“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that
the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP
WITH far greater frequency than a hurricane strike in the Floridas, the biggest names in the political and climate world gather at exotic locations around the globe to pretend that they are intent on “saving the planet”, again. Quite simply the Oscars of virtue signalling.
YET it’s (almost) set in stone that these confabs will fail their primary objective. That is, to force rich countries to quietly destroy their economies and for the poor economies, with the highest death rates, to reject energy and prosperity.
THE only resolution guaranteed by all ‘parties’ (excuse the pun) is where to hold the next, taxpayer-funded climate change junket.
MEANWHILE, all those taxpayer funded frequent flyer miles hurt your hip pocket and apparently the planet too. Or, maybe only when it’s you doing the flying…?
SCIENCE writer Viv Forbes wraps up the latest UNFCCC climate party…
Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth
$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.
COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.
Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.
Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.
Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.
There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.
DOING THE NUMBERS :
Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change
One of the largest conferences of the year just wrapped up this past weekend in Katowice, Poland. And it was on everyone’s favorite subject, climate change.
Yes, this is the annual conference where tens of thousands of delegates fly into a foreign town. On your tax dollars. To iron out a plan for the future of the planet.
It’s called the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And this years’ went under the short name of COP24 (Conference of the Parties – 24th edition).
And it was the second biggest one since the monster Paris Climate Change conference back in December 2015 (COP21 for those keeping count).
According to this official attendance list, there were 22,700 delegates from 197 countries there.
This conference was not a weekend or even a week long.
It was hosted for 12 whole days.
But first, all these people had to get to the COP24 Climate Change conference. And unfortunately, zero-emission transit was not available to get them all to Katowice.
There are no bike lanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea.
If you think trillions of dollars over dozens and dozens of years is impossible for parties to fight climate change with their vision…
Here’s how Cultural Communists Spent Nearly Half of Billion Dollars in 12 days:
These attendees took commercial, charter and private planes to get to Katowice International Airport just north of the city.
For all their green agendas, they flew the big, bulky, carbon-spewing and nature polluting airplanes.
Without every receipt, it’s not easy to pinpoint how much various flight types cost. But you can bet even those travelling on commercial aircraft were not flying with the common folk.
Let’s assume $2,500 per person to fly to and from Katowice, Poland.
Cost of Flights = 22,700 x $2,500 = $57 million dollars.
Thinking that the delegates like to travel together, let’s be conservative and say they all flew commercial on a Boeing 747 in groups of 227. Unlikely, but it makes our napkin calculation simple.
This would require 100 planes flying in and flying out…
According to Blue Sky Model, 1 mile of flight produces about 53 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average plane.
Now sticking with simplicity, let’s assume the average flight was just about the distance between New York City and Katowice – 4,283 miles. In reality, people flew from as far away as Auckland, New Zealand.
The total amount of carbon emitted = 100 planes x 4,283 miles x 53 pounds per mile x 2 trips = at least 45 million pounds of evil, harmful polluting carbon dioxide into the air.
Do as the cultural communists say, I guess. Not as they do.
And I’m being optimistic.
For reference, WIRED Magazine estimates that all the planes that flew to the Paris climate talks released about 575 million pounds of CO2.
Now let’s correctly assume that politicians, dignitaries and their entourages didn’t stay in Holiday Inn’s or Best Westerns like the working class.
Nor would they opt for AirBnB type services for their fellow taxpayers…
And since this conference would be among the top destinations in the world at this climate change time of year, hoteliers would have increased their nightly room prices. It’s Opportunism 101.
So let’s allow $500 per night for hotels or private flats. Katowice and the surrounding areas aren’t exactly Paris. So things are a bit more affordable.
Cost of hotels = 27,700 people x 12 nights x US $500 = $166 million dollars
Delegates then had to drive the roughly 34 kilometers (21 miles) to the city core.
Heaven forbid if these people all took the transit system. How could they possible hold a dignified image taking the subway or public buses?
So they likely hired private cars and limousines.
The rates for these vehicles goes anywhere from $500 – $1,000 per day. Let’s assume some attendees followed their agendas and carpooled, thus requiring only 20,000 cars.
Cost of Transportation = 20,000 cars x $750 per day x 12 days = $180 million dollars
Let’s not forget that people need to eat.
And when in Poland, you can’t be eating Subway or McDonalds. How can you possibly pair a fine Bordeaux with a Big Mac?
So we have to factor in meals and entertainment.
Most attendees will have gotten a per diem for their travels. We can safely assume these costs to be anywhere from $100 – $500 per day depending on their stature.
Cost of food = 27,700 x $250 per diem x 12 days = $83 million dollars
And what about the workers who put it all together?
The average wage in Poland is just shy of $1,170 per month.
Data on workers hasn’t been released yet. But at the Paris conference 3 years ago, there were 3,000 workers hired directly for the conference and about 11,000 police and military to keep the place secure.
Let’s assume the same amount of security and workers were used in Poland.
And considering security forces are not cheap, let’s just assume they all made double the average wage…
Cost of personnel = 14,000 x $1,170 x 2 x ½ month’s work = $16.3 million dollars
Let’s sum it all up…
There is a good chance I have been too conservative and underestimated some of the costs.
The cost of saving the future world for just a couple weeks was half a billion dollars. But you’ll be happy to know that the official meal plan for attendees had some options for a low emission footprint, as you can see below.
Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…
Wait, did I not mention the pre-conference in Costa Rica?
ONE wonders if any of the 22,771 taxpayer funded climate crusaders actually know what their favourite buzz-word “sustainability” actually entails?
HERE’s a crash course in case they have forgotten:
SEE also :
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
“The data is further evidence that dilute and unreliable sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and other fossil fuels and will not lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.”
AND, as a result of the reckless and ruinous “Save The Planet” pursuit of weather-dependent, intermittent, costly, symbolic, novelty sources of non-energy – wind and solar…
“Coal grew one percent in 2017 — its first growth since 2013…”
The point, if there was one, of throwing hundreds of $billions in subsidies at wind and solar was to slash emissions of carbon dioxide gas. Taxpayers and power consumers who are on the receiving end of the bill for all this environmental piety would, after almost 20 years, be entitled to ask just how much bang they’re getting for their buck?
The short answer is: not much.
STT leaves the battle over carbon dioxide gas to others.
Our view is pretty simple: if a naturally occurring beneficial trace gas, essential for all life on earth, really is killing the planet, then there is only one available solution. And that’s nuclear power.
In 2018, if a climate alarmist is still waging war on CO2 (although he’ll call it ‘carbon’) and not talking about nuclear power, you know you’re dealing with a deluded crank.
One character who’s still pretty fired up…
View original post 620 more words
JUST saw the BBC report. And yes, no mention of the undersea volcanoes causing regional warming of the western Antarctic Ocean. Nor any mention of the BBC’s own 2018 report:
“BIG increase in snowfall in Antarctica with “The effect of the extra snow locked up in Antarctica is to slightly slow a general trend in global sea-level rise.” – BBC
As far as I am aware, the weight of this extra snow creates enough weight for glaciers to sheer – a completely natural process. No mention of this by the BBC either…
‘Bias by omission’ – the most dangerous and insidious form of propaganda.
The edge of the Thwaites glacier [credit: NASA photograph by Jim Yungel]
This BBC report seems unaware that a study in 2014 found that parts of the Thwaites Glacier are subject to melting due to subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal “hotspots”. The existence of this group of volcanoes has long been known.
British and American scientists will assess the stability of one of Antarctica’s biggest ice streams, reports BBC News.
It is going to be one of the biggest projects ever undertaken in Antarctica.
UK and US scientists will lead a five-year effort to examine the stability of the mighty Thwaites Glacier.
View original post 305 more words
“Those fantasists claiming that we’re heartbeat away from running entirely on sunshine and breezes, need to keep up the line about giant batteries being the simple solution to a glaring problem. Except, that they will never put a number on what their purportedly quick and simple fix might cost. And that’s because the number is in the many $trillions, as detailed by Francis Menton below.”
AND on the third day BILLIONS became TRILLIONS! Taxpayers hard-earned money sacrificed at the alter of “climate change” all to try to create some kind of perfect climate nirvana.
It took the proletariat a nanosecond to work out that wind power can, and will never, work as a meaningful power generation source.
Graphs like the one above – depicting the entire output of every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid (spread across four states, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia) – quickly gave the game away.
Challenged with the inherent unreliability and obvious intermittency of wind power, those pushing it have been reduced to chanting mantras about mega-batteries saving the day.
The way they tell it, it’s as if they simply left grid-scale battery storage off their shopping lists – like some muddle-headed shopper returning home without milk and bread – and all they needed to do was pop back to the shops to collect some.
The world’s largest battery cuts a lonely figure in a paddock…
View original post 1,154 more words
ADDICTED to Other People’s Money: Wind Industry Howls Whenever Its Massive Subsidy Stream ThreatenedPosted: January 29, 2018
“PEEL away a few layers of this little onion and all that’s left is a ‘business’ model wholly dependent upon mandates, renewable energy certificates, production tax credits and fines on retailers for refusing to tolerate the chaos delivered by wind and solar power.
In Australia the direct and immediate cost of subsidies to wind and solar power outfits will exceed $60 billion over the life of the Federal government’s Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target. Largesse that has left Australia with among the highest retail power prices in the world (wind powered South Australia, tops the list).
No other industry in Australia’s history has enjoyed subsidies on that scale, ever.”
TRILLIONS of dollars of other-peoples’-money spent worldwide on unreliables. Wind Turnines and solar panels that are neither clean nor green and provide near zero global energy.
INSANITY on steroids and human growth hormones!
Way back in 1984, wind cultist Christopher Flavin’s told us that “in a few years’ time wind energy will not need to be subsidised.” 34 years on, the subsidies just keep on flowing and, without those subsidies, the so called wind ‘industry’ would disappear like a snowflake in summer.
No matter where they ply their trade, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers will never be accused of running a consistent theme when it comes to wind power’s (supposed) ability to compete with conventional generation sources.
Whenever the political brains trust start challenging the true and hidden costs of wind power to their constituents, these boys start babbling about the wonders of wind being “free”; their “technology constantly improving”; their costs coming down…
View original post 1,162 more words
“Of course, if claims of renewable and energy storage cost parity with fossil fuels all turn out to be a pack of marketing spin, with market normality restored most existing Aussie renewables businesses will die by the invisible hand of Adam Smith.”
ADAM Smith’s hand has just become the most feared wrecking ball within the green centrally-planned ‘Unreliables’ industrial gulag!
VIVA LA Capitalism and free market forces to finally drive down the obscene cost of Australia’s green-spiked power bills.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Australian government is so impressed by the alleged plunge in renewable and battery storage costs they think it will no longer be necessary to subsidise renewables.
Coalition rethinks need for clean energy target as renewable cost plunges
The Turnbull government is rethinking the need to adopt a clean energy target, believing the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy means there may no longer be a requirement for subsidies.
In the keynote address to The Australian Financial Review National Energy Summit, federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will highlight the falling costs of wind and solar energy, including battery storage capacity, as he stresses emissions reduction cannot come at the expense of reliability and affordability.
“It is challenging but possible to simultaneously put downward pressure on prices and enhance the reliability of the system, while meeting our international emissions reductions targets,” he will…
View original post 377 more words
We truly are living in the age of collective, virtue-signalling, climate-hysterical insanity.
And I’ll say it again –
If greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?
Industrial wind turbines that kill millions of birds and bats, produce devastating infrasound that create untold misery to people and animals that live in close proximity.
They are weather dependent, running at a maximum of 30% output, providing intermittent, diluted and incredibly costly energy.
Duane J. Hyland nails this monumental hypocrisy…
“Environmentalists” would, in times past, raise the alarm at obstructions being built by the thousands across the land, but today the “Socio-Enviro-Emotionalists” salivate at the site of these rising monsters, believing they are “saving the planet.”
By Andrew Bolt ~
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg warns that just to meet the renewable energy targets of the Labor states would cost us $41 billion and require another 4800 wind towers to wreck our views.
Clements Gap wind plant in South Australia
And as South Australia has now taught us: we’d still end up with electricity that goes out in a storm.:
Households are exposed to a $41 billion capital cost for state government promises to embrace renewable energy, according to new federal analysis…
The Queensland and Victorian governments would need to build the equivalent of 4800 wind turbines to meet their renewable energy targets under the scenario, which contradicts state claims the extra cost would amount to only “cents per week” for consumers.
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will today press the states to rethink their renewable targets at a meeting in Melbourne that will hear from regulators…
View original post 353 more words
STT with a devastating deconstruction of the “unreliable” energy f-i-a-s-c-o !
An absolute MUST Read…
“There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic.”
“Energy products are very different in ‘quality.’ Intermittent electricity is of exceptionally low quality. (very much lower quality than is needed to operate the electric grid.) The costs that intermittent electricity impose on the system need to be paid by someone else.” [you, the taxpayer.]
“The situation is a little like adding a large number of drunk drivers, or of self-driving cars that don’t really work as planned, to a highway system. In theory, other drivers can learn to accommodate them, if enough extra lanes are added, and the concentration of the poorly operating vehicles is kept low enough.”
Intermittent Renewables Can’t Favorably Transform Grid Electricity
Our Finite World
31 August 2016
Many people are hoping for wind and solar PV to transform grid electricity in a favorable way. Is this really possible? Is it really feasible for intermittent renewables to generate a large share of grid electricity? The answer increasingly looks as if it is, “No, the costs are too great, and the return on investment would be way too low.” We are already encountering major grid problems, even with low penetrations of intermittent renewable electricity: US, 5.4% of 2015 electricity consumption; China, 3.9%; Germany, 19.5%; Australia, 6.6%.
In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to…
View original post 3,753 more words