Al Bore
Fidel Castro
Hamas
Yep - news that Al
Wow - with friends like those Obama has few left as enemies.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Surprised to See More Homicides in South Auckland
I understood the Prime Minister had solved it.
Back in September 2006 the PM and other worthies ( Ministers Maharey and Benson-Pope - remember them?) announced urgent and quick responses to street related killings in South Auckland. Back then it was a lack of Education fingered for the violence. And, they had a plan to fix it and quick.
Now I note the PM has turned on Liquor outlets as the source of evil. Problem is the hit and run at Manaukau City Centre was not a Liquor store and nor was the old lady thumped to death in her home.
As we see day after day with this tired and out of touch regime - they have no clue. What is very clear is life is less safe under Labour.
I understood the Prime Minister had solved it.
Back in September 2006 the PM and other worthies ( Ministers Maharey and Benson-Pope - remember them?) announced urgent and quick responses to street related killings in South Auckland. Back then it was a lack of Education fingered for the violence. And, they had a plan to fix it and quick.
Now I note the PM has turned on Liquor outlets as the source of evil. Problem is the hit and run at Manaukau City Centre was not a Liquor store and nor was the old lady thumped to death in her home.
As we see day after day with this tired and out of touch regime - they have no clue. What is very clear is life is less safe under Labour.
Monday, June 16, 2008
More Carbon Lunacy
A business I am involved in has assessed its carbon footprint, according to the Ministry for the Environment's protocols. Reluctant soldiers for the warmists.
The analysis (draft) has been presented: The two biggest emissions sources are Direct emissions - so called Scope 1 under the GHG protocol:
Direct emissions (Scope 1): Are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. This is clear - no worries there. We use lots of diesel providing customers with service.
and
Indirect emissions (Scope 2): Are emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company.
Well, with considerable forethought the company buys its electricity from a carbon neutral source....Meridian. Sweet.
Imagine my surprise to see this business has a net emission of 6,900 tonnes per annum of CO2 for (scope 2) electricity. The business uses a lot of electricity keeping its export customers products cool.
Why? I said. Our supplier is carbon neutral.
Well, here is the kicker. There is a standard emission factor in the GHG protocol for purchased electricity (and all the other factors) - the assessor just takes the electricity consumed and multiplies by the appropriate emission factor
(you simply read it at the Ministry for the Environment protocol)
See Table 4:
Emission factor for the consumption of purchased electricity – 2006
Emission source Unit Emission factor total CO2-e(kg CO2-e/unit)
Purchased electricity kWh 0.209
It's too bad that we use Meridian. We get no credit.
How stuffed is that?
A business I am involved in has assessed its carbon footprint, according to the Ministry for the Environment's protocols. Reluctant soldiers for the warmists.
The analysis (draft) has been presented: The two biggest emissions sources are Direct emissions - so called Scope 1 under the GHG protocol:
Direct emissions (Scope 1): Are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. This is clear - no worries there. We use lots of diesel providing customers with service.
and
Indirect emissions (Scope 2): Are emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company.
Well, with considerable forethought the company buys its electricity from a carbon neutral source....Meridian. Sweet.
Imagine my surprise to see this business has a net emission of 6,900 tonnes per annum of CO2 for (scope 2) electricity. The business uses a lot of electricity keeping its export customers products cool.
Why? I said. Our supplier is carbon neutral.
Well, here is the kicker. There is a standard emission factor in the GHG protocol for purchased electricity (and all the other factors) - the assessor just takes the electricity consumed and multiplies by the appropriate emission factor
(you simply read it at the Ministry for the Environment protocol)
See Table 4:
Emission factor for the consumption of purchased electricity – 2006
Emission source Unit Emission factor total CO2-e(kg CO2-e/unit)
Purchased electricity kWh 0.209
It's too bad that we use Meridian. We get no credit.
How stuffed is that?
Good Thinking by Nick Smith
A press release last Friday by Dr Nick Smith didn't seem to hit the spot with the MSM. It is a goody.
Smith takes apart the hypocrisy and double speak of the government's electricity generator Meridian's very public claim its electricity is carbon neutral - when one third of its generation is bought off thermal generators
The sophistry and mendacity of Meridian is outrageous. Meridian claims the carbon emissions from its thermal power purchased off the grid are offset by the purchase of carbon credits. These notionally avoided incremental emission units are being purchased from projects like Trust Power’s Tararua wind farm.
As Smith points out this is pure sophistry:
A press release last Friday by Dr Nick Smith didn't seem to hit the spot with the MSM. It is a goody.
Smith takes apart the hypocrisy and double speak of the government's electricity generator Meridian's very public claim its electricity is carbon neutral - when one third of its generation is bought off thermal generators
The sophistry and mendacity of Meridian is outrageous. Meridian claims the carbon emissions from its thermal power purchased off the grid are offset by the purchase of carbon credits. These notionally avoided incremental emission units are being purchased from projects like Trust Power’s Tararua wind farm.
As Smith points out this is pure sophistry:
“The idea that Meridian can magically convert thermal electricity into ‘certified carbon-neutral electricity’ by buying these sorts of carbon units is modern day hocus-pocus. It has as much credibility as the old church practice of penance where money could buy forgiveness for sins.Perfectly said.
Select Committee Reports ETS back with "Technical" changes only.
Radio Left 3pm has Minister Parker stating the committee has reported to parliament and made technical changes only to the bill, leaving the bill 'intact'.
Two Thoughts
There are over a 1,000 changes. If it needed "only" 1, 000 technical amendments it had to be dead on arrival at the committee.
By what measure is it still intact with 'only' 1,000 amendments...?
Radio Left 3pm has Minister Parker stating the committee has reported to parliament and made technical changes only to the bill, leaving the bill 'intact'.
Two Thoughts
There are over a 1,000 changes. If it needed "only" 1, 000 technical amendments it had to be dead on arrival at the committee.
By what measure is it still intact with 'only' 1,000 amendments...?
Reports in the Daily Telegraph Point to the Madness of Carbon Politics
The mad world of carbon trading
An unlikely warrior in the battle to show the lunacy of the carbon game is the BBC World Service's Business Editor Mark Gregory.
Gregory has shown three projects in India that are paid to reduce GHG's under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM"). These CDM payments are made to companies that are taking additional action to reduce GHG over and above what they would have down without the incentive.
SRF a small chemical firm in rural Rajasthan received 3.8 million "carbon credits" to burn off greenhouse gases that are a by-product of those used in fridges. The value of these "credits" at today's carbon price is $50 million. Over the next ten years the company will be able to sell these for a staggering $500 million to firms in the developed world, so they can continue "emitting".
As the case for continued global warming (by any measure) falls to the floor, and the case for anthropogenic warming itself is absolutely unproven the lunatic fringe of warmists is pushing on regardless.
The IEA wants to spend $45Trillion on stopping climate change?
The UN is rewarding carbon schemes with hundreds of millions of dollars for doing what they were going to do anyway.
Shameful.
The mad world of carbon trading
...As the latest data from the (UK) Met Office's Hadley Centre shows global temperatures falling this year to a level only slightly above what they were in 1979, the International Energy Agency presents the G8 governments with a report calling for the world to spend $45 trillion (£23 trillion) on halving its carbon emissions by 2050.
That is more than two thirds of the entire output of all the economies on the planet. Admittedly some of this unimaginable sum, it says, should be spent on nuclear power stations. But trillions more should go on 215 million solar panels, hundreds of thousands of wind turbines and, inevitably, on those "carbon trading" schemes beloved of Al Gore, rapidly becoming the most insane commercial racket ever seen.
An unlikely warrior in the battle to show the lunacy of the carbon game is the BBC World Service's Business Editor Mark Gregory.
Gregory has shown three projects in India that are paid to reduce GHG's under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM"). These CDM payments are made to companies that are taking additional action to reduce GHG over and above what they would have down without the incentive.
SRF a small chemical firm in rural Rajasthan received 3.8 million "carbon credits" to burn off greenhouse gases that are a by-product of those used in fridges. The value of these "credits" at today's carbon price is $50 million. Over the next ten years the company will be able to sell these for a staggering $500 million to firms in the developed world, so they can continue "emitting".
Yet, as the company cheerfully explained, it would have bought the incinerator used to burn off those gases anyway. In other words, the $500 million is a free gift, handed over to achieve precisely nothing. Hardly surprisingly, 3,000 more firms are queuing up to join a bonanza already worth $10 billion a year.This shows the global political system is run by lunatics for lunatics.
As the case for continued global warming (by any measure) falls to the floor, and the case for anthropogenic warming itself is absolutely unproven the lunatic fringe of warmists is pushing on regardless.
The IEA wants to spend $45Trillion on stopping climate change?
The UN is rewarding carbon schemes with hundreds of millions of dollars for doing what they were going to do anyway.
Shameful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
