RUSSIA: "ICE AGE" PREDICTED



Low solar activity could trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian astronomer said Monday. Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory said temperatures would begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reached its peak, and that the coldest period would occur 15-20 years after a major solar output decline in 2035-2045. Abdusamatov said dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures were an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, and resulted from variations in the Sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation. The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period of 1645-1705, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in Holland frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

Source






BRITISH GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE TO DITCH ITS CO2 EMISSION TARGETS

Electricity generators have warned that placing an even greater burden on the sector to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, under a forthcoming official plan, will threaten Britain's already struggling power network. Power stations and other heavy users of energy fear that they will again be seen as a "soft touch" for a government desperate to meet its ambitious target of a 20 per cent cut in UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. Electricity producers believe it will be very difficult to reconcile the need for billions of pounds of new investment in power stations, to make up for a rapidly approaching shortfall in Britain's ageing generating capacity, with having to also shoulder almost the entire country's effort in cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said: "Companies want to invest in new, clean power plant, but it must be recognised that their choice of technology is affected not just by fuel prices, but by carbon costs, too. That could affect the extent of diversity in the UK's generating industry." Separately, the CBI said the 20 per cent figure simply could not be achieved and the Government must set different targets. Matthew Farrow, head of environment policy at the CBI, said that there were "diminishing returns" attainable from ever-greater demands of emissions cuts from heavy industry. He said that households and other parts of the economy needed to share the burden. "Government needs to understand that targets are not something that businesses can achieve by themselves, but that is the only lever they seem to have," Mr Farrow said. He said that there was a series of relatively low-cost measures aimed at the consumer that could be used. For instance, he suggested that stamp duty payable on buying energy-efficient homes could be reduced.

The Government admits that the 20 per cent emissions cut figure, which has featured in the last three Labour election manifestos, will be tough to meet. However, a plan of action, called the Climate Change Review Programme, has been repeatedly delayed amid reports that the Department of Trade and Industry wants to ditch the goal. The DTI apparently has the support of the Prime Minister, who is fearful that it would harm British industry.

Britain's obligations under the Kyoto protocol only require a 10 per cent reduction by 2010, so an aim to double that figure would place restrictions on British business that key competitors do not have. However, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is said to be determined to stick by the 20 per cent figure. A spokesman said the Climate Change Review Programme would be published "shortly". The Government must also publish its next proposed "National Allocation Plan" before the summer. This would become the UK's submission to the European Commission for the country's permitted carbon emissions, for the period from 2008 to 2012.

According to Defra's figures, under the last National Allocation Plan, which covered the period from 2005 to the end of 2007, power stations had to cut 21.5 per cent of their historic emissions. All the other sectors covered by the scheme - except food, drink and tobacco - were actually allowed to raise their emissions over that time. As electricity generators do not export, analysts said the Government believes it can hit them without hurting British competitiveness.

Mr Porter said: "The brunt of the emissions cuts in Phase 1 was borne by the electricity generating sector. Eventually, that burden will have to be spread, or it will be impossible to meet government targets. But I have an uncomfortable feeling that we might be singled out for a hefty cut in emissions reduction when the next allocation plan emerges."

The Independent, 6 February 2006






THOSE EVIL "CHEMICALS"

Making Sense of Chemical Stories is a welcome corrective to the abundance of misinformation about chemicals. Chemicals are often presented as substances that are harmful to our health and the environment and should be avoided. But the idea of a chemical-free existence is absurd: the world is full of chemicals, both natural and manufactured, and we could not exist without them.

Today, it is especially the 'man-made', 'synthetic' or 'industrial' chemicals that we are encouraged to avoid. 'But how do we explain the fact that we are living longer and healthier lives?' asked Andrew Cockburn, director of Toxico-Logical Consulting Ltd, at the launch of the Sense about Science report. In the UK in 1840 the average life expectancy was only 40 years of age; today it is nearer to 80. 'That makes us the healthiest hypochondriacs that ever existed', said Cockburn.

In the late nineteenth century the population was indeed exposed to a number of hazardous chemicals. In 1871 the Royal Sanitary Commission noted that the water in Bradford Canal was so contaminated that a dropped lamp could set it alight. Chemicals used in hat-making gave off mercury vapour, causing muscle tremors, distorted vision and slurred speech. Hence the origin of the phrase 'mad as a hatter'. This chemical, and many more, are now carefully regulated, allowing us to live better and healthier lives.

But that does not stop some people from fretting. Not many of them end up as red faced as the Californian city councillors who in 2004 took steps to protect the public from the 'potentially deadly' chemical, dihydrogen monoxide. A hoax website had warned that this 'odourless, tasteless chemical' kills thousands of people every year, mainly through accidental inhalation. The website pointed out that dihydrogen monoxide causes severe burns in its gaseous state and severe tissue damage through prolonged exposure in its solid state. City officials considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production. But dihydrogen monoxide is, of course, H2O; in other words, water.

The chemical terms for certain substances may sound ominous. The research scientist Derek Lohmann asks: 'If someone came into your house and offered you a cocktail of butanol, iso amyl alcohol, hexanol, phenyl ethanol, tannin, benzyl alcohol, caffeine, geraniol, quercetin, 3-galloyl epicatchin, 3-galloyl epigallocatchin and inorganic salts, would you take it?' Maybe not. But if they offered you a cup of tea - a chemical mixture containing the above chemicals - you may not be as reticent.

Making Sense of Chemical Stories has shed some much-needed light on a murky debate. It clearly spells out that whether a substance is manufactured by people, copied from nature or extracted directly from nature, tells us nothing about whether it is 'good' or 'bad' for us. The old rule that it is the dose that makes the poison still holds: everything is potentially poisonous, depending on the quantity. Rather than fear synthetic chemicals we should recognise that flame-retardants, cleaners, disinfectants, anti-bacterials and DDT have helped to save millions of lives and improved the quality of life for many more.

More here






ALTERNATIVE FUELS COULD WORK

The Common Agricultural Policy is classically criticised for producing too much food at too high prices and for undermining cheaper Third World producers by dumping the remainder on world markets. America is not much better. The Doha Round is in limbo because the EU has told the rest of the world that it must offer juicy trade advantages if reforms in the CAP or EU tariffs are to go beyond the restructuring of subsidies.

In a few years, however, agriculture in Europe could be transformed, virtually abandoning many commodity food crops. Instead of being our nations’ larders, the fields could become giant intensive fuel factories. Fuel crops, in this vision, will become the most practical way to use solar energy, turning the sun’s rays into a few standard forms of vegetable matter to power vehicles and generate electricity in less environmentally objectionable thermal power stations.

The latest “vision” comes from President Bush. He used his annual State of the Union address to tout a new energy policy that would free America from the chains of dependence on Middle East oil. He backed all the usual things: nuclear power, solar cells, wind farms, hydrogen, petrol-electric vehicles and fuel efficiency. But his focus was on something called “cellulosic” ethanol, a patented process developed in Canada that aims to turn prairie grasses, corn straw and wood chips into an ethanol alternative to petrol in cars, vans and lorries. Vehicle fuel accounts for nearly half America’s oil use.

Ethanol is certainly a practical fuel. Brazil makes enough from sugar cane to deliver more than half the power for the cars on its roads, though it took a long time and massive interference with markets. Ethanol production is not without problems. In America it comes from ears of corn and takes nearly as much energy to convert as it delivers. The new process uses enzymes to break down tougher material, such as the heavy corn stalks.

In Europe cellulosic ethanol would not be the obvious choice for renewable vehicle fuel. To reduce our dependence on fossil energy and the associated extra carbon dioxide emissions, it would make more sense to use biomass to generate electricity, while rebuilding nuclear power capacity. But these alternative ways of generating electricity do not really help on fuel for vehicles. Here biodiesel, which uses vegetable oil crops such as that yellow-flowered colza, is at present several times more efficient at turning produce into car miles. It is even more practical if the rest of the plant is burnt for electricity or used as fertiliser. Burning straw is claimed to emit no more harmful gases than letting it rot.

All such projections presuppose, however, that President Bush’s dash for freedom and Europe’s focus on cutting carbon emissions are serious. The sheer self-indulgence of the UK’s 2001 Energy White Paper and the history of US drives for self-sufficiency suggest that they may just be fancies that will quickly pass if and when oil and gas prices subside. President Bush’s call for action echoes similar initiatives by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, the first George Bush and Bill Clinton at times of high oil prices or Middle East conflict. None of them came to much once oil prices fell back or tension eased. Only the pet technologies have changed.

Unless cellulosic ethanol turns out to be much cheaper than its rivals, which would be surprising, none of these alternative vehicle fuels is economical unless oil prices remain historically high. They are the equivalent of the Canadian tar sands, whose development is occasionally considered and then shelved again. Vegetable fuels are a better proposition in countries such as Britain, where petrol is heavily taxed and a bit of biodiesel can readily be slipped into the mix. But it will take over only in the unlikely case that the Treasury is prepared to give up the best part of £25 billion a year in revenue for the sake of environmental improvement, the balance of payments or national security.

In America high prices have proved the only reliable method of cutting oil imports. High fuel costs reduce demand, for instance, by persuading people to use more economical cars, and stimulate investment in domestic production, which is still huge but in worldwide decline. US oil imports halved after the 1979-81 oil price boom, but not for long.

If President Bush and his successors want to go beyond rhetoric and funds for special interests, they would have to persuade Americans that fuel will not get any cheaper. To give investors the confidence to put capital into ethanol on a massive scale, they would have to know that oil taxes would rise pro rata with any fall in refined oil prices. Mr Bush has failed to offer this assurance.

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.

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