MORE ABOUT THE MALDIVES

An email to Benny Peiser from David Lips (A6256ski@aol.com) about the report posted here on 29th July -- which showed that sea-levels in the Maldive islands were FALLING -- much to the puzzlement of the Greenies

In the year 2000, my wife and I snorkeled in the Maldives. We took a long boat ride from the capital island to the reef. En route I spoke with interpreters about the issue of sea level rise. Having heard for years that rising sea levels were endangering the low islands that form the Maldives, I wanted to get the observations of people who lived there -- and particularly of people who spoke English since I assumed that they were more educated than were most other members of the population. Our boat had different interpreters for the journeys coming and going. So I had long conversations with two natives who were out of hearing of each other. I made it a point to ask open-ended, objective questions and not to indicate any personal views during our discussions.

Given these precautions, I was surprised that the two people I spoke with gave virtually identical accounts. I first asked each of them generally whether sea levels had risen. Both affirmed that they had. One of the interpreters told me that "a scientist" had discovered that global warming had caused this gradual rise. I then asked each of them what they had noticed during their lifetimes. (Each man seemed to be in his mid- to late-20's.) Both told me that they had seen islands from their youth slowly covered by water. As they described this process, however, they said that new islands had also formed during the same time. They reflected that in the Maldives islands were in a constant state of formation and submersion. When I asked which state was more predominant -- were more islands being submerged than were being formed? -- neither man could say.

This exchange was enlightening. Both men were subject to making sweeping statements based on what they had apparently heard from others about sea level rise and its presumed link to global warming. But when they were asked about their own observations, they noticed that the evidence was far more complicated and tended not to sway in one direction or another. When I read the article defending the 'orthodox' view that global warming threatens the Maldives and the more modest claims by those who have studied the area intensively on just this question, I got a strange sense of deja vu.





MORE UPWARD PRESSURE ON HOUSING COSTS FROM THE GREENIES

Standard electric hot water systems will be banned in new Queensland houses from March next year. But the State Government has stopped short of mandating rainwater tanks in all new houses as part of its long-awaited measures to reduce energy and water use. Environment Minister Desley Boyle yesterday confirmed new house plans approved from March 1 next year would have to include dual-flush toilets, water-efficient shower roses, water pressure-limiting devices and energy-efficient lighting.

The Government also has decided to ban standard electric hot water systems which continuously heat water in new homes, in favour of solar, gas or electric heat pump systems which use significantly less energy. Units, townhouses and bathroom renovations will also have to install the shower roses and dual-flush toilets, but existing homes will not have to comply with the measures.

Developers and environmentalists have generally welcomed the changes which Ms Boyle predicted would add between $1000 and $2000 to the cost of a new home. "However, prices will come down as these are mandated and developers buy in bulk," she said. "There will also be ongoing savings for homeowners on their power and water bills. "Just the energy efficiency devices in every new home in Queensland over 12 years will have such an impact that it will save us building a small, coal-fired power station." Urban Development Institute of Australia state president Peter Sherrie said the Government had been "balanced and reasoned" in implementing new standards.

Source






NEW ZEALAND'S KYOTO RIGHTEOUSNESS IS COSTING THEM HEAPS

Most of New Zealand's pollution is caused by millions of farting sheep anyway. Kill all those sheep!

Judging by New Zealand's predicament, we were wise not to sign up for Kyoto. Our Kiwi neighbours, once smug about ecological superiority, face a cost blow-out from the treaty exceeding $NZ1 billion ($900 million). Kyoto has become an election issue in New Zealand, with the Opposition Nationals contemplating pulling out of the agreement. The farcical result is that even though the country produces only 0.2 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, it is to be punished as if it were a big polluter because it is unlikely to meet its emission targets. The Government has admitted it will exceed its Kyoto target by 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2008 and 2012.

In their enthusiasm for the project, New Zealand officials miscalculated carbon dioxide inputs and outputs, claiming there would be a net profit in carbon credits from the treaty. They reportedly counted some forests twice and didn't account for increased car use due to a booming economy. So, instead of profiting by being a global green goodie, it will have to buy carbon credits to meet the shortfall, which will cost as much as $NZ1.2 billion, a report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers says. Worse, a consultant's report released by the industry group Business New Zealand last year calculated a future liability of as much as $NZ14 billion under the protocol over the next 20 years.

To cap it all off, the new market in carbon credits has led to threats to the environment, such as a plan to dam the tiny Waitahuna River in the South Island, where water would be pumped uphill into a nearby hydro-electric scheme; there is little energy upside but the plan would still attract carbon credits because it creates "clean" hydro energy.

As carbon has taken its place in the derivatives market alongside pork belly futures and stock options, trading has "exploded", reports Bloomberg. It is tipped to become the biggest financial market in the world. Prices this year in Europe more than quadrupled from just over 6 Euros ($10) a tonne in January to almost 30 Euros in July. But the complexities of this new market which Kyoto has spawned don't seem to have provided much environmental advantage. Carbon trading just shifts the responsibility for pollution around the globe, with brokers skimming off fat commissions. A 2002 study by the non-profit Clean Air Trust of three similar pollution trading schemes in the US found they were a "dismal failure". They did not produce environmental benefits, stifled innovation in pollution controls, and led to delays and secrecy.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, last week declared Kyoto a dismal failure, too. He has set Australia's sights on a new climate change pact with the US, Japan, China, India and South Korea, the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which will meet in Adelaide in November. The aim of the new group is to cut emissions by encouraging new technologies rather than curtailing economic growth. And since the US produces 20.6 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, and China 14.8 per cent, according to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, any treaty that includes the two nations is already ahead of one that doesn't. (Australia produces just 1.4 per cent.)

But green groups have already claimed the new pact is a "convention of polluters" designed to wreck Kyoto and pander to the coal industry. Meanwhile Greenpeace doesn't see New Zealand's billion-dollar Kyoto blow-out as a problem, demanding the nation "reduce its emissions urgently". Stop driving cars, Kiwis, or move to Mosman [in Australia].

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************