PDA

View Full Version : Biggest Scam in History



Kiwon
06-06-2008, 06:52 AM
$45 trillion needed to combat warming

By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer

TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

Tarlam!
06-06-2008, 07:27 AM
United Nations-measured-flatulence
Scientists sniffing out methane emissions from cows sniffing at the wrong end
By Judi McLeod
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

In the feverish race to cut methane emissions, agricultural bureaucrats have spent millions of dollars studying the wrong end of cattle and sheep.

It's the burp and not United Nations-measured-flatulence sending greenhouse gas pollution sky high.

"Farmed ruminant animals are thought to be responsible for up to a quarter of "man-made" methane emissions worldwide though contrary to common belief, most gas emerges from their front, not rear, ends." (The Guardian, July 10, 2007).

But while British experts have managed to pull their heads from the rear ends of cows and sheep, their North American counterparts are still there.

No one knows who ratted out the stinky cattle and sheep of the meadows to the MYOB-challenged (Mind Your Own Business –Challenged) UN and Al Gore.

Generations of motorists driving on country roads considered the bad smells coming from the pasture as natural as summer rains.

But late last month, the United States Department of Agriculture rewrote age old Mother Nature. It released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also (God forbid) smelling greenhouse gas emissions.

And you can bet the family farm that when the DOA comes up with an idea, it's going to cost taxpayers money.

Odiferous cow manure, now the focus of millions of dollars worth of research, must be stamped out wherever it's found.

"Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey, was in Corning Wednesday morning at the Big Flats Plant Materials Center to announce the award of nearly $20 million in Conservation Innovation Grants to fund 51 research projects across the country designed to refine new technologies helping dairy and other agricultural producers cut back on their greenhouse emissions and cash in on governmental incentives for the research." ( www.wetmtv.com, June 28, 2007).

A cool million dollars of those grants were earmarked specifically for New York State.

The USDA is currently taking applications from large dairy farms across the state that want to participate.

When Mark Rey goes off sniffing, it can get very expensive for taxpayers.

Here's the deal: "The main focus of the grant-funded research in New York State would be to tarp off areas where farmers dump cow manure, commonly called manure lagoons. Researchers would then prevent those gases from entering the atmosphere, measure how many units are produced, and farmers would receive cash incentives, called "Carbon Credits," for each unit produced. They would also receive annual payments for use of their properties.

As Rey puts it: "It helps them (farmers) meet some environmental regulatory requirements, and at the same time helps them generate more income."

You'd think with all the tainted foods coming in from China that American farmers would be encouraged to grow more crops.

Dairy farmer Dave Boor says his small, 100-cow operation in Horseheads is hit hard every year with costly environmental regulations he has had a hard time affording.

Boor says he hopes the new research will shed light on the issue, perhaps finding that small farms shouldn't have to face the same regulations larger farms do.

"In many cases with some of the smaller farms where maybe it isn't significant, perhaps some of these mandates won't be pushed on the small farmers that are already teetering on the bank of closing down," said Boor.

Still processing applications, the USDA can accept up to eight dairy farms for participation in the research across New York State.

Not only does overseas evidence say that scientists are at the wrong end of cattle and sheep, the United States Department of Agriculture could have saved $20 million by checking in with their Canadian counterpart.

Heading into their research already knowing that "agriculture contributes 10 to 13 percent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions", Canada's federal government continue their research at the wrong end.

The belching and flatulence of cows is an obsession for Canada's Agriculture Department, which is jokingly called the "belching and flatulence" directorate.

"That's where civil servants spend countless hours--and tax dollars--capturing and analyzing animal burps and farts," Ezra Levant wrote in his book, Fight Kyoto.

Ottawa mandarins refer to it as "livestock emissions"--emissions from animals and their manure that make up some 20 megatonnes of greenhouse gases each year.

The mandarins have greenhouse emissions coming from the pasture down to a fine science.

The government has an official website called ManureNet to track livestock emissions--in both official languages.

The experiments of the Canadian government on greenhouse gas emissions from Bessie the Cow suggest that cattle should take drugs to stop passing gas.

According to this study, dairy cows that had an additive called monensin mixed into their diets tooted up to 28 per cent less--a fact borne out by scientists who claim to have actually measured it.

Other scientist-launched ideas to make cattle less flatulent include pumping cattle full of anti-flatulence hormones, such as Bovine Somatotropin, which cut down on methane emissions by nine per cent.

Meanwhile, proverbial cows eventually come home, but as long as grant dollars for fixing methane emissions are available, some scientists never will.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com

Other articles by Judi McLeod

Zool
06-06-2008, 07:45 AM
Damnit if they take away beef I'm gonna be pissed.

Deputy Nutz
06-06-2008, 08:28 AM
Damnit if they take away beef I'm gonna be pissed.

I will have to start eating humans.

Freak Out
06-06-2008, 09:54 AM
Cattle should only be raised in large subterranean pens so we can collect the methane to use as fuel. To hell with free range.

hoosier
06-06-2008, 10:17 AM
Cattle should only be raised in large subterranean pens so we can collect the methane to use as fuel. To hell with free range.

http://store.perspicuity.com/sections/Products/CattleCombsNoBorder.sized.jpg

Do we really have to go to such extreme measures? Couldn't we just fix them up with plugs and hoses? http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/MikeLesterCattleLyticConverter.gif

Freak Out
06-06-2008, 11:26 AM
So Kiwon spending money on our energy infrastructure is a bad idea? Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a bad thing? Typical.

bobblehead
06-06-2008, 11:54 AM
The beauracrats are as aware of the coming boom in solar power as the rest of us, they are merely using this crap as another way to get their pig hands on a huge chunk of money that they can spend, then when solar is efficient enough to replace carbon emitting fuel they will bemoan the loss of revenue causing starvation in kids and seniors, and insist they need a record tax hikes or we will face draconian cuts and not be able to sustain gov't. Its the same old song and dance.

Kiwon
06-06-2008, 08:39 PM
So Kiwon spending money on our energy infrastructure is a bad idea? Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a bad thing? Typical.

And the only way to do this is through forced government intervention on the basis of a hoax?

$45,000,000,000,000 of bureaucratic mess. That’s the true man-made disaster.