Companies call for tougher climate action

one of the major arguments of the sceptics is that "warmers" are trying to introduce policies that will have disastrous economic consequences.

but is that true?

seems like a lot of the world's leading companies don't think so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15352764

 

tsk tsk tsk



Im willing to bet that these companies are pushing for more climate reform, because they will profit tremendously. Their competition will spend billions to comply with the regulations, and will have to liquidate, because of the high cost of compliance. meanwhile, because the prince of wales is a globalist, his companies, will likely get a waiver, and reap the benefits of the expanded open market. Its monopoly by politics 101.

 

Awaken Sheeple!!


[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808[/ame]

 

tsk tsk tsk

its sad when conspiracists expect people to take them seriously.

 

Name calling?
Thats how you refute my claims?

wow...

 

Take a look at the smog report in Beijing today....

 

either a conspiracist or a propagandist.

the science on climate change is well known.

I notice elsewhere that your criticism seems to revolve around what AlBore said ....

you are aware that he is not a climate scientist but a has been politician ... aren't you?

people like myself couldn't give a toss what he said.

 

dont give me that BS... Your movement in the mainstream is fueled by Al Gore. He is the head cheerleader and lobbyist in the climate reform movement. So your claim that you arent motivated by Al Gore, is null and Void. His "What he said" is why your movement exists. He funds the science, our carbon taxes go to his swiss bank account, and he is the main reason the UN is pursuing climate reform.

Look at the source:
Al Gores website promoting one world currancy

Al Gore's Lobby:
Al Gore Receives Nobel peace prize

Al Gores UN lobby Group is losing US backing...
House GOP seeks to remove UN global climate initiatives from 2012 budget

International Climate Science International
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://www.nrsp.com/default.html
Draft Report to be released today at the National Press Club in Canberra

The Garnaut Review released its Draft Report on 4 July, 2008.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/garnautreport.pdf

Sky News: Professor Ross Garnaut draft report - [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMb1oA-Qak[/ame]

Sunday: Questioning the Science of Climate Change
Part I - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRhYjUAAzA4"]Sunday: Questioning the science of Climate Change - Part I - YouTube[/ame]
Part II - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheOqzN5ZA8"]Sunday: Questioning the science of Climate Change - Part II - YouTube[/ame]
Part III - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RptWRaYuWdQ"]Sunday: Questioning the science of Climate Change - Part III - YouTube[/ame]

Carbon offset trading fraud - Huge criminal activity
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB2Ixn5Ldm0[/ame]

The Great Carbon Offset Swindle - Part I
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2pI-8wEvtg"]The Great Carbon Offset Swindle - Part I - YouTube[/ame]
Documentaries

Not Evil Just Wrong
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE"]NOT EVIL JUST WRONG - YouTube[/ame]

Global Warming or Global Governance
[ame="http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073&q=global+warming+or+global+governance&ei=WvBaSLyYEqHoqgO6jZWEDg&hl=en"]Global Warming or Global Governance?[/ame]

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off
[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&hl=en-GB"]CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off[/ame]

 

seriously, nobody who was reasonably well informed regarded Al Gore as anyone in the issue until his movie - which even teenagers could identify inaccuracies in.

people I mix with had been looking at this issue for well over a decade before we even heard of Gore, and don't regard politicians as a good source of scientific information.

I also haven't seen anything about him since he won his prize quite a few years ago for bringing the issue to the publics attention.

no idea why he won the prize - probably because he made the issue mainstream in the US - but the rest of the world was already well aware of it.

denialists are shooting themselves in the foot.

the emerging economies are exploring new technologies and will not be the oil junkies that we became - and more enlightented western economies are also doing the same.

I don't think we will be able to keep warming to the lower range of the levels proposed by international agencies, so we will all pay a price - but you clearly wish to pay a high economic price as well as a high environmental price.

 

Pssst! I am going to let you in on a little secret. But you are going to have to swear not to tell everyone. The Internet was set up by the Bilderbergers for propaganda and misinformation purposes. Everything you see and read on the Internet is not true. Remember! You did not hear this from me!

 

so who do we pay the carbon taxes to? Al Gore right?

 

The cost of compliance will go down..as newer technologies take over in terms of recycling.

Its already begun...

 

No it wont!!!

Its set up to eventually cost us our freedom...

 

I have no idea what you pay.

the factors that influence the introduction of various carbon taxes etc in other countries are determined by government policies, after extensive consultation - not by an american political celebrity.

 

Airgas has a whole division that cleans and recycles refrigerent gases ...that keeps the cost down for industry.. and soon another company will be breaking down toxins to their original elements for use in industry..

As opposed to spending hundreds of thousands to have them destroyed..

That will also mean we can stop buying those rare ores from China.

 

true.

in australia, solar has now reached grid parity, and new emerging technologies are bringing down the price of renewable energy in a number of places.

not to mention, that an awareness of the issue is leading to more efficient design.

a well designed house can reduce energy use significantly. often - really basic improvements in design that have little or even no extra initial cost.

 

See thats where you are misinformed... the money goes to someone...

The idea of being taxed to breathe appalls me. pretty soon, we will all have a daily carbon limit... But you fools, you fools think this is good...


True story: i went to get an inspection on my car. I was scared i would fail, because of my bald tires. To my dismay, i failed for my Catalytic Converter was missing (intentionally, as it was a racing exhaust). They didnt even care that my tires were bald, needed changing badly, and were very likely to cause me to die. they cared more for the trees... Its De-humanization. look it up...

 

Now this i agree with, only because the regulations enforced by you globalists, has caused fossil fuel energy prices to skyrocket. The only alternative is solar. But again, this is caused by people like you...

 

Gas is still a bargain..

Its not much more expensive in real dollars than it was in the 1960s.

 

this only suggests that you are a conspiracist.

who is taxed to breathe?

would they have passed the car if you replaced the catalyctic converter, but not the tyres?

if so, they have extremely lax standards where you are, and I expect a high rate of vehicle accidents.

You should be ashamed of yourself anyway, driving with bald tyres. you shouldn't need the vehicle inspector to tell you when you need new tyres.

 

no.

increased fuel prices is caused by other factors - but as Margot says - the real price is not much more than it was in the 1960's.

 

Okay, so my electric bill didn't increase, by price per KW this month. I guess i forgot how to read numbers for that time i was looking at my bill...

Its called false supply shortages. When companies like GE get waivers from these climate reform laws, and we see more and more powerplants being shut down, this lowers supply.

Lets use basic economics for this one...

Supply v. Demand

Well obviously demand is always increasing...
But at the same time, due to regulations, closing down power plants, lowering the SUPPLY.

In Econ 101 i learned, when supply decreases, and demand increases, prices increase...

Oh, and by Fossil fuel prices, that was off topic sorry, i should insert COAL instead of Fossil fuel... and due to clean coal regulations, that price has skyrocketed...

 

There is NO supply shortage.

 

ive already proven it has shortened. you prove that it hasnt.

 

(Reuters) - The U.S. power industry will probably retire up to 20 percent of the country's coal-fired electricity generating capacity this decade, due to proposed federal environmental regulations, consulting firm ICF International said in a report on Wednesday.

Fairfax, Virginia-based ICF, which helps utilities meet environmental rules, among other things, said grid operators and regulators in charge of reliability will have to work with environmental regulators to ensure the system remains reliable as 30 to 50 gigawatts of coal-fired generation are shut.

"This type of large-scale retirement can be accommodated without sacrificing system reliability, provided that the retirements are undertaken in a coordinated manner and with sufficient flexibility," ICF said.

ICF said the units would likely retire due to various proposed air emissions rules by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with implementation deadlines over the next few years.

To meet the proposed rules, ICF said many utilities will retire older and smaller coal plants rather than spend millions to retrofit the units. Most retirements will occur in the Midwest and Southeast, which has the largest concentration of coal-fired capacity.

"The scope and scale of this potential loss of generation capacity is unprecedented, and there is little comparable real-world experience to draw upon," ICF said.

Shutting a plant is not as easy as it sounds.

It requires an economic decision by the owner, a request to deactivate the plant, analysis by a regulator on that request, possible assignment into so-called reliability must run (RMR) status, possible development of replacement capacity and finally removal of the plant, ICF said.

Many plants slated for closure will probably have to delay their decommissioning for years to ensure reliability of the power grid, ICF said, under special RMR rules designed to keep plants running long enough to support reliability concerns.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Plants that fail to retrofit or retire by the EPA deadlines "could incur heavy civil and criminal penalties", ICF said.

The Midwest ISO, which operates the power grid in all or parts of 12 U.S. Midwest states and the Canadian province of Manitoba, could lose 11 GW of coal plants, according to ICF, which would affect reliability in some states.

Two other regions ICF pointed to with a lot of small and old coal plants are PJM, which operates in all or parts of 13 U.S. Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia, and the SERC region, which oversees all or parts of 16 U.S. Southeast and Central states.

The Ercot grid in Texas and the Southwest Power Pool, which operates grids in nine Great Plains and South Central states, have also said the proposed EPA rules could hurt reliability in their regions.

As of July 2011, generating companies have already announced plans to retire about 23 GW of coal power plants.

A gigawatt equals 1,000 megawatts. A megawatt is enough energy to power about 1,000 homes.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/greenbiz-us-utilities-coal-usa-epa-idUKTRE76Q5OZ20110727