China has stepped up its efforts to promote sham green narratives, while simultaneously waging a brutal crackdown against Christianity and other faiths.
China Pushes Electric Vehicles and Makes Producing Fossil Fuel Vehicles Tougher
Chinese carmakers have been issued new standards by the government as part of a plan to reduce the manufacture of fossil fuel-powered vehicles. China is becoming a leader in reducing fossil fuel emissions.
CHINAāS NEW EV RULES
China has announced that automakers that want to manufacture fossil fuel-powered cars first must produce low-emission and zero-emission cars to attain a new energy vehicle score. The new rule applies toĀ companies that make or import more than 30,000 fossil fuel cars annually. This means that by 2019, carmakers must be producing a fleet with a total of 10% or more electric vehicles, and 12% or more by 2020.
Chinaās new rule is part of an aggressive plan to phase out fossil fuel vehicles, a goal it shares with the UK and France,Ā which both plan to ban sales of fossil fuel cars by 2040. A recent report indicates that Chinaās auto market will be all electric by 2030. While the countryās original plan was to ban fossil fuel vehicles outrightĀ ā which was criticized asĀ too ambitious ā this revised version of the plan is aggressive, yet workable, allowing automakers time to adjust to the changing market.
REDUCING EMISSIONS WORLDWIDE
This is part of a larger effort on Chinaās part to reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependency. In 2017 alone, China has surpassed many of its own ambitious environmental goals. By August, the country had already reached its 2020 solar energy installation target, reasserting itself as the largest producer of solar power on earth. In June, an entire region of China ran on 100 percent renewables for seven days. China has begun to build a large-scale carbon capture and storage plantĀ ā the first of eight ā as part of its attempts to reduce its carbon footprint. The nation has invested more into renewables than any other country in the world, including the US, and has begun to reap the benefits, turning around many of its pollution problems.
…
Read more: https://futurism.com/china-pushes-electric-vehicles-makes-producing-fossil-fuel-vehicles-tougher/
Of course, China is still burning a lot of coal.
Chinaās Image Campaign: Green on the Outside, Black on the Inside?
BY KENNETH SZABO SEP 30, 2017
āGreen mountains and clear water are as good as mountains of gold and silver,ā said Chinese President Xi Jinping as he underscored his countryās commitment to becoming an āecological civilizationā at the 2016 UN climate change conference in Marrakech. Fine words. But should we believe them?
After years of being known as one of the dirtiest countries on the planet, China is now making a concerted effort to re-brand itself as a proponent of green energy. This forms part of a wider, multi-channel effort to boost its global soft power that encompasses everything from building new language institutes to trying to head major UN bodies. However, whether this is a legitimate strategy or just good PR is a question Beijing still struggles to answer convincingly.
Undoubtedly, China is making some positive changes. The country has been catching up with its counterparts by planning new national parks. Aimed at protecting areas of outstanding beauty and preventing environmental damage from construction, mining, and pollution, the parks are due to open in 2020. This is also the deadline China has set for ploughing $361 billioninto renewable power sources. The Chinese government hopes that in just three years, these sources will account for half of new electricity generation in the country.
So far, so good. But scratch beneath the surface, and there are indications āGreen Chinaā is actually just a veneer disguising a less palatable reality.
China is still the worldās largest producer of āblackā aluminum. In 2016, coal still powered 88% of production. Pollutants released by aluminum production and other shady practices are among the many reasons that Chinaās inland waters are so befouled. According to Greenpeace China, 80% of shallow ground water wells are polluted.
…
Read more: Modern Diplomacy
Why do I think these simultaneous initiatives are part of an effort to establish climate as a new state religion? The reason is the Climate cult almost uniquely emphasises the need for a strong state to address the crisis.
Greens regularly praise China’s tyrannical government. Many greens seem to think that Democracy leads to climate change paralysis.
Of course, a strong state can control the media. And if a few stories leak which contradict the official narrative, if evidence emerges that China’s embrace of green ideology is less than complete, it won’t matter. Greens have already demonstrated their total willingness to forgive China’s fossil fuel excesses.
Christianity by contrast emphasises the supremacy of God’s law. The Apostle Peter says “We must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29). The Christian bible carries an instruction to pay your taxes (Matthew 22:19-21), but the first loyalty of a Christian is to God.
China doesn’t do divided loyalty.
A climate cult which demands a strong state, and emphasises the need for authoritarianism to solve their global crisis, and which appeals to the kids, is a ready made solution for a tyranny which is struggling to suppress rising social unrest and demands for more freedom, is alarmed by the rapid growth of Christianity within their borders, and which desperately needs a new message of unity to replace their failed Communist ideology.
The PRC does have a Party Congress coming up, and might need a distraction from anyone wanting to know what the real, rather than reported, economic performance has been recently.
“China has begun to build a large-scale carbon capture and storage plant ā the first of eight ā as part of its attempts to reduce its carbon footprint. ”
Imagine the immense wealth and ongoing expense of carbon capture. It is truly sad to see such monumental effort being aimed at something that will accomplish absolutely nothing.
All green energy and CO2 emission-decrease efforts are patently a waste of time, money, and resources. Look at Puerto Rico. It’s main power plant, which is NOT and or solar, is fine. It is the grid that is missing. However, the wind and solar that Puerto Rico HAD is gone, damaged beyond repair by the hurricane.
I worked on the construction of 3 Coal fired Boilers, 2 at Mission Island, OPG, Ontario Power Generation at Thunder Bay GS and Atikokan GS last. In Atikokan we we’re shocked at the massive structural steel which was built to Earthquake Standards.
It always baffled me when Ontario’s Greed Energy Program paid Solar Farms 1,500 % more at 0.80 cents per Kw above our Pre $mart meter Base Rate of o.051 cents per Kw. I would always attempt to visualize the aluminum struts supporting Solar Panels Vs the earthquake proof Boiler House comparing the Full Cycle Costs and Capital Expense. Realizing that Green Kool-aid was being served. Our Peak Rate on Smart Meters @ 0.18 cents per Kw is 353 % more than our Base Rate pre smart meters. The Green is being taken from our wallets as we are a Captive Market at the mercy of our once Publicly Owned Ontario Power Utility now being Sold Off to the Investment Market. Long known to have the lowest utility rates in North America we are now the highest. A contract was signed with Samsung of which the details of were guarded in secrecy by the Liberal government not disclosing the details to the citizens of Ontario,
Biomass Boondoggle; When Politicians run amuck with unproven ideologies, lacking Critical Thinking and do not participate in Direct Democracy seeking the input from its citizens and Auditor General. When they get caught up in the latest unproven Market Promotion. Quote:
āConversion of coal plant to biomass facility not cost-effectiveāThe Ministry directed the OPA to convert a Thunder Bay coal plant into a biomass facility despite OPAās advice that the conversion was not cost-effective. The Ministry cites facilitating economic growth and job creation in the forestry industry as its reasons for going ahead with the project despite the fact that this facility uses imported forestry resources that can only be purchased from outside of Canada. The cost of electricity from this facility is $1,600/MWhā25 times higher than the average cost at other biomass facilities in Ontarioā. Ref:
[PDF]
3.05 Electricity Power System Planning – Office of the Auditor General …
http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en15/3.05en15.pdf
the hydro power produced by Ontario Power Generation. ā¢ Approves the …. of renewable energy sources like wind and solar for …. term power system planning , because it affects ….. tributing to an oversupply of electricity that …… Estimated Hydro Spill …… Water Street Pumphouse … Conestogo Dam Generating Station.āØāØāØSpilled hydro adds millions to Ontarians’ electricity bills | Wind …
http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/spilled-hydro-adds-millions-to-ontarians-electricity-bills/
Mar 7, 2016 – Wind power gets first rights to the grid, so clean renewable hydro is wasted … ( TWh) of water that could have been used for power was spilled last year. … And, because wind and solar are intermittent (and unreliable) OPG is forced to … Hydro dams have been a leading factor in the extirpation of Ontario’sĀ …
Chinese police order Muslims to hand in all copies of the Koran and prayer mats or face ‘harsh punishment’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/china/article-4929064/Chinese-police-ask-Muslims-hand-copies-Koran.html
A link within your link actually says and enshrines religious freedom.
http://english.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2017/09/07/content_281475842719170.htm
They are against proselytising, which I totally agree with. When I was living in Australia I hated the ‘god botherers ‘ knocking on my door on various days.
Rubbish, the official ‘religion’ of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is atheism…a religion about nothing. You MUST be an atheist to be in the CCP. There is NO enshrinement of religious freedom. If you believe that, then you probably believe Xi ‘Mao’ Jinping actually gives a #%@* about global warming and climate change…he doesn’t, he cares about ‘him’ and his pathetic party representing 6.5% of the Chinese population maintaining authoritarian, tending totalitarian control over 1.3 billion people. Maybe you should try listening to those people knocking on your door down under, you might learn something.
Fred
You clearly didn’t read the link. Having to be an atheist to join the party is a strawman.
Alex:
Religious freedom is a myth in the Chinese State.
Read the link in Eric’s article above:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/chinas-thriving-underground-churches-in-danger/
sy
Eric sits on his @rse in North Queensland and surfs the internet and probably reddit and posts articles here with links. He has opinions about things he doesn’t know and places he hasn’t been, all courtesy of the MSM.
He cherrypicks , from the MSM, what he likes and doesn’t like. It either confirms what he likes to believe or if it contradicts his bias he then classifies it as rubbish.
I have lived here for 13 years and have aquaintances in high and low places. At least 80% of what I hear from the western press is absolute nonsense
Exactly, the Chinese have a severe and REAL pollution problem that they are addressing. Only western green idiots are trying to spin this as being about carbon dioxide.
If they are experimenting with CCS they either plan to sell it to dupes in the West or claim massive amounts in “carbon credits” to boost their own economy.
Alex’s planet has no atmosphere……
It’s safe to assume that as a foreigner living in China, Alex isn’t permitted to spend much time with anyone who disagrees with the party platforn du jour.
Scottish author Chris Brookmyre has one of his characters refer to the proselytisers as “flatnoses” on account of the number of doors slammed in their faces!
@alex
With all *due* respect, your credibility appears to be much more suspect that Eric’s. For example, you show a significant lack of critical thinking skills in your regular use of irrational logic.
E.g., here:
“Eric sits on his @rse in North Queensland and surfs the internet and probably reddit and posts articles here with links. He has opinions about things he doesnāt know and places he hasnāt been, all courtesy of the MSM.”
and here:
“Oh dear! the looney tunes christians are out discussing their imaginary friend. Danger Will Robinson! Danger!”
and here:
“Can you tell me what youāre drinking? Iāll make a point of avoiding it.”
FYI, I’m having a big spoonful of ad hominem in my coffee courtesy of you. Read more about this fallacy here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Furthermore, you criticize others for that which you also do, in which case shouldn’t you pull the beam first out of your own eye?
“He cherrypicks , from the MSM, what he likes and doesnāt like. It either confirms what he likes to believe or if it contradicts his bias he then classifies it as rubbish.”
But in your criticism you contradict yourself:
“A link within your link actually says and enshrines religious freedom.”
And when its pointed out to you by me that a direct link from the posted article reports Christian oppression, you resort to attacking the author of the article, rather than addressing the article’s linked evidence. In other words, you ignore the article that contradicts your bias.
If the above isn’t hypocrisy, why isn’t it? If it is, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
I would much rather be factually incorrect than logically irrational. Blech…
š
Unlike Europeans and American, the Chinese leadership all cultures are not compatible, and want to protect their culture. Chinese officials know, irregardless of what Muslims say, they do not tolerate a polytheist state or a state that does not allow religious leaders to run the country. The Chinese people want to protect their culture and are just being proactive. A 100 years from now China will still be China. The U.S. and Europe will be Muslim.
China is all about propaganda that enhances its’ image. Saving face in China has nothing to do with Face Book. They will say anything to look good and its’ considered perfectly OK if reality doesn’t enter the picture. They invented “fake news”. The ecologists love them despite their despicable pollution record.
That seems to describe most governments.
If your cities are that choked with smog, obviously you should fix that by whatever means are the best.
It is only common sense. It has nothing to do with global warming. It is about human health. People can be skeptics but that does not mean opposing things that are logically right. Being a skeptic means the opposite.
“If your cities are that choked with smog, obviously you should fix that by whatever means are the best. It is only common sense. It has nothing to do with global warming. It is about human health.”
You seem to presuppose that Communism cares about human health. It doesn’t. I traveled to Rostock in 1989 with a W German native and got to see what Communism looks like up close. Communism cares very little about people. People are resources…capital…numbers…livestock if you will, nothing more.
I crossed Checkpoint Charlie heading north to Rostock about dusk and the contrast was startling.
Behind me was W Berlin, where everything was typical Deutsher, i.e., sidewalks and streets clean and swept, buildings well maintained, lit up with the weekend night-life, people moving about together everywhere, any make of automobile you can think of, businesses open, neon flashing, the smell of food and fun in the air, etc. The mood was upbeat, happy, people laughing and joking, lovers embracing, the sounds of music and commerce and LIFE everywhere.
Ahead of me was darkness, filthy streets with trash everywhere, not an open market to be seen, buildings old and run-down, pieces falling off them, no lights to be seen in any of them, shades of apartment buildings down, no street lights, no people, no music, no NOTHING but darkness, cold and misery. The silence was deafening. You could “feel” the oppression squeezing your insides.
Rostock looked and behaved like a city from the Middle Ages. No central heat or air. No electricity. No central plumbing. You pulled water from buckets in the well for cooking, cleaning, etc. You relieved yourself in the outhouse. Your basement was your fridge. You cooked over a wood stove. You made your own clothes. You milked the goat or your cow (if you could afford to keep a cow).
And you drove a 3 banger Trabant when you could afford to buy fuel.
“People can be skeptics but that does not mean opposing things that are logically right. Being a skeptic means the opposite.”
I think you probably mean “morally right” versus “logically right” but that’s just a quibble. Nevertheless, you might misunderstand the problem that some have with the Chinese “Green” initiative. Does anyone “oppose” what the Chinese are doing? I don’t. Why should I, it’s none of my business.
What I’m saying is the motivation isn’t moral. It has nothing at all to do with morality. I’ve seen Communist “morality” up front and personal as have the millions who’ve been murdered trying to stop or escape it.
The Chinese see a benefit to the State in what they’re doing. You can check out some facts for yourself, e.g., start looking into who the world’s largest importer of crude is at the moment. Dependency on imports will weaken any State. And there other things as well. They export a plethora of solar products toward a 1.5 Trillion dollar a year industry (that’s old data).
There’s every reason in the world for the Chinese State to benefit from their “Green” initiative that has ZERO to do with human health.
You simply can’t compare East Germany of then to China now. Health is a big issue in China. Healthy people work and pay taxes.
Alex:
“You simply canāt compare East Germany of then to China now.”
Agreed. The Chinese must certainly have noticed and analyzed the failure of Soviet style Communism in order to attempt to avoid the same mistakes. That doesn’t mean they give more of a crap about their people though. All that means is they’re doing the necessary to protect the State.
“Healthy people work and pay taxes.”
Naturally health is always a big issue to the people of any nation. They’re living the experience. That doesn’t mean the State itself is so concerned.
If the following breakdown is still valid, the individual income tax is +/-7.2% of the total revenue to the Chinese State.
http://iret.org/pub/BLTN-94.PDF
sy
Can you tell me what you’re drinking? I’ll make a point of avoiding it.
sy , glad you agree that your Rostok comment was an error.
China is not communist it is a capitalist dictatorship.
They want and need a healthy workforce, not one which spends half the year off work with lung disease.
Only alarmists in the West try to spin this as being intended to tackle CO2 emissions.
Hmmm… E Germany didn’t invest in (re)building either much of Berlin or Rostock… they built their new workers cities… e.g Halle.
China cares for it’s population, the same way a rancher cares for his cattle.
@Greg:
“sy , glad you agree that your Rostok comment was an error.”
But I don’t agree. My comment was valid.
It would seem you, like Alex, assumed my comment was meant to be a comparison between Soviet communism and Chinese communism. It wasn’t. Rather it was a commentary on Statism as Statism.
My point was and still is this:
“Communism cares very little about people. People are resourcesā¦capitalā¦numbersā¦livestock if you will, nothing more.”
Call it a “capitalist dictatorship” if you like, you’ve still made my point for me:
“They want and need a healthy workforce, not one which spends half the year off work with lung disease.”
Before you object on the basis that the United States wants and needs the same thing, I would argue you’re not comparing apples to apples. The United States wants and needs a healthy workforce, but the motivation is not to maintain the State as State in the same fashion as the Chinese “capitalist dictatorship”.
Did not see any smog when I visited China (including Beijing and Shanghai). The three gorges dam was most impressive 24,000 MW capacity with 85% of the turbines and generators made in China. Did not see one wind turbines or solar panels on bus trips but sighted 2 coal fired power stations and one that appeared to be a Nuclear plant (no coal receival or storage facilities) I suggests the articles on China have been written by Greens supporters that have not been to China and have never talked to the ordinary people in the street or market place or students at some of their Universities
Having visited China last year, the smog in some cities indeed is a huge problem. If cars are the main cause is a good question, as factories and -mostly- coal power plants are at least as good to blame. There is a huge difference between pollution rules and real use of cleaning devices in power plants – and a lot of corruption.
What they have already really done is practically banning all two-stroke motorcycles, and most of them indeed are already electric (which is not always that safe as you don’t hear them come, and the Chinese driving style is rather remarkable…).
Thus there is an urgent need to reduce air pollution, as the big bosses in Being have the same air to breath as the ordinary people in the street… If they can do that without more coal power remains to be seen and where they will find all the lithium for all these batteries? Wishfull thinking and propaganda are best friends in this case…
Do their automobiles have Catalytic converters?
Yes
They START with them. But a Catalytic Converter is worth a lot of money and most people know it isn’t really needed for the vehicle to run.
A lot of people remove and sell them. Also there is a rising trend in gangs that steal them. It only takes a few minutes to slip under a vehicle and cut the Cat loose and take off with it. I’ve even heard that some people have started to modify their vehicles to help fight Cat thieves. Extra strapping can make it much harder and slower to steal them. Some people have rerouted the exhaust pipe through the cab and moved the Cat inside. Others have modified their Cats and exhaust system so the Cat can be easily removed and replaced so they can be taken in with them at night.
The old joke that is actually true:
You know when you’ve been in China too long when you are standing on a white line in the middle of the road with two way traffic going 60 past you both directions and you are bored š
I think the game of “Frogger” was was written by someone who saw how they “jaywalk” in China.
I’ve been driving in China for about 10 years now. If you have an oncoming truck on the wrong side of the road you simply make room. No need to get excited about it. On occasion, I mumble ‘f@ckhead’.
Chile.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05/chinas-gsr-eyes-stake-in-9-billion-chilean-lithium-miner-sqm-source.html
Great Wall has just put in place an off take agreement in Western Australia.
https://thewest.com.au/business/mining/china-car-maker-great-wall-drives-28m-deal-for-pilbara-minerals-lithium-ng-b88613933z
Soon all those scooters will be ultra-compacts …
https://electrek.co/2017/06/16/electric-ultra-compact-car-vs-e-scooter/
If they want blue sky in beijing, typically when important meetings are held in town, then the government
merely shuts off power to factories in the outlying areas. The highways are still jammed, but the air is
clean.
It kinda sucks when your production is just shut down for a few days. It’s happened 3 times this year that I remember.
Of course Mosh
Wouldn’t you try to tidy up your place if you were expecting visitors? Beijing is a total sh!thole. I’ve been there numerous times and hated it. I only use it as a stopover to go somewhere else these days. I really can’t understand the appeal of chinese people to live there.
Mosh’s point is that the pollution is not being caused by cars.
But beyond that, only a totalitarian would think that putting millions of people out of work for 3 days, just to impress a couple of visitors is a good idea.
Fascinating how you agree with such actions.
It’s OK Ferdinand, you can stick with Vorsprung durch Technik …
http://www.hybridcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/audi-musk-have-advert-668×409.jpg
The rule of the road in china is the weak perish.
Bikes don’t stop for people.
Carts don’t stop for bikes.
Cars don’t stop for carts.
Trucks don’t stop for cars.
Buses don’t stop for trucks.
My 10 minute walk to work is always exciting. Look both ways.
You neglected forward, behind and up and down.
Mosh,
The most remarkable thing I did see in their driving (it was in a bus, so maybe they feel they are the boss in the driving hierarchy) is that if they need a U-turn to reach the hotel, they just start flashing and immediately start turning from the right side of their lanes to the opposite side right lane: alle ongoing and opposite traffic stops to let them pass… Seems to go without much accidents…
In Shangai, they have lots of pedestrian bridges over the streets, about the only way to survive a crossover, as nobody stops for a pedestrian crossing…
Ferdinand
You are not very observant. In China you turn first and then indicate.
Let’s see if the Chinese military gives the good example . Electric tanks, electric fighter planes, electric warships.
The Russians started building a nuclear powered Ice Breaker Fleet in 1959. I stumbled upon the video on YouTube about a month ago. They use steam turbines turning generators for Electric Drive. They are quiet and do not emit the Black Carbon that Ocean going Ships burning the Bottom of the Barrel, dirty Bunker C Oil which must be heated to flow. It is stated that the 15 largest Container Ships in the world emit as much pollution as all the vehicles in the world plying the Shipping Route from Asia and to North America’s conn/sumers, many who lost their jobs when Corporation’s fled to Asia to exploit cheap labour and non existent environmental regulations.
China was on a gravy train with the green madness afflicting Europe, N.A, Australia… because solar panels and windmills were a big export to these countries and they had most of the rare earths needed for the worlds turbines and the rare metals for solar, plus cheap labor to outcompete in production (green jobs mantra was pure lies in Europe, etc). Naturally they pushed the idiocy and the greens were a fit with their ideology. Originally upset over US withdrawal from the madness, China sees an opportunity to benefit from Trump’s withdrawal from “Paris” by becoming the world leader. The goodwill they have with the ideological Greenpieces of the world won’t be wasted. They can gamble, and the best bet at this moment is to go at electric vehicles with a vengeance to keep the goodwill and business rolling along with big EV auto sales in the near future. Moreover, they are short of oil and gas. Their lead will prop up the wounded green governments that would otherwise throw in the towel and they will end up looking to China for their own survival.
They can always back out and probably will when the US parlays their cheap fossil fuel for manufacturing, low cost steel, petrochemicals, transportation, etc. etc. and cuts into China’s big exports to the US. Moreover, flogging this dead horse will suit US’s America first policy. A small country can be coerced and blockaded but not the US. China will give it all up eventually and so will everybody else.
” the rare metals for solar”
…
No such thing. Solar is predominately silicon, which is not rare.
Mark S Johnson
Don’t cherry pick, you know what he means.
He’s proffering worn out talking points that have no basis in reality. Solar panels can be made without rare earth elements. I suggest you tell him he needs to get educated on the actual technologies about whiche he comments on.
You, nevertheless, Mr. Johnson, miss Mr. Pearse’s main, underlying, points:
1) solar is NEVER (given current or reasonably likely to be discovered technology) going to break-even without being an economic leach. Solar is a s c a m — no matter WHAT the rare earth metals component situation is. So, for the same reason, is wind. See Ruth Lea’s fine expose on the never-break-even “folly” of windpower.
2) solar is not green:
Green Ilusions
(youtube — Ozzie Zehner)
[5:25 ā 6:22 ] Solar Cells cost per KWH does NOT go down over life of installed cells; this is an illusion:
(1) taxpayers or customers of other types of power are paying the costs.
(2) [6:00] That costs of some of the raw materials which comprise small amounts of total are going down, e. g., polysilicon (less than 5% of total) will never reduce cost of production to break-even.
[6:23 ā 6:54] Raw materials include many not āgreenā things, e.g., petroleum products, and [6:35] cadmium, which is per greens, a ātoxin,ā required to make thin-cells (must store carefully when dispose) ā {Me: this is not per se a problem, just shows that it is hypocritical for āgreensā to say solar is āgreen.ā ā Zehner does not mention what cadmium half-life would be and the safe dry storage options.} …..
In case someone out there wants to learn more about how NOT “green” solar cells are, here is another excellent lecture by Zehner:
Solar Cells and Other Fairytales
(youtube)
Wrong Janice. Solar has been more than break even ever since they started installing windows on the south sides of buildings. I suggest you visit a cold climate where there is a building with south facing windows. On a clear, bright sunny day, you’ll feel the warmth provided by solar energy if you stand inside the building and view the sun. Solar heating was never and will never be an “economic leach.”
PS, no cadnium used in mono/poly-crystaline solar cells. Please stop cherry picking the technology you wish to denigrate.
Silicon isn’t rare. The dopants needed to turn silicon into something useful are.
Left wing troll doesn’t have to play dumb. It comes naturally to him.
Nobody is talking solar thermal, as you well know.
Why don’t you quit trying to change the subject?
Boron is not “rare.” Phosphorus is not “rare.” Arsenic is not “rare.” Gallium is not “rare.” Aluminum is not “rare.” Only “dope/dopant” is MarkW
MarkW, Janice said: ” solar is NEVER (given current or reasonably likely to be discovered technology) going to break-even without being an economic leach.”
…
Solar thermal is a “technology”
…
So you are wrong to say “Nobody is talking solar thermal”
PPS MarkW, Crescent Dunes is “solar thermal” the output of which is electrical power.
Can someone please explain to me how acres and acres of mined aluminum (to mount the solar panels) and concrete (to keep the mined aluminum from blowing away) is “green”, but acres and acres of trees and farmland is not.
Try again, Johnson. You missed a word in my comment. Here it is: “cells”
Janice posts: “You, nevertheless, Mr. Johnson, miss Mr. Pearseās main, underlying, points:
1) solar is NEVER (given current or reasonably likely to be discovered technology) going to break-even without being an economic leach. Solar is a s c a m ā no matter WHAT the rare earth metals component situation is. So, for the same reason, is wind. See Ruth Leaās fine expose on the never-break-even āfollyā of windpower.”
…
…
I don’t see the word “cells” in your statement.
Mark S Johnson;
Solar thermal is a ātechnologyā
ā¦
So you are wrong to say āNobody is talking solar thermalā
When you start playing word games to support your position, you reveal the weakness of your position. “Solar” in these discussions is commonly accepted terminology to indicate generation of electricity using solar radiance as the power source. Shall we type that out every time to ensure everyone is exactly on the same page and not referring to passive solar heating instead?
Don’t be silly. If that’s all you got, you ain’t got much.
Of course solar thermal is a technology. Just because it’s been in use for thousands of years does not negate that.
Fascinating how the person who has yet to get anything correct, is calling other people dopes.
Finally, I love the way you keep trying to change the subject everytime someone points out that you have yet again, said something stupid.
davidmhoffer, Crescent Dunes uses solar thermal to generate electricity, as does Ivanpah
.
.
MarkW: “The dopants needed to turn silicon into something useful are.” ….. you said it……so I’m correct and you are flat out wrong.
@ Anyone Who Thinks Mr. Johnson Is Correct (about my not using “cells” in my comment — yes, dear silent reader who is genuinely seeking facts at WUWT, it is you to whom I write — Johnson is just a big, blustering, close-minded, scatterbrain, per his comments here):
Me, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/30/chinas-new-state-climate-change-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-2624629
“Johnson is just a big, blustering, close-minded, scatterbrain ”
….
Janice, who was that said: āwhen you resort to name calling, you’ve lost the argumentā ???
…
Oh yeah: https://www.realskeptic.com/2013/12/23/anthony-watts-resort-name-calling-youve-lost-argument/
…
You lose
PS, land based wind turbines are not direct drive, so they do not need rare earth elements for permanent magnets. Land base wind turbines can use conventional electromagnets for their armatures.
Mark S Johnson
“PS, land based wind turbines are not direct drive, so they do not need rare earth elements for permanent magnets.”
All of them? Are you sure?
The big land based ones don’t use permanent magnets….yup, I’m sure.
“The big land based ones donāt use permanent magnetsā¦.yup, Iām sure.”
Wrong.
http://www.usneodymiummagnets.com/neodymium-magnets-in-wind-turbines-generators.html
https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/how-are-magnets-used-in-wind-energy/
“PS, land based wind turbines are not direct drive, so they do not need rare earth elements for permanent magnets. Land base wind turbines can use conventional electromagnets for their armatures.”
You are, as usual, wrong.
https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/how-are-magnets-used-in-wind-energy/
http://www.usneodymiummagnets.com/neodymium-magnets-in-wind-turbines-generators.html
catweazle666, for your education….
..
1) Land based wind turbines have very long blades because the energy production of a wind turbine is proportional to the swept area of it’s blades.
..
2) Larger blades means the rotational speed is slower.
..
3) Slow rotational speeds require gearboxes to increase the rotational speed of the alternator/generator that produces the electrical power.
..
4) The larger the blades mean direct drive is not used.
…
5) Excitation of the armature with electricity makes permanent magnets not necessary in large wind turbines.
..
6) If you disagree, please tell me why alternators in all automotive applications do not use permanent magnets.
“If you disagree, please tell me why alternators in all automotive applications do not use permanent magnets.”
Because unlike wind turbines the output of an automotive alternator must be continuously variable over a wide range, so the current output is regulated by altering the current through the rotating field coil.
However, modern automotive starter motors do in fact use high strength permanent magnets, thus considerably decreasing the weight and more important – the size – of the unit.
Mark S Johnson, for your education …
(What’s good for the goose is good for the gander)
Both GE and Siemens are developing direct drive turbines with permanent magnets. While their turbines are not quite the gargantuan turbines you’re describing it’s possible those Godzillas will fade from view. Bearing deformation is a real problem on the monsters, and in fact if they’re stationary for any length of time (because the wind isn’t blowing) the generators convert over to electric motors to turn the blades to keep the bearings from flat spotting. And then there’s the gearbox issues. The step up ratio is huge: several hundred to one. The gearboxes are not expected to last 20 years (heck, my Italian car has lasted almost 30), and the failures are catastrophic.
Tom Judd, please learn about wind turbine design and engineering before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Learn about swept area, and blade length before you talk about direct drive. You need to understand both the Betz limits, and grid AC synchronization before you can evaluate the difference between direct drive and gearbox driven land based wind turbines.
PS Tom Judd, even direct drive turbines can use electromagnets instead of permanent magnets.
PPS Tom Judd, permanent magnets can be made without rare earth elements. ALNICO permanent magnets do not use rare earth elements.
Yanked your chain pretty good didn’t I Mr. Supposed Self-Assured?
Why the hell are we putting up these massive bird and bat killing symbols of global socialism when former NASA scientist, Dr. James Hansen, says they won’t do diddly-squat to provide enough energy?:
“You know, the liberal approach of subsidizing solar panels and windmills gets you a few percent of the energy, but it doesn’t phase you off fossil fuels, and it never will. No matter how much you subsidize them, intermittent renewables are not sufficient to replace fossil fuels.”
– James Hansen, 2016, RollingStone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/will-we-miss-our-last-chance-to-survive-climate-change-w456917
And why not let the rest of the world go green instead of the USA? Under this plan, the amount of clear and odorless plant and tree food being emitted in the air each year would massively be lowered. And we could then ‘charge’ the world for fertilizing their crops and keeping their cooling bills a little lower?
You really haven’t the first clue about engineering of any shape, form or variety, have you?
And yet you take it upon yourself to argue ultra-simple principles with engineers who have been practising it all their careers.
Knock it off and stop making a complete fool of yourself.
http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/electrical/generators/generators/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5208401/
” unlike wind turbines?????????????????????”
…
Are you saying that the wind is always blowing at a constant velocity?
..
Just like the automotive alternator the output of an wind turbine must be continuously variable over a wide range of wind speeds.
..
Oh, and starter motors are a poor comparison, mostly because their duty cycle is minuscule, not to mention that they are not used to generate electrical power.
“Just like the automotive alternator the output of an wind turbine must be continuously variable over a wide range of wind speeds.”
Exactly wrong.
Unlike an automotive alternator, the output of a wind turbine must remain constant over a wide range of wind speeds in order that the grid can remain in balance, this is almost invariably arranged by altering the pitch of the blades to keep the speed of the rotor constant, as can be observed by watching any wind farm on a day with variable wind speed and observing that the blades rotate at the same rate irrespective of wind speed.
You really haven’t a clue, have you?
“not to mention that they are not used to generate electrical power.”
In fact, I can show you examples of units that do just that, the Siba Dynastart for example.
PS catweazle666, starters with permanent magnets need gears (much like large wind turbines) because the permanent magnet motor does not have enough torque to turn the engine crank. Old direc drive starter motors had field windings instead of permanent magnets.
“PS catweazle666, starters with permanent magnets need gears”
ALL automotive starter motors are geared, they invariably engage with a ring gear on the flywheel by a small gear, either by inertia acting on a fast thread device often referred to as a Bendix or on larger engines via a pre-engagement solenoid that engages the starter pinion with the flywheel ring gear before supplying power to the motor itself.
Some small very high RPM chain coupled starters on Japanese motorcycles and similar do in fact have an epicyclic reduction gear unit between the armature and the sprocket to enable the actual motor to be smaller and less bulky, also because there is no large diameter flywheel to engage a small pinion and produce the required reduction.
catweazle666, it is you that does not have a clue. You post: ” the output of a wind turbine must remain constant over a wide range of wind speeds in order that the grid can remain in balance”
…
The output of a wind turbine has to follow the load, as they are not used as base load, nor are they used as peakers..
..
Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant
….
Oh….by the way….how does a direct drive permanent magnet wind turbine follow the load?
catweazle666 this picture should help you to understand: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Ii1ukGkfijY/SqnvYtgCI5I/AAAAAAAACkA/8To2VjSJMgM/clip_image002_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800
…
There are planetary gears connecting the armature to the PINION
…
This gearing is in addition to the gear that engages the flywheel. Direct drive starters did not have these.
@Janice Moore
Informative lecture. Thank you.
Hey, sy. Thank you. That was very kind of you to say so. I’m glad you enjoyed Ozzie Zehner. I sure do.
You’re welcome. Glad to see Zehner in the classroom.
Have you seen Epstein’s stuff? If so, what do you think?
http://industrialprogress.com/about/
Hi, Sy. No, I haven’t. I don’t have time now, but, I’ll look at that link later and report back. š
@Janice
He’s a little “snarky” but he does seem to make valid arguments with very good evidence. I suspect Mr. Zehner is a much nicer guy. š
Hi, Sy!
Just watched part of a 2012 Epstein v. McKibben debate and part of an interview based on Epstein’s book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
Thoughts:
1. Without reading the book, the title alone tells me Epstein deals with facts and logic (versus the unsupported, even negated-by-evidence, speculation of the Peak Oil Proselytizers and the Fossil Fuels Are Evil Sect). The remarks I heard him make were excellent arguments for why fossil fuels should be used and used greatly and widely.
2. Epstein is, so far as I saw (not much, I grant you), ignorant of MUCH of the facts about human CO2, climate models, the science/physics of atmospheric chemistry, etc.. He appears to have taken a lukewarm position on CO2 simply out of mental laziness and a bit of hubris (he assumes that he need not delve into the facts, for he knows they make no difference).
3. He may have improved his speaking/presentation/debate style since 2012, but, if not…. he needs to seek the advice of a skilled trial attorney. He has much good substance, but his presentation (both in language and on personality-projection/emotive content and in the art of persuasive communication) of it is so poor that it will not likely persuade a skeptical (but, genuinely open-minded) audience.
Conclusion:
— Mr. Epstein is doing the people of the world a magnificently valuable, life saving in many cases, service by getting the facts out about fossil fuels/technology in his book.
— He should stick to that topic until he gets up to speed on the human CO2 facts (i.e., until then, he is doing more harm than good, as all lukewarmers do).
— He needs coaching in argumentation (substance as well as style) and in public speaking in general.
Thanks for sharing!
Janice
@Janice
An individual of her word! Much appreciated!
Sy! A person who takes the time to acknowledge! Rare! š
I noticed the picture of a city in China cloaked in smog. My thought is……really?…..smog is not caused by CO2. Why does the MSM continue to conflate dirty air with an essential trace gas?
Smear. Photo journalism.
It’s a real photo. No need to photoshop. Been there, done that. The only difference is the colour sometimes.
Got you on a really tight chain don’t they.
Nobody said anything about photoshop.
Photo journalism is just telling a story by taking pictures.
The chinese only consider particulate matter. That is what is considered the major health risk.
The yellow haze is likely the sulphur from coal emissions. I agree chasing the Co2 tail meanwhile Black Carbon is ignored. The Soot and Particulate on the Greenland Ice Cap is disturbing. The river that reversed from Lake Kluane in the Yukon to the Gulf of Alaska has the same grey Soot covering the Glaciers. It is likely that China has invested negligible amounts in basic Electrostatic Precipitat ors and more advanced SCR Nox Scrubber Units at their coal facilities.
Well Dave coal plants and ICEs cause both smog and excess CO2.
2 problems.
3 if you have leaded petrol
Coal plants with scrubbers and cars with catalytic converters produce very little pollution.
In fact, in CA, the cars are so clean that the air from their exhaust is cleaner than the air being sucked in.
I don’t know if China still uses leaded gas. The rest of the world phased it out 40 years ago.
Surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.
With China, it is all about the money.
Second Chi-Com Advisor for Moneymaking: Boss. We are trying to sell more wind and solar parts. The market is drying up. And, no, we canāt keep buying our own parts! Itās just delaying the inevitable.
Moneymaking and Oppression Boss (a.k.a. āpresident of Chinaā): Well, get those promotion people to crank out some more ānewsā about how human CO2 is causing āclimate change.ā The āPlanetary Emergencyā campaign is dead and gone, but you can still work on the āreasonableā (heh) lukewarmers; they are still some of our most useful tools (chuckling).
S C A M: We ā have ā TRIED. But, the people of Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, the United States, nearly the entire WORLD, in fact, are ready to spew them out of their mouths. People just donāt CARE. āGlobal warming, global warming, global warming, diarrhea,ā they say. We need to try something different.
MOB: Hm. How about making cars? People still love to drive. Weāll build a Chiburban and a Chorvette and an Acchord! Market them as āThe best internal combustion engine vehicles in the world!ā
S C A M: Seriously.
MOB: (mirthless laugh) No. As if. Hm.
S C A M: Get Chicago and California and Germany and Quebec to order their people to buy GREEN electric carsā¦.. We can easily make those up to world standards.
MOB: Heyā¦.. YES! THAT IS A GREAT IDEA! ā¦.. Hm. They wonāt start buying them for several years, thoughā¦. What do we do in the meantime?
tutti: Order the Chinese to buy electric cars!!
MOB: And (big grin) it has the WONDERFUL collateral benefit: much easier to control the peopleā¦. Because (rubbing hands together) we control the power supply. Hee, hee, hee, hee, hee.
S C A M: Iāll tell the promotion department to push out a new āBig Oil is Evil and Internal Combustion Engines Pollute a LOT (no matter how good the exhaust system is)” campaign AND COAL is terrible (laughing hard).
MOB: Better cool it on the coal.
S C A M: Ohā¦. yeah.
MOB: Oh, one more thing, S.. Buy up all the shares in horses, mules, and donkeys you can — lots of those people live where it gets cold in the winter or where power is very expensive…….
S C A M: (giggle)
Janice you forgot Ontario which is partners with California and Quebec. Ontario has up to a $14 thousand grant if you buy a high end EV.
They pay Solar Farms 1,500 % more than our Base Rate pre smart meters of 5.1 cents per Kw at .80 cents per Kw. Wynn Farms are paid 700 % more @ 0.40 cents per Kw. Peak Rate is 0.18 cents per Kw only 353 % more than our Base Rate pre smart meters of 5.1 cents.
Don’t you feel fuzzy? On our first Winter Cycle on $mart meter$ it cost 98% more to cook breakfast and supper. That did not include the new exploitive Delivery Charge. My July Hydro one Bill had a .04 cent charge for Electricity and $21.99 for Delivery. Welcome to Ontario’s Greed Energy Program strategized for the Investment Class.
Wow, Mr. Landry. ANOTHER creepy place to live. Your succinct, high-information, witty, comment makes that very clear.
Fuzzy? Nope. š But, you did make me smile, for that word reminded me of one of my favorite cartoon strips, Get Fuzzy.
Can’t help you save money on your electric bill, but, hopefully, this will help you smile while you eat your cold Spam, prunes, and soda crackers for dinner tonight:
#(:))
“China has announced that automakers that want to manufacture fossil fuel-powered cars first must produce low-emission and zero-emission cars … The new rule applies to companies that make or import more than 30,000 fossil fuel cars annually …”
Why does one think that this rule only applies to automakers importing beyond 30,000 vehicles? Why not all automakers? Or, at least, those importing, say, over 500 annually?
Oh, I know. Could it be because the Chinese ruling class has an appetite for Rolls Royces? Bentleys? Or, for the really high achieving ruling class (yes, I know that’s a contradiction) a Bugatti Veyron? Perhaps a Ferrari or Lamborghini is necessary for the male ruling class type who wishes to present a dashing image for a potential weekend hookup.
Oh, silly me. Even in a country as populous as China none of those aforementioned cars are likely to exceed my foregoing recommendation of an exemption for under 500 imports a year; and especially, for the Chairman, that Bugatti. And, that’s why a 30,000 unit exemption is necessary. The heir apparents to the ruling class, the generals, bureaucrats, enforcers, will need their BMWs, Mercedes, and Jaguars; the pre-owned versions available at extraordinarily discounted prices (if you know to belong to the correct shopper’s club) and imported legally of course.
Now, with all the prestige vehicles properly exempted from the onerous requirements imposed on the little people, life can carry on as it’s supposed to.
China lie? Now why would they go and do a thing like that?
China cannot afford to import fossil fuel for 1.5 billion people, most with cars. It needs its foreign currency reserves, and since its economy and stock market went in the toilet last year, it is running out of dollars. So it has to try something else. However, I don’t think the world has enough lead to make that many batteries. It doesn’t have a climate problem, it has an economy with no enforced environmental regulations problem.
An interesting statistic below:
“BEIJING – In 2015, 23.85 million new cars were registered in China, taking car ownership up to 172 million, according to the Ministry of Public Security on Monday.’
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/motoring/2016-01/26/content_23253925.htm
All the oil that is imported into China is paid for by consumers.
Interesting, but not relevant.
totally relevant.
China can import oil as long as it pays, i.e. as long as it can export enough goods in exchange. No reason it will turn into a problem soon, even with 2 billions cars (~1 billion toe required, which is huge but not impossible)
Not relevant. It doesn’t matter whether the money is coming from consumers or from the government, the ultimate source is the same.
The Chinese Crown government owned Oil company, NEXEN is operating in Fort McMurray’s Oil Sands. The Northern Gateway pipeline proposal was canceled because of Public outcry. It’s route was over the Rockies to Kitamat’s Sea Port. NEXEN just recently announced it is ceasing it’s Fracking Disasters in Northern BC which was for converting the methane into LNG for Export to Asia via the proposed PGTP to the controversial LeLu Island Export Terminal off of Prince Rupert BC.
The Transmountain Pipeline owned by Texas Kinder Morgan is under construction now. It is a tripling of capacity of an aged pipeline built 63 years ago that goes to a Tank Farm in Burnaby near Vancouver. There are court cases filed to block it’s construction. The National Observer has dozens of articles on Canadian Pipeline issues.
i have an alternate intepretation of the quote from matthew 22
first, here is more of the context:
“15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. āTeacher,ā they said, āwe know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You arenāt swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?ā
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, āYou hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ”
first of all, he did not give a yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question – presumably for a reason
his answer was clever – he said give ceasar what belongs to him.
he did NOT stipulate that that coin belonged to ceasar or that anybody’s earings belonged to anybody but the man who produced it.
he did NOT say ‘pay the imperial tax’.
gnomish:
Elsewhere the intent of His statement was confirmed by the Apostolic leadership:
Romans 13:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is Godās servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out Godās wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid Godās wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
So you’re saying the Chinese government is God’s servant when it brutally suppresses Christians and the Falun Gong?
Thanks sy computing.
“So youāre saying the Chinese government is Godās servant when it brutally suppresses Christians and the Falun Gong?”
The Chinese government and every other government on the face of the planet is God’s “servant” under the Christian belief system, in so far as God’s sovereignty reigns supreme over all, or so claims Paul in his letter to the Romans.
More importantly to address your Straw Man, the Christian is God’s servant when he/she obeys the laws of the State to the extent that those laws don’t contradict the 1st commandment.
The point of Jesus’ profound answer to the Pharisees (and subsequently Paul’s confirmation of it) is the same. Already small rebellions among the Jewish population had been initiated and put down by Rome prior to Christ. The Pharisees were looking for a way to accuse Jesus before Rome, hence they tried to trick him into proclaiming that Jews weren’t required to pay homage to Caesar, thereby making Him (that is, Christ) just another rebel leader and therefore a target for elimination.
He didn’t go for it; instead turning the matter directly back at them and resolving it at the same time, again, in a masterful display of profound wisdom and brilliance.
Or so is my view.
Eric:
Any time.
anthropic, compare the current Chinese government to Nero, who ruled Rome around the time that Paul was writing these letters.
Nero makes the Chinese dictators look like saints.
well that was interesting, mr sy computing.
i guess my client really has no defense so how about some plea bargaining?
gnomish:
If you’re saying what I think you saying, you’re kind to say it.
I’m merely a “paralegal” as it were, however, I can refer to you One very well skilled on handling such matters:
1 John 2
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
š
I canāt imagine that I would be the first to observe that this saying of Jesus has a double meaning. That he spoke in parables is well documented and his maxims – for me – are always literal and allegorical at the same time. The reason for this, is that the mystery of reality, is both universal and personal (Talk about speaking hermetically! š
However, whenever I have heard anybody discuss this scripture it is never given a context – either allegorically or historically – that would actually illuminate it and help elucidate its meaning.
When he asks: āwhose image is on the coinā, he is answering in truth, because his āquestionā is rhetorical! He is revealing a mystery, a dilemma – if you will – that is at the heart of his own situation. It is a well known political issue in his own time, that also became a life threatening question for the early christians at the time the new testament scriptures are actually being written.
So, at the time of birth of Jesus, Julius Caesar had already permitted a statue of himself with the inscription, “The unvanquished god,” and declared himself dictator for life. Between the death of Jesus and the beginning of recording the oral traditions in writing, the notion that the emperor was divine was ridiculed:
Oh dear! the looney tunes christians are out discussing their imaginary friend. Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
I’m not a christian dumb-ass! Try studying a little bit of comparative mythology before you darken this forum with brainless stupidity!
I’m equally versed in the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Buddhist scriptures and much world mythology including the Old and New testaments of the Christian Bible. It has been a life long interest of mine.
You have no idea what you are talking about, either way you are equally lost, because you don’t know what you speak of but speak loudly of what you know nothing about! You are not alone however, because you are in a vast company.
Scott
You are referring to some fable as fact and covering it under ‘comparative mythology’. As a matter of fact, I have studied mythology at some point in my life.
By the way, I didn’t refer to anyone as a ‘christian dumb-ass’. If you choose to introduce yourself as that then it’s not my affair.
‘darken this forum’ – what the hell are you on about?
I can probably handle the ‘brainless stupidity’ part, after all, I am responding to your comment.
Iām not religious, dumb-ass! Try studying a little bit of comparative mythology before you darken this forum with brainless stupidity!
I always love it when atheists go on and on about how everyone else’s religion is stupid.
Sy, Romans 13:1 and following is not referring to civil authorities but to authorities in the Body of Christ.
The context:
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. {giveth: or, imparteth} {with simplicity: or, liberally}
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. (Rom 12:4-9 KJV)
Also, the verse that follows what you quoted is hardly how the “governing authorities” in China or elsewhere operate.
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Rom 13:8 KJV)
A few references to look at:
Luke 4:5,6
Ephesians 6:12
Ephesians 2:2,3
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 4:11-16
There are many others but this is not the place to get into expounding on them.
Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown (D) Governor of the State of California wants to outlaw internal combustion engines in a couple decades. Brown who recently returned from The People’s Republic of China.
And what a surprise that China can be termed to begin a new state religion.
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Alex October 1, 2017 at 5:54 am said:
There is an old saying that: “Myths are other people’s religion”
Many people don’t get this parable, so I will explicate it for you. Hinduism is a myth to Christians and Christianity is mythology to Hindus.
I called you a dumb-ass but clearly you can’t even comprehend a direct insult!
It’s a quote from one of the worlds greatest pieces of literature.
We agree then, you win! š
Scott
I am shocked. I didn’t realise that you were referring to me when you said ‘dumb-ass’.Perhaps it was your lack of a comma in the appropriate place that misled me.
I simply couldn’t comprehend that a man of your vast intellect and knowledge of all religions/philosophies would resort to profanity in your opening sentence to me.
I am shocked. I didnāt realise that you were referring to me when you said ādumb-assā.Perhaps it was your lack of a comma in the appropriate place that misled me. I simply couldnāt comprehend that a man of your vast intellect and knowledge of all religions/philosophies would resort to profanity in your opening sentence to me.
It is clear that you don’t know what “profane” means. And you assume that mistakes of punctuation have a single and unambiguous meaning. As for my vast knowledge of the sacred, it doesn’t prohibit me from calling you any secular pejorative I can imagine. F%ck wit, immediately comes to mind! Have you got that dumb-ass? You seem to struggle with comprehension, so I’ve made it as clear as I can; are you feeling me now, bitch! š
Enough of this, I’m not going to respond anymore.
Cheers,
Scott
xoxo
Everyone knows it will take more fossil fuel to feed the renewable bandwagon. China wants everyone else to bite the bullet so they can succeed in the market. Simple as that.
Wonderful!
China will spend Trillions of Dollars and achieve nothing! Best solution ever (evha). And the Chinese population will be poisoned year by year, gradually. And die. Just like their beloved E.U. counter part.
And the German peoples of Europe will gradually cease to exist!. And the Earth will be rid of ther stench.
Wunderbar!
AGW is a propaganda game and nobody knows how to play the propaganda game like the communists. Mao is dead but the old maoist dictum of “correct action and correct thought” is alive and well.
Mineral and biofuel matter are better used as raw material than burned into energy. Chinese or not, I’ll seriously consider buying a car with a portable, non-combustion energy source.
But, concentrating humanity within battery range is an unreasonable expectation. Even if a portable, non-combustion energy source existed, not everyone cannot afford a prototype. Society cannot function sustainably by limiting healthy, active adults within walking, bicycling and battery range. Petrol engine vehicles will remain essential for an extended duration.
In the meanwhile, any dictatorships et al pushing the change down taxpayers and consumers throat globally, might discover a surprise. One example of a mild form. In the EU the waste producer has responsibility to deal with it . The organised alarmista might discover diesel vehicles in front of their gates with a printout glued on the wind-screen. There are many eligible candidates for a winning ‘waste producer’ in this case.
Don’t know about the Chinese, but the most brutal crackdown against Christianity so far, following closely Malleus Maleficarum and Index Librorum Prohibitorum, is Laudato Si by Vatican.
Isn’t China, with the electric car mandate, (just) indulging in some good old fashioned cronyism?
They’ll have seen how Western Governments, in a effort to appeal to their voters by ‘Being Green’, are increasingly mandating EVs.
Emotional Blackmail of the highest order, no-one dare say a word against The Environment, Innit just a slight variation on the age old trick boys use to try and ‘get laid’, by coming across as all sensitive and caring? Whereas for A Government, the ‘get laid’ equivalent is ‘get re-elected’
The Government Mandate means that there is effectively only one buyer in whatever market there is. EVs in this case and it’s an equally bad situation as when there is only one seller – prices skyrocket.
China knows that they are the primary suppliers of many of the things needed for EVs, batteries, neodymium and inexpensive electronics. They also know that Western Green Madness means no new mining will be allowed or disgusting awful processing factories permitted in the squeeky clean West.
They have realised that the Western Turkeys have truly voted for Christmas and they are busy preparing the stuffing.
And stuffed we will be.
Even more than we’re being stuffed now
So, under the guise of ‘being green’ (so no-one can argue with them) they are going to create a supply shortage of the important parts of electric vehicles. All the important stuff is needed at home for their own greenery, they’ve got us westerners by the ‘short and curlies’
But, for a price, they *may* just let me and you have some of the parts needed for electric cars.
For A Price
(assuming Moonbeam or Merkel don’t swipe the lot)
No need to despair. Turning me into green, or turkey all the same, requires breaching the rule of law. And, better than that, arguing against green is possible, at least in the EU, on political grounds as follows:
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s human rights convention don’t mention environment even once. The generations lost in the Mein Kampf-era made sure of it at the end of the 1940’s.
But, in 2009 EU charter of the EU fundamental rights came into force and opened a door to the concept proven disastrous during the war:
Article 37
Environmental protection
A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable
development.
The house of cards is resting on the meaning of a subjective word ‘sustainable’ and as we know it can be twisted into anything. How is it related to human rights? And based on what? How is it implementing proportionality and subsidiarity principles of the treaties? The effect of even the most catastrophic imaginable environmental disasters ever, Chernobyl accident and Tsar Bomb, turned out local at the end. The average global outside air temperature fractions and movement in the misguided war against the gas essential to all known life on Earth aren’t going to sustain it. It’s just a question of time more people will start arguing it.
Ideologically driven technology will inevitably conflict with physical reality, to its detriment. For example, Lysenkoism…
“China has announced that automakers that want to manufacture fossil fuel-powered cars first must produce low-emission and zero-emission cars to attain a new energy vehicle score. The new rule applies to companies that make or import more than 30,000 fossil fuel cars annually. This means that by 2019, carmakers must be producing a fleet with a total of 10% or more electric vehicles, and 12% or more by 2020.”
This is “fakenews” in double standard. China does not “want” to impose on its and foreign manufacturers a quota of 10 or 12 per cent purely electric propulsion systems, but a quota of 10 to 12 per cent of car systems with markedly reduced exhaust emission. This can be a) purely electric vehicles b) vehicles with hybrid drive c) vehicles with hydrogen technology d) vehicles with an atomic drive (these can hardly be produced as quickly as neccessary and e) also vehicles with a particularly clean diesel drive like of the standard 6 d or better, which have already been developed as motors. However, reducing it only to electric drives is therefore fake news.
The second is that China has now shifted this arrangement from 2018 to 2020. Those who know the Chinese ( and other Asians) know that threat is the mastermind of an Asian character. I strongly doubt that such an arrangement will ever come, it will be left with threats.
I assure you this is not fake news…
BMW have been lobbying hard against the new Chinese rule with no result.
(Mind you the new EU rules also impose a requirement for low carbon across all the ‘fleet’ produced by a car maker)
This is not a rule, but the intention to establish a rule. Namely in 2018 for 2020. The same was also in 2016 for 2018. These threats with rules corresponds precisely to the Chinese Duktus, which also a Donald Trump well-internalized (with some success, well-meaning) Often the threat alone helps better than that Implementation. However, I think that China is offset on this point. Chinese buyers are simply not able to raise the additional costs for alternative drive systems. Whether these propulsion systems are manufactured abroad or in China, they simply cost more according to current standards. However, those 10-12 per cent, who are able to increase the additional costs for these systems, also have power in China. And even a devil will be wondering whether they are driving a diesel BMW or a Tesla from environmental sightpoints now. In doubt, they will choose the most comfortable system. And the other 90 per cent can not afford an alternative system. Thus, the declaration of intent will be postponed from year to year just to meet the international claim that something is done for the climate. In reality, nothing is done, rather the production is done in contrapuntal terms. Because 90 per cent from 130 per cent is more than 90 per cent from 100 per cent. China’s carbon footprint and the fog in the cities speak a clear language. It was true that there was a slight improvement, but this improvement could be due to better weather also. And not because a better insight.
The Christians you refer to have been the opposite of guardians and stewards of the earth.
And migrating to clean tech requires bootstrapping from dirty.
Do you honestly think Jesus would say, thou shalt do nothing about this cancer causing unbreathable smog?
You’re also ignoring the be humble argue.
It strains credulity to breaking point to believe the Chinese have taken up some non fact based idea to ape the west or sell solar panels.
The only reasons for Chinese renewable energy and curbing coal are they accept the science of AGW and their smog problem.
And they have seriously reduced their planned coal plant now to a level beyond their Paris commitment.
about time the skeptic community took a long hard look at the reality of the changed (and rapidly changing) Chinese approach
It strains credulity to breaking point to believe that China is even remotely “green” let alone a leader of the movement!
A big factor in China’s reduction in planned new coal plants is that their economy has been slowing for several years…
It strains credulity to breaking point that Griffie actually believes the nonsense he spews.
Air quality is improving in China, althogh quite slow:
http://csens.org/?xakse=500&yakse=500&plot_to_margin=70&f2antkilder=1&antadded=1&gruppe1=uscpollution&kildefil1=us-cities-PM25-mean.txt®ion1=PBEI&fromval1=2000&toval1=&operasjon11=-&value11=&operasjon12=-&value12=&linecolor1=blue&linewidth1=2&clinear1=true
/Jan
How many animals do the Chinese windmills kill every year?
U.S. Interior Secretary Zinke estimates 650,000 to 750,000 animals are killed annually by U.S. windmills.
What is the mindset of people who advocate such slaughter? They must be pretty cold fish.
TA, it’s all a Trade Off, slow death and low birth rates caused by mercury emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants. I’m sure the Carrion Clean Up Crew is on Standby waiting for Blade Kill. Just as they fly over Farmers Fields waiting for the smorgasbord of Field Critter Kill when the farmer is Cultivating and Harvesting his Crops. The numbers of Field Critter Kill will rise sharply if the vega dream of a Plant Based Diet comes to fruition. Monoculture has lots of negative aspects reliant on herbicides and GMO seeds.
Personally I opposed Nuclear Power Plants planned for the shore of Nipigon Bay on Lake Superior in 1970.We conceded to Coal Power Plants if they built Nox SCR Scrubbers. I took 30 years before Ontario Hydro built Nox Scrubbers at Lambton GS and Nanticoke GS on the north shore of Lake Erie, North Americas largest Coal Power facility with 8 Units in 2002-03 with both of these Power plants closed by 2014. Ontario does NoT burn coal anymore.
They offered FIT Contracts 0.80 cents a Kw for Solar only 1,500% more than our Base Rate Pre $mart Meters of 0.051 cents a Kw. Wynnd Farms are paid 700% more @ 0.40 cents a Kw. As Captive Consumers we are exploited without consent.
Someone please explain to me how all these electric, so called zero emissions, vehicles are going to be charged. It seems California and the People’s Republic of China are of like mind. Of course California can buy electricity from other states so their emissions will go down while the other states increase. In 1985 the standard mode of transportation in the PRC was bicycles, buses and brand new coal fired trains. The PRC wants to ban personal internal combustion driven cars for far more reasons the CO2 emissions. Also they want to put their automobile industry on a better footing than those company importing into the PRC. Of course in a communist country no one every really knows the truth and was is the official truth today may get you thrown in jail tomorrow.
It’s this China really taking a leadership position or rather, chasing the market that is being dictated from Sacramento and Brussels ?
The Russians started building a nuclear powered Ice Breaker Fleet in 1959. I stumbled upon the video on YouTube about a month ago. They use steam turbines turning generators for Electric Drive. They are quiet and do not emit the Black Carbon that Ocean going Ships burning the Bottom of the Barrel, dirty Bunker C Oil which must be heated to flow. It is stated that the 15 largest Container Ships in the world emit as much pollution as all the vehicles in the world plying the Shipping Route from Asia and to North America’s conn/sumers, many who lost their jobs when Corporation’s fled to Asia to exploit cheap labour and non existent environmental regulations.
“It is stated that the 15 largest Container Ships in the world emit as much pollution as all the vehicles in the world”
Interesting. I had not heard this before.
By vehicles do you mean just cars, cars and trucks, or every vehicle that is not one of the 15 largest container ships in the world?
MarkW, this was mentioned on a Cbc Newsfeed recently, A google produced a full page of Links; One Ref:
One Container Ship Out-Pollutes 50 Million Cars | Ryan Eric Well …
https://www.linkedin.com/…/one-container-ship-out-pollutes-15-million-cars-ryan-eri…
Aug 27, 2015 – For ships at open sea, it’s pretty much an emission free-for-all. … amount of sulfur and carbon dioxide spewing out of the ship smokestacks. … Environmental organizations from all over the world have called for a ban on bunker … lumbering, belching black engines that occupy present-day container ships.
At 1300 feet long, itās not hard to notice the gargantuan profile of a container ship. Even miles out, their immense silhouettes are easily spotted against the horizon. What is less visibleĀ is the near-unfathomable amount of fuel emissions generated by a single container ship ā an amount equal to the emissions of 50 million cars. For perspective: The 760 million cars that are currently operating worldwide emit “only” as much pollution as 15 container ships running at full capacity. There are currently over 5000 massiveĀ container ships operating globally and 85,000 commercial cargo ships on top of that.
Not mentioned it the fact that the “Seven days of renewable power” required 73% coming from
( more or less reliable) hydropower. An China is likely pretty much tapped out for more hydropower – they built that enormous series of dams that prodiuces, as I recall, about 7 to 10 gigawatts of power – about the same power as 20,0000 land based wind turbines, but controllable and thus far more valuable. China is also building 20 floating nuclear reactors, ala the Russian innovation (The Russians own and operate their floating nuclear reactors, which they tow to a harbor and hook up. When refueling required, they simply tow another one in and tow the other back totheir facility for refueling). Floating reactors power coastal cities. China is also building lots of nuclear power plants (35 under construction, as I recall, with hundreds more scheduled for the future. China is also rushing to develop molten salt nuclear reactors and has banned wind power as “a disruptor” of the power grid.