It appears that Duke Energy has cleared another hurdle in its attempt to construct another clean coal-fire baseload power plant at its Cliffside facility. Construction of the plant has been met with much opposition from local environmental groups due primarily to concern over carbon emissions.

Duke’s original application called for two new 800 megawatt power plants at the facility. Since then, the Fortune 500 company has downgraded its request to a single 800-megawatt plant with an increase in funding to subsidize energy efficiency measures and to acquire energy from renewable sources to make up for the other 800 megawatts.

Energy efficiency basically amounts to putting an additional charge on all customers for electricity and then awarding certain customers with subsidy payments for installing new high-efficiency appliances. Duke offered this proposal as a capitulation to environmental opponents of the plant. Yet, the single 800-megawatt plant has been met with continued resistance from groups such as the Southern Environmental Law Center. Nonetheless, the N.C. Utilities Commission now appears to have approved Duke’s application.

This is an important decision for citizens interested in the health and safety (as well as economic) aspects of having access to a reliable electricity source. According to page 23 of the State Energy Plan, efforts to control the demand for electricity (usually called demand-side management or DSM, of which energy efficiency is a key component) have been less effective than projected in the past.

In addition, the non-dispatchable nature of energy derived from renewable sources such as wind and solar resources severely decreases the reliability of the electric grid. Duke has even testified (2003 Annual Report page 36) in the past about the unreliability of wind power, yet some opponents continue to value reductions in carbon emissions above the health and safety of human life.

»Read full post

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic has a great article in the Financial Times. I wonder if any of this rubbed off on GW when he met with him a couple weeks ago?

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: "future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age".

»Read full post

For those who haven't seen it, this is a link to my article today on John Hood's Daily Journal. I pull together and try to draw out some of the implications of Paul Chesser great series of articles that have appeard the last couple months on Carolina Journal online, exposing the left wing and environmental advocacy connections of the Center for Climate Strategies.

This is the consulting firm hired by DAQ to do "objective" analysis for CAPAG. Paul's pieces can be linked from my piece. For the full story, make sure you read his excellent work.

»Read full post

Enviros Try to Redefine Patriotism - Environmental Defense has been soliciting members and those on their email list to add their green thoughts to a definition of patriotism for
a "Declaration of Patriotism".

I think the comment period is over and now they are looking for "signers".

They started out with this:

We the undersigned, pledge to:

Be mindful consumers, by minimizing our personal global warming "footprint;"
Be active citizens, by pressing our elected officials to take urgent action now, and by pressing all candidates for office to commit to passing strong legislation to cut America’s global warming pollution;

Now they have it up to four bullet points

Spread the word, by making sure our friends, neighbors and loved ones recognize that each of us has a role to play in meeting this all-important challenge.
Be mindful consumers, by minimizing our personal global warming "footprint" and weighing our personal choices against the needs and rights of future generations.

(Hmm…. where have I heard that last statement before?)

Do we really need to redefine PATRIOTISM?

Could the enviros be feeling threatened by a grassroots revival of REAL patriotism?

»Read full post

Below is a post from my colleague Mitch Kokai from our sister blog The Locker Room. I don’t typically do this but his points are worth repeating over and over again.

"Letters tell an interesting story

To its credit, Newsweek publishes this week letters both supporting and criticizing its recent global warming cover story.

You might expect me to highlight the letters panning the magazine. But while those letter writers made some good points, I found more interesting some of the other observations.

For instance, one Rhode Island woman criticized Newsweek for focusing on the politics of the global warming debate, rather than the science. She ends her letter this way:

The good news is that many of the efforts put forward to reduce human contributions to warming are positive from a cultural and general environmental perspective regardless of whether they will materially affect warming. But because global warming has taken on the religious fervor of the temperance movement, it risks imposing rules that may harm developing nations and, by knee-jerk ridicule of those with differing perspectives, it creates a climate that is inhospitable to discovering the truth.

The second sentence makes sense. But it’s the first sentence that seems to point to a reason for the "religious fervor." The remedies sought are "positive from a cultural and general environmental perspective regardless of whether they will materially affect warming."

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether these changes will actually do anything to meet the stated goal. We should do all of these things anyway. Once you understand that mindset, the vehemence of the global warming alarmists makes sense.

The next letter offers further evidence. A retired Staten Island college professor calls the cover story a "superb, well-researched and -written, comprehensive, much-needed debunking." He then offers this information:

[L]ivestock agriculture emits more greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) than all the world’s transportation sources combined, and the report projects that the number of farmed animals will double in the next 50 years. So among the many steps essential to avoid the potential unprecedented catastrophe from global warming, a major shift toward plant-based diets is essential.

Using the mindset expressed in the previous letter, it doesn’t matter whether livestock are actually contributing to global warming, or whether reducing the growth in livestock populations would affect global warming. We should all be vegetarians anyway, so forcing people to move toward a "plant-based" diet would be "good news."

Please bear with me as I address one more letter. A California man faults Newsweek for failing to come to grips with "risk assessment" in its cover story.

If we do everything that is needed to lessen the threat, and we are wrong, then there has been no real harm done. For those who believe that man-made global warming is real, the consequences of being wrong are that we will have spent some money and affected the way we live to some extent. On the other hand, if we follow those who deny that global warming is not man-made, then we will have disrupted the world in ways that can only have very negative consequences.

Once again, here’s evidence of the notion that we should change the way we live — regardless of the potential benefits. Force everyone to drive a hybrid? Use those squiggly light bulbs? Dial back energy use to 19th century levels? Substantially raise prices for those who can least afford higher prices? It’s a small price to pay for changes we should make anyway.

No wonder there’s little room for rational debate."

»Read full post

I came across the article earlier that decries the actions of Canadian government officials who have taken the liberty of making decisions for people who were too incompetent to make them for themselves, such as the decision not to use cheap incandescent light bulbs or not to get cheap electricity from clean coal-fire technologies.

I’ve included the quote below because it underlines the fact that these sacrifices are monumental considering the fact that they are being taken in a futile effort to achieve an unachievable goal.

By now everyone is familiar with government plans to restrict convenient and inexpensive technologies such as incandescent light bulbs to ‘combat the climate crisis’. We can add a new one to list courtesy of Ontario’s Minister of the Environment Laurel Broten - used oil heating is gong to be banned. And like everyone else in politics these days, she substantiated her decision with the same sort of climate change rhetoric we hear regularly from federal Environment Minister John Baird concerning the light bulb ban.

When announcing her used oil heating ban, Broten warned consumer and business, "We also know that taking on global warming will require a massive adjustment in the way we live and how we do business." Now that’s an understatement - dedicating vast sums of taxpayer money on any impossible objective in total ignorance of the facts would require massive "adjustments in the way we live and how we do business."

»Read full post

It's always fun to see truth shine through the religious zealotry of the climate change crowd. Consider as you read this that 80% of man-made carbon emissions occurred after 1940. The latest is just beautiful (HT/Dave Riggs):

New Rankings for Warmest Years – 1934 Now Warmest in U.S. History – NASA Temp Error Rewrites Record Books
Excerpt: By Joseph D’Aleo, Icecap

With the changes to the GISS data made today after an error was found by Stephen McIntyre, 1998 falls to #2 behind 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1953. Expect more changes to come in the months ahead as more scrutiny of the data bases takes place. Note in the graph below the peak in the five year mean around 2000 is a mere 0.25F higher than that in the early 1930s.

More on NASA’s Reported Whopper of a Mistake

Excerpt: Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings are calculated separately.) Note: For the new leaderboard see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.

Recent changes to the NASA historical climate data records refute claims by Gore that 9 of the ten hottest years in U.S. history occurred since 1995 (Newsbusters)

Excerpt: A change in climate history data at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday. <> Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen’s team at the GISS, shouldn’t it have been reported?In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn’t, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation. Think this will be Newsweek’s next cover-story? No, I don’t either. Post facto thought: If Hansen’s team had made changes to the data which showed that ten of the ten warmest years in American history occurred since 1995, do you think that would have been reported? Yeah, I do, too.

NASA’s James Hansen Reported Temperature Data Error Discovered (Note: This is a developing and story of potentially huge magnitude)

Excerpt: Steve McIntyre: I observed recently that Hansen’s GISS series contains an apparent error in which Hansen switched the source of GISS raw from USHCN adjusted to USHCN raw for all values January 2000 and later. For Detroit Lakes MN, this introduced an error of 0.8 deg C. I’ve collated GISS raw minus USHCN adjusted for all USHCN sites (using the data scraped from the GISS site, for which I was most criticized in Rabett-world). Figure 1 below shows a histogram of the January 2000 step for the 1221 stations (calculated here as the difference between the average of the difference after Jan 2000 and for the period.) <> NASA admists Error: “When we did our monthly update this morning, an offset based on the last 10 years of overlap in the two data sets was applied and our on-line documentation was changed correspondingly with an acknowledgment of your contribution. This change and its effect will be noted in our next paper on temperature analysis and in our end-of-year temperature summary.” (Stay tuned for this developing story)

»Read full post