UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit

No need to get snarky. You were being vague. It was a legitimate request....And a simple Kyoto/Durban would have sufficed for a response.

No and I have never claimed to. I already told you that.

Probably the sheer fact that credibility doesn't come solely from condemning Kyoto and Durban.

 

Interestingly enough, you ignored the second and most important part of my response.

Nothing you have posted shows any evidence of 'drowning out scientific discussion'. Your link even quotes scientific figures that show discussion is alive and happening and which, ironically, refutes your own point.

 

I did. A search of the word 'kyoto" returns no results. A search of '36' returns no relevant results. A search of "2012" returns no results. So I ask again where do you get "The original Kyoto Protocol (1997) called for the US to reduce its GHG emissions by 36% from 1990 levels by 2012. "

 

No Durban does not. Durban demands a limit of 2C temperature rise. The article in your link is lying.

 

Found the Report

Anyone who links to infowars without first checking the facts is, IMO, a fool.

 

"Pre-industrial levels" means colonial US. Little Ice Age temps.

Is ice mankind's friend?

 

Just out of curiosity, what did you think Kyoto required?

 

What??? "holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels," 2C above pre-industrial levels is not LIA temps. Currently we are about 1C above pre-industrial levels.


source

Can you at least admit infowars and Monckton were lying about Durban?

 

I went to the actual UN Durbin Climate Change conference website and didn't find any of this. Perhaps I missed it as I didn't read every document so I'll challenge others to find where this is proposed.

http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php

BTW the US could make a significant reduction in CO2, SO2 and particulate emissions by simply requiring the retrofit of existing coal fired electrical generation by off the shelf technology being proposed by CleanCoal.org which is the mouthpiece of the coal industry. CleanCoal.org cites a potential reduction in these emissions by up to 40% and the coal industry is the single largest producer of CO2 emissions in the US. This is very cost effective and could easily be accomplished in four years. If CleanCoal.org is promoting this technology it's rather hard to logically argue against it.

 

The problem is the talks failed here is a news report


http://www.maltabusinessweekly.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=12852

 

From the article it appears that the talks didn't really fail but instead that efforts to address greenhouse gases are inadequite.

For the record I do not support measures that impose draconian costs but do believe there is much that can be accomplished without that. As I noted before CleanCoal.org has proposed technology that would reduce CO2, SO2 and particulate emissions from coal-fired powerplants by up to 40%. This is not a "pie-in-the-sky" measure but instead something that the coal industry says can be done right now. No taxes are involved and the electricity cost using this techology would still be the lowest cost power being produced.

We can look forward and see that we could easily convert to hydrogen fuel cells for most of our transportation needs within 20 years but cannot do it the way we produce hydrogen today (from natural gas). We need to do it with electricity and that would require nuclear powerplants to be built. They could be uranium (these can be built today) or possibly even thorium nuclear powerplants (under development today and they don't problems like uranium plants) or, perhaps even fusion reactors that are still in the research phase. The key is we have the technology to eliminate virtually all transportation emissions within 20 years.

We don't need to be polluting like we did even 50 years ago as the technology is contantly being created that eliminates atmospheric pollution and it's cost effective. The problem is that we simply aren't employing this technology as we should be.

 

The problem is it is about the money. they need to do things that can be done at a reasonable cost. For instance E0-85 cost as much as E10. This means they raised corn so high in price ethanol cost as much as gas.

This is stupid. Make ethanol out of non-food substance like cattails or switchblade grass or fodder beets. But instead it is not about the environment but about politics and subsidies.

 

No argument from me. I just read that the subsidies alone for solar power equated to $65/barrel of oil based upon equivalent energy being produced. That is not cost effective and I'd advocate ending any and all government subsidies, period.

And yes, there are cost effective solutions as I've mentioned. Retro-fitting the existing coal-fired electrical powerplants is very cost effective and the technology already exists. It's even being promoted by the coal industry by CleanCoal.org although they don't really advocate fixing their current pollution problems. I see no problem whatsoever with increasing the cost of electricity from coal by a few cents a KW to provide a 40% reduction in CO2, SO2 and particulate releases. Let is not forget that coal fired powerplants have actually released more radioactive material than all of the nuclear distasters we've had to date.

I would also support massive permiting of new technology nuclear powerplants so that we have the energy capacity to produce hydrogen from water. The new designs are very, very safe. This opens the door to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and this process creates zero atmospheric pollution. Electrical cars are too expensive, require battery replacements and the batteries are toxic, and use electricity from coal fired powerplants which doesn't reduce pollution.

These are cost effective concrete steps that we can take today to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no reason I'm aware of that would prevent us from doing both of the above.

 

Shiva TD posted:
“…the US could make a significant reduction in CO2, SO2 and particulate emissions by simply requiring the retrofit of existing coal fired electrical generation by off the shelf technology being proposed by CleanCoal.org…”

Taxcutter says:
Tough sell, Shiva. Every coal-fired power plant in the US currently has a flue gas desulfurization unit (usuall y a wet limestone scrubber), an ammonia injection system to reduce NOx emissions, and either an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a baghouse to eliminate particulate emissions. So there is not much scope for reductions in emissions.

“CleanCoal” is shorthand for coal gasification. Essentially coal is gasified in a process very similar to that used before the American Civil War to make illumination gas. Pulverized coal is reacted in a reactor with little or no air, hydrogen gas (generated from electrolysis of water on-site) and steam. This produces a low-Btu mixture of methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. This gas is then burned in a combustion turbine and the last of the heat is recovered in a Rankine cycle bottoming cogeneration unit.

There is a “clean coal” integrated coal gasification plant due to go on-line at Edwardsport, Indiana sometime this year. The link fills in the details.

http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/igcc-fact-sheet.pdf

Yes the new plant is cleaner than the (closed down) it replaces. Of course the old plant was built in 1918. Edwardsport will cost about half of what a similar-sized nuke would cost.

In a state which has regulated electric residential power rates of about 9 cents per kwh, Edwardsport-generated power will cost the ratepayer 14 cents per kwh. This is a 55% increase in cost to the consumer for very little reduction in emissions. Not exactly a free lunch. More like lunch at St. Elmo’s. A modern fluidized-bed boiler would do the same job at half the cost.

At least one good thing about “clean coal.” The coal gasification is also the first step in the Fischer-Tropsch process for producing liquid transportation fuels from coal.

Another cute fact about gasification: It works with almost any carbonaceous feedstock. Tire crumbs work beautifully. Dried garbage and dried sewage sludge work as well.



Shiva TD posted;
“…could easily be accomplished in four years.”


Taxcutter says:
The initial permit application for Edwardsport was filed in 1996. Sixteen years and counting. About par for a New Source Review project.

 

Lowering warm/hot CO2 gas will lower the temperature of the atmosphere (put a few cars of a small heater in a hangar) The detail that CO2 gas from the billions of exhaust pipes is warm/hot is left out by politics/media and the UN. Oil is full of energy, and in two ways the energy is used, as motion and exhaust, the efficiency of a combustion engine is very bad, less than twenty percent, means eighty percent is lost in friction and heat.

Right. The UN is becoming the top of the pyramid of the nearing global empire they are setting up. It's pure power based, anti world population. The name United Nations means empire of nations, in other words, a global empire.

'Eco-fascism' is another of the many terms they have planted in the collective mind of the people. For example 'oil-facism' is never mentioned, because this empire's energy fundament is oil and not on ecological friendly energy (e.g. geothermical/tidal)

 

I agree but the IPCC and the government have proven it is about politics and money not solutions

 

There is no proof lower CO2 will mean Lower temp

 

Honestly people you are wasting your time on ptif. He isn't interested in discussion. He just wants to mindlessly regurgitate his mantra of 'no proof for AGW' or 'UN has proved AGW is about money not science' ad nauseam.

ie: ptif is either a troll, or incredibly slow-witted and not worth time debating.

 

You refuse to show proof

 

I agree. He demands "proof" but then makes claims such as

and expects us to believe him without any proof.

And when shown that sites like infowars lie he runs away.

 

Taxcutter, no comment???

 

Some very good points but I've only retained those I would respond to. First of all residential electrical power rates should not be regulated but instead they should be based upon the market. Unilaterally we see where there are regulations that lower the billing rates the government subsidizes the energy source which means it's being funded by taxes so the actual cost is higher than the bill the customer receives. Those costs are hidden but exist nonetheless.

Next is the fact that 9 cents per kwh is not typical and cannot be used for comparative purposes. As noted this related to a "regulated" rate and not a free market rate for the power and unquestionably there are subsidies tied to it.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

If we address the average price of electricity as being 12¢/kWh then 14¢/kWh represents a 16% increase in cost but even that doesn't accurately address the issue. How much does the person pay for their total use of all forms of energy for their home is much more important. For example if they have gas water and space heating as well cooking their use of electricity might be a minor expense whereas if they're exclusively using electricity for all of their energy needs their out of pocket expense for energy would be much higher.

Next when we consider this increase does this 16% increase adversely effect them and can they do things, often simple like turning off the lights in an unused room, to mitigate the cost increase? We can document that changing from a conventional electric hot water heater to an "on demand" water heater can save a considerable amount of money. They could also switch to solar heated hot water which is cost effective even when compared to gas water heating. They can replace single pane windows with double paned windows if they use electricity for space heating. All of these are very cost effective measures that the individual can and should take even if they're paying lower than average rates. How many people know that just closing the drapes will reduce energy loss in a home? It doesn't even cost a dime to do this.

So yes, based upon the "average cost" of electricity the price does go up a couple of cents per kwh but those costs can be mitigated by the homeowner and the homeowner can even reduce their overall energy costs with a few simple and effective measures.

We can incorporate "clean coal" technology without any significant adverse effects to the consumer and we should do that. The slight increase in costs can either be absorbed or mitigated by the consumer. As noted in many cases actually taking steps to mitigate the increase in costs the consumer would actually end up paying less for their electricity in the future than they pay today because they will significantly reduce their electrical usage effectively increasing their standard of living. Thats a win-win-win situation for the environment, the individual, as well as for energy production as it reduces demand that is already near capacity.

This is, of course, absolutely absurd and these long delays in permitting have been based upon politics as opposed to technology. A base model state-of-the-art nuclear powerplant design could be approved and literally hundreds of powerplants could be permitted based upon that design in a matter of months. The fact that it isn't being done is based solely on politics and not on the technology. Simply change the politics and make it happen.

Of course I hope that the thorium reactors that are under development pan out in the future because they produce no pollution, not even nuclear waste, and are very, very safe. For example they have a zero melt-down potential from what I've read. They sound very positive but just aren't online commercially so far.

 

On a dollar per kilowatt basis, Edwardsport costs at least as much as a nuke.

I’m all for replacing coal power plants with nukes, but not at the cost of increased electric rates.

 

I have shown proof. Durban is proof. Ethanol and corn subsidies is proof. Wind turbine subsidies is proof, these things do noting except but forward political agendas and buy votes.

 

Get the U.S. out of the un
Get the un out of the U.S.