Category Archives: global warming

More Global Warming News… or Cooling?

No Al Gore bashing from me today. Just read a pretty heavy piece about why global warming is caused by the sun, and why we should be worried more about global cooling.

Advertisements

New Blogs and A Funny Cartoon

First, you should definitely check out additions to the blogroll.

Miller at Towardsimplicity.net

Jon at Jonmower.com/blog 

Second, this cartoon made me laugh out loud in my empty apartment this morning upon waking up. Y, this is not an assault on your attempts to be more environmentally friendly…. but if you think it might be offensive you may want to ignore from here down.

Hat Tip to Brittney at Nashville Is Talking 

Uh Oh

Once again, I’ll let an article speak for itself so that people don’t think I’m crusading against one person in particular.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream

Dear Al Gore….

When you lose the New York Times… you’re probably in trouble.

Sincerely,

Justin Mundie

Just when you’d had enough of Al Gore

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research checks into his utility bills.

Here’s some highlights:

– U.S. average yearly household electricity consumption — 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year

– Al Gore’s yearly energy consumption — nearly 221,000 kWh

– Al Gore’s Natural Gas bill per month — an average of 1,080 dollars PER MONTH!

Yep, that’s right global warming alarmist, and former Vice President Al Gore uses 2 times the national yearly average kWh’s per month.

Hmm.

Now that the Al Gore lovefest is over…

Here’s a piece from the National Review online discussing the movie and global warming. I realize that the source is a neo con magazine, but it raises some good points.

And besides that, the fact that Gore refuses to discuss the claims his movie makes with skeptic scientists around the globe, and that global warming skeptics are being compared to holocaust deniers, also should raise your eyebrow.

Ugh

The Weather Channel is owned by Ted Turner. Is it obvious?

If you think science is on your side, why do you feel the need to silence people who disagree with you? If they are a bunch of idiots, why do you have to shut them up? And a better question, why do you always need to mention the other guys funding from oil companies when your side gets as much or more funding from every anticapitalist group out there, the sierra club, and every other environmental group?