Report Confirms – Carbon Capture and Storage Is Not the Magic Cure for Global Warming

carbon capture
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – the miracle technology which will supposedly allow us to burn more coal while saving the planet from global warming – is a complete waste of time and energy.

It’s so expensive that it makes even renewables and nuclear look cheap.

These findings – from a report by Professor Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh and a former adviser to the World Bank – vindicate a recent call by President Trump to cut the 2018 budget for CCS research by 77 percent.

They also make a mockery of the grandiose schemes proposed by the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to decarbonize the global economy in line with the Paris Agreement. Both organizations have made heroic assumptions about the value of CCS technology in helping to meet their CO2 reductions targets.

Here, for example, is the ex-head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri touting it at the time of the last IPCC Assessment Report in 2014:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground – is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS. Pachauri said: “With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale.”

This, we can now see from Hughes’s detailed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is just more of the kind of “harnessing-the-magical-power-of-organic-unicorns”-style nonsense we’ve come to expect from the IPCC. (And the similarly green-compromised IEA, for that matter).

The idea of CCS – capturing carbon-dioxide from industrial processes and then storing it underground where it can never been released – has been around for nearly 40 years. But it has never worked on a commercial scale and now almost certainly never will.

Already very expensive – in the UK, Hughes estimates, it would add around £10 to £15 (around $20) per MWh to the price of electricity, adding between £3.5 billion and £5 billion ($4.5 billion and $6.5 billion) to electricity bills – it has been rendered even more financially unviable by renewables, which are propped up with so much subsidy and which have distorted the market so badly that there simply isn’t any realistic possibility of still more money being found for the white elephant that is CCS.

Up till now the U.S. Energy Department has been spending $200 million a year researching CCS. Trump is proposing to cut this annual spend to $30 million.

When this was announced, Trump inevitably took flak from the usual vested interests.

Since the announcements, coal companies are being deferential to the White House, but quietly shifting their emphasis to Congress to save CCS funding in the budget.

Rick Curtsinger, a spokesman for coal company Cloud Peak Energy, said that Trump has been “extremely supportive of America’s coal miners” and that he “has a difficult task in prioritising issues and balancing the budget.”

But, Curtsinger added in an email: “We are hopeful that Congress will support the further development and commercialisation of the carbon capture technology that we believe is necessary for coal to be able to play a long-term role in providing secure, reliable, and affordable electricity while addressing concerns about CO2 and climate.”

But whoever is advising Trump on energy and climate issues is clearly very well informed. However much coal producers might wish it, Carbon Capture and Storage is not the panacea that is suddenly going to make their product eco-friendly.

Does this mean that Trump is about to renege on his election trail compact with the coal-producing states?

Not necessarily. As the below chart shows, stories about the death of coal have been greatly overdone. They are largely put about by the oil and gas industry, which is now keener than almost anyone to promote the climate change scare because it sees it as a means of stealing coal’s market share.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Bank of England Is Enslaved by Green Groupthink

What happens to its projections when the taxpayers of the world tire of being milked to subsidise renewables?

I do find it odd that I’m so often having to write about the science of global warming, species extinction and ocean acidification because, though I’ve certainly acquired a pretty useful base knowledge over the years — superior, I’m guessing, to 97 per cent of scientists — it’s really not my main interest. What fascinates me far more is the way the faddish preoccupations of a few green cultists have somehow come to dominate our entire culture, corrupting the intellectual current, suborning institutions, crushing dissent — much as Marxist, fascist and Nazi ideologies did in the 20th century, only with rather more widespread success.

Let me give you a recent example of this: an article from the June Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England, titled ‘The Bank’s response to climate change’. Nothing wrong with the premise: it is indeed part of the Bank’s statutory duty to ‘identify, monitor and take action to remove or reduce risks that threaten the resilience of the UK financial system’. The problem, argues energy editor John Constable in a critique for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is the inexcusably one-sided way in which the bank has handled it. The report’s focus is directed almost entirely towards the risks posed by fossil fuels. So we learn lots about the droughts, floods and storms that may be caused by ‘man-made climate change’.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Greenpeace: A Bunch of Liars

So Greenpeace have admitted in court to being a bunch of liars. Not for the first time, it must be said, as I detail in my book Watermelons.

What I don’t understand about these mendacious, hair-shirt, tofu-eating, liberty-loathing shysters is the virtually free pass they get not just from the mainstream media but everywhere from governments to schools to the man in the street.

At Latitude Festival a few years back I remember they’d actually been put in charge of the children’s section. “Give me the child until he is seven…”

But they’re not dispassionate, lovable, seekers after truth.
They’re hard left political activists – and lies and propaganda are their trade.

It’s not often my sympathies lie with Japanese whaling crews or Vladmir Putin. But when they’re hosing down Greenpeace tossers in their RIBs or bunging them in the nick for stopping oil rigs trying to go about their business providing the world with energy, then I say “Go Japs! Go Vladimir!”

http://business.financialpost.com/…/greenpeace-admits-its-a…

Now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth

Polar Bears Are a Pest – Time to End Their ‘Threatened’ Status

Earlier this week, as I’m sure you know, was International Polar Bear Day. Usually I celebrate by tossing a well-marinaded bear haunch onto the barbecue – note to novices: DO NOT eat the liver. It’s poisonous –  but I couldn’t this year because of pesky global cooling, so instead, I sat indoors by the fire and drank a toast to the world’s exploding polar bear population which has now reached record highs of 30,000.

30,000 polar bears is a lot. As someone else remarked (remind me where and I’ll link to it), when Al Gore was born the population was just 5,000. Even as recently as 2005 it was estimated at no more than 22,500.

When the population of something explodes six-fold in 70 years that’s a sign that it’s doing pretty well, right? In fact, frankly, at that point it ceases to be a species in any kind of danger and starts to look more like a pest.

So why do the greenies persist in treating it like it’s a rare and precious species on the verge of extinction due to man’s selfishness and greed (TM)?

This is the question asked and answered by the best short video you will ever see about the polar bear non-problem.

It has been made by Canadian polar bear expert Susan Crockford for the Global Warming Policy Foundation and it calls for the US Administration to reassess the polar bear’s (utterly bogus) classification as a “threatened” species.

As the film makes clear, the polar bear is not “threatened” and hasn’t been for many decades (not since hunting was mostly banned). When in May 2008 the US Fish and Wildlife Service listed it as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act this was a political gesture not a scientific one.

The flimsy justification for the polar bear’s “threatened” status was the dramatic decline in summer sea ice which – so the fashionable theory ran – would render polar bears unable to feed because whenever they pursued seals they’d collapse through the thin ice.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

OK Everyone: Your Chance to Salt the Slug of Ocean Acidification

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to steer these shysters towards a career more suited to their talents ie: “You want a large fries and a McFlurry with that?”

Basically, what I require from you is some solid scientific input. (Not snark and smart-arsery: that’s my domain). Anything useful you have in the form of comments or links which thoroughly rebut Williamson’s article below I will incorporate into the body of the piece.

To try to avoid confusion I have put my original article on Ocean Acidification in bold; Williamson’s attempted rebuttal in regular typeface; and the guest criticisms of people like Patrick Moore in italics.

Read the rest (there’s a LOT) at Breitbart.

Theresa May Could Create Jobs, Slash Bills and Boost Our Post-Brexit Economy If She Gets Fracking

IMAGINE if our new Prime Minister Theresa May could wave her wand and achieve the following miracles within five years.

Create 500,000 new jobs, slash our electricity bills, restore British manufacturing, boost our economy, make us richer and stop our energy supplies being held to ransom by Putin, the Arabs, the French and other foreign regimes.

Fracking
GETTY IMAGES
Fracking has the potential create jobs and boost Britain’s economy after Brexit

Well, the good news is she can, right now, and doesn’t need magic to do it.

All she needs to do is get fracking — the marvellous technology that extracts shale gas and oil from the ground.

Fracking has worked wonders for the US economy and could do the same for ours.

Shale gas is just as valuable and useful as the natural gas we’ve been harvesting from the North Sea for decades.

The only difference is that, because it’s mixed up with rock sediment, it used to be impossible to recover.

Read the rest at the Sun.

UK Legal Professor to Climate Activists: Breaking the Law is OK

So recommends Tara Smith, a lecturer in law at the University of Bangor, Wales, in an article for the Conversation, a website popular with academics.

In a section titled “Playing by the rules isn’t working”, she says:

While necessity is difficult to assert in climate activism trials, the Delta 5 and Greenpeace cases raise a big question: should activists be allowed to take matters into their own hands to prevent global warming and climate change? Given underwhelming results in combating this at the international level to date, arguably they should.

Warming to her revolutionary theme she goes on:

The Paris climate change agreement in December was celebrated as a major achievement in bringing all states together, developed and developing alike, to agree on a common plan to reduce global carbon emissions. However, on closer inspection, it doesn’t seem to be ambitious enough to work as expected. Warming will be limited to 2.7°C, at best, while the agreement isn’t yet legally-binding. Climate change is still likely to have severe effects.

If states are unwilling or unable to sufficiently reduce their carbon emissions in time to make a real difference, shouldn’t people around the world be encouraged to take robust action without fear of being thrown in jail for their efforts to do good?

There is precedent for this, argues Smith, who compares to the situation to disobeying orders in Nazi Germany to transport Jews to concentration camp.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore: Skeptics Are the New ‘Thin Green Line’

No, not the Green McJob (TM) creation scheme being hosted by the United Nations at Le Bourget for the benefit of 40,000 troughers, kleptocrats, island nation guilt trippers, activists, bureaucrats, apparatchiks, junk-scientists, one world government freaks, environmental lawyers, corporate rent-seekers, teat-suckers and other assorted eco-fascist protozoa.

Rather, I mean the Paris Climate Challenge, a tiny three-day event being hosted in the centre of town by retired Church of England vicar Philip Foster and a tall blogger called Roger ‘Tallbloke’ for a ragtag group of – at best – 40 climate skeptics.

I was tempted to take a photo of them for this article. But I decided it would play right into the enemy’s hands.

Empty chairs and mostly grey-haired men with wild eyes and a mad-professor demeanour: it would have confirmed everything the greenies like to claim about climate “deniers” – that they’re old to the point of being senile, eccentric to the point of insanity and so out of touch with reality that no one wants to hear what they want to say anyway.

And you know what? If I were in the unfortunate position of having no scientific arguments left to support my case that’s exactly the kind of sad and desperate smear job I’d resort to as well.

Probably, I’d add that “deniers” smell of wee-wee (or poo-poo, if I really wanted to drive the point home); and, if at all possible, I’d try to follow the example of luminaries like President Obama, Bernie Sanders and the Prince of Wales and hint gently that these disgusting people were also kinda, sorta responsible for the Paris massacre and the San Bernardino massacre because by denying the reality of man-made global warming they helped cause the alleged “drought” in the Middle East which drove thousands of law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims straight into the arms of Islamic State.

Luckily for me, though, I’m not in that unfortunate position. Rather I’m on the side of the argument which has pretty much everything going for it: the science, the economics, the moral high ground, the intellectual credibility, the wit, charm and tell-it-like-it-is fearlessness…

But, yes, most of all what we have on my side of the argument are the facts.

There were lots of these at the Paris Climate Challenge conference – the kind of hard, verifiable scientific ones which simply weren’t available to the people up the road at the COP21 event.

Facts like:

The lack of observational evidence for “man-made” global warming

The 19-year “pause” in global warming which none of the alarmists’ models predicted.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

China Shows How Much It Cares about Climate Change: With a Single, Upraised Finger

According to shock data  released, without fanfare, by China’s statistical agency, its coal use has been about 17 per cent higher per year than earlier official figures admitted. This may have pumped an extra billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere – more than the total greenhouse gas output of the entire German economy.

In 2012, China burned through an extra 600 million tons of coal: about 70 per cent of the amount used annually by the US.

The new figures make a nonsense of China’s publicly-expressed commitment to wage war on climate change.

Only two days ago, Chinese president Xi Jinping emerged from a summit with French president Francois Hollande, calling for “an ambitious and legally binding deal” at the forthcoming COP21 climate talks being staged by the UN in Paris later this month.

This moved Greenpeace China’s Li Shuo to declare it “encouraging to see the ball rolling and diplomacy nudging us a small step forward”. He added:

“Moreover, with the recent decline in coal consumption and robust renewable energy development, China is positioning itself at the front of climate leadership. This is drastically different from six years ago in Copenhagen.”

We now know that this was wishful thinking.

Not that we couldn’t have guessed this anyway. China’s policy on CO2 emissions is – and always has been – a case of “tell the gullible Gwailo whatever they want to hear – then carry on building coal-fired power stations regardless.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Free the Greenpeace 30!

(And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)

The Arctic Warrior: a fine marine reserve in the making (photo: Greenpeace)

Like most caring, nurturing souls who believe in a cleaner, better, happier world I’m keen for the 30 Greenpeace activists currently being held on piracy charges by the Russians to be released from prison as soon as possible. If you saw last Thursday’s coverage of the issue on BBC Newsnight, you might understand why.

It featured an interview with Paul Simonon, formerly guitarist with the Clash, about his experiences in 2011 when – after getting involved in a similar Arctic rig protest with Greenpeace – he found himself arrested by the Norwegians. The way Emily Maitlis’s brow furrowed sympathetically during the interview, you’d think he’d been banged up for a year in the punishment block of Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, not held for a day or two in a cell in Greenland. Little was left to the imagination as to where the programme’s sympathies lay; nor, perhaps, would one expect otherwise from a programme now edited by an ex-Guardian man Ian Katz.

Simonon’s heartbreakingly moving account of celebrity suffering nicely set the tone for the subsequent studio non-debate between Greenpeace’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and a Russian journalist. Naidoo was given carte blanche to chant the green mantra: “Scientists have told us we are heading for catastrophic climate change”…”children and grandchildren’s lives at risk”…”addicted to oil” etc. Not one of these extravagant claims was challenged by Maitlis. (To be fair, she probably wasn’t sufficiently well informed to question or contradict them – and in any case had she tried to do so she would have been in breach of the BBC’s semi-official policy to big up the great climate change threat at every opportunity.)

Maitlis did at least question Naidoo on the wisdom of sending RIBs full of Greenpeace activists against an installation as high security (and vulnerable to terrorism) as an oil platform owned by the Russians. Naidoo described Greenpeace’s action as “responsible and proportionate” – apparently because the threat posed to the world by ‘climate change’ is so grave that no action to raise awareness of it could possibly be deemed irresponsible and disproportionate. (Though as Pierre Gosselin notes at No Tricks Zone, he appears to be developing a more emollient line now that he knows that Russia means business and that any more goading and grandstanding from their mouthy executive director could cost the Greenpeace 30 rather longer in the slammer than they’d anticipated).

My sympathies in this regard are mostly with the Russians. (As are Dominic Lawson’s in this excellent piece here) They’re being painted by the BBC as the bad guys for over-reacting by imprisoning supposedly harmless, peace-loving activists as “pirates.” But how, exactly, is a country meant to react when one of its most vital industries is threatened with economic sabotage? Russia – unfortunately for the Greenpeace 30 – has yet to fall prey to the kind of intellectual decadence which now afflicts much of the West on green issues. In Europe, for example, our industry has a longstanding tradition of caving to Greenpeace’s every bullying demand – as we saw when Shell gave in over Brent Spar. And even on those rare occasions when industry stands up to it – as Kingsnorth Power Station did when it sued Greenpeace for the £30,000 of damage carried out by its protestors – Greenpeace can not only afford the best legal teams you can buy when you’re a multi-national organisation with annual global revenues of £196 million but can also rely on a sympathetic hearing from juries which have been brainwashed from childhood by a farrago of Greenpeace lies, half-truths, junk-science factoids and emotive propagandising.

I understand perfectly why the Russians wish to teach Greenpeace a lesson so hard that hereafter it will concentrate its anti-capitalist activities against countries of a more surrender-monkey persuasion. But if they really want to hit back at Greenpeace they should do so where it really hurts – financially – rather than handing it an unnecessary propaganda coup in which, day after day, the likes of Kumi Naidoo and his celebrity mates Damon Albarn, Jude Law and Paul from the Clash are able to go on presenting a bunch of hard-Left activists hell bent on destroying industrial civilisation as lovable, heroic martyrs.

If they’re feeling generous, the Russians could impound the Greenpeace boat Arctic Sunrise until Greenpeace pays them a swingeing fine. If they’re feeling a bit more hard core, they could take a leaf out of the French’s book and sink it.

Personally I’d favour the second option – purely on environmental grounds, of course. As we learnt from the disposal of the Brent Spar and also of the Rainbow Warrior, a sunken boat or a sunken oil platform do quickly make a truly excellent marine habitat.

Related posts:

  1. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  2. Greenpeace goes postal
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Free the Greenpeace 30! (And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)”

  1. Uncle Bobby says:17th October 2013 at 10:00 pmI love the smell of victory in the afternoon:

    “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and
    political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party
    members know more science than non-tea partiers.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html

    Dig deeper into the article, and it appears that the RINOs are weighing the conservative movement down enough to the point where the liberals have the slight edge in scientific literacy.

    Still, I think it’s high time for a gloat.

    Let it be known that real conservatives are at the head of the class.

Comments are closed.