Scotland’s first ever statutory Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme has been published. The aim of the document is to increase the resilience of Scotland’s people, environment and economy to the impacts of a changing climate.
(Via Scottish Energy News)
This is not intended to be a political statement, but more of a timeline as to what has happened in USA over the last six years, probably for no real good reason.
Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately fifty percent of the total. Today it is approximately forty percent and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.
In today’s Scotsman paper, reporting on what was said at the recent Scottish Renewables Conference in Edinburgh.
Speakers at the Scottish Renewables conference in Edinburgh said the UK government needs to extend the pricing guarantees offered by its recent electricity market reform (EMR) into the next decade to give investors in wind farms and other green energy projects more certainty.
Mike Thompson, head of carbon budgets at the committee on climate change, said: “It’s a cliff edge for the power industry after 2019. The government have not said where we are going. When a new government comes in next year, the priority is to get EMR extended.”
Further confirmation of sustainability risks for the “sustainable” solution?
How much money should we spend?
Let’s spend nothing. Scrap all the carbon clauses, the subsidies to inefficient energy, the grants to climate models we know are broken. One-sided funding to scientists seeking a crisis has done more harm than good to science, but it has engendered a lot of namecalling. Unless there is a change, climate science will advance faster if the government gets out of the way. I have yet to see a single observational study suggesting we will improve the weather with carbon credits or windmills and solar panels. We could save lives and spend the money on medical research instead. The opportunity cost is ignored.
Interesting and valuable article in Telegraph today on the true cost of wind energy. Not really news to some, but news to many, probably.
A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
An Energy Bill, currently before Parliament, is the subject of wrangling over prices for renewable energy for the next 20 years. The wind industry says that without price and subsidy guarantees, a “green collar” jobs boom will not materialise.
Andrew Cohen on “Big Think” uses the what he saw and felt in the film “Lincoln” to
wonder why so few people these days seem to notice how much our world has changed and continues to change for the better
He goes on to note how the majority of his friends and colleagues:
lament on one terrible truth or another about humanity’s seemingly unbroken predilection for ignorance and self-destructive behavior. The general trend of the narrative goes something like this: “Isn’t it shocking and appalling how selfish, materialistic, insensitive, greedy, shortsighted, and just plain dangerous we are as a species?” Some even go so far as to actually say that the earth was a better and more spiritually intact place before human beings appeared and, slowly but surely, started messing things up.
He goes on to contrast the Civil War era and how today we have increased standard of living, reduced violence, and decrease in disease.
We’ve made great progress on this earth. We are not a virus.
In an otherwise excellent article by author Naomi Klein in today’s NY Times on the risks of geo-engineering, including “rogue geo-engineering”, I was chagrined to read:
Climate change is already making it hard to know whether events previously understood as “acts of God” (a freak heat wave in March or a Frankenstorm on Halloween) still belong in that category.
From what I have read and understand, it’s hard to “know” these things simply because it’s a clue that there probably is no causation link. We did not know these things before, and we will probably not know these things in the future. And from that we can probably conclude that if we take such actions to “stop climate” change there will be little to no impact on such “acts of God” atmospheric events.
And, like Ms. Klein, given the opportunity, I would vote against geo-engineering, construction, and operation for any reason whatsoever.