My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Climate change madness....

Perhaps we should coin a new expression - climate change stupidity - for the craziness of the proposals out there...this is from the UK....
They want us, for instance, to switch from eating beef and lamb to "less carbon-intensive types of meat". Within 11 years they want to see 40 per cent of all the cars on Britain's roads powered by electricity, in the very week when it was reported that sales of all-electric cars have this year halved, from 374 to 156, making a grand total of 1,100. (One of the two companies that make them has just gone bankrupt.) Nor, of course, do they explain where all the electricity to power these vehicles might come from.

They seem blissfully oblivious, for instance, to the fact that, within a few years, we shall face a shortfall of 40 per cent in the supply of electricity we need to meet current peak demand, thanks to the forced closure of so many of our existing power stations. They insist that no more coal-fired power plants should be built unless they can be fitted with "carbon capture" (burying the CO2 in holes in the ground), seemingly unaware that, even if this were technically possible, it would double the cost of electricity and make us even more dependent on Russian and other imported coal which already supplies 70 per cent of our needs.

So what will provide the juice to fuel those millions of imaginary electric cars, let alone keep our lights on and our computers running? Inevitably they want to see thousands more wind turbines, but nothing better illustrates the cloud-cuckoo land in which these academics live than their graph showing how, by 2020, we shall have enough of them to meet our EU target of deriving a third of the electricity we need from "renewables".

These, they claim, will provide 28 gigawatts (GW) of "capacity", representing more than a third of the 80-odd GW of capacity we have today. Yet, as the rest of us know, thanks to the intermittency of the wind those thousands of turbines would only generate on average around 27 per cent of their capacity, some 7.5GW. This represents a mere 13 per cent of current peak demand, leaving us woefully short of our agreed EU target and doing nothing to plug that fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our supplies.

In other words, a more vacuously dotty ragbag of proposals would be hard to imagine. Although the latest six-point "Moonbat Plan" to save the planet, from The Guardian's George Monbiot, is a contender. It includes reducing air travel by 95 per cent, barring "key roads" to private cars, and a ban on grouse-shooting because burning the heather on grouse-moors creates "a staggering proportion of UK emissions".


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I agree -- I once had a friend in my university days who shared a house with alot of greenpeace activist types.

When I visited her it was always such a howl. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. They all got excited by the hydrogen economy. They heard a talk by somebody who also got me interested in the field -- i did my bachelor & master's thesis in the area.

Funny thing is that they did not realize that is all power production technologies do leave a footprint. Question is which one leaves a smaller footprint. My conclusion is that Nuclear power is the one with the lowest carbon footprint and the only one suitable to produce H2 for hydrogen fuel cells. Not a happy conclusion for greenpeace activists that spent most of the 80's protesting against nuclear power.

Wind Power whacks the hell out of migrating birds. Also produces noise pollution but very unpredictable power levels produced unless you live in Pincher Creek, Alberta. Funny that the largest wind farm in Canada is also in the province demonized for carbon energy production. Funny how they never vote for Liberal MP's. :)

Just look at solar energy -- hey look at the manufacturing process instead of the energy production level alone. The toxic chemicals is such a soup that is quite deadly.

Funny how environmentalists focused in on the birds in the tailing ponds of the tar sands versus the ones that get killed in the blades of wind farms. Oh well they died for the cause -- hmmm open pit copper mines in south america to produce the copper windings for the generators -- ooops did I say that.

I could get into dozens of examples of selective vision with regards to the environment.

One last jab at the so-called environmentalists -- I used to view Earth Day gatherings with such humour -- they come to the gatherings in SUV's, go home after for a cold beverage, turn up the tunes on a multi figure watt stereo :), turn on the bbq with their propane tank or charcoals, and turn on the a/c in their suburban home which developers flatten forests/trees to build.

Ironic eh?

I worked 20+ years in green technologies and am still a conservative. The two are not mutually exclusive despite popular opinion. Environmentalists just need to view the world with open eyes instead of selective vision.

Gerry from Toronto

12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well we all do what we can eh. Vegetarianism seems to be the way to go to reduce our carbon footprint. I think anyone can agree that factory farming- with its horrendous labour practises, health standards and huge use of anti-biotics and vaccines to keep these animals alive because the conditions are so terrible- isnot really an industry that deserves consumer support.

Problem is- meat is awesome- maybe I'll only eat animals that I kill with my own two hands- probably will be more sustainable in the long run.

5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home