The Straw Man Argument

With the latest environmental hysteria gaining traction to ban plastic straws (as usual both irrational and unscientific) here is a graph that puts Australia’s plastic pollution in perspective:

Yeah, we don’t even make the top 12.

You may have also heard about the incredible figure of 500 million plastic straws used by Americans every day. It turns out that came from a science project by a 9 year old boy. That doesn’t prove it is wrong, just lacking in academic rigour because most 9 year olds have not been trained in the scientific method (much like most adult environmentalists)

Nature More Diverse Than We Know

So a scientist thinks that there could be 10 times as many species of plants and animals than we know.  This not only demonstrates the huge creativity of the Creator God, but it also puts the lie to all those ads by such mendacious groups as WWF and their ilk who make claims such as “70% of all animal species have died”- if we don’t even know how many there are now, how can we even guess at such a percentage?

From the ABC

Number of plant and animal species could be 10 times greater, Flinders University professor says

Posted about 2 hours ago

The number of different plant and animal species in the world may be 10 times greater than we think, according to a professor from Flinders University.

An Australian team has written to the journal, Nature, claiming the estimate of 8.7 million species could be just a fraction of the true figure.

Professor Mike Lee, an evolutionary biologist with the South Australian Museum and Flinders University, said it was a “known unknown”.

“Knowing how many different forms of life live on earth is probably one of the most fundamental questions a scientist can ask,” he said.

“Despite 300 years of taxonomy, there’s still vast disagreements and estimates range between 3 million and 100 million.”

Professor Lee said the processes to determine different species used to be quite superficial.

“What we’ve done in the main is look at animals with the naked eye, and sort them into piles, and each pile we think is a new species,” he said.

“But when we look at the piles really, really closely, using genetics, it turns out each pile isn’t really just a homogenous set of individuals.

“They might be very similar, but nonetheless subtly different species.”

Number of species in the world could be up to 90 million

He believes the real number could be closer to 90 million, and that is important for conservation efforts.

“If we thought there was only one African elephant, we might not be concerned that all the elephants in the forest were going extinct, because we might think there’s plenty of the same thing out on the savanna,” Professor Lee said.

“But of course if you know there’s two different species, and the African forest elephant is a unique and irreplaceable genetic and conservation resource, then you’d be really concerned if it’s going extinct.”

Professor Lee said it was not reassuring that there might be more species out there, because they could also be falling extinct without our knowledge.

His letter to Nature was co-written by Paul Oliver from the Australian National University.

The Earth is Dying/ Died 40 years ago/ or something

The usual predictable dire warning that surround Earth Day have been somewhat overshadowed by the celebrations of the Queen’s 90th Birthday. Stupid humans we are too busy living to notice we are supposed to be dead.

Here are some of the predictions made at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970- and this was even before they invented Global Warming.

Sunscreen- Not Climate Change- Killing Reefs

42-34720580

The equivalent of one drop of the active ingredient in sunscreen into 3 1/2 Olympic swimming pools of water is enough to kill corals. Scientists discovered that it is this, not “ocean acidification” or warming allegedly caused by CO2 that is damaging the world’s coral reefs.

From WUWT:

Oops! It may not be ‘ocean acidification’ killing coral after all – common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous to coral reefs

From the AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY and the “settled science” department:

Sunscreen is proven toxic to coral reefs
Tel Aviv University researchers discover chemical found in most sunscreen lotions poses an existential threat to young corals

 

The daily use of sunscreen bearing an SPF of 15 or higher is widely acknowledged as essential to skin cancer prevention, not to mention skin damage associated with aging. Though this sunscreen may be very good for us, it may be very bad for the environment, a new Tel Aviv University study finds.

New research published inArchives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicologyfinds that a common chemical in sunscreen lotions and other cosmetic products poses an existential threat — even in miniscule concentrations — to the planet’s corals and coral reefs. “The chemical, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), is found in more than 3,500 sunscreen products worldwide. It pollutes coral reefs via swimmers who wear sunscreen or wastewater discharges from municipal sewage outfalls and coastal septic systems,” said Dr. Omri Bronstein of TAU’s Department of Zoology, one of the principal researchers.

The study was conducted by a team of marine scientists from TAU, including Prof. Yossi Loya, also of the Department of Zoology, the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, the National Aquarium (US), the US. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and other labs in the US.

Read the full article here

Vinegar to Save the Reef!

From the ABC:

Household vinegar advances the fight against crown of thorns starfish threat on Great Barrier Reef

 

Household vinegar could be a key ingredient in the fight against crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef.

Crown of thorns starfish (COTS) is a pest which eats coral tissues, posing a huge threat to the reef.

Australian Institute of Marine Science research showed coral cover on surveyed reefs had declined by about 50 per cent over the past 30 years, with COTS responsible for almost half of that decline.

James Cook University scientist Lisa Boström-Einarsson searched for an eradication method for COTS that was cheap, easily available and safe for everything other than the starfish themselves.

“The acid basically just melts their insides.”

James Cook University scientist Lisa Boström-Einarsson

Her method involved injecting the COTS with 20 millilitres of household vinegar.

The trial saw a 100 per cent kill rate within 48 hours of injection.

“I tried alcohol [first] and that did not work very well and then I heard some rumours that some people had used vinegar but had not had very good results,” Ms Boström-Einarsson said.

“So I refined the methods a little bit and then it turned out to work really well.”

Ms Boström-Einarsson said the starfish were mostly water inside and could not tolerate the acidity of the vinegar.

“The acid basically just melts their insides,” she said.

“It is quite dramatic the way they go and within 24 hours there is basically just slime left — it is not pretty.”

Cheaper, easier method to tackling pest

The current eradication practice is to inject the COTS with ox bile which is much harder to come by, more expensive and could cause quarantine issues as it is an animal byproduct.

Ms Boström-Einarsson has worked on this research for a year, and has tested her method around Lizard Island in far north Queensland and in Papua New Guinea.

She said the next step was large scale field testing to ensure process was safe for other marine life.

“I’m working with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on doing the final field tests … so they can endorse it as an approved method,” Ms Boström-Einarsson said.

“Everyone is very positive because it is a simple method — it just needs one injection and it is safe for the divers to do it and it works really well so there’s been a lot of interest around the world.”

Despite this, Ms Boström-Einarsson said this method would not be the saviour of the Great Barrier Reef, but could save individual reefs in the meantime.

“Ideally we would stop the [COTS] outbreaks from happening or we would control the outbreaks at a population level,” she said.

“But at the moment we do not have the tools to do that and we do not have the knowledge to know what causes the outbreaks.

“What we can do is [make] sustained efforts at local reefs and protect them and for that this method will be really effective.”

Motor Vehicles- Eco-Saviours of the World

Because our lives are dominated by petroleum-fuelled motor vehicles we often overlook their tremendous contribution to our health, wealth and even to the environment. Yes, the motor vehicle, even in its pre-1970’s polluting state, catalysed huge improvements in urban living, cheaper and more sustainable food production and played a part in the reforestation of continents.

Far from being the evil machines portrayed by environmental activists, cars, trucks and other modern transportation methods make our environment much healtheir than it would otherwide be.

Pierre Desrochers writes:

The rise of petroleum-powered transport was an environmental boon.

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s The Long Winter is generally regarded as the most historically accurate book of her semi-autobiographical Little House on the Prairie series. The Long Winter tells the story of how the inhabitants of De Smet (present-day South Dakota) narrowly avoided starvation during the severe winter of 1880-81, when a series of blizzards dumped nearly three and a half metres of snow on the northern plains – immobilising trains and cutting off the settlers from the rest of the world. Faced with an imminent food shortage, Laura and her neighbours learned that a sizeable amount of wheat was available within 20 miles of their snow-covered houses. Her future husband, Almanzo Wilder, and a friend of his risked their lives in order to bring back enough food to sustain the townspeople through the rest of the winter. With the spring thaw, the railroad service was re-established and the Ingalls family enjoyed a long-delayed Christmas celebration in May.

The Long Winter is a valuable reminder of how lethal crop failures and geographical isolation could be before the advent of modern farming and transportation technologies. Not too long ago, subsistence farmers across the West had to cope with the ‘lean season’ – the period of greatest scarcity before the first availability of new crops. As some readers may know, in England the late spring (and especially the month of May) was once referred to as the ‘hungry gap’ and the ‘starving time’. One problem was the cost and difficulty of moving heavy things over often muddy and impracticable dirt roads; three centuries ago, moving a ton of goods over 50 kilometres on land between, say, Liverpool and Manchester was as expensive as shipping them across the north Atlantic.

The development of coal-powered railroads and steamships revolutionised the lives of our ancestors. Among other positive developments, landlocked farmers could now specialise in what they did best and rely on other farmers and producers for their remaining needs. The result was not only more abundant food at ever-cheaper prices, but the end of widespread famine and starvation, as the surplus from regions with good harvests could now be shipped to those that had experienced mediocre ones. (Of course, a region that experienced a bumper crop one year might have a mediocre one the next.)

In time, petroleum-derived products such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel) and bunker fuels (used in container ships) displaced coal because of their higher energy density, cleaner combustion and greater ease of extraction, handling, transport and storage. Nearly two thirds of the world’s refined petroleum products are now used in land, water and air transportation, accounting for nearly 95 per cent of all energy consumed in this sector. Despite much wishful thinking, there are simply no better alternatives to petroleum-powered transport at the moment. For instance, despite very generous governmental subsidies, battery electric, hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles have repeatedly failed to gain any meaningful market shares against gasoline-powered cars. This is because of their limited range and power, long charging time, bad performance in cold weather, security concerns (especially in collisions), and inadequate electricity production and delivery infrastructure.

While the convenience of cars is obvious, few people grasp their historical significance in terms of public health and environmental benefits.

Read the rest here

Nature Rebounds

calgary052

Environmentalists thrive on doom and gloom, but a new scientific paper notes that in every notable area the demand for commodities is declining in the prosperous nations, and we can expect developing nations to take a similar trajectory as they take advantage of technology to grow. We’ve passed peak travel due to urbanisation, peak paper due to digital technology, peak plastic, and even peak baby. Technological advances in food production mean that less land is needed to produce more food so that marginal agricultural land is going back to nature. “Americans are dematerialising” partly because of smart devices- think smart phones replacing a dozen or more single use devices.

From Don Aitkin:

At the beginning of his Encyclical, Pope Francis said this: The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor… Because I was reading on to see what he wanted to say about global warming and  ‘climate change’ I let that passage pass, though I felt it was hyperbolic in the extreme, and I made a glancing reference to the issue in my essay of that time.

It is pleasant to be able to say that His Holiness can take comfort from a stirring account of the positive changes that have been occurring to Nature in at least the developed parts of the world. The monograph, Nature Rebounds, is by Jesse Asubel of Rockefeller University in the USA. Dr Asubel leads a research program that aims to find the technical means to facilitate a large, prosperous society that emits little or nothing harmful and spares large amounts of land and sea for nature. He is closely associated with the concepts of decarbonization, dematerialization, land sparing, and industrial ecology. Sounds good?

His little book is a good read, too. Asubel starts with the story of  the bear that recently killed a hiker in New Jersey, close to New York City. The last known bear attack in NJ was 150 years ago. America, it seems, is going back to Nature. There seem to be about 2500 wild bears in the state, with a hunting season for six days to keep the numbers down. Protesters have picketed the area in an attempt to stop the hunt. It all sounds reminiscent of the annual fuss about the cull of kangaroo numbers in Australia’s capital city.

In contrast to the Pope’s argument, Dr Asubel says that in the USA (and I would argue the much the same is true of Australia) …[a] series of decouplings is occurring, so that our economy no longer advances in tandem with exploitation of land, forests, water, and minerals. American use of almost everything except information seems to be peaking, not because the resources are exhausted, but because consumers changed consumption and producers changed production. Changes in behavior and technology liberate the environment.

The rest of the monograph spells out his message. In farming, grain harvests are five times larger than they were in 1940, but with no more, or even less, land being used. Pesticides, nitrogen, phosphates, potash and even water are used less than they once were. The conversion of crops to meat has also decoupled, because farmers are now much more efficient than they once were.

Read the rest here

The Solar Power Plant That Runs on Natural Gas

So, get this, environmentalists worked everyone up into a lather about global warming- now on pause for over 18 years- and the need to use renewables- which are green, safe and just dandy (don’t mind that the “free” energy costs three times as much as the “dirty” stuff”).

So in California they built a you-beaut solar thermal plant which fries birds by the thousand and which actually needs natural gas to keep it running smoothly- for up to 4 hours a day they burn those awful fossil fuels to keep the turbine spinning.

That my friends, is why no rational person should ever vote Greens or pay any attention to an “expert” with the word sustainable in his/her job description.

From WUWT:

Solar Fossil Fueled Fantasies

 

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach.

Sometimes when I’m reading about renewable technologies, I just break out laughing at the madness that the war on carbon has wrought. Consider the Ivanpah solar tower electric power plant. It covers five square miles in Southern California with mirrors which are all focusing the sun on a central tower. The concentrated sunlight boils water that is used to run a steam turbine to generate electricity.

 
 

ivanpah solar power plant

 

Sounds like at a minimum it would be ecologically neutral … but unfortunately, the Law of Unintended Consequences never sleeps, and the Ivanpah tower has turned out to be a death trap for birds, killing hundreds and hundreds every year:

“After several studies, the conclusion for why birds are drawn to the searing beams of the solar field goes like this: Insects are attracted to the bright light of the reflecting mirrors, much as moths are lured to a porch light. Small birds — insect eaters such as finches, swallows and warblers — go after the bugs. In turn, predators such as hawks and falcons pursue the smaller birds.

But once the birds enter the focal field of the mirrors, called the “solar flux,” injury or death can occur in a few seconds. The reflected light from the mirrors is 800 to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Either the birds are incinerated in flight; their feathers are singed, causing them to fall to their deaths; or they are too injured to fly and are killed on the ground by predators, according to a report by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.”

– David Danelski, Solar: Ivanpah Solar Described as Deadly Trap for Wildlife,” Riverside-Press Enterprise, April 8, 2014.

But of course, that’s not what made me laugh. That’s a tragedy which unfortunately will be mostly ignored by those good-hearted environmentally conscious folks suffering from chronic carbophobia.

The next oddity about Ivanpah is that despite being powered by light, it is light-years away from being economically viable. Like the old sailors say, “The wind is free … but everything else costs money”.

But being totally uneconomical doesn’t matter, because despite costing $2.2 billion to build, Google is a major shareholder, so at least they could afford to foot the bills for their high-priced bird-burner …

Read the rest here

 

 

Those Flaming Faucets!

Lots of lies have been told by environmental activists determined to rob us of cheap energy. Now even the US EPA is calling foul.

From Andrew Bolt:

Yet another costly green scare debunked:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with President Barack Obama.

The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.

When will Victoria end its senseless ban on fracking, one even crazier than its earlier ban on GM crops? When will NSW loosen its own restrictions on a technology that can give us relatively cheap energy?