Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Nuclear Power: After Japan, what now?

top: howstuffworks.com / © iStockphoto.com/caracterdesign


To those interested in the world’s future power supply



Extracts from the media following the disaster in Japan:

  • "With one massive lurch, planet Earth has put an end to the nuclear power "renaissance" that was gaining momentum around the world as a safe, clean energy source."
  • "But in mere moments, Mother Nature showed the world how vulnerable nuclear power plants really are to the whims of the unexpected."
  • "Once the Japanese think things over, I expect they will make the right decision, namely to shut down all 55 of their current reactors and cancel the 11 new reactors they have planned. And other countries will likely come to the same conclusion. The natural and human risks make the chance of a repeated nuclear reactor catastrophe extremely high . . . If the world then follows Japan's example, then energy costs will certainly rise, but so will the incentive to develop better alternatives."
  • "The disaster has prompted a rethink of nuclear power around the world, just as the technology was starting to regain momentum as a tool to fight global warming."
  • "Switzerland freezes plans to build more nuclear plants, Germany raises questions about its nuclear future, and opposition to atomic reactor construction mounts from Turkey to South Africa."
  • "Will explosions and other worries at disaster-stricken Japanese nuclear plants halt what has come to be known as the nuclear renaissance?"
  • "Fears about nuclear safety that took a generation to overcome after the accidents at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island are resurfacing around the globe. They are casting new doubt on a controversial energy source that has seen resurgence in recent years amid worries about volatile oil prices and global warming."
As I see it.....

by L. Berney


Nuclear Power: After Japan, what now?

The nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima in Japan

There are 439 Nuclear Plants operating world-wide providing 6.3% of the world's energy.

Nuclear power is controversial; opponents believe that nuclear power poses serious threats to people and the environment -- an “accident waiting to happen”. Indeed, several serious nuclear and radiation accidents have occurred: Windscale, UK (1957); Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union (1957); Three Mile Island, USA (1979; Chernobyl, Ukraine(1986); and currently Fukushima, Japan (2011).

The current nuclear catastrophe in Japan threatens to contaminate an entire nation with radiation. Other countries are heeding the wake-up call from the worse nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Germany has decided to temporarily shut down seven older nuclear plants while it studies a more rapid conversion to renewable energy. China is suspending new nuclear power plant approvals and expediting inspections at existing plants. Spain has ordered a review of its nation's nuclear plants. Israel is now seriously rethinking nuclear power. New Zealand has banned nuclear. Many other countries are “rethinking” their nuclear policies.

In recent years, Nuclear Power Plants have been seen by many governments as one of the solutions to their country’s future source of power. Now, in the light of the disaster in Japan, world public opinion will almost certainly prohibit the construction of new Nuclear Power Plants. In that event, what other possible solution to the World’s power problem is available?

This paper examines that problem and the possible solution.

First, a few facts.

HOW MUCH POWER DO WE USE?

A colossal amount! The power we use from all sources is equivalent to the power contained in 130,000,000 tons of oil a year!

About 2/3 of the power we use is in the form of electricity for lighting, heating, communications, and to drive many millions of electric motors to work just about everything. 1/3 of the power we use is in the form of portable fuel (diesel, gasoline, natural gas) for road vehicles, aircraft and shipping.

HOW MUCH POWER WILL WE NEED OVER THE NEXT DECADES?

Certainly much more than we consume now. Here are some of the reasons:

* The population of the world is set to increase from the 6.8 Billion that it is now, to 9.5 Billion by 2050.

* Of the world’s present population, about one third, over 2 Billion, live below the poverty line. We need to lift those 2 Billion people out of poverty. This will require large volumes of power.

* If, as scientists predict, in the coming decades we will experience climate change and sea-level rise, many millions of people will have to be re-located. This will require also require large amounts of additional power.

* The world is running out of both drinking and irrigation water. The shortage can be met by De-Salination Plants, but these consume large amounts of electricity

Over the last 50 years, the world’s power consumption has been increasing by around 2% each year. If it continues to increase at that rate, in 50 years’ time we will need nearly three times as much power as we use now.

WHERE DOES OUR POWER COME FROM?

Currently, 87% of the world’s power consumption is obtained from the three fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear contributes 6%, and another 6% comes from Hydroelectric Plants (dams). Only about 1% is generated from the ‘Renewables’, Solar, Wind, Biofuel and Geothermal (natural hot water).

Other possible sources not so far developed are Wave-power, Tidal Flow, and Geothermal (using the Earth’s subterranean heat).

THE PROBLEM WITH FOSSIL FUELS

As stated above, by far the largest source of our power comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas, the Fossil Fuels. Looking forward, the world is presented with a major problem:

* The reserves of coal, oil and natural gas are finite, not replaceable.

* We are using up these reserves at an ever increasing rate – thus the remaining reserves are being depleted at an ever increasing rate.

* Accessing those remaining reserves is becoming progressively more difficult.

* Because of the increasing difficulty, the price of power will progressively increase.

* Burning fossil fuels generates CO2 which many scientists believe is causing climate change and sea-level rise.

* Every country needs power, yet the major sources of that power, the three fossil fuels, are only found in some of the world’s countries. The increasing scarcity will inevitably cause international friction and even wars between the ‘have’ and ‘have not’ countries.

Over the coming decades we must phase out the generation of power by fossil fuels and replace it by phasing in an alternative source of power.

HOW COULD FOSSIL FUELS BE REPLACED?

Remembering that fossil fuels supply 87% of the power we consume, there is no possibility that this 87% can be replaced by solar, wind, biofuel, hydroelectric, tidal-flow or wave-power.

Nuclear Power could, in theory, replace fossil fuels. The number of plants required to replace the current consumption of fossil fuels would be up from the present 439 to a number in the order of 7,000 plants and, to keep pace with the World’s increasing needs over the coming decades, possibly up to three times that number. Nuclear plants on that scale would present vast problems in the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste and the supply of sufficient uranium.

However, logistical considerations apart, after the disaster in Japan public opinion will almost certainly prohibit the construction of any new nuclear plants in the foreseeable future.

So, where is our power to come from? How can we replace fossil fuels? Is there a solution?

Fortunately there is: the solution is Geothermal Energy.

WHAT IS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY?

Geothermal Energy is “Energy in the form of Heat emanating from within the Earth”.

At certain places on the Earth, subterranean reservoirs of hot water exist naturally. Natural hot springs were used in ancient times but it was not until the beginning of the 20th Century in Italy that natural hot water was used to generate electricity. Today Geothermal Power Plants using natural hot water exist in Iceland, USA, China, Sweden, New Zealand, Indonesia, and in several other countries.

The principle is simple. A well is drilled from the surface down to a natural reservoir of hot water. The water emerges as steam which is used to power a traditional steam turbine electricity generating plant. The spent steam is condensed back to water which is recycled back to the reservoir by means of another well – a closed loop system. The heat emanating from the centre of the earth reheats the reservoir.

A Geothermal Power Plant in Iceland (The white emission is surplus steam)

Unfortunately, the planet holds relatively few such natural reservoirs of hot water. A few years ago, in Europe and in Australia, work was commenced on creating subterranean hot water reservoirs; the process is named an Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS). These pilot plants have proved the viability of the system.

The temperature of the Earth’s centre is some 6,000ºC. It is a fact that, just anywhere on the Earth’s surface, if you drill down, the deeper you go, the hotter it gets. For an EGS to operate, the temperature of the water being raised to the surface must be 200+ºC. Inevitably, the temperature of the subterranean rock will at some depth reach that critical temperature of 200+ºC. The actual depth varies from place to place but, on average, the critical 200+ºC temperature is reached at 3 to 5 miles (5 to 8 Km) below the Earth’s surface.

At an EGS plant, water is pumped at very high pressure down a well (the Injection Well) which fractures the rock surrounding the end of the bore hole – this process, “Hydraulic Fracturing”, has for many years been in general use in the oil and gas industry. The injected water percolates through the fractured rock and forms an artificial or engineered underground reservoir. A second well (a Production Well) is bored some distance from the Injection Well. The injected water, raised to a high temperature by its passage through the fractured hot rock, travels up the Production Well emerging at the surface as superheated steam. The steam powers the turbines of a standard Electrical Power plant. The spent steam is condensed back to water and is injected down the Injection Well to replenish the engineered reservoir. The method of drilling the wells is the same as used in the oil and gas industry.


Hot Dry Rock Power Generation

In 2006 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report on “The Future of Geothermal Energy in the United States”. The findings include:
  • We estimate the extractable portion of the geothermal resource to exceed 2,000 times the annual consumption in the United States in 2005. With technological improvements the economically extractable amount of useful energy could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making geothermal energy sustainable for centuries
  • The advantages of EGS are many: A continuous, inexhaustible, renewable ‘base load’ power source; Security of supply -- every country generates its own power -- no imports and therefore avoidance of international conflict; Environmentally friendly -- low-rise plants with small land usage; Completely safe – no danger to surrounding population or site workers; No nuclear waste problem; 100% clean -- no CO2 or other emissions; Low electric unit cost; No storage or transport costs.
THE PRIZE

If the World were to adopt a programme of converting to Geothermal Energy, existing coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear electricity generating plants would be gradually replaced by EGS-powered generating plants. By or before 2050, the World would have discontinued the mining and use of coal, oil and gas; would be free of the harmful emissions that the burning of fossil fuels inevitably create; we would have eliminated the potential for conflict between the fossil fuel ‘have’ and ‘have not’ countries; we would have eliminated the danger of nuclear radioactive contamination; road vehicles, ships and aircraft would be emission-free, powered by electricity or electrically made hydrogen -- we would have eliminated city smog; and we would be well on the way to the elimination of poverty world-wide.

FURTHER READING ON ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM

L.Berney

March 2011

Note This paper includes many statements for which, in the interest of brevity, no source has been quoted. However, on request, I will supply corroboration for any and all of the statements made.

Sunday, 27 March 2011

Libya and the U.N. Resolution No. 1973


As I See It………

by L. Berney

THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER states:

Chapter I - Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security among nations, . . .
2. To develop friendly relations among nations . . .
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems. . .
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations . . .

Article 2

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . .

Chapter VII - Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 (Economic measures) would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rites of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Extracts from the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States

Article 1

Every State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2

Every State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3

Every State has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other State.

Article 9

Every State has the duty to refrain from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with international law and order.


NEVERTHELESS, AND IN SPITE OF THE WORDING ABOVE, THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION Nº 1973

Security Council Resolution Nº 1973 on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011 based, it claims, on Chapter VII of the UN Charter (See Articles 42 and 43 above). The resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.

Ten Security Council members voted in the affirmative (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Five (Brazil, Germany, and India, and permanent members China and Russia) abstained, with none opposed.

The resolution demands "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizes the international community to establish a “no-fly zone” over Libya and to use “all means necessary” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.

MY PERSONAL CONCLUSION

From the extracts quoted above, it is clear that the function of the United Nations is to deal with international problems between nations, not to intervene in problems of civil unrest and revolutions within nations.

It is apparent to me that under the provisions of the Charter. . .
  • the State of Libya has NOT requested the U.N. to intervene.
  • the State of Libya HAS THE RIGHT to exercise jurisdiction over its own territory
  • the situation there IS essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State of Libya.
  • it IS within the people of Libya’s right to choose their own form of government
And that, again under the provisions of the Charter, the situation within Libya . . .
  • is NOT a threat to international peace and security among nations.
  • does NOT give other states the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of Libya.
  • does NOT give the right of any state to threaten or to use force against Libya’s territorial integrity or political independence.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation there, the UN Charter does NOT give the UN the right to resort to war against Libya.

Resolution Nº 1973 contravenes the UN Charter.

L.Berney

March 2011

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Affordable Art Fair 2011, London

I had an amazing time at the Private View of the Affordable Art Fair 2011, in Battersea, London last night!

The art displayed in 120 stands was truly inspirational - it blew me away - and I met and got photos with 3 major celebs, plus bumped into a childhood friend.

I also met my favourite living artist, Chuck Elliott, and made a new friend: the amazing photographer Barry Cawston.

It was a fantastic day!

With Joanna Lumley

With Sol Campbell

With Catherine Tate

With my favourite (living) artist, Chuck Elliott

Monday, 21 February 2011

Looming Failure to Curb Drink & Drug Addiction

ADD

ADDICTION RECOVERY TRAINING SERVICES

(ARTS) A not-for-profit community support organisation.

ARTS House

Plaw Hatch Lane

SHARPTHORNE

West Sussex, RH19 4JL


Phone: (+44) (0) (1342) 810151

e-mail: keneck@btopenworld.com

PRESS RELEASE

Monday 21 February 2011.



LOOMING FAILURE TO CURB DRINK & DRUG ADDICTION



At a conference held on Saturday at ARTS’s H.Q. in Sussex, Kenneth Eckersley (the C.E.O. of Addiction Recovery Training Services) opened by praising the Coalition government’s new drugs strategy.


He applauded the government’s statement that the result it expects from any addiction rehabilitation provision which seeks payment from tax-payer funds must be “lasting abstinence” - especially as this goal has the full approval of the populace at large and of a majority of addicts.


“Government have also indicated that remuneration for this result will be made only on a “Payment by Results” basis, and in these hard economic times, “deliver the goods and then we’ll pay you” sounds about right”, said Ken.


However, this simple and straightforward demand for a recovery provision which delivers a lasting return to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of us are born, is exposing the shocking scarcity of effective abstinence results achieved by the main providers of so-called “rehabilitation treatment” over the last 60 years.


Supporters of that out-of-date status quo psycho-pharmaceutical “treatment” scene falsely claim this reveals the optimistic nature of the government’s whole concept which, the NHS’s failed National Treatment Agency took the opportunity to assert, confirms the necessity for commissioning “a range of services . . . . to provide tailored packages of care and support”. i.e, exactly what the NHS / NTA have already been commissioning from providers for the six decades of our failing and deteriorating drink and drug usage scene.



(2)


In truth however, proof that the government’s new policy is already working IS THIS EXPOSURE of the paucity of results from existing providers which, far from being an excuse for abandoning the main pillar of this worthwhile new policy, is the right reason for the government to demand that ALL rehabilitation suppliers adopt the methodology of those smaller providers who regularly DO deliver lasting abstinence.


The massive resistance this suggestion will likely provoke from the Department of Health will as usual be engineered by psycho-pharmaceutical vested interests intent on protecting the multi-billion income they make from the system of policies they have persuaded successive health authorities to install over the last half century.


This is because “treatment”, care and support are provenly not a route to lasting abstinence. That result is achieved by the sort of self-help “training” which is delivered in at least 169 centres (including prison units) across 43 countries and which has been expanding for 45 years.


Introducing effective do-it-for-yourself training would no longer require well paid psychiatric practitioners to run care-homes, day centres and clinics on pharmaceutical intervention principles, and would thus markedly slash their incomes.


As a result (Ken pointed out) the large and entrenched ineffective providers have quite naturally already covertly started to fight this new policy. First (via the NHS / NTA) by immediately securing a 34 month delay in the implementation of the new policy - that delay being based on a quickly trumped up requirement for “piloting” the activities and results it is already well known such current providers cannot deliver.


As a consequence, the second news (at the end of 2013) will obviously be that: “pilots run by major providers have shown that a restriction of results to “lasting abstinence” is only achievable in 25% of cases, thus making Payment only by Results economically non-viable” . . . .


The NHS will then no doubt repeat what the NTA said in February 2011: If we’re going to deliver recovery, we can’t deliver recovery to 200,000 people”, PLUS what the NTA then further quoted: “whilst our ultimate goal is to enable individuals to become free from their dependence, we equally recommend a range of services providing treatment, care and support which match the requirements of individual service users”.



(3)


The so-called “pilots” will meanwhile have already ensured a continuation of the existing failed “treatment” provision for nearly three years, and the above expected recommendation for a return to square-one will continue that. The citizens and government of the U.K. will have lost out again, and the psycho-pharms will have reasserted their control of U.K. government “drugs policy” and continuing nearly monopolistic provision of their profitable brands of so-called “treatment”.


To avoid this, those “drugs Ministers” not in the Department of Health must recognise that the NHS does not and cannot cure drink and drug addiction in any significant measure, and in fact depends on external providers who are equally ineffective.


As a consequence, we must all recognise that whilst medical help is both valuable and appropriate where addicts have overdosed or wrecked their health, tackling the recovery of an addict is a personal matter which only the individual him or her self can handle – provided they are trained into what to do and then coached in how to apply it to themselves.


Once an individual student knows and has these tools AND has successfully applied them, he always has them (plus his self-recovery experience) as a protection against any further temptation and relapse.


Various discussions on similar lines were initiated by questions from the floor, and at the end of the afternoon, a proposition was put by a Northern delegate as follows:


“Whilst we value and fully appreciate the great work and dedication of the NHS and its personnel, we are dismayed at the way in which its policies and practices in respect of drug addiction are manipulated by psycho-pharmaceutical commercial interests and therefore have no faith whatsoever in the NHS’s ability to bring lasting abstinent recovery to drink and drug dependent users.


Recovery from addiction is provenly not an NHS capability.”


THIS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

_________________________________

ENDS: 937 words, including headline.

ICTION RECOVERY TRAINING SERVICES

(ARTS) A not-for-profit community support organisation.

ARTS House

Plaw Hatch Lane

SHARPTHORNE

West Sussex

RH19 4JL


Phone: (+44) (0) (1342) 810151

e-mail: keneck@btopenworld.com

PRESS RELEASE

Monday 21 February 2011.



LOOMING FAILURE TO CURB DRINK & DRUG ADDICTION



At a conference held on Saturday at ARTS’s H.Q. in Sussex, Kenneth Eckersley (the C.E.O. of Addiction Recovery Training Services) opened by praising the Coalition government’s new drugs strategy.


He applauded the government’s statement that the result it expects from any addiction rehabilitation provision which seeks payment from tax-payer funds must be “lasting abstinence” - especially as this goal has the full approval of the populace at large and of a majority of addicts.


“Government have also indicated that remuneration for this result will be made only on a “Payment by Results” basis, and in these hard economic times, “deliver the goods and then we’ll pay you” sounds about right”, said Ken.


However, this simple and straightforward demand for a recovery provision which delivers a lasting return to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of us are born, is exposing the shocking scarcity of effective abstinence results achieved by the main providers of so-called “rehabilitation treatment” over the last 60 years.


Supporters of that out-of-date status quo psycho-pharmaceutical “treatment” scene falsely claim this reveals the optimistic nature of the government’s whole concept which, the NHS’s failed National Treatment Agency took the opportunity to assert, confirms the necessity for commissioning “a range of services . . . . to provide tailored packages of care and support”. i.e, exactly what the NHS / NTA have already been commissioning from providers for the six decades of our failing and deteriorating drink and drug usage scene.


In truth however, proof that the government’s new policy is already working IS THIS EXPOSURE of the paucity of results from existing providers which, far from being an excuse for abandoning the main pillar of this worthwhile new policy, is the right reason for the government to demand that ALL rehabilitation suppliers adopt the methodology of those smaller providers who regularly DO deliver lasting abstinence.


The massive resistance this suggestion will likely provoke from the Department of Health will as usual be engineered by psycho-pharmaceutical vested interests intent on protecting the multi-billion income they make from the system of policies they have persuaded successive health authorities to install over the last half century.


This is because “treatment”, care and support are provenly not a route to lasting abstinence. That result is achieved by the sort of self-help “training” which is delivered in at least 169 centres (including prison units) across 43 countries and which has been expanding for 45 years.


Introducing effective do-it-for-yourself training would no longer require well paid psychiatric practitioners to run care-homes, day centres and clinics on pharmaceutical intervention principles, and would thus markedly slash their incomes.


As a result (Ken pointed out) the large and entrenched ineffective providers have quite naturally already covertly started to fight this new policy. First (via the NHS / NTA) by immediately securing a 34 month delay in the implementation of the new policy - that delay being based on a quickly trumped up requirement for “piloting” the activities and results it is already well known such current providers cannot deliver.


As a consequence, the second news (at the end of 2013) will obviously be that: “pilots run by major providers have shown that a restriction of results to “lasting abstinence” is only achievable in 25% of cases, thus making Payment only by Results economically non-viable” . . . .


The NHS will then no doubt repeat what the NTA said in February 2011: If we’re going to deliver recovery, we can’t deliver recovery to 200,000 people”, PLUS what the NTA then further quoted: “whilst our ultimate goal is to enable individuals to become free from their dependence, we equally recommend a range of services providing treatment, care and support which match the requirements of individual service users”.


The so-called “pilots” will meanwhile have already ensured a continuation of the existing failed “treatment” provision for nearly three years, and the above expected recommendation for a return to square-one will continue that. The citizens and government of the U.K. will have lost out again, and the psycho-pharms will have reasserted their control of U.K. government “drugs policy” and continuing nearly monopolistic provision of their profitable brands of so-called “treatment”.


To avoid this, those “drugs Ministers” not in the Department of Health must recognise that the NHS does not and cannot cure drink and drug addiction in any significant measure, and in fact depends on external providers who are equally ineffective.


As a consequence, we must all recognise that whilst medical help is both valuable and appropriate where addicts have overdosed or wrecked their health, tackling the recovery of an addict is a personal matter which only the individual him or her self can handle – provided they are trained into what to do and then coached in how to apply it to themselves.


Once an individual student knows and has these tools AND has successfully applied them, he always has them (plus his self-recovery experience) as a protection against any further temptation and relapse.


Various discussions on similar lines were initiated by questions from the floor, and at the end of the afternoon, a proposition was put by a Northern delegate as follows:


“Whilst we value and fully appreciate the great work and dedication of the NHS and its personnel, we are dismayed at the way in which its policies and practices in respect of drug addiction are manipulated by psycho-pharmaceutical commercial interests and therefore have no faith whatsoever in the NHS’s ability to bring lasting abstinent recovery to drink and drug dependent users.


Recovery from addiction is provenly not an NHS capability.”


THIS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

_________________________________

ENDS: 937 words, including headline.

Saturday, 1 January 2011

Climate Change Controversy Position at the end of 2010

As I See It…………………

PUBLIC OPINION

There seems to be general acceptance of fact that the average temperature of the world is indeed increasing. The hard evidence is there: melting glaciers, shrinking ice cover at the North and South poles.

However, there appears to be an increasing doubt among the public that man-made CO2 is or is likely to be the main cause of this increase in world temperatures and therefore climate change, and that the prediction by scientists that we are heading for a disaster is either untrue or is greatly exaggerated.

A typical example is the following summary of the opinion poll carried out by the BBC in 2009 and repeated in 2010.

Question: Do you think that the Earth’s climate is changing?

2009 / 2010

YES: 85% / 75%

NO: 15% / 25%

NET: YES 60% / 50%

CONCLUSION
There has been a drop of 10% in people believing that climate change is taking place.

Now, in 2010, only half the population believes the climate is changing.

Of the 'was 85% now 75%' who believe the climate is changing:

Question: Which of these three statements is nearest the truth?
  1. It is an established scientific fact that the climate change is largely man‐made.“This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 50% 2010 34% DOWN 16% OR
  2. Climate change is largely man‐made but this has not yet been conclusively proved. This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 39% 2010 50% UP 11% OR
  3. Man‐made climate change is environmentalist propaganda for which there is little or no real evidence. “This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 9% 2010 14% UP 5%
CONCLUSION
The changes in the opinions between the two years reveal the public’s growing skepticism of the environmentalists’ case. Now, in 2010, less than half the public believe that it is a proven fact that man-made CO2 is causing climate change.

THE SKEPTICS’ CASE

The arguments of those scientists who oppose the environmentalists’ “man-made CO2 is to blame”, the Skeptics, can be summarized as follows:
  • The admitted changes in measured temperatures are part of the natural cycle
  • There is no conclusive evidence that climate change is happening
  • Even if part of these the changes are human induced, the scale is not sufficiently large to make substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary
  • The economic impact of making substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale suggested by the IPCC is certain to cause hardship; such steps are unjustified and unnecessary.
  • The dire predictions of global warming rely on computer models based on unproven assumed values of the large number of variables those models entail.
  • Those models don't include the highly relevant variations in the Sun’s output.
  • Over the last 100 years atmospheric CO2 has risen by a third, but the average world temperature has risen by only 0.75ºC.
  • Historically, the human race has benefited from, not been harmed by, global warm periods
As stated above, public opinion appears to be swinging towards the skeptics’ case and away from the IPPC environmentalists’ case.

THE CANCUN SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

In November/December 2010, there was a 12 day Summit Conference in Cancun, Mexico. Nearly 200 countries took part. The aim was to make progress on several issues in the hope of re-instilling faith in the IPCC’s recommendations. The principle objective was for all counties to enter into legal and binding treaties to reduce their CO2 emissions to a specified annual output by the year 2020 so that global warming is kept to less than 2ºC above pre-industrial (1950) levels.

The outcome was a general agreement, but NOT the adoption of legal and binding treaties, to achieve the objective cuts. It has been said that one of the reasons that the results hoped for by the environmentalists was not achieved was the recognition by the delegates of the public’s increasing doubt of the need for drastic measures to be adopted.

CARBON TRADING SCHEMES

Carbon Trading Schemes (sometimes called ‘Cap-and-Trade’) have been operating for several years. The objective of these schemes is to reduce the volume of CO2 released to the atmosphere by commercial companies. In 2007 European Union introduced the largest of such schemes, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

(for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_carbon_trading_scheme)

Some other countries have or are planning to introduce similar schemes. USA, the largest producer of CO2 has no Federal scheme but several of the States have introduced their own schemes.

Carbon Emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit, the quantity of carbon dioxide exchanged through projects in 2005 showed a 240% increase relative to 2004 which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003. In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the carbon market was $11 billion in 2005, $30 billion in 2006, and $64 billion in 2007.

Climate Exchanges have been established to provide a spot market in allowances, as well as a futures and options market. Currently there are five exchanges trading in carbon allowances: the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, Nord Pool, PowerNext and the European Energy Exchange. Managing emissions is now one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London; in 2007 the market was estimated to be worth about €30 billion. With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market. The head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.”

For an explanation of how the carbon market works see:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4F6F3D35-93BF-4CDD-8C13-7B73FDD57831/0/SUS_carbontradingguide.pdf

CRITICISM.
There is considerable criticism of how the existing schemes work. Carbon trading schemes have tended to reward the heaviest polluters with ‘windfall profits’ when they are granted enough carbon credits to match historic production. Carbon trading encourages business-as-usual as expensive long-term structural changes won’t be made if there is a cheaper source of carbon credits. Cheap “offset” carbon credits are frequently available from the less developed countries, where they may be generated by local polluters at the expense of local communities.

So far I have been unable to find any evidence that these schemes have, in fact, brought about a world-wide reduction in CO2 emission. Some calculations show that there has even been a slight increase. Whether carbon trading schemes are having the desired result or not, certainly a new financial industry, Carbon Trading, has developed and the carbon market’s brokers are enjoying increasingly large incomes.

Government initiatives to eliminate harmful gas emissions sometimes have unintended consequences. Here is an example. In the USA chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide. But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.’s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 in order to have more of the byproduct to destroy!

“The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits,” said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. “This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change.

L.Berney
January 2011