lucky. And replacing a $6 bulb isn’t quite as inconsquental as replacing a 50 c bulb or whatever incandescents cost, they cost so little I never really noticed. Hopefully LEDs will prove more effective and efficient than the awful CFLs. Oh did I mention CFLs are useless for about 3 or 4 minutes after they are turned on, and require hazmat, and don’t work with dimmers, and don’t work with a large number of lamp shades, and dont fit in a large number of domed ceiling fixtures?

latitude
December 10, 2010 6:06 am

You would think that Calderon would be more worried about people being beheaded….

KT
December 10, 2010 6:13 am

Thank you, Lord Monckton, for an enjoyable read. I needed the laugh.

krugwaffle
December 10, 2010 6:14 am

Careful, careful there Lord Monckton. If they’re close enough to unplug your microphone, they’re close enough to slit your throat. The closer we get to the downfall of their enterprise, the more desperate they become. We need you with us for the long haul so watch yourself while you’re down there in the sinkhole.

JDN
December 10, 2010 6:14 am

You’re ire against the idiotic banning of incandescents is fine, but, your condemnation of compact fluorescents is completely off base. I write to you from under the virtual sunlight from high colour temperature compact fluorescents, an effect not achievable with incandescents. See: http://www.1000bulbs.com/product/6052/FC65-S65.html for my choice in bulb.
Can you perhaps run the numbers if Calderon had banned jet airplanes from landing in Mexico? That would be so much more effective at reducing the Mexican CO2 footprint. Or are we attributing Mexican tourism to the originating “bad” first world countries?

Vince Causey
December 10, 2010 6:15 am

Another excellent riposte from our favourite peer. Who will wager, which country will be the first to be destroyed by government mandate? The UK is looking favourite in that particular competition, although Spain and Germany are strong contenders. A year ago the US would have been a contender, but sadly, the American people no longer want to play.

roger
December 10, 2010 6:23 am

“Don’t pay your carbon tax. Pay your bill without the tax.”
Here in the UK my last bill from Scottish Gas included a box where the renewables tax could be displayed. It wasn’t. I wonder why?
Have any of the UK posters reading this had a utility bill quantifying this imposte?

December 10, 2010 6:30 am

Eco Villages appears to be a social movement. But look for yourself.
http://www.ecovillagenews.org/wiki/index.php/Ecovillage_Resources

December 10, 2010 6:32 am

What’s the probability that regulating the burning of fossil fuel will have any effect on climate change? My educated guess is around .0000001. Read Alan Carlin’s post. http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/711. Extreme costs with no benefits.

Liz
December 10, 2010 6:32 am

As a child in the Detroit area, I remember the alarm over eating local fish due to mercury released by some plant further upriver. So, as we use more cfl bulbs, how many people will really dispose of them properly? As these bulbs are sent to the local trash pit, the mercury will start to contaminate the local groundwater. Think of the cleanup issues in 100 years?
I wonder how safe it is to mine for mercury and refine it and are those costs factored in the overall energy and environmental impact?

Jeremy
December 10, 2010 6:39 am

Has no one studied the energy difference between making a mercury vapor CFL versus an incandescent? In one case you have to deal with some very poisonous stuff, which imposes some kind of safety regulation (unless these things are made in India?), in the other you’ve got a process that’s been perfected over 100+ years (?) and only requires a filament of somewhat common metals and a low pressure environment. One process requires internal circuitry to work, requiring a separate production facility, the other has straight wires. One product requires special handling for disposal in many municipalities, one does not.
I would be willing to believe that CFL’s, when all is said and done, are just as stupid an idea as converting agricultural production to ethanol.

December 10, 2010 6:41 am

1DandyTroll; the “US” Trillion is what, in the UK, is a Billion… I suspect his Lordship is using the UK measurement.
Those wonderful green lightbulbs are the next generations’ nightmare for landfill or recycling, whichever. As someone has remarked here, you need a decontamination team in if you break one – but then, what are a few thousand cases of mercury poisoning if it ‘saves the planet?’ One more big ‘change one problem for another’ is the batteries used in all these ‘Green’ electric and hybrid eco-cars. First off, the Prius engine has just about the worst fuel economy consumption you can get – it only looks green because mileage on the battery power makes it look better…
But what is not addressed is that the battery life is 5 (Five) years in all the electric and hybrid cars. There is no way to recycle them and no way to dispose of them …
Nuclear fusion anyone?

Pamela Gray
December 10, 2010 6:41 am

I must ask, do global warming science conventions start with such a prayer? Sounds like Cancun has turned into Cankook!

Jeremy
December 10, 2010 6:55 am

Jose Suro says:
December 10, 2010 at 5:43 am

Yes, but LED’s are a safer alternative than incandescents, so that specific argument wouldn’t go far.

Vince Causey
December 10, 2010 7:07 am

“Here in the UK my last bill from Scottish Gas included a box where the renewables tax could be displayed. It wasn’t. I wonder why?
Have any of the UK posters reading this had a utility bill quantifying this imposte?”
I have not seen the tax, or cost of ROC included in my electricity bill. I don’t suppose they will ever show those details, because once people see for themselves how they are being fleeced, there will be outrage.

Scarface
December 10, 2010 7:10 am

Thanks, Lord Monckton, for your endless efforts to combat CAGW!
After reading your latest reports, I can only conclude that the inmates are running the asylum… What else can you expect with these moon-worshipping cargo-cultists 🙂

December 10, 2010 7:10 am

Jeremy says:
December 10, 2010 at 6:55 am but LED’s are a safer alternative …
Yes, specially for traffic lights when snow falls….They are so shy that they simply disappear.

kwik
December 10, 2010 7:11 am

Hey, Monckton, tell them that the US is the new Energy Kingdom;
http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/2007-north-america-the-new-energy-kingdom.html

December 10, 2010 7:12 am

Well, at least Calderon is getting into the Carbon Cult’s spirit of national suicide. All the incandescent bulbs I’ve bought lately are made in Mexico.

j.pickens
December 10, 2010 7:14 am

I am in full agreement with m’lord about the absurdity of these AGW initiatives.
However, it is indeed possible to save a good deal of money with alternative lightbulbs.
The ones I am using now are LED bulbs.
The new technology bulbs are the ones with heat sinks surrounding the light element.
The ones from Sylvania are especially nice, they are very “white” in color, come on instantly, and work well with dimming fixtures.
They are rated at about half the power consumption of their CFL counterparts.
A 40W incandescent equivalent bulb takes 8W, the CFL takes 15W.
Unfortunately, they cost around $40 each.
They pay for themselves many times over.
Also, I note that the rated 800 lumens for the bulbs appears much brighter than the 800 lumen rated CFL equivalent bulbs in side-by-side comparison.
And they should last about three times longer than the CFL’s, and don’t poison your home with mercury if dropped.
Just because you are an AGW sceptic, there is no reason not to save money.
The AGW people are causing electricity rates to skyrocket, and this is a good way to combat this.

December 10, 2010 7:15 am

“Tell it not in Gash (Gath) and Ashkelon”
This Humble Red Neck had to look it up. They were two of the five principal cities of the Philistines in the Old Testament. And, the Philistines were, well, Philistines. And the Philistines were the bitter enemies of the Chosen People.
A Philistine, see second meaning:
1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.
2.
a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.
b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.
So….I believe that the good Lord of Brenchley means that there is no point in telling this to the Philistines (that’s us!) because we won’t understand. It would be similar to: “words of wisdom are like pearls cast before the swine”.
What a Hoot!
Proud to be a Red Neck AND a Philistine!
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

December 10, 2010 7:18 am

Someone is doing a very fine job of turning off all the lights over at Wikipedia as well.
http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/shutting-up-wikileaks-the-gameplan/
Pointman

mojo
December 10, 2010 7:29 am

Hey, no fair using logic and facts and stuff!

Ian L. McQueen
December 10, 2010 7:41 am

I caught the last 15 minutes of blather from Robert Watson, chief scientific poohbah in charge of advising the UK government (if I understood correctly) on the CBC radio program The Current. He repeated all the assertions that we so roundly condemn. I thought at first that he was some wild-eyed activist brought in to comment on Cancun, and was flabbergasted to hear that this is the misinformation being fed to the UK government.
Anyone who takes their nausea pills in advance should be able to hear the program from Monday 13th by going to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/ and finding the program segment. (It will probably also be on this evening (Dec. 10) at 2300 or 2400 in the various time zones across Canada; go to http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ and click on “The Current”.)
IanM

Ian L. McQueen
December 10, 2010 7:45 am

H.R. says:
December 10, 2010 at 2:10 am
“[…] Eco-Village Movement (83,000 self-sustaining villages and urban communities in 100 countries) […]“
Now there’s a new one on me. Are there already 83,000 self-sustaining villages and urban communities in 100 countries or is it a goal to get to 83,000? Either way, all I can visualize is small groups of people eating nuts and berries and occasionally burning twigs for cooking and heat while they wait to die at an early age.
HR: