More Greenpeace lies

May 21, 2015 / newlifenarrabri / Leave a comment

Amongst all the spin and lies amongst the environmental movement at the moment, there are none so shameless as Greenpeace and WWF.

Here is the latest Greenpeace con job.

From Andrew Bolt:

Greenpeace cons you about the Reef. How can you trust a word it says

0 Comments | Permalink

Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt

MAY212015(7:41pm)

The Greenpeace ad, claiming our Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed:

But wait. That picture of dead coral is actually of coral in the Philippines, and was lifted from another Greenpeace publication:

Even more amazing, Greenpeace had actually used that picture to demonstrate how coral killed by a cyclone could actually grow back. Don’t panic!

Apo Island’s community-managed marine sanctuary is considered one of the best of its kind in the world. Established in the mid1980s, the sanctuary became a beacon of hope that damaged reefs can, with proper protection, management, and community buy-in, be restored back to health. ..

Strong storm surges decimated the corals and washed them ashore. The sanctuary, once known to be teeming with marine life was left devastated and now resembles a coral graveyard. Fortunately the reefs on the other sides of the island were spared. But while the damage to the sanctuary was significant not all was lost because marine life around the island was already healthy…

Apo Island’s success story has always been a model of hope for the Philippine seas.

What a con. Here’s Greenpeace using a dodgy picture to push a dodgy scare about a dodgy warming theory – with the result that it’s likely to drive away tourists.

It’s also pretending nothing is being doing to “save” the Reef, when in fact more than $2 billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent over the next decade to protect it.

Has Greenpeace no shame?

Carbon Tax Accounting: $24= $5310

January 1, 2015January 1, 2015 / newlifenarrabri / Leave a comment

The carbon tax was the maddest deed of the Gillard Government, although the Mining Tax comes close. It takes a special kind of stupidity to produce two taxes that cost more to administer than they raised.

The scary bit is that these people still do not get it and could soon be running the country into an even deeper hole- see the comments by Mark Butler at the end of the story.

Jo Nova writes:

Carbon tax cost $5310 a ton. $15 billion to abate almost nothing and cool the world by even less.

If the Greens cared about the environment, they’d call this scheme “a ghastly waste”.

It takes skill to figure out a scheme where you set the price at $24 for something and end up paying $5,000. It could only happen when people are playing with other people’s money. That’s the soft left idea of good maths and good business.

That the Labor-Greens boast that this spectacular failure was a success shows the carbon tax was never about the climate, nor about CO2 or the environment. Follow the money. The purpose of the tax was to reward friends and punish competitors. Anyone dependent on Big-Government is a “friend”, and anyone who can stand on their own two feet is a “polluter” or a “denier”.

If the Greens cared about the environment, they’d call this scheme “a ghastly waste”.

The $15 billion price tag is $670 per Australian, or $2,700 per household of four. The real total is much more (when will the government add up the real bill?), because that tally doesn’t include the money wasted on solar panels, windpower, or the whole “Department of Weather Change”. It doesn’t include millions in scientific research money poured down the sinkhole of climate models that don’t model our climate, nor the advertising, promotion and propaganda of all of the above.

A smart conservative government would add up the whole bill, then spend 0.1% (something like $20 million) paying skeptical scientists to audit, and check the evidence trail. They would trumpet their green credentials. This source of the river of gravy starts with the science. People who care about the poor and the planet would want to get that right.

Sid Maher, The Australian

THE carbon tax cost $5,310 for every tonne of emissions abated during its two years of operation, new government analysis shows.

The release of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory last week shows emissions for the economy, excluding the land sector, fell 1.4 per cent in 2013-14 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. When the land sector is included, as is the case under Kyoto accounting, Australia’s emissions fell from 567.1mt in 2012-13 to 563.5mt, a drop of 3.6mt. Between 2011-12 and 2013-14, emissions fell 0.5 per cent or 2.9mt (there was a small rise the previous year).

No one can call this a success. Australian emissions were falling before the carbon tax came in. The big 1.4% fall only came after the figures of the year before were adjusted up. The 0.8% reduction they talk about for the previous 12 months does not exist after the figures were changed, yet they are still citing it. The current count of emissions will most likely be adjusted up itself, and the 1.4% figure is mere noise in the data — in past years the post hoc adjustments have been larger.

Opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler told the ABC the report proved Labor’s policies were working. “The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory — dropped by the government in the lead-up to Christmas in an effort to bury the report — showed that the emissions count for the overall year of Labor’s climate policies reduced by 1.4 per cent,” he said.

“That compares to a decline in emissions of 0.8 per cent for the previous 12 months, which shows that Labor policies to reduce emissions were working — to say otherwise is laughable.

Shame the Greens hate the environment.

Full article

Renewable Energy A Pipe Dream

November 23, 2014 / newlifenarrabri / Leave a comment

Engineers who worked on Google’s now abandoned renewable energy project discover that there is no way that current technology can replace fossil fuels in any practical way. They made the interesting discovery that the output of all renewable systems barely exceeds the energy input of constructing them in the first place.

If you add that to the research last month that found that it an area the size of the U.K. would have to be given over to wind or solar power every year just to provide renewable energy for the increased energy demand that year, it is obvious that current technology will not provide the clean green world that greenies dream of.

From WUWT:

A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

According to the IEEE article;

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.