Greens want every possible intervention except one which “solves” their useful crisis
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
‘Drill Bit Dana’ has been at it again, trying to claim that we don’t “accept the science”, because we are ideologically opposed to their solution – massive government intervention.
There is just one problem with this argument – its an utter falsehood. The reason its a falsehood, is massive government intervention is not the only, or by any measure the best, route to reducing CO2 emissions. Most skeptics are supporters of power generation solutions which would, as a byproduct, significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
We have no reason to reject alarmist science, other than we think it is wrong.
Take the example of America. The USA has substantially reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade, because of fracking – the switch from coal to gas, even though energy use has gone up, has reduced the amount of carbon which is burned to produce that energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/
Of course, America’s coal producers are still mining as much coal as they ever did – and exporting it to Europe, whose disastrous policy failures have increased costs and CO2 emissions.
In the case of fracking, the reduction of CO2 emissions might have been incidental, but fracking has produced results. Surely when it comes to CO2, results are what count?
But the real elephant in the room, with regard to emissions reduction, is the nuclear option.
James Hansen likes nuclear power.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html
George Monbiot likes nuclear power. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Anthony Watts likes nuclear power.
James Delingpole likes nuclear power.
Jo Nova likes nuclear power.
The Heartland Institute likes nuclear power.
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/global-warmings-mt-rushmore-wisely-embraces-nuclear-power/
So why isn’t nuclear power the main focus of everyone’s attention? Why do far too many alarmists persist with antagonising us, by pushing their absurd carbon taxes and government intervention, when they could be working with us? Why do alarmists keep trying to force us to accept solutions which we find utterly unacceptable, when there are obvious solutions which we could all embrace?
Perhaps some alarmists are worried about the risk of nuclear accidents – but, if climate change is as serious as they say, how can the risk of a nuclear meltdown or ten possibly compare to what alarmists claim is an imminent risk to the survival of all humanity?
Why do alarmists persist with pushing falsehoods about the motivation of their opponents, when they could, right now, be taking positive, substantial steps to promote policies which actually would reduce CO2 emissions?
What was the motivation of Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, when he wrote the following Climategate email:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt
“Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/ Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. … He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.”
Does Phil Jones really think that nuclear safety is more of an issue than global warming?
The easy answer to this dilemma is that most alarmists are being dishonest – that they don’t really believe CO2 is an important issue, that its simply a convenient excuse to push their political agenda. But surely they can’t all be bent? Monbiot seems sincere about embracing nuclear power. Hansen, and the authors of the open letter, seem sincere about promoting nuclear power. Are they really the only honest participants on the alarmist side of the debate? Surely this can’t be the case.
What am I missing?
Steve P
Actually, the research paper normalized the sample to 0.2 TBq/g, and made no specific comment about that sample. Read the literature. Shouldn’t such a ‘danfer be in the first sentence? Now ask youself who – and especially why – someone would express it in kg?
Deception, scaremongering, driving traffic to a site, raising funds? You have fallen for the scam.
One more thing, you really DON’T have a friend in Nigeria, despite what those emails say.
Jtom says:
August 13, 2014 at 8:12 am
Sorry, Jtom, you’ve crossed over into unacceptable territory by making wild, reckless, and unwarranted accusations. Triple meltdown indeed.
I’d add Mark Lynas as another “honest” Green/ACGW type who accepts the logic of nuclear.
“Alan the Brit says:
August 9, 2014 at 7:18 am”
Extensive testing was done on the waste flasks as this video demonstrates. Still, the Greens and media stired pulic opinion even after this real live creash test. The locomotive in this test had a weight of 110 impreial tons, each of the cars were 10 tons. The Greens claimed that the engine and cars were “weakend” to cause minimal damage to the flask.
I don’t know much about nuclear other than bombs as my ex flew Vulcan’s in the sixties loaded with H bombs. However nuclear power stations can run on sea water. But – our population or demography is widely spread out along the coastal areas and then only 30% of the population is inland and growing. We in regional areas pay more electricity as it has to come further. It comes down to the expense? As far as water from coal generations, it is one of the best fertilizers you can get. If they use black rather than brown coal, it cuts carbon emission down to 30%. Again we have to accept the way this is going electricity is going to get dearer, not cheaper if they use useless wind and solar. Although I am a fan so far of solar thermal plants. If they can find a way of storing or creating electricity at night. They were talking about using methane to do this. Don’t ask me how. Then there is the Ballina sugar cane refuse plant, it supplies about 500 homes so far. And we have plenty of sugar cane so long as we keep growing it.
Costly experiment. Must have been a brave train driver!
This was the 1980’s and nuclear fear was rife in the UK. Many “documentaries” and “what if” (Best way I can descibe them) programs on TV. Greenham common. I recall driving, well being driven, past once watching missiles being unloaded from transports. And all the protesters…having to weed our way through what was already a traffic bottle neck, Newbury and the A34.
The train, if the Greenies were right (Which they were not) that the whole train was “weakened” it would not have made the last bend at 100mph before crashing. But even though the actual evidence was available, Greenies just didn’t want to hear. So far, as it is today, there have been no isses with the flasks and transport systems. Thats exactly 30 years safe operation.
Fukushima had been operating with a clean safety record for over 40 years.
There is no point in trying to convince people of the vital importance of nuclear energy to the continued existence of civilization. They didn’t listen when shown the vital role of “load following” and peaking coal generation. No one will listen… until after a grid collapse. The ability to generate power that varies according to varying load demand is the very definition of a power grid. GK
I don’t personally blame this only on the greens, there are a lot of people like myself, who don’t like the idea of a nuclear plant. But look at F it was the tsunami that hit it and caused problems.
Why build it so close to the ocean? Yes Australia does have lots of uranium but – it is not the type used in a uranium reactor. As far as I know. And it is not a renewable resource. Anyway, we have lots of black and brown coal.