NYPA pulls plug on Great Lakes offshore wind project
The state-owned New York Power Authority (NYPA) said on Tuesday it had ended the proposed Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project due to high costs and the weak economy.
Development of a 150-megawatt Great Lakes project would have resulted in an estimated annual subsidy of between $60 million and $100 million, NYPA said in a statement.
“It would not be fiscally prudent for the Power Authority to commit to the initiative,” the statement said. (Reuters)
The Lessons Of Solyndra: Green Swans, Opportunity Cost And Fast Neutrinos
The sudden implosion of Solyndra and Big Solar throughout the country may have been an historic inevitability. Years from now Solyndra’s demise, (and the terrible loss imposed on its California employees), should be a business-school case study in what governments should not have done about global warming. The corollary study will be on the follies of wind power. (Forbes)
Green Math, Part 5: Green policies and energy prices
The Guardian’s Leo Hickman ponders a deep question:
Are green policies good or bad news for energy bills?
Hickman wonders if there could possibly be a connection between green taxes and rising energy bills in the UK, a topic that is quickly becoming a political liability for the Prime Minister and his lunatic Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
There should be no surprise energy costs are higher. After all, that was the whole point of green policies:
Who knew that paying up to twenty times the market rate for wind and solar-power might lead to an increase in utility bills? If only someone could have foreseen the havoc that would be wrought by the green dream.
Oh, wait. Everyone did:
In fact, warmists got exactly what they wanted, green energy subsidized by taxes and fees levied against fossil-fueled generation. What greens don’t want is any blame for the resulting hikes in energy bills.
Too bad. Own it, hippies. (Daily Bayonet)
‘Solar Decathlon’ Sign Powered by Gas Generator
Americans are catching on to the absurdity of the far Left’s “greening” of our economy. In some cases, like the Solyndra scandal, it amounts to the Taxpayer cash being flushed away on economically unsound alternative technologies that we *hope* will someday compete fairly with oil and natural gas. In the case of D.C. this weekend, we received a this picture from a PR event … where a pro-solar sign was literally powered by a gas generator.* How’s that for a metaphor?
* For this story, we have relied on a trusted source. Our tipper says there were several such signs, each powered by gas generator such as the black and yellow box partially obscured by the fence above.
What do you think? Share your thoughts — and your best captions — in the comments! (at the original site – Big Government)
Solyndra cleared for October 27 bankruptcy auction
Solar panel maker Solyndra LLC, which filed for bankruptcy after borrowing $535 million from the U.S. government, on Tuesday was cleared to begin a quick sale process that some creditors criticized as “rushed.”
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath in Delaware approved the plan for an October 27 auction of the business, citing the support for the plan by the Department of Energy (DOE). She also directed the company to attend a major trade show next month to find a buyer for the business. (Reuters)
Inside the EPA
Memos show that even other regulators worry about its rule-making.
The Environmental Protection Agency claims that the critics of its campaign to remake U.S. electricity are partisans, but it turns out that they include other regulators and even some in the Obama Administration. In particular, a trove of documents uncovered by Congressional investigators reveals that these internal critics think the EPA is undermining the security and reliability of the U.S. electric power supply.
With its unprecedented wave of rules, the EPA is abusing traditional air-quality laws to force a large share of the coal-fired fleet to shut down. Amid these sacrifices on the anticarbon altar, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and several House committees have been asking, well, what happens after as much as 8% of U.S. generating capacity is taken off the grid? (WSJ)
EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion
Environment, ‘Justice’, ‘Fairness’
Apologies for this very long post — things which I felt needed to be said kept occurring to me…
Mike Childs is Head of Climate at the Friends of the Earth, and Chair of FoE Europe. He writes in a blog post at the FoE site today that,
One of the reasons I joined Friends of the Earth over 20 years ago was that it was an environmental group with a strong record of joining up social justice, development and environmental issues. This position has been maintained through the years.
I like the ambiguity of the language. ‘Joining up social justice, development and environmental issues’ doesn’t mean a commitment to ‘social justice and development’. Rather, it means subordinating them to ‘environmental issues’. This has been discussed previously on this blog. One-time ‘development’ agencies such as Oxfam, for instance, have abandoned their emphasis on development, to emphasise instead that ‘pastoral society’ is the best way of life for people in the developing world. It’s ‘sustainable’, you see, whereas life in industrialised, democratic, and wealthy economies — where we’ve moved on from such proximity to nature — isn’t. Never mind what people actually want, the influential, well-funded and ethically-unimpeachable NGO ‘joins up’ the notion of ‘social justice’, ‘development’, and ‘environmental issues’, and decides for them what’s in their best interests. Instead of talking about poverty and the need for development, Oxfam now are concerned with ‘climate poverty’ and are opposed to development. (Climate Resistance)
ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
Approximately 10 minutes.
Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.
Go to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live. (Reason TV)
Monday, 26 September 2011 08:56 JR Dunn, The American Thinker
The long, green collapse has only begun.
There’s something satisfyingly symbolic about the unfolding Solyndra scandal. A government “investment” based on a totally spurious Green rationale collapses, threatening to take part of the administration with it. What more apt illustration of the current status of environmentalism? It could scarcely go better if you’d scripted it.
Call for an Open Debate on Climate Science.
Winston Churchill said,
“It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Free Speech is central to the maintenance of Democracy, as the US Founding Fathers recognized by enshrining it as the First Amendment, which says in part,
“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
Americans must cherish and defend their freedom of speech at all costs.
Global warming and subsequently climate change were transport vehicles for a political ideology to replace free market capitalism by claiming it’s byproduct, CO2, was exhausting world resources and destroying the planet. This was an extension of the Malthusian idea adapted by the Club of Rome in the 1960s that it accelerated the overpopulation problem and endangered all resources, not just food supply.
It also became part of the new larger vehicle, the paradigm shift created by environmentalism. The combination gave proponents of the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming and climate change the moral high ground. They joined a few environmentalists who already claimed only they cared about the environment. It’s an arrogant outrage because we all care about the environment, but the outrage is amplified as the environmentalists use the environmental issue to push a political agenda. (Tim Ball)
Unfortunately there seem to be a number of translation errors in this piece as PlayStation® climatology and propaganda is confused with actual science but bear with it, it’s interesting to see the growing desperation of the UN propagandists.
EU climate chief ‘shocked’ at US debate
By Ben Geman
European Union climate chief Connie Hedegaard is disposing of diplomatic niceties when describing U.S. political battles over climate change.
“I’m shocked that the political debate in the U.S. is so far away from the scientific facts,” she said, according to The Copenhagen Post.
“When more than 90 percent of researchers in the field are saying that we have to take [climate change] seriously, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore it. It’s hard for a European to understand how it has become so fashionable to be anti-science in the U.S.,” Hedegaard said in the Post account, which reprints comments she made to the Danish paper Politiken.
“And when you hear American presidential candidates denying climate change, it’s difficult to take,” she said. (E2 Wire)
How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Part 1
September 23, 2011
What is the WWF?
In the United States and Canada the initials WWF stand for the World Wildlife Fund. Elsewhere, this organization calls itself the World Wide Fund for Nature.
The WWF is an activist lobby group. On its website one finds declarations such as:
It is nearly impossible to overstate the threat of climate change. [see here, backup link here]
WWF’s vision of an eco-friendly future includes an entirely new layer of regulation, bureaucracy, and international law. Or, as the WWF phrases it:
a global legal framework…to ensure that governments can verify each other’s actions. [see here, backup link here]
Members of the voting public have never been asked if they want to pay for this new layer of bureaucracy, if they want to live under its restrictions, or if they think it’s even a good idea. The WWF you see, knows what’s best for all of us. (No Consensus)
Alan Robock On Geoengineering
There is an interesting seminar scheduled for September 27 2011. The announcement is reproduced below. Alan Robock and I differ on a number of climate issues, but he and I seem to agree on the risks of geoengineering. Alan told me that his papers on geoengineering can be obtained from http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html
I have highlighted text in the announcement in which he and I agree. His concern on geoengineering, which involves deliberate alterations in regional climate forcings, in addition to any effect on the global average radiative forcing, should also make him a proponent of the important role of land use/land cover change (i.e. a regional climate forcing) as a first-order climate forcing. (Roger Pielke Sr.)
Lindzen-Choi 2011: paper, data, scripts
Steve McIntyre was initially slightly dissatisfied with the access to the data and code used by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi in their 2011 paper; see TRF for texts on improvements relatively to LC09 and thepublication in the Asia-Pacific journal.
However, Steve just announced via Climate Audit that he was given all the files by Richard and his colleague and you may download the data files as well as the scripts in IDL. Here is my concise, compact, and clear zipped copy of the folder:
Lindzen Choi 2011: paper in PDF, data as DAT, scripts PRO in IDL
Unzipped folder (at Steve’s server)
If you download the 767 kB ZIP file from the first link above and unpack it, you will see the full Lindzen Choi 2011 paper, scripts, and data. This is pretty much the format in which all papers in (not only) climate science should be accessible, I think.
You got an “A” in transparency from me, Dick. And Yong-Sang, too. (The Reference Frame)
Jeff Jacoby: Climate Skeptics Don’t ‘Deny Science’
Monday, 26 September 2011 08:36 Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
BILL CLINTON DECLARED LAST WEEK that Americans “look like a joke” because leading Republican presidential contenders decline to embrace the agenda of the global-warming alarmists. Presumably he had in mind Texas Governor Rick Perry, who says that “global warming has been politicized” and calls claims of a decisive human role in climate change an unproven theory. “You can’t win the nomination of a major political party in the US,” fumed the former president, “unless you deny science?” (GWPF)
Real Climate Denialists Deny Cost of Remedy
Joel B. Pollak
Politicians who exaggerate the effects of climate change are as much in “denial” of science as those who reject the phenomenon come what may–more so, in fact, since they exhort the public to “believe” in something they themselves can rarely explain. (Big Government)