The Carbon Dioxide Tax Revolt
This is the first of two posts by Viv Forbes, a guy who has worked tirelessly for a long time to expose the myths of Global warming and oppose the imposition of massive taxation and regulation governments across the world would like to impose on us. Viv heads up the Carbon Sense Coalition.
The Carbon Dioxide Tax Revolt
Gillard and the Greens are determined to introduce the carbon dioxide tax within the next twelve months. This has provoked a storm of community protest. Diverse groups all over the place are planning protests.
This Hot Air Tax proposal has provoked the biggest public outcry I have seen for a long while. The internet is shimmering with rage, and now even the climate alarmists are becoming alarmed at the opposition they have suddenly stirred up. Web sites, petitions, new organisations and rallies are springing spontaneously into life. Naturally the Green Regiments supported by government propagandists and government advertising will try to defuse and denigrate this protest as the work of a few vested interests. So we need many ordinary people to show up in force with sensible placards and cutting comments all over Australia.
For petitions: Canberra Rally: Other rallies:
Brisbane rally:
There will be another Brisbane rally on May 7th.
Authorised by: Viv Forbes
Chairman,
Green Peasants of the Pacific
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Australia and New Zealand were in danger of becoming the green peasants of the Pacific.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the only way the two countries could achieve their unrealistic emissions targets was by exporting their industries, reducing their population or creating chronic recession.
In a detailed submission to the New Zealand Government, the Carbon Sense Coalition concludes that their emissions targets are not feasible, not sustainable and not justified.
The submission, entitled "Clean, Green and Barefoot in the Snow" can be found here.
"The submission analyses the maths of the proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.
"In the period from the base year of 1990 to 2010, New Zealand emissions have grown by 22%. This 22% growth will need to be eliminated before the Kiwis get to the start of the process of achieving 50% cuts from 1990 levels.
"Moreover, New Zealand's population has also grown since 1990, and is expected to rise from 3.5 million in 1990 to 6.2 million by 2050.
"As a result, the maths shows that the 50% cut to 1990 levels by 2050 will require Kiwis to reduce emissions per capita by 73% from 1990 levels. Will their grandkids learn to happily live on just 27% of the resources used now?
"Even in the Great Depression, production of carbon dioxide only fell by 25% from booming 1929 to the dreary bottom in 1932, when many people minimised their emissions by queuing quietly outside soup kitchens.
"These targets thus promise to be three times worse than the great depression.
"There are four major sources of man's production of carbon dioxide in Australia and New Zealand - transport, electricity generation, agriculture and basic industries such as cement, steel and aluminium. (Of course this excludes heavy breathing from 25 million humans).
"Politicians need to explain to us how they plan to massively cut our use of carbon fuels in all of these essentials of modern life. (Their preferred solution is ration cards, called Emission Permits.)
"The only options feasible today are greatly increased use of hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy to produce electricity and some use of electric powered cars and buses in cities.
"It seems politically improbably that large new hydro or nuclear plants will be built in a hurry in either country and geothermal will never fill the gap in time. Meanwhile the green subsidysuckers like wind, solar and biofuels are already causing the de-industrialisation of Europe.
"Our politicians are gambling massive community assets on some wobbly computer forecasts of global warming. But nature will continue to surprise us with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, tornados, fires or even global cooling.
"Climate is always changing. Mankind must do what successful humans have always done – be prepared for the next disaster, whatever it is. Then be equipped to recover and rebuild afterwards. And take all forecasts with a grain of salt.
"Both Australia and New Zealand would be better off today if all the money wasted on the climate change industry had been spent building more robust infrastructure and establishing shelters and emergency resources. Money spent on preparation for provision of water, electricity, communications, medical services and shelter after a disaster will be far more appreciated by victims than knowing that our politicians are playing a leading role in the Climate Change Circus. Reliable forecasts of flood levels and research into earthquake prediction would be far more useful than wild guesses about minute change in global temperature, many decades ahead.
"New Zealand aims to be the Leader of the Lemmings in our region. The Green/Gillard government in Australia is longing to follow.
"But who else in our region will renew their Kyoto vows of poverty?
"Not India or China; not Japan or Taiwan; not Canada, USA or South America - no one will follow us in the race to become the Green Peasants of the Pacific."
"Some consensus!"
Goofy Green Gas Policies –
The Greens promote the consumption of gas
but oppose the production of gas.Let's look at what will keep the lights on in the Green New World?
• COAL - their insistence on carbon capture and burial and carbon taxes are stupid and unnecessary ideas but they will ensure that generating electricity from coal is uneconomic and too wasteful of resources to contemplate. So coal is out (in some places, for now).
• HYDRO – no emissions, generally low cost, "renewable" but every site with have some threatened species that will prevent any significant hydro developments. So hydro is out (except in China).
• WIND and SOLAR – the subsidysucker jokes of the power game. A very diffuse source of unreliable energy with a huge environmental footprint, growing opposition from landowners and producing a piddling output of high cost power. Doubtful if either reduces emissions of carbon dioxide. Both will require backup generating capacity, which in Australia means gas. So wind and solar are out (the real power will come mainly from gas or coal).
• GEOTHERMAL and TIDAL – both can deliver reliable low cost power in a few special locations. Neither is likely to deliver significant power to Australian cities or industries in the near future. And should they start to look feasible somewhere, the serial scaremongers will appear to create some new environmental scare. So geothermal and tidal are out (in most places).
• NUCLEAR – will undoubtedly supply large quantities of economical and reliable power using new technology in places like China and India, and mini nuclear plants will power remote or disaster sites. Old nuclear plants will continue in France and USA. But few new stations will be authorised elsewhere because of the new generation of scared children. So nuclear is out (for quite a while).
GAS –gas is another natural hydrocarbon, just like coal and oil; when burnt it produces heat, water and carbon dioxide, just like coal and oil. However in the fairyland world of the green dreamers, gas is somehow "clean, green and renewable" (for now at least). Gas is also becoming cheap and abundant thanks to deep shale deposits and new drilling and extraction techniques. And gas power plants are relatively cheap and quick to erect. Gas can also power transport vehicles. So the ironic result of all the green scaremongering on energy is that much of the new supply of electricity in places like Australia will come from gas. But gas has to be collected from large areas of land. Already greens are trying to scare up votes from landowners threatened by numerous gas wells and pipelines. Greens thus promote the consumption of gas but oppose the production of gas.
Risk-Free Cost Free Energy?
"By now, the following fact should be quite obvious: All sources of energy pose some sort of risk or cost. Risk-free, cost-free energy is a complete myth and simply does not, and will not, exist."Groups that never propose realistic solutions are simply not worth taking seriously. Unfortunately, this characterizes the arguments put forth by some environmentalists. They should not be given a seat at the adults' table until they demonstrate an ability to propose a serious solution to the most serious of problems. - Alex B. Berezow, Editor RealClearScience.
• And so we get back to . . . . . . COAL. Absolute safety is unobtainable for anyone this side of the grave. However some day soon, out of the rubble of all the green energy waste and destruction, we will again discover the cheapest, least harmful, most reliable and least obtrusive energy source for most places today. China and India know that already, we will spend a fortune to re-discover it. KING COAL will rise again.
No comments:
Post a Comment