Sweden Decides Electricity Might Be Nice

Every once in a while somebody in Europe actually has to confront reality.  In this case, it is Sweden realizing that if they decommission all their nuclear power stations they will either a) freeze or b) open lots of nice coal-fired power plants.  They have been able to pretend since 1980–when they first passed their law outlawing new nuclear power plants–that they will phase out all nuclear power plants.  But now its coming down to the time when they are supposed to actually shut them down.

In 1980, Sweden was on the vanguard. In that year, a referendum passed calling for a ban on the construction of new nuclear reactors in the country and the ultimate phase out of existing reactors. It was a model that was eventually emulated by Germany and seen as the way of the future.

On Thursday, the country once again took a step into the future — by abandoning the ban on new nuclear power plants. Stockholm said the move was necessary to avoid energy sources that produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases. While Sweden has been a leader in developing alternative energy sources, they still have not been enough to completely replace nuclear power, which supplies half the country’s energy.

The new proposal, presented by the country’s center-right coalition, calls for the construction of new reactors as the old ones are taken out of service. Parliament will vote on the bill on March 17.

Its always interesting how the prospect of freezing to death concentrates the mind wonderfully.  Of course, the ecoNazis are going ballistic:

The decision has angered the Swedish opposition as well as environmentalists around the world. “To rely on nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions,” Greenpeace spokeswoman Martina Kruger said, “is like smoking to lose weight. It’s not a good idea.”

There are no ideas from the ecoFreaks about how to replace 50% of your country’s energy (the amount now provided by nuclear power).  Sweden subsidizes the ever-lovin’ snot out of every “renewable” energy source they can think of, and it only amounts to 14% of their energy use.  And no matter how much the ecoCrazies yell, people still want things like electricity and heat and cars and food and medicine and all the things that are part of civilization today.

I have an idea.  Perhaps they could breed lots and lots of little hamsters and then put them on cages and have them run around and around.  And just connect generators to them and you will have non-nuclear power.

Your future power generator

Your future power generator

Wonderful Recommendation For Destroying The Economy

From some twittet working for McKinsey (and heading up a non-profit corporation) in London:

If Barack Obama gets his way we could see the unleashing of a green revolution which will lift the economy.

Mr Obama and his team are strong supporters of a cap-and-trade scheme, similar to that operating in Europe, to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama version would auction permits to pollute, among companies which burn fossil fuels. Over time the number of permits would fall, ratcheting down the “cap” on total pollution. It’s a simple idea, invented in the US in the 1980s, to combat acid rain.

This is the wonderful idea that even the High and Self-Important one admitted would “cause electricity costs to skyrocket”.  But that’s not a concern to somebody who’s energy costs are completely paid for by the government:

Old economy pundits fear that a cap-and-trade scheme will hit the economy when it is down, by raising electricity prices and slashing energy company profits. Mr Obama doesn’t seem to buy that line. Asked by Time magazine a few weeks ago whether he wouldn’t need to go slow on introducing cap-and-trade, he said that part of the revenue raised by auctioning permits should go straight back to the consumer, maybe through a rebate on payroll tax. John Podesta, the head of Mr Obama’s transition team, has suggested that the revenues could be used to build new clean-energy transmission lines, and to insulate homes, thus giving a short-term stimulus.

Why do I believe that the government will simply keep all the money to spend on things it thinks are important – rather than actually sending any of it back to the peasants.  Because its all right there for everybody to take:

A cap-and-trade scheme could raise around $150 billion a year. The American pipe-fitters union supports carbon caps because they are likely to mean non-exportable jobs in laying a new energy infrastructure. “Weatherisation” (insulating homes) could be the centrepiece of a green new deal that creates “green collar” jobs and simultaneously saves people money on their energy bills. This is FDR in triplicate: creating jobs, cutting energy bills, and boosting hundreds of small companies which are already manufacturing everything from solar components to LED lighting to high-tech coatings for wind turbines (some of which are incidentally, being made from old car parts). Far from being a one-way drain on the economy, green regulation could boost the economy in straitened times.

Your future awaits.  Union thugs stuffing insulation into houses no one can afford because electricity and a mortgage are too expensive, hunched over your latest tax bill reading by the light of your teeny tiny LED and simply hoping the wind blows for another 10 minutes before you go completely dark.

The next generation will really be happy about that.  They won’t even be able to play their iPods since the green taxes on any electronics will be 1000%.

Are you stocking up on candles people?

Your UN Mandated Future – Eat Rotten Food and Crap in a Bucket

This is what your overlords at the United Nations would mandate for all Americans if given a chance:

For the most part, the top contestants frequently rode bikes instead of driving, kept the heat down in the winter, grew some of their own food, went without air-conditioning and airplane travel, and spent little on clothes and entertainment. Dunn pulled ahead of the others in part because he uses a wood-burning furnace, which produces local air pollution but lowers carbon emissions significantly. He also had an advantage in that he eats expired and discarded food he acquires from stores and restaurants in his work as a recycler and composter.

Dunn beat out second-place finisher Sayre Vickers, 32, in part because of his living arrangements. Dunn, who is divorced with three grown children, didn’t live with his current partner and their two young children during the period covered by the contest. But he shared his home heating bill—and split the associated carbon emissions—with three people who live beneath him. Vickers lives solo.Vickers, of Garfield Park, grows tomatoes, basil, wild spinach, kale and peppers in front of the sunny windows of his apartment and makes his own furniture from discarded wood. With no running water, he hauls his 3 gallons a day from the bathroom one floor below.

The toilet is a bucket, with a 30-gallon garbage can nearby for storing human waste layered with sawdust. Vickers has a friend in the suburbs who allows him to park the cans when they fill up. The contents decompose, forming compost.

and how do we know this is what we would be required to do if the idiots in the ecoNazi movement were given half a chance?  Well, they come right out and say so:

Dunn is already living at roughly the level of carbon emissions that scientists at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say the average human must achieve by 2100 if we are to avoid dangerous effects of global warming.

Yes, the reach of the Green Overlords.  No running water, burn logs for heat, no ac, no car, no travel, no new clothes – just be glad they allow you to live I guess.  What they really want to do is turn back civilization.

Its articles like that which make me turn up the ac just a little bit more.

And what about people who don’t have nice friends – like Vickers – who allow them to stack up buckets of human waste in their yards?

Democrats To Commuters – Ride a Bike for 20 Bucks

yes – here’s the solution to our energy problems. Giving 20 dollar per month per employee tax deductions to businesses.

Of course, they are frantically working to make sure that we can’t drill for oil precisely where we KNOW it is – because that might actually make sense apparently.

But your legs might be worth a double sawbuck to your employers. Not to you of course – the tax benefit will go to your employer.

Just one other question – are we now going to have bike tax police to monitor the tax returns of business who claim this deduction to verify that the employees are truly humping themselves into the office? When will the first bike tax deduction scofflaw be hauled before the authorities? Lots of employment benefits here.

clipped from www.humanevents.com
Section 827 of the bill defines the “Transportation Fringe Benefit to Bicycle Commuters.”
It says: “The term ‘qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement’ means, with respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of such calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair and storage, if such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment.”
Bottom line: Employers could count as a deductible business expense a tax-free $20 monthly reimbursement to workers who bike to work.
  blog it

Islamic Group Urges Forest Fire Jihad

These guys had better watch out. This might get the ecoNazis angry at them for putting fire to Mother Earth. But then again the crazies hate people so maybe if it kills all the people they would be happy

clipped from www.theage.com.au
AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for “forest jihad” by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.
US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to “start forest fires”, claiming “scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels’ forests when they do the same to our lands”.
The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the “eye for an eye” doctrine.
The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember “forest jihad” in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that “this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time”.
blog it

Eco-Hypocrisy

From the Adam Smith Institute:

Protesters in California are blocking transmission lines between solar and geothermal fields in the Imperial Valley and Los Angeles and green lobbyists are obstructing a 150-mile link from solar panels to serve San Diego. Former Hummer addict and hastily baptized eco-warrior Arnold Schwarzenegger pointed out the obvious:

It’s kind of schizophrenic behavior… They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.

Similar melodramas are playing out in Oregon, Arizona, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, West Virginia, northern Maine, and even upstate New York. It’s a nice irony to learn that the only people able to crush this green energy scam are the environmentalists themselves.

NIMBY – BANANA  (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything)

But don’t drill for oil where we actually know some exists!

The Latest Dreck from Al “The Idiot” Gore

The Anti-Idotarian Rotweiller gives a good overview on the latest idiocy from the Goracle (beware – the Emperor uses strong, strong language):

To begin to fix all the problems, Gore said, “the answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.”

“And to that end, I aim to wave my magic Gorebecile Wand and, by spreading fairy dust all over the nation, come up with replacements for carbon-based fuels overnight.”

Gore called on the country to produce all of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years, a goal he compared to President Kennedy’s challenge for the country to put a man on the moon in the 1960s.

Modest as always, we see. But wait, we always thought that it was the Gorebecile who put a man on the Moon. Or was the Gorebecile actually the first man on the Moon? Nevermind. We’re pretty sure that he took the initiative in creating the science of rocket propulsion.

Gore chastised those who have proposed opening new areas for oil drilling as a solution to U.S. energy problems.

“It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now,” Gore said.

Alas, if only the Gorebecile had flunked out of a business school instead of failing Bible 101 in seminary, he would understand enough about this whole supply and demand thing to know that he’s a blithering buttskate. Also, we find it interesting that drilling now with an eye to increasing supply within 7 years (or shorter. You really have to stay up to date on these things, Gorebecile) is “dysfunctional” and “perverse”, while throwing everything we have out the window while hoping and praying fervently that a suitable replacement will automagically turn up within 10 years ISN’T.

Practicing what they preach – here’s how the Great and Powerful Gore arrived at this speech – along with all his supporters who are following his every word too:

Hello Global Cooling

Great interview with Dennis Avery over at RWN:

…The very mild warming that the earth experienced over the last century: does that have more to do with mankind’s activities or the sun?

It seems like it must be the sun. The reason we say that is because 70% of the warming we’ve had since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended — 70% of that warming came before 1940. 85% of the human emitted greenhouse gasses came after 1940. In fact, the net warming of the earth since 1940 is a miniscule 2/10 of 1 degree celsius….

Another question related to your last book: if you listen to global warming alarmists, they’ll tell you that the earth is warmer than it ever has been during mankind’s history. Is that true?

No. Absolutely untrue. The…warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we’ve had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today — and we’ve had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.

The whole thing is interesting – the coming outlook for global temperature?

You’ve recently said you believe we’re about to experience mild global cooling. Can you tell us about that?

We are experiencing now, mild global cooling. We had a peak temperature in 1998, at the end of a hot El Nino and the climate model said this is just the beginning, it’s going to get much hotter. But, it didn’t. For 10 years, the temperature held stable.

During this time, from 2000 onward, the sunspots were predicting cooling. Let me point out to your readers that sunspots have had a strong history of predicting our temperature changes 10 years from now. A 10 year lag in predicting how solar activity will warm or cool the ocean. But, from 2000 on, they were predicting cooling.

2007, we got it. 2007 was significantly cooler and that was the first major downturn in the temperature in 30 years. That cooling has persisted — at this point, in temperature, about back where we were in the year 1900.

And this kind of information just completely unhinges the section of the population that has decided that they have finally gotten the tool they can use to make Western Civilization destroy itself.  The flecks of spittle that I have seen sprayed around on this blog are nothing compared to the vitriol poured out by the true believers on those who actually stand athwart their ideas and stay “STOP”.

But remember this too:

Another thing I have noticed is that even the global warming alarmists were right: the solutions that they’re suggesting don’t come close to fixing the problems. Kyoto, these cap and trade schemes, they are really expensive and actually do very little to reduce greenhouse gasses. Any thoughts on that?

They’re really talking about going back to the Great Depression. Nobody has a car, nobody could afford the fuel if they had a car. They’re talking about living a hundred yards from the factory, except there isn’t going to be a factory because there is not going to be any coal burning to power it. No nuclear power, no drilling for oil, no hope.

I just want to remind you that there are millions of people in the Third World, women and children, heating and cooking with cow manure, firewood that they gather off the mountainside. The air pollution in some of those areas is equal to a 2 pack a day cigarette habit. …If there’s no kerosene, no propane, no nuclear electricity, are we all going to be in that situation?

Climate Democracy

The point is fundamental. Whether warming or cooling is beneficial depends largely on where you live. Federal control of climate is therefore inappropriate. International control, even worse. Climate democracy requires local control. If the political discussion remains national during this election season, the candidates should – at the very least – choose vice presidential running mates who favor warming: at least acknowledging that the north matters.

Local climate control: how can it be done? – the facts are these. To say that climate engineering is in a pre-early stage of development is a vast understatement. There is no such thing. Governments can no more control climate globally than they can locally. We have a long, long way to go technologically before any such thing as climate democracy can become reality. Wake up and smell the crap – it’s a scam! They want to raise taxes and increase government control over earthly endeavors and you won’t get anything for it in return.

clipped from mensnewsdaily.com
I’ve never been one to disparage a glacier, but that doesn’t obscure my recognition of the manipulation in Mr. Gore’s message when he attempts to convince us that we have no choice. Balderdash! If government can control the earth’s temperature, then it can be forced in either direction. More importantly, if politicians are going to assume the authority to manipulate climate, voters should decide which way it goes.
Mr. Gore lives in the southern United States where I can well understand that a few degrees of cooling seems like a good thing. Try walking around Baton Rouge, Louisiana on a hot, humid summer day. Given a democratic choice, the south will likely rise in favor of cooling. But put yourself in the middle of a snowstorm in northern Minnesota and your perspective will change dramatically. Several degrees warmer would be a relief. Make it colder and Minnesota will suffer physically and economically.
blog it

Did we say 100 months? We meant 48 months

Yesterday it was 100 months.   Same paper, new deadline:

No surprise that climate scientists have become increasingly desperate for action. In November, for instance, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The increasingly frantic calls for the rape of world-wide taxpayers (especially American ones) gates on the ear of this person who’s pocket is expected to be picked for this man-made hysteria.  No temperature increase in 10 years, the data was not correct in lots of models, temperatures much much higher in the past without any SUVs or power plants – perhaps lots of this information is starting to become more widely known.  And that means more people will realize that the man-made global warming issue isn’t as straightforward as the hystericals want us to believe.

And then they won’t give up their money!  Isn’t that the real cause of the ever-shortening deadlines?

They go to all that work to develop a scheme whereby the developed countries of the world are to use their own resources to destroy their civilization, and a bunch of low-forehead nosepickers won’t give it up.

I mean a 50% global cut is now not enough – they essentially want to move back into the dark ages (literally):

The call for an 80% cut must be heard by Gordon Brown. This is the minimum of what is needed by 2050, and if he really wants to make “massive progress” then he has an opportunity when he gets home.

If we go the full distance, put an 80% cut in the bill and include emissions from international aviation and shipping (both of which are presently excluded), then if might just lead to a global breakthrough.

And never, ever forget.  The fault is all to be laid at the feet of ……..

George W Bush

Judging Bush on the basis of what he has done for our children, their children and the next 50 generations, he has solidified his record of helping ensure that billions and billions of people suffer the grim consequences of catastrophic climate change.

They do realize that they are quite free to destroy all their cars and power plants and go back to living in mud huts and walking in their own filth at any time?  Feel free to lead us on that on you idiots.