You Know It Makes Sense
James Delingpole
The Spectator Wednesday, 13th May 2009
I don’t bait greens only for fun. I do it because they’re public enemy number one.
Perhaps you’ll have heard how I gave up recycling for Lent and found the penance so bracing I’ve decided to carry on till next Easter at the very earliest. Maybe you’ve caught me on talk radio pooh-poohing ‘cap-and-trade’ or promising that if I sell enough copies of Welcome To Obamaland I’ll buy a 4x4 and run over a baby polar bear. ‘Monster!’ you may have decided. ‘Heretic! Climate-change denier!’
Obviously there’s a part of me that kind of enjoys this. But I don’t do it just for fun, you know. In fact I don’t even do it mainly for fun. The reason I rail so often against so many tenets of the green faith — from biofuels to carbon trading to the ludicrous attempts to get polar bears designated as an endangered species — is because I sincerely believe they are among the greatest current threats to the advancement of humankind. Yes, that’s right: greens aren’t the solution. They’re public enemy number one.
Whenever my green friends hear me say such things — the nice Germans down the road who give us lift-shares in their electric car, say; Ralphie in Dorset who’s doing an MA studying Boris’s green policies — their assumption is that I’m just saying these things out of a sort of attention-seeker’s Tourette’s. ‘You’re turning into a shock jock!’ they say. Or: ‘Well I suppose this is what you do when you have a blog.’ Here is what’s so terrifying about the modern green movement: its complete refusal to accept that anyone who disagrees with it can be anything other than wilfully perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil.
This is true within the mainstream media too. Of all the different editors I write for, I would say that no more than 10 per cent would commission a piece in which I expressed even in passing the view that the man-made-global-warming theory is bunk and that climate change is nothing to worry about. Check out all the soft features in any newspaper. They were all commissioned by editors on the same middle-class eco-guilt-trip: consumption is naughty, GM is dangerous, organic is close to godliness, non-local produce is sinful produce, wind farms are actually rather striking and if they ruin every last square acre of unspoilt British upland, well, maybe that’s just the price we’ll have to pay — a bit like all those lovely old railings we had to melt down to win the last war.
But what if they’re wrong? What if climate change is normal? What if the new hair-shirt chic is holding back economic recovery? What about the Kenyan green-bean growers — don’t they deserve to make a living too? What if the billions and billions of pounds being stolen from our wallets by our governments to ‘combat climate change’ are being squandered to no useful purpose? What if instead of alleviating the problem, misguided eco-zealots are actually making things worse?
That’s what I believe, anyway, and if there were space I’d be more than happy to explain why in lavish detail using all sorts of highly convincing evidence provided by top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, there isn’t, so you’ll have to go somewhere like www.ClimateDepot.com, or the hilarious Planet Gore at National Review Online or the Watts Up With That blog for your ammo.
My purpose here is not to convince any green waverers of the justice of my cause, merely to point up the quite nauseating arrogance and bullying self-righteousness with which the modern green movement cleaves to its ideological position. Indeed, it doesn’t even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.
Hence the snotty dismissiveness with which they wave away our arguments. In their Manichean weltanschauung the world now divides into two categories: on the one hand, caring, nurturing, sensitive, intelligent eco-types who understand the threat of global warming and want to make the planet a lovelier place; on the other, morally purblind, selfish, ugly, greedy deniers who can’t even pass sea otters at play without thinking how much more entertaining they’d look drenched in tanker spillage.
I venture to suggest that the issues are rather more complex than that; that the vast majority of so-called ‘deniers’ are motivated by a love of the planet every bit as intense as that of the ‘warmists’. It’s just that our love is maybe tempered with a touch more rationalism, that’s all.
We look at electric cars and go: OK fine, but where does that electricity come from? We’re told Tuvalu is sinking and go: yeah, very worrying — except it’s not. We’re told temperatures will rise inexorably with carbon emissions and go: so how come we’ve just had three years of global cooling? We’re told to heed scientists like NASA’s Dr Hansen — only to discover that in the 1970s he was predicting an imminent ice age. We’re told that plonking lots of vast, white, heavily subsidised, bird-chewing, subsonic-humming, light-stealing turbines on top of an unspoilt British landscape is just what we need to save the environment, and we go: now wait just a second, there’s something here that doesn’t quite ring true.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Climate change review
Problem & solution
Global warming is widely perceived today, worldwide, as a major problem facing mankind. Simply defined, it is the heating up of the earth's atmosphere due to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The fear is that increased temperatures will lead to melting polar ice-caps, rising sea levels, which could cause flooding affecting millions in densely-poulated low-lying areas of the world, and an increase in the occurrence of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
The film , An Inconvenient Truth. directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott Nash & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.The class average for CRE was 3.65.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit meaning behind some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint.
In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue.
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
.
Global warming is widely perceived today, worldwide, as a major problem facing mankind. Simply defined, it is the heating up of the earth's atmosphere due to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The fear is that increased temperatures will lead to melting polar ice-caps, rising sea levels, which could cause flooding affecting millions in densely-poulated low-lying areas of the world, and an increase in the occurrence of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
The film , An Inconvenient Truth. directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott Nash & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.The class average for CRE was 3.65.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit meaning behind some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint.
In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue.
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
Scott Nash & Eric
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Cool City
We watched the Cool City video.
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.
It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.
It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
Monday, April 27, 2009
European Initiative
Summary:
Will Hutton, in How Europe can save the world, The Observer 11.03.07, says that the EU has committed itself to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% from their 1990 level, by 2020. This will be achieved, he says, mainly through the use of renewable energy such as water, air & biofuels. Although France is heavily dependent on nuclear power, this will now be classified as clean. There will be strict limits on carbon emissions, with every new power station in Europe after 2010 having to have 'carbon capture and storage capacity'.
Main idea:
Will Hutton, a committed pro-European, says that Europe has taken the lead in the battle to reduce global GHG emissions and he praises European politicians for this. He is optimistic that their efforts will prove successful because he believes there is a growing worldwide awareness of the need for government action to prevent climate change.
Comment:
While I believe that the reduction of carbon emissions is of global importance, I think the article is wildly optimistic. It was written before the current global recession and I feel that many countries will struggle to implement the changes they have promised. The UK's economy, for example, is currently in an awful mess and using renewable fuels is more expensive than using fossil fuels. Can the UK afford to meet the targets it has set? Shell has recently announced the abandonment of much of its research budget re. renewable energy, saying that existing fossil fuels make more economic sense. Hutton is clearly more in awe of the politicians he names than I am.
Will Hutton, in How Europe can save the world, The Observer 11.03.07, says that the EU has committed itself to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% from their 1990 level, by 2020. This will be achieved, he says, mainly through the use of renewable energy such as water, air & biofuels. Although France is heavily dependent on nuclear power, this will now be classified as clean. There will be strict limits on carbon emissions, with every new power station in Europe after 2010 having to have 'carbon capture and storage capacity'.
Main idea:
Will Hutton, a committed pro-European, says that Europe has taken the lead in the battle to reduce global GHG emissions and he praises European politicians for this. He is optimistic that their efforts will prove successful because he believes there is a growing worldwide awareness of the need for government action to prevent climate change.
Comment:
While I believe that the reduction of carbon emissions is of global importance, I think the article is wildly optimistic. It was written before the current global recession and I feel that many countries will struggle to implement the changes they have promised. The UK's economy, for example, is currently in an awful mess and using renewable fuels is more expensive than using fossil fuels. Can the UK afford to meet the targets it has set? Shell has recently announced the abandonment of much of its research budget re. renewable energy, saying that existing fossil fuels make more economic sense. Hutton is clearly more in awe of the politicians he names than I am.
Monday, April 20, 2009
My carbon footprint
My carbon footprint
I measured my carbon footprint at http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ & it was 4.10.
Most of the students had similar figures. The average figure for CRE was approximately 3.87. The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints. The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to my home, in England I have loft insulation, double glazing etc, but here in Abu Dhabi, I live in a rented flat and can do little to improve my footprint domestically, apart from turning off appliances, which I already do.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, according to the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, eat only once a day during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
329 words
I measured my carbon footprint at http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ & it was 4.10.
Most of the students had similar figures. The average figure for CRE was approximately 3.87. The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints. The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to my home, in England I have loft insulation, double glazing etc, but here in Abu Dhabi, I live in a rented flat and can do little to improve my footprint domestically, apart from turning off appliances, which I already do.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, according to the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, eat only once a day during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
329 words
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Reviews of 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/ , in a favourable review, points out that Al Gore is right and the climate debate is effectively over. Scientific opinion overwhelmingly supports the view that global warming is principally man-made and time is running out for us to find solutions. He says that Gore has a mass of scientific data, charts, diagrams & photographic evidence, enough to convince even the most hardened sceptic. What he finds most alarming is the time-lapse photos of Patagonia, Kilimanjaro, etc. He ends his review by praising the fact that the movie is not pessimistic but rather closes with practical advice as to how we can get emissions back to the levels of 1950.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Shell
From The Times
March 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.
Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market.
Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work.
joe, edinburgh, scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water!
Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support.
patrick, London,
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother.
Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate.
Ben Saunders, London, UK.
March 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.
Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market.
Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work.
joe, edinburgh, scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water!
Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support.
patrick, London,
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother.
Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate.
Ben Saunders, London, UK.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth
There were several plus points about the film, viz:
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 &
temperature very telling,
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,
Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in the
atmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise
points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem
is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’s
become a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environment
issue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of the
presidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of these
episodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the
level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 &
temperature very telling,
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,
Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in the
atmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise
points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem
is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’s
become a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environment
issue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of the
presidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of these
episodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the
level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Task 2 Global Warming
Global warming is certainly happening and to deny the seriousness of the problem of climate change would be ostrich-like. It is, however, important to keep things in perspective.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming. Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession.
Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
Have I been too pessimistic here? I recently read this, about the Conservative party in the UK, by Fraser Neslon, in The Spectator, 25.02.09:
Undeterred, the Conservatives want to apply the Californian formula to the burgeoning ‘green tech’ industry in the hope of incubating a whole new economic sector. There is to be a government-run green stock exchange to direct investment into businesses which spring from universities. Mr Cameron has solemnly declared that Britain is to become a ‘world leader in battery-powered cars’ — thereby leapfrogging California itself, whence this sort of ambition is explicitly imported. Under a Tory government, he says, businesses will develop carbon-capture business in the North Sea, not the Pacific.
Whatever one may think of its chances of success, this is likely to become the key Tory message on the economy (whether expressed as Californian in inspiration or in some other form). A vision of smaller, family-friendly companies that allow flexible working. A proud refusal to abandon the green agenda in spite of the downturn, on the grounds that — like it or not — environmentalism is the future. To a surprising extent, Mr Cameron has actually revived his eco-strategy since the recession started, saying he wants ‘not green or growth, but both.’ If the election is to be about competing visions for the economy, this will be the Tory credo — and it is designed to be an optimistic one, with rays of Californian sunshine peeking through.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming. Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession.
Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
Have I been too pessimistic here? I recently read this, about the Conservative party in the UK, by Fraser Neslon, in The Spectator, 25.02.09:
Undeterred, the Conservatives want to apply the Californian formula to the burgeoning ‘green tech’ industry in the hope of incubating a whole new economic sector. There is to be a government-run green stock exchange to direct investment into businesses which spring from universities. Mr Cameron has solemnly declared that Britain is to become a ‘world leader in battery-powered cars’ — thereby leapfrogging California itself, whence this sort of ambition is explicitly imported. Under a Tory government, he says, businesses will develop carbon-capture business in the North Sea, not the Pacific.
Whatever one may think of its chances of success, this is likely to become the key Tory message on the economy (whether expressed as Californian in inspiration or in some other form). A vision of smaller, family-friendly companies that allow flexible working. A proud refusal to abandon the green agenda in spite of the downturn, on the grounds that — like it or not — environmentalism is the future. To a surprising extent, Mr Cameron has actually revived his eco-strategy since the recession started, saying he wants ‘not green or growth, but both.’ If the election is to be about competing visions for the economy, this will be the Tory credo — and it is designed to be an optimistic one, with rays of Californian sunshine peeking through.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Blog Project Task 1
Task 1 blog project
My CRE students have to write 150-250 words describing themselves and this blog project.I'll do the same.
I started my prefessional career in 1971 as a history teacher in Leicester, England. I then lectured in Education for a year in Worcester, before becoming Head of History at a large school in Wolverhampton. My last full-time job in England was as Head of Faculty/Head of Year at a school in Rochdale.
We (my wife, Mary, our elder daughter, Kate, and I) then decided to work abroad. We arrived in Brunei on New Year's Day 1980. I taught History & English there for nearly 10 years, at the Pusat Tingkaten Enam ( 6th Form Centre). My wife worked at Brunei International School, where Kate and her sister Emma, born in 1981, were pupils. In 1982 Kate left Brunei for boarding school in England.
When we left Brunei, I worked for 2 years in Hong Kong, accompanied by my family, followed by a year, single-status, in KSA & 2 years here in Abu Dhabi. In 1994 I was asked, while working at a summer school at Eton College, to go for 11 weeks to Qatar and ended up staying there for 9 years. I returned to Al Ain in March 2003 to work at the Air College for 6 months, before transferring to ADMC in October of the same year. At the same time my wife returned to Al Rabeeh School, where she had worked 1993-4, as a kindergarten teacher.
Our elder daughter currently lives here in Abu Dhabi with her American husband Adam and two children, Louisa & William. Younger daughter Emma is a nurse in England, where she lives with her husband Andy and young son Harry; they have visited us several times here in Abu Dhabi.
The aim of this blog is to examine the concepts of global warming and climate change, to try to understand what they mean and to do so in a critical, sceptical & analytical fashion. I have already posted re. the importance of critical thinking and will do so again as one of our later tasks. There is a tendency nowadays to blame everything, from tsunamis to food shortages, on climate change and this, in my opinion, is clearly wrong-headed.
My CRE students have to write 150-250 words describing themselves and this blog project.I'll do the same.
I started my prefessional career in 1971 as a history teacher in Leicester, England. I then lectured in Education for a year in Worcester, before becoming Head of History at a large school in Wolverhampton. My last full-time job in England was as Head of Faculty/Head of Year at a school in Rochdale.
We (my wife, Mary, our elder daughter, Kate, and I) then decided to work abroad. We arrived in Brunei on New Year's Day 1980. I taught History & English there for nearly 10 years, at the Pusat Tingkaten Enam ( 6th Form Centre). My wife worked at Brunei International School, where Kate and her sister Emma, born in 1981, were pupils. In 1982 Kate left Brunei for boarding school in England.
When we left Brunei, I worked for 2 years in Hong Kong, accompanied by my family, followed by a year, single-status, in KSA & 2 years here in Abu Dhabi. In 1994 I was asked, while working at a summer school at Eton College, to go for 11 weeks to Qatar and ended up staying there for 9 years. I returned to Al Ain in March 2003 to work at the Air College for 6 months, before transferring to ADMC in October of the same year. At the same time my wife returned to Al Rabeeh School, where she had worked 1993-4, as a kindergarten teacher.
Our elder daughter currently lives here in Abu Dhabi with her American husband Adam and two children, Louisa & William. Younger daughter Emma is a nurse in England, where she lives with her husband Andy and young son Harry; they have visited us several times here in Abu Dhabi.
The aim of this blog is to examine the concepts of global warming and climate change, to try to understand what they mean and to do so in a critical, sceptical & analytical fashion. I have already posted re. the importance of critical thinking and will do so again as one of our later tasks. There is a tendency nowadays to blame everything, from tsunamis to food shortages, on climate change and this, in my opinion, is clearly wrong-headed.
Monday, February 9, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth
Global Warming
My CRE students are creating blogs containing not only their own personal details but also their views on climate change and global warming. The starting point is Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The main thesis presented, it must be admitted very impressively, at the outset of the film is that climate change and global warming are inextricably linked to human activity. Gore presents a mass of statistical evidence, backed by impressive graphic displays and photographic evidence, to back up his argument. The film footage is colourful, dramatic and well-matched to Gore's commentary. The movie is well directed and very thought-provoking, whether or not one accepts all of Gore's arguments.Over the coming weeks the students will post blog entries on their views of the movie, definitions of global warming, its causes and possible solutions.
My CRE students are creating blogs containing not only their own personal details but also their views on climate change and global warming. The starting point is Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The main thesis presented, it must be admitted very impressively, at the outset of the film is that climate change and global warming are inextricably linked to human activity. Gore presents a mass of statistical evidence, backed by impressive graphic displays and photographic evidence, to back up his argument. The film footage is colourful, dramatic and well-matched to Gore's commentary. The movie is well directed and very thought-provoking, whether or not one accepts all of Gore's arguments.Over the coming weeks the students will post blog entries on their views of the movie, definitions of global warming, its causes and possible solutions.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Hedley CRE 2009
This is my first blog of 2009. My CRE students are just embarking on their global warming project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)