Leading article

How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry

Britain has the highest energy costs  in Europe, thanks to decisions taken not in Brussels but in Whitehall

2 April 2016

9:00 AM

2 April 2016

9:00 AM

A fortnight ago, the energy minister, Andrea Leadsom, declared grandly that Britain, alone in the world, would commit to a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero. ‘The question is not whether but how we do it,’ she told Parliament. It is now becoming painfully clear how this target will be reached: not by eliminating our carbon emissions but by exporting them, along with thousands of jobs and much of our manufacturing industry.

This week, Tata Steel announced that its entire UK business is to be put up for sale. That came after Stephen Kinnock, whose South Wales constituency includes Tata’s giant plant at Port Talbot, joined a union delegation to the headquarters of Tata Steel in India to beg the company to keep the plant open. Some 750 job losses have already been announced there; more than 1,000 jobs, including these, will be lost across Britain as our steel industry struggles to compete with lower-cost producers overseas.

David Cameron’s government said it would consider support — which is ironic, given its role in Tata’s problems. Yes, steel prices have collapsed worldwide — but the other factor that Tata has mentioned is energy costs. Britain has the highest energy costs in Europe, thanks to decisions taken not in Brussels but in Whitehall. Crusaders like Ms Leadsom have, over the years, made sure that our manufacturers feel the force of green levies, unlike Germany, which exempts its own industry. The idea is that by making energy more expensive, people are encouraged to use less of it. This is working very effectively, as the soon-to-be-unemployed Welsh steelworkers will attest. If the plant closes, carbon emissions in Port Talbot will fall dramatically.

Mr Kinnock has been a staunch defender of the plant, as one might expect, given its importance to many of the voters who elected him. But he can’t bring himself to admit that crippling energy prices, caused by taxes and levies designed to help Britain meet its self-imposed and unilateral carbon-reduction targets, have worsened Tata’s problems in Britain.


Addressing Parliament in February, Mr Kinnock hardly mentioned energy costs at all, demanding instead that the government try to save the plant by imposing tariffs on steel imported from China. It has become received wisdom — especially among sections of the Eurosceptic right — that the Chinese are out to ruin our steel industry by ‘dumping’ steel on our market and there’s nothing we can do about it because of EU rules. While it’s true that the EU has control of trade tariffs, it does more than its fair share of slapping tariffs on Chinese goods, often to the detriment of consumers.

All European producers face much higher costs than Chinese steelmakers thanks to the EU Emissions Trading System. But Britain imposes its own green taxes on top of this in the form of the Carbon Price Floor and the Renewables Obligation — an epic act of self-harm. Tata points out that its energy costs for running steel plants in Britain are 25 per cent more than they would be in Germany and 50 per cent more than they would be in France. This is due to decisions by the UK government to spread the pain of green tariffs so that businesses are hit as hard as consumers.

Five years ago, when George Osborne was still promising to rebalance the economy and championing his ‘march of the makers’, he seemed to appreciate the danger that green levies posed to steel and other important British industries. In his autumn statement of that year, he announced his intention to introduce a tax rebate for energy intensive industries to compensate them for high-energy costs. It was to be introduced in 2013 and would be worth £250 million.

Yet industry is still waiting for the money. The proposal, it turned out, conflicted with EU rules about state aid and required approval. The haggling over this finished only recently.

There is, of course, a better way to reduce energy costs for industry and it wouldn’t involve having to grovel to Brussels to get permission. Moreover, it would help all industries, not just the ones that are big enough to satisfy the arbitrary definition of an ‘energy-intensive industry’. It is to reduce carbon taxes and levies for everyone.

Desirable though it is to reduce carbon emissions, there is no point in committing Britain to stringent carbon-reduction targets if other countries do not do the same. But this hasn’t yet dawned on the government, nor on the main opposition parties. Our policies have a minimal effect on global warming but a profound effect on communities such as Port Talbot — not to mention the households of those in fuel poverty. Raising fuel bills has a real human cost. The ONS recorded 40,000 excess winter deaths in 2014/15, in many of which inadequately-heated homes will have been a factor. Yet it seems that was not enough to start a debate about the cost of fuel bills.

If manufacturing simply transfers abroad, that won’t do a thing to reduce global carbon emissions. It is pure industrial suicide. David Cameron’s government is now considering what it can do to help the steelworks. He ought to have thought it all through more carefully before signing up to Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act. The prospects for British factories will improve when we stop blaming the Chinese for being so competitive and realise that the problem lies not in Beijing, but at the Treasury and the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Rik

    Zero carbon emissions,hmmm,perhaps Ms Leadsom could lead by example??The easiest way would be a plastic bag over the head tied firmly at the neck.Seriously though,our green energy policies are insane,we close coal plants whilst Germany opens new ones,German steel energy costs are 40% lower than UK steel energy costs,as for China producing carp steel with max pollution and low cost coal power tell the 40,000 who will lose their jobs around Port Talbot how they are to be sacrificed on the “Green Altar” to save the planet.
    This is typical greeniot thinking,hmmm lets close down relatively clean steel production and transfer the jobs to somewhere that produces three times the pollution.hurrah for us we are saving the planet,MORONS

    • irina palm

      Statutory zero carbon house building was supposed to be place by now. Another airy-fairy pledge made by governments without the expertise or technical knowledge and in bed with those who dictate the standards in this market.

    • eat your greens

      You do not know much about ‘Green’ things do you?
      Germany is much greener than Britain, and cheaper.
      Greener
      Cheaper
      Greener…

      Get your head round that.

      • CockneyblokefromReading

        Why then? Please explain it to gimps like me. How do they achieve that?

        • Phonetoholic

          Brian explained it above. Generation cost in Germany is way below Generation cost in the UK.
          Why? Because the UK operates on Morris Minor standard technology and Germany operates on SLK standard technology.

  • Chris Hobson

    Carbon is the biggest fertilizer, they are suicidal greenies when they say decarbonize they mean dehumanize

  • scott_east_anglia

    There is not nearly enough energy to be had from so-called ‘renewable sources'” to meet our needs in the UK – by a huge margin of many times, as engineers have always known.

    Engineers also knew since at least the 1950s that the only two energy sources that can presently power a western civilisation in the UK are hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear fission, converting the energy in thermal power stations, using steam turbines.

    On windless nights the output from wind and solar is zero, so we depend on thermal power stations to cover the full demand (with spare capacity for contingency). Not only are renewable power sources therefore unnecessary and merely get in the way of a smoothly functioning power grid, but also they don’t make the advertised CO2 savings because the power stations have to keep running inefficiently as backup, anyway.

    That is why the UK only embarked on wind/solar for the national grid when dumbed down maths-engineering-any-difficult-subject-free arts degrees thought they knew better than the engineers (always a stupid notion) and after much pain have proved the engineers right, at our expense.

    The biggest disgrace is that the thermal properties of CO2 as demonstrated in sealed containers in a laboratory do not manifest themselves as global warming in the Earth’s climate system. The Armageddon as trumpeted by the climate scaremongers refuses to happen. Empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 affects the Earth’s climate has never emerged.

    Climate studies scientists knew this prior to the Rio bean-feast, but were hastily silenced before they could say so. The UN ignored the inconvenient truth in the quest to transfer money from the first world to poorer countries who formed a majority in the General Assembly. Hanson’s alarmist presentation to the US congress helped to establish the myth, and Gore added political pressure. Science became irrelevant to the political project

    This rottenness at the heart of climate studies was concealed for years by relentless propaganda, pseudo-science, smoke and mirrors, fallacious waffle, and the writing of funny computer programs to frighten people into frightening politicians. Unfortunately lies from a big enough computer tend to be believed.

    It started to unravel when the PDO/AMO-based temperature upswing ended as expected at the turn of the century. Since the alarmists had attributed the slight temperature increase since the end of the 1970s to an increased CO2 greenhouse effect, the warmists’ funny computer programs failed to predict the ‘pause/decline’ with almost comical results.

    Then the tropospheric hot spots predicted by the IPCC hypothesis failed to materialise, falsifying the hypothesis.

    Serious research stopped, which is why nothing new has emerged from the warmist camp – not even refinements to the theory – for over a decade.

    Of course, if the IPCC’s climate studies clique had found empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate, there would have been no need for pretence. They would have trumpeted it from the roof-tops. Dissent would be absent, and the world would be pulling together taking action.

    But there was no such evidence, and only in the west are ill-educated machine politicians frightened by the effect of low-grade propaganda on its electorate (because universal enfranchisement means half the electorate must be sub-normal by definition) committing national suicide to achieve no effect on the climate

    Only the British are stupid enough to make a proper job of it. The obvious remedy is to repeal the Climate Change Act, drop all global warming mitigation and build thermal power stations as fast as we can.

    If the EU won’t let us, the corollary is obvious.

    • Jenny_Tells

      Realistically, the Act will never be repealed. So many people have been brainwashed into believing that Britain can single-handedly save the planet that any party attempting to water down the Act, let alone remove it, would lose many of its voters.

      • salt_peter

        We’ll see how people feel once the power cuts start.

  • irina palm

    Wait, costs for the consumer are amongst the lowest, not highest, in Europe.
    The cost for the generation of energy however are amongst the highest in Europe largely due to outdated plant and infrastructure. Once we acknowledge this basic fact, perhaps we will see what it is that will need to change.

    We are, in essence, not paying for the upkeep of our energy supply, we are relying ever more on other nations to deliver a cut-price service which most of the population already struggle to afford. Spot an air of socialist economics there.

  • mahatmacoatmabag

    The irony is that it was Labour under Blair that killed off almost all the remaining productive & unionised heavy industries in the UK ( as opposed to non-productive unionised service industries like teaching & the civil service ) by allowing so much of our manufacturing jobs to go to China, India & Turkey and Brown by signing the Lisbon treaty giving away our sovereignty to the EU which failed to negotiate good deals with countries like China that protect the UK from unfair competition , with only Germany among the EU members states getting its national manufacturing industries protected ( no surprise there since the EU is run by Brussels on behalf of Germany )

    • flipkipper

      You see, lad, I knew straight off you didn’t have a clue about anything init. Spouting all these big words above about reasonable comment. Bull piffle, laddy, it’s all bull piffle.

  • mahatmacoatmabag

    .OBITUARY NOTICE:

    A memorial service is to be held on the pages of the Spectator for the recently deceased Daily Telegraph which no longer allows readers to post comments, especially since many of the readers comments were more honest, intelligent, informative & amusing than the woeful articles written by the Daily Telegraphs collection of pseudo intellectual EU common purpose propagandists.

    The Spectator & Breibart will be the main beneficiaries of the demise of the DT’s comment section.

    Long live free & reasonable comment on the Speccie !

    • JohnnyNorfolk

      Both the Spec and DT are owned by the Barclay Brothers. Does not bode well.

      • richard1949

        Had not realised that and no it does not, perhaps we should club together and provide a site that gives links to DT and Spectator articles and uses Discus to comment under those links, not perfect but for the moment I feel like a 60 a day smoker going cold turkey.
        Oh yes and I deprecate the new format it feels like I am reading a childrens comic

        • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

          Children’s comic, yup – cold turkey, nah.

          Some of us will also not cope with what this summer will bring.
          Heath, Eunuch Powell and good ole Churchill spring to mind.
          Additional care for thy neighbour will be required.

        • Ray Spring

          Children’s Comics are a most useful source of information. I rely on them the whole time, except for when I make up the news.
          My imagined news is often more accurate than the stuff dished out by newspapers.

        • Positive Man

          “not perfect but for the moment I feel like a 60 a day smoker going cold turkey.”

          Be grateful and be productive.

    • Sue Smith

      There are other online sources of protest and activism in the face of our increasingly frightening levels of thought and speech control:

      https://www.prageru.com/courses/economics/myths-lies-and-capitalism

    • Jenny_Tells

      Is it true that the DT really has stopped readers’ comments? The DT has changed the format of their webpages and is now ghastly. I had somewhat naively assumed that Disqus wasn’t available because of glitches in the change-over (you know what it’s like – put the software into service without thorough testing).

      • Vindpust

        Now almost as simple-minded as the Indy website.

    • flipkipper

      I’ll believe it when I read it, lad.

    • courageousone

      Will not subscribe or even visit the Telegraph website again, the comments section was often more interesting and informative than the articles. I hope they lose readers as a result of this, the Telegraph has been ruined for me.

      • CockneyblokefromReading

        Haven’t been there for a week now. The authors were very often dreadful, whereas the comments were interesting and enjoyable. I really don’t see what is achieved by not allowing comments. DT has made a childish mistake. Very often, I skip over a piece here and read the comments first.

    • Katabasis

      Amen.

      And I’d also like to note that the new style Telegraph website is now indistinguishable from Buzzfeed.

  • JohnnyNorfolk

    These green nutters will be the death of us.

  • Jenny_Tells

    For me, this article says it all:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/30/britain-sacrifices-steel-industry-to-curry-favour-with-china/

    Not only must we blame green levies, but also the machinations of the present government. Who would think that the Tories would veto the EU’s attempt to raise the steel tariffs to a level that would protect British steel making? The glut of steel on the global markets won’t last forever, and steel making is a strategic industry. So what will we do when the day comes that we need our own steel? Will we be going cap in hand to China?

    After the budget fiasco with the benefits for the disabled, it makes one wonder whether the Tory party has lost its way. It seems to have become heartless and unthinking. The conclusion must be that steel making in this country will be allowed to die, thousands will be out of work, and communities will disintegrate. The government will offer its deep regrets and make undertakings that it has no intention of keeping, but that’s all.

    It’s certainly true that Britain has become a post-industrial society. We can no longer build nuclear power stations. We can’t make windmills or solar panels. Is there anything that we can do that doesn’t rely on foreign expertise?

    • salt_peter

      We have already seen that this government is capable of the most extraordinary foolishness – nay recklessness – with, for example, scrapping and/or selling off the RN’s carrier and aircraft, and the destruction of the new Nimrod maritime aircraft simply to prevent their deployment should wiser counsel prevail in the future.

      Allowing foreign powers to shut down our steel-making industry is another example, this time because they cannot admit that they have needlessly and culpably made the most asinine mess of the nation’s energy policy.

      The extent of their foolishness raises disquieting thoughts about their real intentions for Britain – can it all really be down to professional politicians being so detached from reality as to be unfit for purpose, or is there a more sinister explanation?

  • John Smith

    It was the EU that led us and Ed Miliband that enacted the Climate Change Act
    We said at the time it would kill heavy industry, as it was a progressive burden on high energy consumers
    No one listened
    Aluminium production has gone, much of the heavy chemicals industry, perfectly good coal fired power stations closed
    Now its steels turn

    Barmy .. .

    • Brian

      Nonsense. Germany is doing great, Aluminum plants are moving there from the USA.

      The COST, (not price), of renewables is lower than fossils and much lower then nuclear.

      Why don’t you attack the terrible Nuclear power plant deal?

      • John Smith

        All wrong
        Germany is suffering, their consumers are paying through the nose for their energy policies
        The problem with renewables is that when the wind don’t blow and the sun do not shine they are literally useless. Therefore you have to have as much reliable capacity standing by. The renewables have to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayers

        I condemn the UK’s energy policy from about the 1970’s

        But the top hat was the stupid Climate Change Act, enacted by Red Ed Miliband
        Its killing our energy intensive industries and perfectly good coal fired power stations.
        Sheer stupidity

        • Isaiah

          The consumers are not complaining.
          They can afford to pay $0.40 for a KWH of electricity.
          British people cannot.
          Bulgarians cannot.
          Spot the similarities/age/end of product life scenarios of energy plant technology in both countries.

        • Brian

          Sheer stupidity is right: Did you figure out that the sun and wind aren’t always supply power all on your own? I guess we all forgot that right?

          Baseload needs twice the reserve fuels and solar and wind.

          Solar and wind are cheaper before gob breaks.

          Fossil and nuclear have gotten massive gov breaks for 50 and 100 years. Will they ever be able to survive on their own?

          • John Smith

            Sometimes greenies get muddled & forget basics
            Ignorance or selective?

            Now you are not being serious
            Renewables get massive taxpayer subsidies
            Fossils get hammered by huge Carbon taxes via Red Eds Climate Change Act
            None of it washes its face
            Get real

          • Brian

            Nuclear gets 50 times as much. It can’t run one second without gov protection.

            Ain’t no 4 Billion dollar subsidies for solar.

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/29/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-cost-customers-4bn

            Ain’t no 5.3T$ in gov breaks for solar and wind:

            https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf IMF 5.3T$ in gov break for fossils not including wars for oil and gas.

            https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf

            Solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks.

            http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/wind-energy-cheaper-than-coal
            rooftop solar Power: 3-6 cents/KWH
            Wind Power: 6-7 cents/kWh
            Nuclear Power: 11-20+ cents/kWh
            Coal Power: 9-32+ cents/kWh
            http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/#ABfIXAl3UjBqeQOP.99
            http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b
            solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$

          • John Smith

            Fossil, we know Hinckley Point is a lemon

          • Brian

            And we know fossils are gov dependents. 5.3T$ plus wars for oil and gas. Solar panels are 50 cents per watt now and last 30 years at least. 2$ installed in most of the world for residential and less than 2$ per watt installed for utility almost everywhere, before gov breaks. It’s not even close. Solar and wind backed with waste to fuels in the existing reserve type generators is far cheaper and forever. It can be done 1000 times or so cleaner than nuclear and fossils as well.
            Climate change caused by fossil emission is real, and killing us.

          • John Smith

            look up the reliability stats on Turbines and the loss of output curves on panels
            Its no panacea
            maybe the next generation
            maybe not, something will replace them both
            Probably micro nuclear reactors boiling good ol’ water

          • Brian

            It’s cheaper, before gov breaks, capacity factor, and reliability included in those calculations. There’s more of them, so they have more failures. There are bad projects, bad companies, bad panels and bad turbines, but they are a small percentage.

          • John Smith

            I think you need to do a bit more work you are the wrong side of too optimistic

          • Brian

            I think you need to read the links I have provided and learn anything. Since you seem to know zero. I provide links, you whine.

          • John Smith

            From above you have a limitation of generation knowledge
            Probably got a leaflet from the Green Party
            But even worse believed it

          • Brian

            DLC fool., Historical fact.

            Hillary is a Reagan Conservative. Wow has she got you programmed.

          • John Smith

            Is that some sort of code?
            I am not in that club

          • Brian

            DLC, yes it is. Explain it.

          • John Smith

            Off you go then, you speciously raised it

  • CargoCultScientist

    Suicidal energy policies aside, why is “chinese steel dumping” considered such a terrible thing? Assuming steel which enters the market is of a sufficient standard, the Chinese are providing steel at below the market price to their cost and to the benefit of everyone else. The decrease in the cost of goods manufactured with this cheaper steel will likely be welcomed, yet at the same time the closure of a plant producing uncompetitive steel is lamented.

  • King Zog

    What, Spectator? Nothing on the sad demise of Ronnie Corbett? A frequently overlooked genius…

  • twi5ted

    Thank goodness for liblabcon fav Byrony. Top totty. No more smelly steelworks hooray. Let the prols eat cake.

  • Shieldsman

    Chinese steel may be cheap, but we are not buying that much of it.
    So where are are large imports of steel coming from? Have you guessed it – yes
    the EU.
    In January, the last month for official figures, the UK imported £202m of steel from the rest of the EU and only £80m from the Rest of the world. The way EU energy, regulatory and procurement policies are enforced in the UK versus the continent allow much more steel to be produced in the rest of the EU than here.

    DCT Davies: Let me put it very simply: why do we give Government subsidies to companies that are not willing to support British products?
    Anna Soubry: Because you cannot force them to buy British. We are a free-market economy.

    DCT Davies:We hand over the money. If we were a free-market economy we would not have to give them any subsidy at all. This is not a free market; this is a subsidised market. We are subsidising these companies, paying them up to £150 an hour per megawatt, and they are not even buying our steel.

    Now Siemens (The windmill manufacturers) owns a lot of UK companies (having bought them out) I wonder where they buy their steel from?

    There are those that
    play by the rules and others that don’t – so let us leave the EU

  • Ivan Ewan

    But we’ve got to keep assigning huge sums of money to Green quangos in exchange for the vague promise that they will help save the world by bullying the productive industries!

    I’ve always been with the Governator on this: let advancements in science and technology help mitigate unwanted climate change, rather than enacting waves of regressive policies.

    • Mark Pawelek

      “let advancements in science and technology help mitigate unwanted climate change”
      <- a pity that's not UK government policy.

  • MikeSr

    God help me; but I dislike the In-Bred Aristocracy as much as Cumberland hated the Highland Scots in the “45”.

  • Brian

    Solar is cheaper than nuclear even in the UK. Wind too. Germany is cheaper, and aluminum plants form the USA are moving there.

    You got it backwards. Not going green fast enough is what is costing the UK industry.

  • Bart_R

    What’s costing the UK money is the absurd protectionism that sacrifices plentiful, low-cost, high quality wind energy for supposed aesthetic reasons.

    Windfarms with their graceful limbs and harmonious movement add immensely to the beauty of any landscape, a synchronicity of human need and preservation of life and health.

    If you want lower energy bills, turf out the backward-minded culprits who block wind energy development.

    Renewables are on the steeply falling end of the long run cost curve; the more are deployed, the cheaper per unit renewable energy becomes, and renewables are already at or below parity with consumables across the board.

    • Stan

      The bats being chopped up by the graceful wind turbines may not share your opinion.

      • Bart_R

        Avian mortality from renewable energy is estimated to be somewhere near the bottom of the 20 leading human causes of avian mortality. Avian mortality from consumable energy is in the top five.

        The more renewables replace consumables, the more avians are saved.

        Your objection, while valid, is thus not the more pressing consideration for avians.

        • Stan

          More made up nonsense.

          • Bart_R

            You seem to be multi-replying, as if particularly offended when your propaganda runs smack into facts.

          • Stan

            No, just hopeful that if you are faced with facts you might admit you are wrong.

          • Bart_R

            I readily admit to being wrong, though it generally isn’t irrelevant red herrings that change my mind about what is right. Try valid argument, and not cherry picking.

        • Stan

          Read and learn.
          Well, read, it’s not like you are capable of being swayed by facts:

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131108091314.htm

          • Bart_R

            A reply entirely unresponsive to the points made.

            Sure, bats die in windmills, as do other avians, and that is sad. They also die striking windows on buildings, other surfaces on buildings, chimneys, wires, towers, antennae, vehicles, or encountering solar structures and sometimes people, if we’re discussing human causes of avian mortality.

            Among those collisions, windmills and solar combined make up a freakishly small rounding-error level of the fraction of the total.

            Pesticides, pollutants, invasive species and diseases far outweigh collision factors other than windows in avian mortality. Cats — feline domesticus — and dogs alone kill orders of magnitude more avians than collision with structures other than windows.

            http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

            It’s not that your argument isn’t valid, or isn’t true. It’s that your argument is unbalanced to the extent that it implies a cherry pick, as if suggesting renewables are the only or major source of avian mortality, when the opposite effect is seen: when you replace fossil with renewable, overall you kill less avians.

            That’s the facts.

          • Vindpust

            Some facts: we do not carry out post-construction avian mortality research for wind installations in the UK. All we hear about is the chance discovery of casualties before they are removed by foxes or WF employees. Like the 2 Hen Harriers killed within weeks of the Griffin WF opening.

            There is better reporting in other countries:

            “PacifiCorp Energy, a subsidiary of PacifiCorp, based in Portland, Oregon, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming…The charges stem from the discovery of the carcasses of 38 golden eagles and 336 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Seven Mile Hill” and “Glenrock/Rolling Hills” wind projects in Carbon and Converse Counties between 2009 and the present.”

            “Eagles, falcons and other raptors make up to a third of the estimated 1500 birds killed each year at Australia’s biggest wind farm. The finding of an independent report for Macarthur Wind Farm operator AGL follows 12 monthly searches of 48 turbines at the 140-turbine operation in Victoria that found 576 bird carcasses. After adjusting for birds eaten by scavengers between searches and the total 140 turbines, Australian Ecological Research Services estimated each turbine killed about 10 birds a year. The analysis said this would include 500 raptors a year.”

            “A new study just published in the United States has estimated that around 573,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in 2012 (including 83,000 birds of prey), in increase of 30 per cent on a previous estimate by the US fish and Wildlife Service in 2009. Bats are even worse hit, says author K Shawn Smallwood, and probably top 888,000 killed per year.” (Birdwatch).

            “Local wind turbines may have large-scale negative effects on distant ecosystems. Results of research by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) demonstrate that bats killed at German wind turbines originate mostly from northeastern Europe. Previous studies have already highlighted that more than 200,000 bats are killed each year by German wind turbines. Researchers are convinced that such high mortality rates may not be sustainable and lead to drastic population declines in their breeding ranges. “Bats have a very low reproductive output, with only one or two offspring per year”, says Christian Voigt from the IZW. Bat populations may need a long time to recover from any additional losses owing to fatalities at wind turbines if they recover at all.”

            “Scores of protected golden eagles have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines along the ridgelines of the Bay Area’s Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, raising troubling questions about the state’s push for alternative power sources. The death count, averaging 67 a year for three decades, worries field biologists…“It would take 167 pairs of local nesting golden eagles to produce enough young to compensate for their mortality rate related to wind energy production,” said field biologist Doug Bell, manager of East Bay Regional Park District’s wildlife program. “We only have 60 pairs.””

            ‘“Shockingly high” numbers of bird and bat deaths caused by one of Canada’s biggest wind farms should serve as a warning to planners of other projects that may be built in crucial wildlife zones, one of the country’s key conservation groups says. The 86 huge turbines on Wolfe Island, just outside Kingston, Ont., began to produce power about a year ago, and an on-going count of bird and bats that have been killed by the blades has been conducted since then. A consultant’s report covering the period between July and December of 2009 was released recently, indicating that 602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines over that stretch. While the report says the numbers of dead birds and bats are similar to other wind farms in North America, Ottawa-based environmental advocacy group Nature Canada says the figures are actually surprisingly large and represent a significant threat to several endangered species.”

            Etc, etc.

          • Bart_R

            Nothing but a recitation of facts already stipulated.

            You can repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat essentially the same facts to produce an emotional appeal, but it is no more than an appeal to emotions, by such cynical and contrived tactic.

            Or you can at least FREAKING ACKNOWLEDGE that what you’re talking about is less than a rounding error in the total avian mortality from human causes.

            Can you DO THAT?

          • Stan

            As for mileage, how many kilometers per chopped up bat does your new electric car get?

            When you and the metro/girls are sitting around bragging about car mileage, is that the units you use?
            Or is it chopped up birds per mile?

          • Bart_R

            We call chopped up birds chicken wings, and serve them with hot sauce.

            And not to get all Tu quoque on you, but unless you’ve gone around drowning every cat and dog within ten miles of your home, your complaints about windmills seem suspiciously narrow, since the average cat let out at night kills more avians in a year than the average wind farm.

          • Stan

            How many bats does the average cat eat?
            And how does cats eating birds justify chopping up even more endangered birds with useless windmills?
            You don’t get the whole logic thing I see…..

          • Bart_R

            Your second question is entirely valid; whether you realize it or not, you’ve asked me to distinguish how what I’ve said is not a Tu quoque logical fallacy. To be brief, I’m certainly not suggesting that the three orders of magnitude higher avian mortality by feline domesticus alone supports negligence of ecological harms by wind farms; I’m saying your objection smacks of the sort of hypocrisy and inversion of an obvious propagandist. Wind farms in the USA have entered into agreements to more than repopulate wild bird life by sponsoring wild bird breed and release programs. One commends this same practice worldwide, since it would be trivial for wind farms to achieve this happy outcome.

            On the other hand, all fossil sources of avian mortality combined have an appalling track record when it comes to restoring the balance for the harms they cause, which is according to every competent means of tracking avian mortality far and away higher than all renewables combined. So when a wind farm goes up, net avian mortality goes down.

            Thus your spurious objections are invalid and false.

            Before you come back and reply with dozens of irrelevancies, I ask you consider addressing only what I’ve written, and perhaps apologizing for the trash you’ve made us all wade through so needlessly.

          • Stan

            You are delusional.
            Pull some more ‘facts’ out of your large intestine.

            BTW, windmills kill birds at about 430 times the rate of oil if you use the ‘dead birds per kilojoule of energy’ measure.

          • Bart_R

            “Wind farms in the USA have entered into agreements to more than repopulate wild bird life by sponsoring wild bird breed and release programs.”

            Thus no matter how you slice it, there are net more birds in the US because of wind farms, and net fewer birds because of oil. That the rate is 430 times is not the issue: the rate for oil is more dead birds, the rate for wind farms is more living birds.

            Do they not cover positive and negative integers where they teach you about intestines?

          • Stan

            Oh really?
            So they are growing Golden Eagles and Whooping cranes from, what?
            And as for bats, who is replacing their endangered numbers?

            Wind farms kill more birds per unit of energy produced, and no replacement program is going to change that.

            Wake up McFly!

          • Bart_R

            You seem to have trouble grasping the concept that negative numbers move the opposite direction from positive numbers.

            I’d dispute your figures, were it not clear you’re too innumerate to get the point.

          • Stan

            You seem to think that one simple program covers all wind turbines and all bird deaths, and btw it ignores bat deaths.
            You need to learn to think, and to see the whole picture, not just fixate on one simple aspect of it.

          • Bart_R

            “You need to learn to think, and to see the whole picture, not just fixate on one simple aspect of it.”

            I listed three programs, half a world apart.

            Bats have bigger problems in North America than wind farms, due white nose fungus, pets and fossil waste dumping.

            Do you know any pet owners who breed and release bats to make up for the losses their cats and dogs cause?

            Any developers?

            Any coal or oil companies?

            No?

            Then your bleating is plentifully transparent in its ulterior agenda.

            Wind farms have become measurably less lethal to avians in the last two decades due research to reduce their impact. The fossil industries have had a huge head start on the same issue and have only gotten more lethal.

            You’re not convincing in your blatantly inconsistent position.

          • Stan

            Oh I’m sorry, you actually think those bird breeding programs are breeding a substantial number of birds?

            I must have been thrown off by your claims to be a genius, and expected you to figure that out for yourself.

            LOL

          • Bart_R

            My claims to be a genius?

            Could you point me to those claims?

            Because I’d like to see them for myself.

            Your evasion and hypocrisy are noted.

            The more you write, the more how wrong you are is clear.

            You whip up any red herring, abuse anyone’s hardship at all, to cover your fossil waste dumping.

            What sort of low personal morals were you raised in, that you do such things?

            What breeds such sense of entitled privilege in a person?

          • Stan

            You must have a short memory…

            If you are going to get nasty I’m going to go burn another old earthmover tire.

          • Bart_R

            I can see where you linked to a story about Lakeland College.. but if they’re your idea of genius..

            Btw, Lakeland College replaced its wind turbines with solar panels that are generating positive returns, and moved its wind turbines someplace with more reliable wind to generate more power.

            The more you write, the more how wrong you are becomes clear.

          • Stan

            Your green virtue signally is very impressive, I’ll give you a little gold star to put next to your name!

          • Bart_R

            The green virtue I’m talking about is the color of money, and the gold I’m looking at is in the Market value of trade in fossil waste disposal, properly privatized.

            Solar and wind are good investments. Fossil has been coddled far too long by gifts of government and free riding.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

          • Stan

            I love capitalism, and I love shorting wind and solar stocks.
            It’s easy, just wait for the subsidies to be withdrawn and buy puts.
            WAY out of the money puts….

          • Bart_R

            *yawn*

            Spoken like a true parasite.

          • Stan

            I provide market liquidity…
            You’re welcome.

          • Bart_R

            Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do and put an end to your Free Riding ways.

          • Stan

            What fossil waste dumping are you referring to?
            Are you sure you didn’t dream that bit up?

          • Bart_R

            Seems a bit late in the day for you to suddenly act dumb.

            Pay for the fossil waste disposal you use.

          • Stan

            Try Economics For Dummies, you might learn something.

          • Bart_R

            I recommend Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, myself. Economics For Dummies is a bit too Marxist.

            Why do you want to promote Marxism?

          • Stan

            You obviously need to start with baby steps, I was working you up towards the adult section.

          • Bart_R

            An adult Marxist is still a Marxist, no matter if you want to start propagandizing them before they are five years old, like Goebbels.

            Why do you hate Capitalism, and subscribe to the sick philosophies of abhorent men?

          • Stan

            Sorry man, but your strawman argument is ridiculous.
            I’m no Marxist, I’m a centrist in the grand tradition of Genghis Khan, Attila The Hun, and General George S. Patton.

            Marxist?
            LOL!
            I feel sorry for you.

          • Bart_R

            You prescribe a Marxist tract over the Capitalist’s foundational document.

            Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun and General George S. Patton would wear you like a skirt.

          • Stan

            Well if you are going to keep being nasty I’m burning another old tractor tire.

            Which Marxist tract did I prescribe?

            Do you ever get the feeling people are mocking you and toying with you?

          • Bart_R

            You remember the idjits decided to seize a remote park not too long ago?

            One of them ended up shot while reaching for his pistol, surrounded by some two dozen law enforcement officials.

            His friends protested, “What, they never heard of a bluff?”

            You want to mock and toy, and yet you’re doing it on a public forum where readers don’t always grasp how full of bluff you think you are, how you’re just doing what you do to stave off the day when you must pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

            You recommend Economics for Dummies, a rampantly Marxist tract, and get all bent out of shape for being called on it, in mockery or not?

            Pay for what you owe.

          • Stan

            Does such a book actually exist?
            Good grief, quit taking yourself so seriously!

            But you do need to educate yourself and quit falling for every bit of green bullshit that comes along.
            Try using a bit of common sense when reading all the anti-oil propaganda.
            Learn to think for yourself for once.
            Learn something about basic economics, that would be a good place to start your education.

            As for mocking and toying, I’m much worse in person.

          • Bart_R

            So.. you have never read Wealth of Nations, Dunning-Krugerishly don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t claim to just be joking any more having found that you couldn’t weasel out of it that way, and are now lecturing the Internet on common sense and Economics?

            You don’t really need to tell us you’re much worse in person. We already got that.

          • Stan

            Yes, I have read Wealth of Nations
            You mentioned Economics for Dummies, but as I see you are too obtuse to understand your own posts or follow a conversation I will cut you some slack on that one.

            You just aren’t very good at this, are you?

          • Bart_R

            You’ve read Wealth of Nations?

            READ HARDER.

            Because you’ve come away from it with nothing.

            If you had, you’d know better than to try to get away without paying what you owe.

          • Stan

            I do pay what I owe, despite your delusions to the contrary.
            I’m not a liberal, I pay my own way.
            What brand of tinfoil are you using?
            Maybe you need a thicker foil.

          • Bart_R

            If you don’t pay a disposal fee on the fossil wastes you dump, you don’t pay what you owe.

            You’re just another Free Rider.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

          • Stan

            Why are you such an idiot?
            What fossil wastes am I dumping?
            Details please!

          • Bart_R

            Fossil coal, oil, gas and limestone from underground oxidized and dumped into the air have raised CO2 levels by some 44%.

            If air could handle that dumping without limit, CO2 levels wouldn’t go up 44% — over 25% in under 70 years — but would remain at the levels seen in Nature for the last 800,000 years.

            As air can’t handle that dumping without limit, fossil waste disposal in air is a scarce commodity.

            Scarce commodities don’t belong in the Commons, but in the Market.

            Privatizing fossil waste disposal will drive the economy, as privatization always does.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

          • Stan

            Never heard of carbon capture I see.
            You need to keep up with current events.
            My provincial taxes helped fund a huge carbon capture facility as do my electrical bills.

            Why do you hate smart people?

          • Bart_R

            Pfft. Manitoba’s ludicrous ‘carbon capture’ of less than 0.2% of its emissions?

            How’s that supposed to work on cars and trucks?

            And why does the taxpayer pay your utility bills and a CCS that solely benefits fossil fuel companies?

            Your love of tax and subsidy tells us you’re no Capitalist, despite your protestation otherwise.

            If you want effective carbon sequestration, leave the fossil in the ground, and convert biomass to biochar by pyrolysis. Bury the dirty biochar in geopolymer as aggregate, and the clean biochar as soil amendment in your fields to help staunch nitrate and phosphate runoff killing ponds, streams and lakes. And the volatiles from pyrolysis? Refine them into biogasoline and biodiesel, cheaper than tarsand bitumen, and not a molecule of fossil waste dumped.

          • Stan

            Why do you hate plant food?

            Who said the taxpayer was paying my utility bills?
            Try Reading For Dummies.
            How does CCS solely benefit fossil fuel companies?
            Doesn’t eliminating plant food benefit us all?
            Where did I say I loved taxes or subsidies?
            Again, try Reading For Dummies.

            And I do offset any carbon from fossil fuels by heaving all my old newspapers and wood products into the landfill where the carbon in them is sequestered. A clay capped landfill is an excellent carbon storage facility!
            And I build plenty of stuff out of wood, there is no better way to sequester carbon that by cutting trees into 2X6s and putting them in the walls of a house where they will sequester the carbon for decades.

            Try to keep up, your dinosaur way of thinking is so droll.
            Maybe you should try thinking for yourself instead of parroting the ridiculous ‘green’ talking points.

          • Bart_R

            Inane JAQing noted.

            Pay for the fossil waste you dump!

          • Stan

            Logic causes global warming?
            Is that why you hate it?

          • Bart_R

            Pay for the fossil waste you dump!

            Oh. Wait. You’re in Manitoba.

            Justin Trudeau has promised to make Selinger make you start paying for the fossil waste dumping you do.

            Get ready to start paying for the fossil waste disposal you use.

          • Stan

            I do pay.
            But I should be charging you for the plant food I put into the atmosphere.
            I won’t just because I’m such a nice guy and all..

            As for being in Manitoba, that is news to me.
            Last I heard I was in Saskatchewan….

            With reference to Selinger, how would Justin make him do anything?
            Didn’t he just lose an election?

            You’re funny!

          • Bart_R

            Enh. Manitoba. Saskatchewan. Two flat places that suck up subsidy like sponges.

            Who can keep track of them?

            Pay for the fossil wastes you dump!

          • Stan

            Really?
            Saskatchewan is a have province since we dumped your commies.

            Do you have some sort of mental disorder?
            You keep repeating a nonsensical phrase and seem to think I should respond to it……

          • Bart_R

            Saskatchewan is a have delusions province, you mean?

            You remember your province voted in Justin Trudeau, and dumped Harper, just like the rest of the country, right?

            Wait. No, you don’t, because that didn’t happen. Saskatchewan has one lone member of the governing party. What is it you say you have?

            The remnant of the people who got us in this mess.

            Pay what you owe for what you use!

          • Stan

            A ssdf sdfkhslfij sjsd;ldf oe,e i9983 ksdhsdlkas sdd sjaksd ?

          • Bart_R

            The most sensible thing you’ve written yet!

            Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Stan

            I do pay.
            Have you never heard of gasoline taxes?

          • Bart_R

            Those are for the gasoline.

            Now pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Stan

            Gasoline isn’t a fossil fuel?
            Someone better tell the dinosaurs!

            Speaking of human waste, what did happen to your brain?

          • Bart_R

            Pay the waste disposal fee.

            Or are you a stranger to the idea of paying for what you buy, then paying for its disposal when you throw it out?

            You expect the nanny state to dispose of your wastes for you for free?

            Looks like Saskestan didn’t quite throw out all its commies.

          • Stan

            Pay what waste disposal fee?
            Details please.
            You may need to change the tinfoil in your hat, you seem to be picking up a lot of alien signals.

          • Bart_R

            Wow. The Sasketchestan Miseducation Bureau sure has done a number on you.

            Why should the nanny state keep paying for taking out your trash for you?

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

          • Stan

            So in other words there is no ‘fossil waste disposal’ fee, it is all just your imagination.

            You commies do have rich fantasy lives!

          • Bart_R

            BC kicked out its socialists while Saskatchestan was still giving birth to new ones, and BC has had fossil waste disposal fees in the form of the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Act since before Saskatchewan started to pretend that corporate communism was somehow more admirable than the other kinds.

            The Berlin Wall fell more than a quarter century ago, and you’re still peeing your pants about the Red Menace.. from the birthplace of Canadian socialism.

          • Stan

            You have a very poor grasp of history.
            And where did all the commies go?
            Did they evaporate?

          • Bart_R

            Where did the commies go in Saskatchestan after the fall of the Berlin Wall?

            By all indications, they joined the Reform Party.

          • Stan

            No, they stayed with the NDP.

          • Bart_R

            Saskatechestan says NDP?

          • Stan

            I can help you with your ignorance, but as a capitalist I will have to charge you my regular rates for counseling lunatics: $92.50/hour, three hour minimum charge.

            I take Visa and Mastercard..

          • Bart_R

            Pay for your fossil waste dumping.

            Which, pretty much is going to happen soon in Saskatchestan anyway, with Justin Trudeau in charge, and your neighbours falling in line behind him already.

          • Stan

            I don’t dump fossil wastes.
            But thanks for asking!

            I’ll bill you later.

          • Bart_R

            Saskatchestan lies to get out of paying what he owes.

            How unexpected. /sarc

          • Stan

            What do I owe, and to whom do I owe it?

            You owe me for all the plant food, aka CO2, that I produce.
            PAY UP!

          • Bart_R

            Nobody asked for the ‘plant food’ that is diluting the nutrient density of crops by 6.5%-15% in key minerals and proteins.

            You took the waste disposal service of the air.

            Nobody wanted global soil degeneration and NOx pollutants that soil microbes create when overstimulated by CO2 from fossil waste dumping.

            You caused that by taking what wasn’t yours.

            Nobody asked for global aquatic acidification raising -OH ion concentration 30%, nor would pay for it, nor can undo it.

            That was your trespass.

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/smoke-biggest-concern-12-wildfires-burn-in-saskatchewan-1.3572643

            You want to dump your fossil wastes, then pay for the waste disposal.

            The Law of Supply and Demand means your business model of being paid to corrupt, taint and dump without consent and against the express wishes of others is bankrupt.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Stan

            You are obviously insane.
            Make sure you pay for you own treatment.

          • Bart_R

            You’re still just trying to divert the focus away from that you don’t pay for the fossil waste disposal services you take.

            Pay up.

          • Stan

            I pay.
            Now pay your bill for the therapy I have provided you.
            Don’t be such a freeloader commie.

          • Bart_R

            Free Riding Saskatchestan havenot says commie?

            Pay for what you take.

          • Stan

            Nobody?
            Many people have asked me to create more plant food.
            Where are you getting your information?

          • Bart_R

            Your kinks do not interest me.

            Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Stan

            Pay me for the plant food I produce.
            Ingrate.

          • Bart_R

            Put your ‘plant food’ up on the Market, if you want to be paid.

            Let the Market decide by who pays you and how much they’re willing to offer.

            But be ready to be litigated for the harm your negligent spillage visits on everyone who isn’t your buyer, in terms of heatwave, drought, flood, wildfire, infestation, nutrient density loss, soil fertility loss and NOx pollution.

            And pay for the fossil waste disposal you use, shameless SaskatcheStan. Before Justin Trudeau makes you pay.

          • Stan

            Oil is natural.
            Why do you hate something that is natural?

            I’m not sure what your ravings about heatwaves and all that other gibberish is supposed to mean.
            And when are you paying your therapy bill?

          • Bart_R

            Iron is natural. I don’t want that in my lungs, either.

            Pay for the fossil waste disposal you use.

          • Stan

            Pay your bill you commie dog.

          • Bart_R

            This echoing back true things and turning them false that you do, it’s a very common thing with deniers.

            Does it come natural, or are you going by the book?

            You’ve benefited from taking disposal services that were not yours, at harm and expense to all of us. We’re owed for the harms you’ve inflicted and the scarce resource you’ve stolen.

            Justin Trudeau will be coming after you for payment. Won’t it be easier if you just cough it up voluntarily?

          • Stan

            What am I denying again?
            That climate has always changed?

            LOL!

            I don’t owe a commie like you anything. I pay my own way.

            Freeloader…

          • Bart_R

            The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.

            Keep it up.

            And pay for your waste disposal. Or don’t, and force Justin Trudeau to march into Saskatchestan and take the payment from you.

          • Stan

            Trudeau is much too busy beating up poor helpless NDP woman MPs to march anywhere.

            And when are you paying for the plant food I produce?
            Freeloader.

          • Bart_R

            The manure you dump onto the Internet and expect the Nanny State to clean up for you?

            You want to be paid, put your product on the Market and see who makes an offer.

            You want to dump your fossil wastes, pay for the waste disposal.

            And if you’re so worried about Justin’s elbows now, just wait for when he seizes your assets for arrears.

          • jmac

            You want to be paid, put your product on the Market and see who makes an offer.

            You want to dump your fossil wastes, pay for the waste disposal.

            I do like the way you phrased that.

          • Bart_R

            For all that SaskatcheStan deserves needling, and karma appears to be http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-burns-across-provincial-border-into-saskatchewan-expanding-to-505000-hectares raining down on him like Ezekial 25:17, the state of things is a terrible tragedy, and far better for all those fighting the fires on so many fronts were it not so.

            It’s more time to pity and correct SaskatcheStans, than to just correct them.

          • jmac

            Mercy, that fire is over 2,000 square miles, if I did the conversion correctly. That is huge. This animation, from your link, showing the expansion of it over the course of 18 days is crazy. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/watch-the-fort-mcmurray-fire-spread-over-18-days-in-may-beastly-blaze-just-wont-die-growing-to-423000-hectares

            I saw they were expecting 60% rain today. Did they get any?

            EDIT: I just checked the weather report for there and they are showing no rain.

          • Stan

            Why are you so violent and hate filled?

          • Bart_R

            You seem to have a reading comprehension issue.

            READ HARDER.

            Project less.

          • Stan

            PSSSST!!
            Your crazy is showing!

            I can see how reading would be hard for you, commies do have learning problems.

          • Bart_R

            Pay for the fossil waste disposal you do.

            And be sure you have a bug out bag.

            https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/19/fort-mac-wildfire-pushes-into-saskatchewan.html

            And a respirator.

            It’s karma, of course, but no one wants to see people hurt because of your fossil waste dumping habits.

          • Stan

            I do have a bug out bag.
            And I do pay.

            When are you going to pay your own way?

          • Bart_R

            I’m in BC, where the government has gone further toward privatizing fossil waste dumping than anyone else. I do pay for fossil waste disposal here, albeit at a steep subsidy.

            But you? All your dumping is subsidized.

            Stop being a parasite and causing wildfires.

          • Stan

            You are a liar, you aren’t paying your own way.
            Your province is a welfare case with Alberta paying your bills.

          • Bart_R

            SaskatcheStan says what?

            Let’s compare BC, SaskatcheStan, and Alberta’s ability to pay their debts:

            BC?

            http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2016/highlights/Balanced_Budget_2016_Highlights.pdf Four years in a row of paying down the BC deficit, with a better record of deficit fighting and balanced budgets than any other province since kicking out the NDP.

            Saskatchewan?

            https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/22/saskatchewan-deficit-bigger-than-first-thought-says-premier-brad-wall.html is actually worse off than with the NDP — that’s some feat.

            Alberta?

            While on paper it appears solvent, with the crash in oil, Alberta formerly the breadbasket to the world is the world’s fossil basket case, having lost so much value in capital in just one year due overly optimistic assessment of world need for bitumen that it will be forever digging out of the hole it’s managed to create for itself.

            Alberta can’t even pay its own bills.

          • Stan

            You are delusional.

          • Bart_R

            Delusional would be to still be betting on toxic bitumen in the 2016 wildfire season while standing in SaskatcheStan.

            Remembering that it’s only May, the start of the season.

            And banks are starting to call in their loans from fossil, to get out while there’s still liquidity.

          • Stan

            Bitumen isn’t toxic.
            If it was we wouldn’t pave our highways with it.

          • Bart_R

            Bitumen loans are toxic.

            Try to keep up.

            http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0YB1Y5?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

            Also, bitumen is an aggregate of numerous constituents, mainly silica, but potentially including several dozen teratogens, mutagens, carcinogens and toxic volatiles each in concentrations compared to gross (non-volatile) mass below regulatory thresholds. There are no interaction studies on the effects of these agents in combination, or how dilution of volatiles by inert components affects dose exposure. The tar sands in particular extract bitumen using proprietary (secret) formulations including biocides. As a paving material, it’s slightly preferable over the silicosis that might result from dirt roads with similar traffic levels, but it’s hardly non-toxic.

            http://www.online.petro-canada.ca/datasheets/en_CA/90000124.pdf

            http://globalnews.ca/news/1808065/10-things-we-dont-know-about-bitumen-toxicity/

            You’re very wrong, in multiple ways.

          • Stan

            So we are going to quit paving highways with it?
            LOL!
            Here’s a tip, Dip: dose makes the poison.

          • Bart_R

            SaskatcheStan may wish to stop licking highways.

          • Stan

            Big sale on tinfoil at Walmart, you should stock up.

          • Stan

            Now I’m really worried about you!

          • Bart_R

            We have to do something to get your dose down.

          • Stan

            The words are English, but….

          • Deborah Marie Flower Power

            LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

          • Stan

            You obviously have the dose, it has reached terminal stage and is affecting your thinking.

          • Bart_R

            Pay for the fossil waste disposal service you use, before Justin Trudeau puts his elbows out for you.

          • Deborah Marie Flower Power

            I looked it up…It is toxic…Really you need to study what you are talking about….

          • Stan

            So why pave highways and parking lots ans streets with it?
            Can’t be so bad if we do that, no?

          • Deborah Marie Flower Power

            Because they don’t care…Just like fracking…They don’t care about nothing but their bottom dollar…Really fuqd up…

          • Stan

            Seriously?
            You actually think pavement, and bitumen oil, is some huge poison?

            Too funny!

          • Robert

            It seems Stan equates “genius ” with being able to support a claim with well researched facts.

            Being able to cite good evidence is considered a skill well within range of the average high school student : http://sdst.libguides.com/content_mobile.php?pid=184760&sid=1552376

            Oh that Stan could reach genius status…

          • Bart_R

            Anyone who when confronted with how inadequate his arguments falls back to claim he was merely mocking and toying has no credibility.

            The more he writes, the more how wrong he is in every sense becomes clear.

          • Stan
          • Bart_R

            Gish Gallop by link?

            So, how many breed and release programs have you contributed to in your life?

            Seeing as you sound so concerned about avians.. perhaps you could name some of the organizations you’ve donated money and time to?

            Other than Heartland.

            Oh, and buying BP or Exxon gas to help them pay to clean up their oil spills really doesn’t count, as the government covered 90% of the tab on those. Also, paying your taxes clearly doesn’t count, as it seems your government only does the minimum it must, according to your own sources.

            I don’t dispute that there’s a powerful marketing campaign whipping up furor over avians and wind farms. But the simple fact is that as more energy is produced by wind, the rate of avian mortality falls, in stark contrast with pet caused avian mortality, and fossil industry caused avian mortality.

            A skeptic sees through your appeal to emotion.

          • Stan
          • Bart_R

            At the risk of committing the Genetic Fallacy, I never click on links to WUWT or Heartland, as let’s face it their job is to make fools of people who visit their websites.

            Perhaps if you have something worthwhile to say, you’ll take the trouble to write it out.

          • Stan

            Who replaces the bats, and the Whooping Cranes, and the other endangered birds and mammals?
            Not some half-assed duck replacement program…
            Try arithmetic: windmills kill more birds and bats per unit of energy than oil does.
            I don’t have time to explain basic arithmetic to you….

          • Bart_R

            Who replaces?

            Scottish Supreme Court rules Shetland Wind farm to help birds through its Habitat Management Plan. Look it up.

            Britain’s Royal Society for Protection of Birds installs wind turbines and promotes them to its members.

            California’s raptor breed and release program is supported by wind farms.

            And while wind farms once had fifteen times the avian mortality of the present day, research and engineering have reduced that number to a rounding error in avian mortality figures, while fossil fuel related deaths remain a leading threat to populations.

            You make a great deal of noise, about something you know a great deal of nothing about.

          • Stan
          • Bart_R

            Boohoo. A college in Illinois isn’t competent to maintain a power plant. At least no one was so misguided as to trust them with a nuclear reactor.

            You do know the turbines are just being moved to a better location to be used by a developer with a proven track record, right?

            That the fastest growing energy sectors in America are wind, solar and geothermal?

            Have a peek at Vaclav Smil’s Arc of History to get some perspective, and stop getting your panties in a bunch over every Follet folly.

          • Stan

            Wind developer and proven track record in the same sentence, now that there is funny, I don’t care who ya are!

          • Bart_R

            Wind is the fastest growing energy sector in Texas. It must be because Texas knows better than to hire engineers trained in Illinois.

            How would who I am matter?

            You seem to keep skipping tracks. Is there another thread going on that the rest of us can’t see, or are you merely answering the voices in your own head?

          • Robert

            A bit odd that if you wanted to be persuasive, you didn’t bring forward the data supporting your case.

        • Stan
          • Bart_R

            Yeah, yeah. I stipulate that there are hundreds if not thousands of propaganda sites spreading concern and alarm about animals.

            Try to address what was actually said.

        • Stan
          • Bart_R

            All this multi-replying, is this deliberate, or ADHD?

          • Stan

            A futile attempt to get you to use facts and logic….

          • Bart_R

            Logic has a one track mind from cause to effect.

            Multithreading is just the result of a confused state of mind.

          • Stan

            Logic has a mind?

            Har!

    • Mark Pawelek

      Not “aesthetic reasons”, environment protection, and economic reasons. Anti-wind people are real environmentalists, and the greens are fake environmentalists. Wind farms are a pointless abomination leading to more expensive and unreliable electricity. They don’t even significantly reduce CO2 emissions after a certain point, as the example of Germany shows. Germany has seen a 2% CO2 emissions rise since 2009. Germany has 80,000 Megawatts of intermittent solar and wind power installed.

      • Bart_R

        Bullpucky.

        You’re using devil words and angel words, ‘us’ and ‘them’ propaganda to float an ultimately reprehensible protectionism that increases the cost of energy for zero good reason.

        Stop pretending, pull your head out, and at least admit what you’re really about has zero to do with the ‘environmental’ protection you pretend.

        Your ‘statistics’ from Germany are contrived cherry pick, your entire post logical fallacy and rhetorical trick. Why do people resort to such low practices just to get their own way, at a cost to us all, and get to walk away untarnished by their corruption and wickedness?

  • Stan

    So now Brits will buy their steel from dirty mills in China, and will ship the scrap and iron ore to steel mills in China and ship the finished steel back, all in high sulfur ‘bunker C’ fueled freighters.
    So this will produce more CO2, more acid rain, more fossil fuel consumption, more real pollution, and of course, more unemployment in Britain.
    So what exactly is the upside, and how is all of this not blindingly obvious?

    Commit economic suicide if you wish, but if you think it is saving the planet, think again….

  • Stan

    So virtue signalling is expensive and economically suicidal!
    Who knew?

    Well, everyone with a brain knew….

  • Stan

    Looks like the AGW Doomsday Cult’s first victim will be the British economy.

    • Brian

      Really? it might not be the massive gov breaks for fossils and nuclear that are the problem?

      • Stan

        Ever hear of taxes?

        • Brian

          Really? every heard of massive gov breaks for fossils and nuclear?

          • Stan

            Look, if you are stupid enough to believe that garbage there is no hope for you.

            I gotta go argue with a pig now,…..

          • Brian

            Run away, loser.

          • Stan

            You are actually dumb enough to believe those ‘sources’ you linked to?

          • Brian

            You don’t have any at all. Mine are referenced as well.

            Satan, you have nothing.

          • Stan

            Hilarious.
            There is no hope for you, except as comic relief!

          • Stan

            Your sources are hilarious.
            Ever hear of a strawman argument?

          • Brian

            Stan, you have nothing. every hear of no argument at all?

  • Brian

    Funny all this happens after renewable breaks are cut and fossils and nuclear gov breaks are increased.

    Price and cost.

    Learn the difference.

    Fossils really cost many times their price, because govs give them 5.3T$ (IMF) in breaks, not including wars for oil and gas.

    Nuclear get proportional breaks. including the stupidest boondoggle in UK his tor for their new nuclear power plant.

    http://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2013/05/16/solar-is-now-cheaper-than-nuclear-even-in-the-uk

    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf IMF 5.3T$ in gov break for fossils not including wars for oil and gas.

    Remove the fossils and nuclear gov breaks, then talk about how bad renewable, solar, wind and waste to fuels are.

    • Stan

      You are one poor gullible little fool…..

      • Brian

        Gee Stan, that’s not an argument, that’s a concession.

        • Stan

          An observation.
          It’s not like facts or logic will ever sway you, so why not mock you?

      • Brian

        Just an observation Stan: you have nothing to say. Did ya notice?

        • Stan

          Your virtue signally is boring….

          • Brian

            Poor Stan, I think he had a stroke……

          • Stan

            Nearly died laughing, but no stroke….

    • John Smith

      Renewables are heavily subsidised
      When the wind does not blow Turbines are useless, when the sun does not shine solar is useless
      The taxpayers subsidise them to produce nothing

      It does not wash its face

      • Brian

        No, it’s just that you believe the massive fossils and nuclear pr campaigns, on their face.

        Baseload nuclear and coal need twice as much reserve fuel for load following as a solar and wind based system would. Baseload hates to throttle, so it can only provide minimum demand.

        https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
        Solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks. BEFORE GOV BREAKS. Get it?

        http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/wind-energy-cheaper-than-coal

        rooftop solar Power: 3-6 cents/KWH
        Wind Power: 6-7 cents/kWh
        Nuclear Power: 11-20+ cents/kWh
        Coal Power: 9-32+ cents/kWh
        http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/#ABfIXAl3UjBqeQOP.99
        http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b
        solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$

        • John Smith

          Blogs are no way to convince anybody of anything
          try something objective

          • Brian

            Sure, I should list the Atomic energy commissions and the IAEA right? Maybe the Atomic energy Commissions (the DOE).

            It’s referenced.

            But you want to be spoon fed corporate and political mush.

            You want someone to tell you what is right, so you don’t have to look at the details and think.

            It’s also hilarious the way you ignore Lazard, and respected investment research firm.

            You pick what you can, and leave the rest. I suppose I should take that as a concession.

          • John Smith

            Take it how you like
            None of it explains the massive subsidy of wind, solar & now Swansea tidal Lagoon, white elephant

            Why huge Carbon taxes are banged onto fossils closing perfectly good coal fired power stations
            before replacement capacity is on stream
            Its a conspiracy to give us electricity cuts and kill off ol’ folk

          • Brian

            Do you know the difference between anecdotes and system wide cost for new solar and wind? I just proved nuclear and fossils get order of magnitudes more gov breaks and have for a 50 years and a century. Including wars for oil and gas. I showed that solar and wind are available cheaper before gov breaks.

            Coal is not perfectly good, I guess you deny fossil caused climate change, and the incredible deadly effects of coal pulsation too. That’s what’s killing off old folks and others.

            Shutting plants down before you have replacement is a red herring, no sane person is suggesting that.

            Stop building new nuclear and fossils and start building a whole lot more solar, wind and waste to fuels. Already solar and wind are most of new power installs worldwide.

          • John Smith

            You really need to explain what happens on cold, dark, still, winter days when solar & wind out put is negligible

            In your nuclear, fossil fuel free world

            None of this battery crap like your greenie colleagues

          • Brian

            Reserve generators running on fuels from wastes and hydro.

            The very same reserve generator types that already backup baseload coal need during the day for load following. Solar and wind can provide about 80% of the total energy demand including electric vehicle charging, without storage, versus baseload providing only about 50%. The rest is filled by hydrocarbon reserve generators. Fossils for now. Solar, wind and ecars can reduce our hydrocarbon needs to about 10-20% which waste can then fill. We can even use excess solar and wind to create the hydrocarbons we need for long haul, reserve generators and Aleichem.

            There is no technical problem.

            This is fairly new. only in the last 5 years or so, has renewable dropped in price so much, that it’s now is a much better deal before gov breaks. We also have countries now like Germany and Denmark that have spent the money and effort to solve the engineering challenge and may of the economic one too. They have the world’s most reclaimable grid, ten times better than the USA, yet they have time when their is no solar or wind, and other times when they provide 80% of the energy in Germany and 140% from wind for Denmark.

            Their whole sale price are going down , their coal use is way down, their nuclear is way down. It works.

          • John Smith

            When will all that be available then?
            We are at the limit of pumped storage & absolute peanuts generation from waste

            The other back up now is essentially fossil, coal & diesel

            Plus a bit of interconnector from fossil & nuclear sources

            You seem under informed

          • Brian

            It’s part of the grid right now. How do you think baseload plants load follow. Coal and nuclear CANNOT do backup, they hate to throttle, they can only run full blast all the time economically.

            Demand changes by a factor of 2 from night to day. See the problem?

            It’s baseload that need pumped storage and has used it long before solar and wind were significant.

            Gas if the primary reserve generator fuel. That is easily made from waste gassification.

          • John Smith

            I am beginning to get concerned about your knowledge on this topic
            The problem with Coal fired power stations is a cold start, many are left as ‘spinning reserve’ to service surges in demand and unreliable wind & solar

            ‘Throttling’ them is not a problem they may suffer slight variations in efficiency but that is not an issue at the gross level

            We do not have anywhere enough pumped storage & power from waste to cover not having nuclear & fossil

          • Brian

            Nonsense. You really are blowing it. Ya still have spinning reserve. Or do Denmark and Germany have the most reliable grid or not?

            http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/11/germanys-grid-is-one-of-worlds-most-reliable/

            Nuclear is 2% of the world’s energy. Really. Renewables are 16%.

            Get a grip.

          • John Smith

            I think you just blew the main fuse
            With no spare .. .

            Try visiting an electric field ..

          • Brian

            Yeah, oh yeah, your are so correct,I mean facts are nonsense, Fossil and nuclear PR are what we should be listening to.

            Here’s the facts sunny: Nuclear will be short of fuels in just ten years according to the IAEA after only 40 years or so of providing 2% of the worlds energy demand, costs 4 times available solar and wind according to Lazard, takes 12 years to install at which time solar and wind will be available for 16 times less. Each nuclear power plant generates 27 tons of deadly million years, billion dollar to store in dry casks for 100,000 years, spent fuel rod waste. Each year, each plant produces up to 2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

          • John Smith

            Yeah we have heard all this doom mongering before
            Meanwhile France has among the cheapest energy in europe, based on nuclear energy

            and peak oil turned out to be another myth

          • Brian

            France is going renewables, phasing out nuclear and buys German peak solar. The French gov admits it sold nuclear power at a loss.

          • John Smith

            Do give over, France is predominantly nuclear and has been for 40 years plus, we take that power through the channel interconnector
            They have a small bit of solar but little wind power.

            Electricity is sold at a competitive price in France because of that long term nuclear strategy

          • Brian

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/23/3683773/france-passes-major-energy-and-environmental-law/

            Nuclear has been massively subsidized. Really, you didn’t know?

            France imports German Solar and wind. They pay more for it, since French nuclear power plants hate to throttle, and reserve fuel is more expensive.

          • John Smith

            Why would you want to throttle the nuclears? Their marginal cost is the lowest of the low. Keep them on at the expense of anything, especially expensive renewables

            Everything in France is subsidised, its EDF, its state owned

          • Brian

            Solar and wind are cheaper. They have near zero O&M compared to nuclear 3 cents or more.

            So you agree, nuclear is not economically viable.

          • John Smith

            I thought we had covered the renewables conundrum
            Basically you need as much reliable capacity standing by when wind & solar goes to marginal output
            Also they cause problems on the grid, they surge the system at full output with no where to put the surplus, unneeded power, then the grid has to be adjusted when marginal output is the order of the day
            So you have to factor all that cost in hence the massive renewables taxpayer subsidy
            I am not sure why you have a down on nuclear as a greenie, it produces minimal C02. As France has found its an efficient & cheap producer of electricity

            Our Hinckley Point Project on the other hand, is a lemon. For a whole set of other reasons

          • Brian

            Thought we had covered this. Germany and Denmark have huge variations in solar and wind output 80 % and 140% at times, zero at others, and they have the most reliable grids on earth, ten times better than the US grid.

            We already have massive reserve capacity dispatchable fast generators, and they are cheap to build, typical run at a 5-20% capacity factor and thus last a very long time., but expensive to fuel. Solar and wind can supply 80% baseload only 50%. of the energy.

          • John Smith

            This is going nowhere
            Why not address the points I raise about the UK, before blasting off into every other country but the UK

            Lets stick with the here & now, you greenies like dealing in future fantasy

          • Brian

            You claimed it destabilized the grid, Germany and Denmark prove it does not have to. Sorry, that’s pretty clear.

          • John Smith

            Why not address the unique UK problems head on instead of diverting elsewhere?

            ‘The problem was compounded by low wind speeds meaning most of Britain’s 6,500 onshore and offshore wind turbines were barely generating any power just as demand hit its highest.

            UK wind farms have a theoretical maximum capacity of more than 13,000 megawatts, but produced less than 400 megawatts of power for much of the peak demand period – meeting less than one per cent of the UK’s electricity needs, published data suggests.’
            Britain’s 8,000 megawatts of solar panel capacity would also have produced no power during the peak, because it was dark at the time.’

            The alert, called a Notification of Inadequate System Margin, (NISM), was the first to have been issued since 2012.

            Short-term electricity prices spiked as a result, with analysts reporting that one power plant was paid £2,500 per megawatt-hour – about 50 times average power prices.’

          • Brian

            You want to deal with specific problems that other nations around the world have solved. Summer peak is still provided for.

            Peak prices have always been high.

            There are no technical problems. Bad engineering, bad companies, bad politics, sure., but not technical problems. They have been solved.

          • John Smith

            No I do not!
            why not just address the mess we have in this country

            They have told you they have been solved but they do not know what they do not know

            Their risk assesment & impact statements so far have been incompetent & shocking
            The Swansea Tidal Lagoon is a vanity project, it has loads of issues that have been glossed over

          • Brian

            Wind isn’t peak. Solar usually is in most places. During the summer solar matches peak. The winter peak demand is 50 versus 30 in the summer. The is unique to northern climates, where most people don’t live. That’s why backup is needed, just like that why baseload needs peak and load following generators, and if you guess wrong and cut corners too close you pay for it. Why did they guess so wrong? why didn’t they have the reserve generator ready? why didn’t they contract for peak? You don’t know.

            Waste to fuels should be enough. The fuels can be stored long term, we already have the infrastructure.

            Even before renewables peak prices have gone even 100 times baseload around the world. It happens. It signifies nothing.

          • John Smith

            What does ‘Wind isn’t peak’ mean?
            Its virtually uncontrollable
            It can go from maximum output to virtually zero in a very short term, the impact on standby power and the grid is great.

            Western europe is heavily populated, northern europe is marginal on solar power. Useful on the plains of Spain
            The facts are the facts and it cost the taxpayers an arm and a leg
            Waste to ‘fuels’ I guess you mean electricity, is pie in the sky as the NIMBY’s will not allow it due to the fear of dioxins. Currently the capacity hardly lights a bulb
            Its going nowhere

          • Brian

            Wind does not happen at the same day every day in most places, while solar does.

            Germany is heavy populated and doing fine.

            The fact is the solar and wind are far cheaper in most place before gov breaks, and many times cheaper when you include all the real costs of fossils and nuclear.

            No, I mean to fuels, because we need liquid storable fuels for reserve generators.

            Now you are just fishing for weak arguments.

          • John Smith

            No solar does not, when its cloudy its abated!
            Germany is not doing fine its people are upset at the high costs of energy, though they protect heavy industry better.

            Solar & Wind are not cheap, they appear cheaper due to huge taxpayer subsidies

            Can you give a link to ‘liquid storable fuels’ and when they will be available in the VERY large quantities required, which is not any time soon.

            Try again, this time with some effort & rigor

          • Brian

            In most of the developed world, air condition goes up with incident sunlight.

            search German economy thriving

            I have already shone that you confuse price with the cost, and ignore the massive fossils and nuclear break when you do.

          • John Smith

            This is getting desperate, time to call it a day

            What has air condition to do with generation of electricity from solar panels
            If its occluded they do not work well
            German economy is OK but the people are hurting due to domestic energy prices They are paying for Frau Merkel’s shambles ..
            Fossil is not subsidised, Hinkley Point is a basket case, for a whole set of reasons
            Mainly that we have no money to pay for it

            We have been suckered by Ed Miliband’s Climate Change act

          • Brian

            Furthermore, the EU has a grid and a beefing it up. All your arguments go away.

            Lots of EU countries have higher residential prices, German is relativity ordinary, but Germany and Denmark has the world’s most reliable grids. Denmark has cheap residential rates .09
            France nuclear is .101. German is .151 2015 numbers. Wholesale German prices are falling fast. 1/3 of the German price is taxes.

            No they are not hurting. You have a fossil agenda, cleanly. Shambles, suckered, hurting becomes doing OK.

            I get it. You love fossils and hate renewables.

          • John Smith

            We have had interconnectors for years
            Only problem is we cannot rely on them. First sign of a problem on the sending end grid & they cut us loose. Its used primarily for offsetting, as each countries peak load period is different.

            Yes France has cheap domestic power due to a long term Nuclear energy policy Germany’s is rising fast & becoming unacceptable Due to rapid supply changes and volte faces. Liking shutting Nuclear down to put the greens in their place.

            No I am not wedded to the Green daydreams & lies like you
            I am an energy pragmatist putting the domestic and businesses first, not some hopeless pipe dream

            We have to leave the EU, repeal the Climate change Act & have a sensible energy policy for the UK

          • Brian

            Vague attacks on a grid you don’t’ understand. Germany and Denmark continue to have the world’s most reliable grids. Sorry you lose.

            You still believe the fossil Pipe dream. It’s over, its got us hear, not it has to go. you deny climate change too.

          • John Smith

            I clearly do understand you have a passable knowledge, gleaned from a Green Party leaflet.
            I do not deny Climate change it has always been changing
            Are you an ice age denier?

          • Brian

            yet you can’t. you just have to prove that fossils are our only hope.

          • John Smith

            You have no answers, no hope
            Off to the Green convention for you, for more brain washing

          • Brian

            You revealed yourself: you are a fossil troll who denies climate change caused by fossils. Does it pay well?

          • John Smith

            LOL coming from a doctrinaire Greenie troll that is praise indeed
            Climate Change has always happened
            Are you an ice age denier?

            CO2 is important to life on earth, crops have benefited from the marginal increase in recent years

            I would be more worried about the toxic emissions from vehicles if I lived in a city. That is what is killing people

          • Brian

            You are a plant, that I can believe. The rest of are poisoned by high levels of CO2, even 600 ppm causes sick building syndrome and effects performance.

          • John Smith

            No, you are a Green Plant, probably a wet, liberal left, lettuce

            When you have a lot of people in an enclosed space exhaling C02 hardly surprising
            Hence air conditioning and a mandatory requirement for air exchanges in the workplace

            ‘Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere

            Carbon dioxide is an integral part of the carbon cycle, a biogeochemical cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the Earth’s oceans, soil, rocks and biosphere. The present biosphere of Earth is dependent on atmospheric CO2 for its existence. Plants and other photoautotrophs use solar energy to synthesize carbohydrate from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water by photosynthesis.’

          • Brian

            Humans evolved with 260 ppm or less. even too much water will kill you. I have a co2 meter in my house. It regularly goes above 600 ppm now and it’s over 450ppm outside. In the cities it’s well over 600pp, classrooms over 1200.even 2400ppm. No wonder the kids are nodding off.

            No fresh air ever again, thanks you fossils parrots like you.

            Humans are not plants. Understand????

          • John Smith

            LOL you need to stop blowing off all that hot air then the CO2 meter will not go into alarm
            I take it you walk, or bike everywhere, as its transport the problem in Cities

            You still sound like a Green Plant, probably a wet, liberal left, lettuce

          • klgmac

            The biggest part of renewables is hydro. Which US rivers would you recommend we dam? Please be specific.

          • Brian

            You really are a tool, aren’t you?

            Folks, the USA and most of the developed world already have more hydro than they should. The really need to remove the most environmentally bad and low performing dams.

            Did I say we needed more? Nope. Red Herring.

            Will it stop the paid pro nuclear and fossils commentators? Nope.

          • klgmac

            Green energy is the new “green”. Look at the billionaire poster boy for the biofuels industry. He’s concerned about the planet! LOL.

            https://nypost.com/2015/03/02/catsimatidis-trying-to-slip-pricey-biofuels-mandate-into-budget/

          • Brian

            Green energy is still the same old green energy, sorry.

            Solar, wind and fuels from wastes. They are the new greenery miracle.

            Too bad the fossil and nuclear industry own your mind and soul.

            You keep expecting the corporate media to tell you this.

            Why?

          • klgmac

            What do you think about Mrs Pelosi’s son? The SEC charged him with securities fraud. Another green energy scam. You approve, business as usual for you.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/17/company-co-founded-nancy-pelosis-son-charged-secur/?page=all

          • Brian

            Sorry, you are retarded, I don’t like to take advantage.

          • klgmac

            What percentage of current renewable power is hydro generated? You know, the renewable energy you don’t want? My guess is that you haven’t a clue.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States

          • Brian

            Virtually none. solar and wind are now the majorette of new power installed. Crazy talk, huh?

            http://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-and-wind-comprise-61-of-2015-capacity-additions-gas-contributes-35/411813/

          • klgmac

            Hydro is currently 51% of what is currently considered “renewable’ energy. Brian wants to shut all of that down.

          • Brian

            So?

          • klgmac

            It works exactly no where. The Ivanpah project in the Mojave Desert in the US need massive subsidies just to say open. The reality hasn’t live up to the hype.

            http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg-ivanpah-faces-chance-of-default-PGE-contract

          • Brian

            Gosh, a solar thermal plant didn’t work. I guess that proves solar pv doesn’t, huh? Are you retarded? Chernobyl proves nuclear plant all explode right? and the big coal spills prove all coal plants have big spills, all oil has big spills, right?

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            I see, you have no concept of the word “anecdotal” . I am really sorry our educational system failed you.

          • klgmac

            Why has solar failed in sunny Spain? You seem blinded by the truth. Even the biased NYT sees the light that eludes you.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/business/international/once-a-darling-spanish-solar-company-abengoa-faces-reckoning.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=1

          • Brian

            Because the gov shafted it? Are you retarded? everyone knows that but you.

          • klgmac

            Ikea stopped selling solar panels in the UK. Without taxpayer subsidies, they just aren’t economically feasible. I’ll bet you didn’t know that right?

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/ikea-quietly-stops-selling-solar-panels-to-uk-householders

          • Brian

            Gee, versus the 5.3T$ that fossil get. I wonder why.

          • klgmac

            Because the economics of alternatives don’twork and never will. High priced alternative electricity is a crime against humanity.

          • Brian

            Because they do work and are cheaper you can’t handle it. Lazard proves you wrong. Around the world solar and wind are cheaper. too bad you mind is owned.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/solar-energy-is-cheapest-source-of-power-in-chile-deutsche-says

          • klgmac

            Even the Chinese can’t make money on unaffordable solar. I wonder why that is?

            http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/21/news/suntech-solar-bankruptcy/

          • Brian

            Gosh, one of hundred of solar panel companies went bankrupt.

            Just like in silicon valley, when the early computer compactness went bankrupt, the whole industry collapse, and we never got computers.

            They call you “special” a lot?

          • klgmac

            “one of hundred of solar panel companies went bankrupt.”

            You seem very bad at math. You made those numbers up right?

            http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2015/08/21/is-another-chinese-solar-maker-on-the-road-to-bankruptcy/

          • Brian

            Yeah, another one in 100’s. You are retarded. 50% of the nuclear power plants are expected to default according to the US accounting office.

            What’s funny, is your fossils and nuclear folks yank all the subsidies for solar and wind, while keeping and increased the much large ones for fossils and nuclear, then say solar and wind can’t make it on their own.

            100 years of fossils gov breaks and they can’t make it on their own, they need 5.3T$ IMF and wars.

            Nuclear can’t even get private insouciance to cover disasters.

            You lose, you area loser, you know nothing, you spout nonsense.

            Are you paid or retarded? .

          • klgmac

            ” one of hundred of solar panel companies went bankrupt.”

            You aren’t real good with math, are you?

            http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2015/08/21/is-another-chinese-solar-maker-on-the-road-to-bankruptcy/

          • Brian

            It was funny for awhile, but 1 solar company out of over 500 is not a lot. It’s called a shake out. As you know, we don’t have computers today, because several computer companies failed.

          • Brian

            You know what’s funny? from his bankruptcies of solar companies:

            “Related story: Solar power has record year despite bankruptcies”

            really.

          • Brian

            Related story: Solar power has record year despite bankruptcies

            in his link.

          • klgmac

            You don’t seem to realize that you are confusing price and cost. That’s true right? ROTFLMAO!
            From your link!

            “average price for winning bids was $79.30 a megawatt-hour, ”

            You must feel really stupid eh?

          • Brian

            Yes, price. you really are a fool.

            Cost is the subject.

          • klgmac

            “and the big coal spills prove all coal plants have big spills, all oil has big spills, right?”

            I didn’t know you wanted to talk about waste. What do you think about all the toxic waste from solar production? And what does waste have to do with the fact that the economics of solar don’t work?

            http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

          • Brian

            Compared to nuclear? are you kidding me? Compared to fossils, are you nuts? it’s 1000 times less, and less toxic.

          • klgmac

            That sound like you are making stuff up. Where do you plan to dispose of all the lead and toxic metals from all the batteries you propose?

          • Brian

            No Lead needed in solar panels. Silver has been reaping that for awhile and aluminum is starting to replace silver.

            What do you do wit the 1000 times more radioactive or taxi fossils wastes? I know, you ignore it.

            It’s called a lack of perspective.

          • klgmac

            It’s called batteries. I am not sure how often you visit this planet, but the sun shines during the day. And lights are needed at night. Hence the storage problem. You seem like a super genius. What are the batteries for solar storage made out of? And where do those materials come from? And where will they be disposed of?

          • Brian

            It’s called Red Herring. No batteries needed.

            Ever heard of reserve generator? I’m sure not, you know nothing about the grid.

          • klgmac

            Brian “No batteries needed.”

            So no batteries are need for solar? Where did you get that misinformation? Industry sources say you are lying! And two generating systems are need now? That’s why it’s cheaper, right genius?

            http://solarhomestead.com/defective-battery-troubleshooting/

          • Brian

            You are a liar and retarded. sorry. Fact. !% of homes are off grid.

            Did you know that?

            99% are on grid.

            No batteries needed.

            Even off gird you can use a backup generator.

            Liar Liar pants on fire!

          • klgmac

            You are so misinformed. And you are flailing. What does this article say?

            http://www.energy-storage.news/news/accelerated-capacity-fade-of-battery-at-hawaii-solar-farm-part-of-learning

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            The liars try to claim solar and iwnd need batteries.

            Isn’t it funny that German go to 76% solar and Denmark to 140% wind without any batteries? How did they do it.

            Could it be they have generators waiting to fill in differences between demand and generation? Gosh, who would have thought.

          • klgmac

            Brian

            “It’s called Red Herring. No batteries needed.”

            Ever heard of Tesla? You discredit yourself.

            http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915338/sustainable-it/without-batteries-like-teslas-the-power-grid-could-eventually-break.html

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            No batteries needed. But they will help the grid renewables or not.

            Thanks to the Utilities attacking residential solar and cutting net metering, folks are looking to disconnect from the grid entirely and that needs reserve generator or batteries. The grid already has reserve generators, but fools don’t know that. The only reason for batteries is because the utilities a being jerks.

          • Brian

            I have decide to stop replying to the to Kig,

            Tesla is building batteries for electric cars. The only reason for home solar battery storage, is stupid utilities cheating solar out of it’s value.

            Germany has none of that and reaches 80% solar powered. Must be a miracle.

          • klgmac

            Solar waste. Environmentalists dirty little secret.

            http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/are-your-solar-panels-toxic

          • Brian

            Yes, the lies are endless, that’s what billions of dollars of pr and influence by the fossil and nuclear industry buys.

            Did you know that 10% of solar panels aren’t silicon? Did yo know silicon included zero cadmium? Cenobitic they said three companies. Solar panels are 90%+ terribly dangerous glass and aluminum. Old solar panels are already valuable. The recycling companies will pay you for them.

            Never mind that recycled solar silicon pv panels need 1/4000 th the mining that fossil or nuclear needs, and it’s far less toxic mining. Not perfect. What is. Just 1000’s of times better. Who cares.

            http://www.webuysilicon.com/default.html?gclid=CjwKEAiAluG1BRDrvsqCtYWk81gSJACZ2BCe6U0ZN3WHwYsSqUnAw5IdGD4sQiw1DgGz-6K90RFEPhoCeJfw_wcB

            they will buy used old broken solar panels for recycling. The cells are the most energy use, and can recycled with far less energy and about the same efficiency. Stripe surface, bake, resurface.

          • klgmac

            Sorry, your industry source is tainted.

          • Brian

            Which was that, and specially, what didn’t you agree with, and where’s you counter source that isn’t tainted?

            Really.

          • klgmac

            You seem like a shill for the industry. Why don’t you reveal your financial connection?

          • Brian

            You are retarded, sorry.

          • klgmac

            The EnergieWende program in Germany has made electricity a luxury. Expensive alternatives cost people their jobs and hurt our most vulnerable citizens the most. They are truly a crime against humanity.

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759355

          • Brian

            No it hasn’t. The German people voted to pay for it. Thank them. German employment in renewables has more than replaced any loses to fossils and nuclear. Gee, a newspaper said it was. Hilarious.

            Germany have average retail rates for Europe. Nor do they bother to count all the people making their own solar pv energy and paying nothing or making money.

            Nobody starves or goes without electric in Germany. The crime against humanity is fossil and nuclear. But that why their pr uses opposite world, like you did.

          • klgmac

            You sure pack a lot of misinformation in a short comment. Well done!

            “German employment in renewables has more than replaced any loses to fossils and nuclear.”

            That’s not what I hear from more authoritative sources than you.

            https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/396/ressort/companies-markets/article/how-to-kill-an-industry

          • Brian

            You mean the business daily? really? Like we would trust the WSJ. right?

            Again, do you know the difference between prince an d cost, or were you dropped as a child?

          • klgmac

            How did solar work out in Hawaii? It’s amazing that you are right and everyone else is wrong! You are a super genius! LOL.

            http://www.energy-storage.news/news/accelerated-capacity-fade-of-battery-at-hawaii-solar-farm-part-of-learning

          • Brian

            Great till the utility shut it down. There is no need for batteries. Most energy is used during the day when the sun shines, what a surprise. The utility shut down residential solar because they were losing money, but they claimed it was disrupting the grid, claimed they needed batteries and then installed their own utility solar without either.

            But you believe industry and politicians. Again, were you special?

          • klgmac

            Solar does’t work anywhere but someone else is always the reason why. You self identify as a Progressive.

          • Brian

            I’m a Founder type Locke, social Contact Liberal, I’m sure you don’t understand that either.

            Solar works most of the places in the world. Even Germany.

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            You mean not according to SOME Geraniums, the ones who own nuclear and fossils stocks.

            These folks must be crazy, right?

            http://www.renewablesinternational.net/this-country-is-losing-a-major-aluminum-plant/150/537/92609/ aluminum leaving usa new one built in Germany.

          • klgmac

            You seem to have ignored the mountain of evidence that I linked to. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Never mind the dead bodies piling up.

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/30/green-europe-is-killing-40000-poor-people-a-year/

          • Brian

            Breitbart, they epitome of honest journalism, see ACRON.

            Yeah, hilarious. We all know Breitbart is a name we can trust.

            Yeah, really. 500,000 deaths from solar and wind., yeah sure. you betcha.

          • klgmac

            Pensioners in Britain are burning books for warmth. You deny their misery right? Everybody else is wrong, and Brian is right.

            http://metro.co.uk/2010/01/05/pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth-13123/

          • Brian

            Sure they are. You do know Metro is a tabloid, right?

          • klgmac

            “Germany have average retail rates for Europe.”

            You must be embarrassed to be so misinformed eh?

            https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18851

          • Brian

            That’s hilarious. Did you know the EIA is under the DOE? Did you know the DOE is the old atomic energy Commissions and still 90% nuclear workers and leaders? Probably not. Did ya notice you EAI chart was price? Not cost? Probably not.

          • klgmac

            I did notice you don’t have any source to refute it.

          • Brian

            Yes I did. It’s you that has no refutation.

          • klgmac

            How do the electric rates in Germany compare to the rest of the world?

            Brian “Germany have average retail rates for Europe.”

            You discredit yourself.

            http://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

          • Brian

            Compare them to the rest of the EU. what a liar you are/.

          • klgmac

            I just did. Where do they rank, lying’ Brian?

          • Brian

            No you did not, you compared it to prices in the USA.
            Really, I don’t want to take advantage of the retarded are you retarded?

            Cost does not equal price, Understand?

          • klgmac

            “Cost does not equal price, Understand?”

            I do. Are all the costs of solar and wind cover by the price? Or are some too the costs hidden. I’ll bet you are the right person to tell me. LOL.

          • Brian

            Lazard shows it: Solar and wind are available cheaper (cost),m than fossil and nuclear BEFORE GOV BREAKS.

            It’s complicated, I know. Sorry.

            Then ya throw in the 5.32T$ fossil fossils plus wars, and similar proportional for nuclear and fossils and nuclear are many times the COST of solar and wind.

            But the Price of solar and wind is just now catching up to the subsidized cost of fossils and nuclear.

            Talking to a wall here.

          • klgmac

            Why are so many solar installations and companies going belly up? Any thoughts? it seem to be very prevalent eh?

            http://www.pv-tech.org/news/ldk-solar-collapses-into-bankruptcy-in-china

          • Brian

            How many are there, what percentage, bet your link doesn’t say.

            wanna bet?

          • klgmac

            Are the UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Portugal in Europe still? You must have missed that part. Apology accepted.
            http://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

          • Brian

            You poor thing. You still can’t understand the difference between price and cost.

            Cost is what it cost to produce, Price include subsidies, taxes, fees, etc..

            Complicated, huh?

          • klgmac

            Sorry, subsidies are subtracted from price. And added to cost. That’s true right? You are a laugh a minute!

          • Brian

            Wow, you really are simple. Solar and wind are violable cheaper before gov breaks, including subsidies. Fossil get 5.3T$ plus wars. what part of that is hard to understand? You really think solar and wind get anything like that? Really?

            Last reply, I’m tired of buying your coffee. from now on I will respond to myself to correct you nonsense. Go get a real job.

          • klgmac

            Smear is all you are reduced to, Just one thing left to do!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk

          • Brian

            Folks don’t know the difference between price and cost. I say the cost is lower, they link to the price. I repeat, they repeat.

          • klgmac

            “Nobody starves or goes without electric in Germany. ”

            Does cutting the forest for fire wood count for desperation? Does stealing your neighbors’ wood count? I think expensive alternatives are crime against humanity. You don’t seem like that concerns you.

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html

          • Brian

            Does anecdotal evidence count? Nope.

          • klgmac

            Neither does closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears! LOL. You are a denier! Unless you can refute anything I have posted. Experience tells me to expect more insults though. iI’s all you have!

          • Brian

            Does anecdotal evidence count? Nope.

          • klgmac

            The Germans are begging Sweden for their coal. They realize what an expensive mistake they have made. Truth be told, Thorium nuclear reactors would solve a lot of our problems.

            http://www.mining.com/german-begs-sweden-for-more-coal-90155/

          • Brian

            No they aren’t, they reduce the coal use across the board about equal to how much renewable they installed. I guess the mining industry doesn’t like renewables, after all, solar and wind will ruduced mining by thousands of times.

            Germany has cut co2 some 23% since 1990, while the USA CO2 rose 5% and the rest of the world rose 61%. Since 2003, Germany has used

            50TWH less coal, 68TWH less nuclear, and 115 TWH more renewables.

            The coal gov breaks and slight increase have not been needed domestically, as exports exceed the increases. Exported coal energy should not be counted as German energy emissions. The countries that buy it should be charged those emissions.

            http://www.renewablesinternational.net/files/smthumbnaildata/addressdetaillogo/5/1/1/9/3/3/GermanElectricity_20032014.png shows the success of the German renewable program.

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            Yeah, that’s hilarious. Fossils and nuclear industry nonsense. Solar and wind are still doubling every 2 years. The majority of never energy is solar and wind.

            But they are failing. yeah.

            What do you think billions of dollar in nuclear and fossils industry pr and influence buy?

          • klgmac
          • Brian

            That’s hilarious since the two modern first world countries with the most renewables: Denmark and Germany, have the most reliable grid on the planet. Ten time better than the USA.

            Are you special?

          • Brian

            BTW, that 5 years would be many more years if you include the huge gov breaks for fossils and nuclear.

          • Major Plonquer

            The metals in batteries are hardly “green”. Lead, Phosphorous and Lithium are very, very dangerous, and filthy substances. Those “greenies” suggesting batteries will save us are just nutters.

          • John Smith

            More well meaning but deluded, often technically challenged & idealist

            To a degree we are still struggling with battery technology
            Look at the range of electric cars & the life of mobile phones
            As you say many of the metals used are in short supply & often toxic

      • Major Plonquer

        Britain will NEVER be self sufficient in renewable energy until someone figures out how to make energy from rain or from bad news.

        • John Smith

          Certainly wind & solar are not the winners but who knows in the future

          Fossil & nuclear still have a part to play, whatever the greenies say

  • Peter Shaw

    I’ve come to the conclusion that all UK politicians are actually mentally insane. It’s the only conclusion that I can draw from the “leadership” our country is receiving. I think, in part, most of it is down to the English public school system as many of our politicians stem from these schools. There is something dreadfully wrong in those schools that they produce so many mentally deficient and clearly totally insane people. Perhaps inbreeding over the last century has also played a major role and destroyed their own genes much like George III…There is no other explanation I can come to at the moment…

    • Jacobi

      You may be right. But how do you explain Corbyn. He went to a grammar school and then a polytechnic. Mark you it was probably the latter that did the damage!

    • Rush_is_Right

      I think the problem lies with the voters (overwhelmingly from sink comprehensive schools these days) who keep voting for these morons. Let the lesson be that we must draw our political leadership from those who did not attend school at all.

  • Jacobi

    The target will not and cannot be reached, and why should it?

    A government has responsibilities to all its citizens, not just those who sell coffee to each other. A
    country has a duty to maintain strategic reserves, not to mention a spread of jobs for non-coffee-sellers.

    Various claims are made as to what is ultimately profitable or requiring subsidy. Frankly, that is not important. What is important is that we keep viable reserves in an increasingly dangerous world, and dangerous it is. Make no mistake about that!

    As for the environment? The Earth will be still tumbling around in space 20K years from now in the next natural glacial phase, and another 2/3 degrees centigrade increase in the meantime such as the post-Roman and Icelandic-expansion lot enjoyed won’t do any harm!

  • klgmac

    Green energy hurts our most vulnerable citizens the most and is a crime against humanity.

  • klgmac

    Another bankruptcy in the solar industry. The economics just never work. But the consumer/taxpayer always gets the bill. Can we please stop these boondoggles?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-terraform-global-risk-idUSKCN0WV160

    • Autolocus

      Not likely. Sir Humphrey’s job could be at risk.

  • Brian

    Solar and wind are doubling every two years despite bankruptcies by a few few companies.

    As you know the computer industry never prospered after a few companies went bankrupt. But the anti renewables folks would have you believe that.

    Solar and wind are available cheaper, that’s why.Before gov breaks. Hinkley needs 5 billion dollars from the tax payers! Fossils get 5.3$ per year in gov breaks worldwide.

    Nuclear and fossils are killing the world and cost many times renewables when you include the gov breaks and wars.

  • Brian

    This is what happens when you elect anti renewable pro fossils and nuclear Corporate sellout Conservatives.

    Solar and wind are available cheaper before gov breaks, and fossils get 5.4T$ IMF, Hinkley point is going to get 5B in tax payer money and won’t produce any energy for 15 years!!!!!!

    We go to war for oil and gas. yet people think it’s cheap. Incredible pr and robbing the taxpayer. that’s it. But cheaper solar and wind have to make it on their own? and then the billion dollar fossils and nuclear pr and influence folks write articles like this one.

  • mikewaller

    If we were serious about global warming – and unlike dear old JD and his pals – I think we ought to be, we would impose levies on all imported goods in accordance with the amount of environmental pollution their manufacture or extraction caused. This would give a positive incentive to all such producers to clean up their acts and produce much more of the famous level playing field for our own people. Of course, there would not be a cat in hell’s chance of making that work if we Brexited.

    • Major Plonquer

      Rubbish. The only thing that would happen is that British consumers would get hammered.

      • mikewaller

        True to the noble traditions of the Baby-Boomers (I’m a War Baby and very proud of it!) as in “Sod our posterity”.

    • scott_east_anglia

      If we were serious about global warming ….. – I think we ought to be

      At last someone with real (empirical) evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

      Please present this evidence, oh sage – the IPCC will be ever so grateful?

      • Brian

        really?

        Here’s my simple evidence for fossils burning caused climate change.

        World heat content is up. Tracking CO2 and GHG since 1960.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

        Don’t confuse temperature with heat content:

        The mass of the pole ice is decreasing. That’s why the Temperature has not fully tracked air GHG. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

        “Extent” doesn’t matter, it’s the volume and that’s going down at both poles of the last 10 years. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

        Read carefully when someone says the pole ice extent is increasing, they are trying to trick you.

        Just like the Temperature not going up is another physics trick. It’s not temperature it’s heat content.

        Fossil use emits 300 times all the volcanoes in the world combined. http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm could be as much as 460 times.

        CO2 is the highest in 15 million years, enough to cause sick building syndrome outside. Remember that urban areas have higher CO2 than average, and even suburban areas go over the average daily. occupants of a building will start to complain of pain, fatigue etc… when the CO2 goes over 500-600 ppm. Humans evolved with CO2 never going over 300ppm. Oxygen levels are falling twice as fast. We have destroyed fresh air.

        Humans are poisoning the air and water and changing the climate.

        But climate change or not, fossils and nuclear are welfare queens sustained now only by gov largess and protection. Solar, wind, ecars and waste to fuels are all now cheaper when you strip away all the gov breaks. They are forever, recyclable clean, safe, zero land, carbon negative, low water use and many times our global energy needs even with 12B people.

        • scott_east_anglia

          You need to look up the meaning of ’empirical’.

          I asked for real (empirical) evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

          Remember that correlation is not the same as causation, data on their
          own say nothing about their causes, and citing the output from computers
          as evidence is only a dishonest circular argument, since computers only
          follow their configuration.

          I’m not surprised Mike ducked the issue, because such evidence is not to be found anywhere.

          You gave me a regurgitation of the same old question-begging propaganda that we have seen so many times before, because nothing new has emerged from the warmist camp for over a decade, ever since the hypothesis was falsified when its predictions failed to happen. There are no tropospheric ‘hot-spots’. Armageddon has refused to occur.

          Mainstream science abandoned the project years ago, especially once the AMO/PDO cycle reversed in the late 1990s and the associated heating since the 1970s stopped – heating that the IPCC had erroneously ascribed to an increased greenhouse effect – with comical results.

          I wish you well with your religion. Your faith and denialism will be tested once the power cuts start, and especially once the global cooling begins to bite during the next few years and decades.

        • Brian

          Notice no data in the reply. Humans increased the CO2 emissions from fossils, the air co2 went up, and the global heat content tracked it since the 60’s.. I call that an empirical experiment. We burned fossils, the heat content went up.

          We also have the physics and computer models to show the mechanism.

          Notice that the reply went back to temperature, air temperate no less, showing a completely disdain for chemistry and physics. Same only fossils propaganda.

      • mikewaller

        Good thing I’m not holding my breath awaiting your detailed critique of the various links Brian has offered below. One thing that is well attested is that positions with regard to both global warming and the EU referendum are much more a function of personality than the contested facts. In the cases both of GW deniers and Brexiters I believe scoring highly on the “reckless chancer” scale could well be a key dimension of personality.

    • Brian

      You got it. Import Tariffs should be based on the human right and environmental problems of the the source company and nations.

      But, of course the whole point of NAFTA and other trade deals was to export those problems.

  • Robin Whitlock

    Utter tripe. The EEF estimate energy costs as being about 20 percent of the production cost of steel while the government’s own advisory committee believes it to be about 6 percent. Energy costs are therefore a very minor part of the argument, greatly outweighed by concerns about the price of steel. In other words, climate change deniers and renewable energy critics are jumping on this as an opportunity to try and attack clean energy and environmental taxes, and thus through latter, pretty much most action on environmental issues if they were allowed to get away with it. According to environmental consultancy Sandbag, the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has actually helped steel by giving the industry so many carbon permits that it now has a surplus of about 1.1 billion euros. And as for Tata, the main reason why they are attacking energy costs is because it is politically easier to shut down green taxes than it is to do something about the global cost of steel. There’s a simple word to describe this article of yours Mr Editor – Balls!!

    • scott_east_anglia

      Sphericals to you too. The fact that you mention carbon permits gives us a flash of your real colours – your slip’s showing!

  • spidermite

    Not really. Green energy costs do not help, but they are only part of the cost structure.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Miliband major and Miliband minor, Huhne and Davey, halfwits all, these four have done such immense harm to the nation that one cannot but wonder if it was deliberate.

    • scott_east_anglia

      “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be ascribed to stupidity”

      But you may have a point. It is almost as though a malign influence is guiding events.

  • 4194

    TATA is not closing its Dutch steel making plants, and no buyer is likely to want basic steel making capacity for the foreseeable future. The UK is at least 20% less productive than France or Germany , so expect more of this to come soon after Brexit, as access to the EU market gets more costly.

  • Brian

    It’s hilarious that the conservative come in with their anti green policies and then green gets blamed for the effects’ of those anti green policies. Hinkley is a boondoggle. The cons love it. The Chinese are invest massively in renewables, they have the most solar and wind in the world. Aluminum plants are moving from the USA to Germany because they have the most reliable grid on the planet, along with Denmark.

    Chinese pay their workers pendents, and couldn’t care much about safety of the nutriment, thanks to trade deals the cons wanted.

    But it must be Green energy that’s causing the problems, right?

    Even the steel plant owner said it wasn’t energy prices:
    “Addressing Parliament in February, Mr Kinnock hardly mentioned energy costs at all, demanding instead that the government try to save the plant by imposing tariffs on steel imported from China. ”

  • Stan

    The BBC has announced they will show the leadership so sorely lacking in carbon reductions schemes by locking out the air conditioning in all of their offices, and they will be dropping the office thermostat settings to 10C for next winter.

Close