Gang-green brought Spain and California to the brink of bankruptcy. Britain is in the same condition as Greece except the day of reckoning has a few years grace due to the term of gov't bonds. As for Spain, the other PIIGS and the UK, gang-green idealogues have played a major role in bringing nations to their knees. If EC and governmental incompetence and deceit was payable in pounds of flesh from those responsible, bureaucracy would be 98% lighter.
"Green" describes not environmentalism but the susceptibility of those that subscribe to the gang-green agenda. These range from the media, environmental groups, energy users, advocacy org's, scientific organisations such as the RS and NAS, judges and activists to taxpayers and product supporters such as huhne and Cameron with his comic domestic wind turbine.
"Gang-green" describes the bandwagon of interests that have hitched their carriage to the "green" gravy train. The IPCC, the EU, the UN and politicians have used propaganda and lies to get the public to support the base and baseless eco-fascist ideology in order to increase revenue and extend gov't control by growing bureaucracy, NGOs and quangos. Business such as wind turbine sellers have used deceptive presentation of facts and omission of huge downsides to derive profit from public and private investment. Energy suppliers have supported the scam in the same way even down to the National Grid that is set to reap a substantial income increase by upgrading infrastructure to support integration of wind, to the detriment of end users of course. Scientists have used the scam to get guaranteed funding by including such as "study to determine harmful influence of AGW emissions" when they know the benefits both of CO2 emissions AND warming far and away outweigh negatives. Food retailers have used the green tag to attach an otherwise unjustifiable price hike to products. Media has consistently presented a one-sided view. Investigative journalism went out of the window when gang-green moved in. I guess the allegiance of owners*** had nothing to do with it.
The Club of Rome (Madrid and Budapest and thousands of offshoots) given form at Rockefellers estate in April 1968 with Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist designated as founders is a major force behind gang-green. The political agenda is described here.
The highly profitable scam of carbon trading was set up by Enron, Dupont, Soros, Strong and Gore with aid from Obama, supported and endorsed by the EC that used credits as a method to transfer wealth to Asia as a gift. The CoR is highly influential being an advisor to the EC and with members in the EC-EU, UN and governments throughout the world. Their stated objective is an eco-fascist world gov't using any means including fabricated climate scares, medical and financial alarms, supported by the EC, successive prime ministers from Eden on, as well as Cameron, Obama, Houghton and his IPCC and Hadley CRU, the RS and many, many other influential eco fascists. CoR admitted the failure of the green agenda and came up with the blue agenda.
EU renewable energy
The Renewable Energy Directive requires E.U. member states to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with renewable fuels — overwhelmingly biofuels — by 2020. Biofuels currently account for 3.4 percent of transport fuel use in the E.U. The Renewable Energy Directive takes effect in December 2010.
E.U. Memo: Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels
Just another reasonless, invented to extend bureaucracy and create quangos at the expense of VAT and taxpayers.
What are biofuels?
Biofuels are transport fuels made from biomass. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops; used to replace petrol) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils; used to replace diesel). Biofuels accounted for about 3.4 % of transport fuel consumption in 2008 – up from 0.5% five years earlier.
Biofuels are killers. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.
Why do we need biofuels?
We need biofuels to fight climate change and to help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% as pledged by the European Council in 2007. Biofuels are the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport, which produces more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.
Apart from the now blatant lie that human CO2 emissions are harmful, by their own disgraceful standards "We need biofuels" is patently false. Many countries have gas reserves sufficient for hundreds of years. Most countries have large coal reserves. Oil won't be in short supply unless foreigners like Obama ban drilling or tax maniacs make it prohibitively expensive.
"... help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%" is a patently false statement. Land use change from non cropped to biofuel cropped means an increase in irrigation. An increase in irrigation means more water going into the air as water vapour. WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2 in that it stores energy. CO2 instantly releases energy that it intercepts. But you can't get political and financial benefit from emissions of the GHG water vapour because the gullible public just ain't that gullible.
Read this:
Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming Evaporation cools the air next to the surface by moving heat into the atmosphere as latent heat that is released by condensation in cloud formation. Irrigation has increased globally. It accelerated to the late 70s then slowed dramatically.
Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture
Fischer et al. (2007) estimated an increase in global irrigation water requirements of 45 percent between 2000 and 2080. Irrigation water requirements were projected to increase by around 50 percent in developing regions and 16 percent in developed regions.
----
Note increasing CO2 volume reduces water dependency of crops. The estimates are probably wrong by 10-15%.
In the half-century after World War II, the irrigated area of the world tripled from approximately 90 million hectares to 270 million hectares, an annual compound growth rate of over 2.5%. Most of the irrigated land is in the developing countries; over half is in Asia. There is a wide variation among regions in the fraction of cropland irrigated. Almost all of the cropland in North Africa and the Middle East is irrigated, over 20% in Asia, but 12% or less in the rest of the world.
The growth of irrigated areas in the developing world during this period was strongly influenced by two periods of severe drought: the drought in the Indian subcontinent in the mid-1960s, and the more general drought and shortfall in grain production accompanied by the energy crisis and fertilizer shortages in the mid-1970s. The Green Revolution—the development and spread of higher-yielding, shorter-season, fertilizer-responsive varieties—was closely associated with the expansion of irrigation.
The expansion of irrigation has been based mostly on the construction of new dams and reservoirs or, where ground water is readily available, through the use of tube wells. These reservoirs help to assure water supplies and allow carry-over of surplus flows in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Of the more than 40,000 large dams (defined by the International Commission on Large Dams as measuring 15 meters from foundation to crest), all but 5,000 have been built since 1950 .
Hmm.
I wonder how much of a water surface increase dams have given us. Plucking a number from the air, say an average 20 sq. miles would give 700,000 sq. miles. Then there is the acceleration of evaporation of the Caspian due to dams. How many marinas, garden ponds and swimming pools, since the 50s? The list is endless. I remind that WV is a GHG.
See the tables below for carbon debt offset terms. How does the EU promote biofuels? Deceptively.
The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive1 sets binding targets for renewable energy. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption. In addition, in the transport sector, all Member States have to reach the same target of a 10% share of renewable energy. Biofuels are the main form of renewable energy used in transport.
What the effect of this new web of deceit entanglement will be is to cause an artificial shortage of biofuel in Europe and force up the price bringing higher returns to investors such as perhaps commissioners and representatives. It will do nothing to alleviate land use change that is at the root of emissions. Even by their own standards of incompetence, self service and obeisance to the banking octopus dictates, this is a new low for the criminals in the EC and its rubber stamp parliament.
What is new in two Communications? A different certificate scam.
- Sustainable Biofuel Certificate: The Commission encourages industry, governments and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes for biofuels. The Commission will assess whether these schemes are reliable and have fraud-resistant auditing. The certificates guarantee that all the biofuels sold under the label are sustainable and produced under the criteria set by the Renewable Energy Directive. All schemes have to have independent auditors which inspect the whole production chain, from the farmer to the trader and the fuel supplier.
- Protecting nature: The Commission explains very clearly which types of land can NOT be used to produce biofuels. These are: natural forests, protected areas, wetlands, peatlands. It explicitly rules out that forests can be converted into palm oil plantations.
So it's OK to produce biofuel on land that was cleared before this latest act of deception and fraud comes into force? - Promote only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings: The Commission explains how to prove that the biofuels used have high greenhouse gas savings. It explains that all those which do not achieve greenhouse gas savings of 35 % compared to petrol and diesel, will not be accepted. This threshold will rise to 50% in 2017. In the calculation, not only carbon dioxide is included, but also methane (CH4) and di-nitrous oxide (N2O), both stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
The best thing for the planet, humanity and civilisation would be for the creators of these scams to find a very high bridge and do us all a favour. They are a hazard to the climate, life and civilisation as is everyone that supports them.
No. It means that only biofuels that meet these conditions will count for the national targets the 27 EU Member States have to reach by 2020 under 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. This applies for all biofuels, whether they are produced within the European Union or imported from outside the EU. Only these biofuels can receive national public support such as tax relief.
So importation of biofuel produced by deforestation will continue.
How does the certificate work in practice?
Through any number of new quangos and increased bureaucracy.
An example: A UK fuel supplier who is using ethanol from Brazil has to notify the quantities of biofuels to the UK authorities. To show that they are sustainable according to the Directive, he can join a voluntary scheme. The fuel supplier has to make sure that throughout the production chain all records are kept, by the trader he buys the biofuels from, by the ethanol plant the trader buys the ethanol from, and by the farmer who supplies the ethanol plant with sugar cane. This control is done before the company is joining the scheme and at least once a year thereafter. The auditing is done as in the financial sector: The auditor is checking all the paper and inspects a sample of the farmers, mills and traders. He will check whether the land where the feedstock for the ethanol is produced has been indeed farm land before and not a tropical forest.
If the price of non certified biofuel is lower than the price of certified minus tax breaks, which would you buy considering certification is just another fraud to earn money for the EC and Al Gore types? Either way the users will pay more, i.e. who pays for the tax breaks?
Can I see a label, when I go to the filling station?
It is not obligatory for a certification scheme to mark the end product with a label. However, schemes are free to do so. It would also make sense from a promotional point of view, if filling stations could show that they have sustainable biofuels. This is even more the case when a scheme applies sustainability criteria going even further than those required by EU law.
Can I see clear labelling of how much of the price is tax? Nope. Green tag= price hike - always.
Have companies or governments already shown interest in setting up such a scheme?
The Commission is in contact with many different companies and organisations interested in setting up voluntary schemes. It is expected that now that it is clear what the requirements for auditing will be, they will come soon to ask the Commission for recognition of their voluntary schemes.
Can there not be fraud? Auditors are not there all the time. In the very unlikely case – and despite the independent auditing – that there would still be a suspicion of fraud, any one can bring a case to the Commission and the Commission could take back the recognition of a scheme.
If fraud was a concern of the EC it would have closed its accounts 14 years ago. That the self anointed bureaucratic layer has continued to receive illegal payments from nations means the commission past and present (that includes Kinnock) should be in front of a court for receiving monies illegally transferred by nations.
Under the fraudulent and ridiculously maintained litany that CO2 is a harmful GHG, (despite the increasing abundance of observational research that debunks models that haven't got it right for the last 15 of 22 years), carbon trading will continue. Biofuels producers that can show compliance will get credits. The fraudulent carbon credit scam that criminals found so easy to commit further fraud through is now to be extended to, tah da de dahhhh--- biofuel certificates. (Has the Obama/Strong/Soros/Gore quartet got the Chicago biofuel cert. exchange ready?)
What biofuels are used in transport?
In 2007 biodiesel accounted for 75% (6.1 Mtoe) of EU renewable fuels in transport, bioethanol constituted 15% (1.24 Mtoe), and the remaining 10% was pure vegetable oil.
How much biofuel is imported into the EU? In 2007, about 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol consumed in the EU was imported. Most of those imports came from Brazil and the USA. The overall majority of biofuels are produced in the European Union. On top of the sustainability criteria, EU biofuels have to show compliance with EU environmental law and agricultural requirements, including landscape maintance, protection of soil against erosion and management of the use of water.
Much of that was dumped in the EU by the US that has a surplus.
Land is limited. Do you not need to cut down forests to produce biofuels?
The 10% target would require some 2 – 5 Million hectares of land, according to different estimates of the net land use change impact. The EU has sufficient amount of land previously used for crop production and now no longer in arable use to cover the land needed, even if all the biofuels consumed were to be produced in Europe. Also in other parts of the world, there are alternatives to fresh deforestation. In Indonesia, there are an estimated 3 – 12 Million hectare of land that has been deforested in the past and left to become wasteland. It makes sense to bring this land into use.
See the chart below. Only 48 years to repay the carbon debt from such land use change alone.
Can you cut down rain forests and produce palm oil to make biofuels for the EU targets?
No. The Communication rules this out. It explicitly says that forests can not be converted into palm oil plantations. Yet that contradicts what was said above, it says that rain forests already cleared can be used instead of allowing recovery by secondary growth.
It also contradicts that such products are not banned, they just don't qualify for handouts of taxpayer money unless friends in the EC give a certificate.
Are most biofuels from palm oil?
Only about 4-5% of biofuel in the EU is produced from palm oil. This is about 1% of world palm oil production. Outside the EU the use of palm oil for biofuels is not large either. More than 95% of palm oil is used for food and industrial uses such as cosmetics. Between 2000 and 2008, palm oil production increased by 20 million tons. That is forty times as much as the amount of palm oil going into biofuels in the EU (500.000 tons). So, biofuels are not the main cause of deforestation. The sustainability criteria are however a clear deterrent for deforestation.
See the charts below. Biofuel crop prices drive deforestation and land use change by making cropping more attractive than e.g. growing real trees or animals.
EU studies show that biofuels are not saving greenhouse gas emissions. How is the EU reacting to this?
This is not the case. The recently released reports suggest that biofuels are saving greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will publish a report on indirect land use by the end of the year, as requested in the Renewable Energy Directive on the basis of these studies.
Cherry picked research is what got us this deep into debt, why would the EC divert from the con? Here we have patent lies from idealogues, idiots useful to the gang-green agenda and control freaks.
The following images (source U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction) demonstrate the price of soy has been forced as for wheat (corn) by its use as biofuel and so has driven deforestation. Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions.
An important study (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt - below the images) shows it can take up to 430 years for biofuels to repay the carbon debt for land change alone.
Biofuel production causes an increase in CO2 emissions.
For land clearance alone, when considered as a carbon debt it can take over 400 years to repay for palm oil and over 300 years for soy oil.
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Feb 2008 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/
Carbon debt, biofuel carbon debt allocation, annual carbon repayment rate, and years to repay biofuel carbon debt for nine scenarios of biofuel production. Means and SDs are from Monte Carlo analyses of literature-based estimates of carbon pools and fluxes (5).
(A) Carbon debt, including CO2 emissions from soils and above ground and below ground biomass resulting from habitat conversion.
(B) Proportion of total carbon debt allocated to biofuel production.
(C) Annual life-cycle GHG reduction from biofuels, including displaced fossil fuels and soil carbon storage.
(D) Number of years after conversion to biofuel production required for cumulative biofuel GHG reductions, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, to repay the biofuel carbon debt.
Also in an article (Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts), the following image shows carbon debts.
Add to that crops sequester far less CO2 than forests.Biofuel plants pollute U.S. rivers
Add to that biofuel NOx emissions.
Concerns over air quality could sink biodiesel sales in Texas
Add to that the (not a pollutant except to idealogues) CO2 produced by burning the damned stuff.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon
Biofuels 200 times more expensive than forest conservation for global warming mitigation
Facing criticism, biofuels industry forms new lobby group to influence lawmakers
Beyond high food prices, little to show for $11B/yr in biofuel support, says OECD reportCorn ethanol is worsening the Gulf dead zone
World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007, hurting the poor
UN: biofuels are starving the poor by driving up food prices
With subsidies, biofuel volume is ~same price as fosfuel. Except it produces ~a third less energy per unit.
Hemp yields ~3 times more ethanol per acre, 350 v 1000 gallons using far less fertiliser and water, and it is drought resistant. Is there a braincell to share in the EC?
If they can't make hemp legal for investment, greased palms and-or lobbyist reasons, get the Afghans to replace the heroin crops with hemp and give them a decent price for it.
The EC is committing blatant fraud by deception in several ways. Aside from the fraud that biofuel will reduce global warming, aside from the fraud that CO2 emissions are harmful, in the first instance biofuel from palm oil from new trees and soy grown on already deforested areas, palm oil and soy plantations already in existence in former rain forest land qualify. This is a carbon debt to the account of EC legislators, the commission and on the Bush/Obama admin. How many lifetimes to pay that back? These lands should be returned to secondary forest growth. Trees regulate the weather, and so the climate, not CO2.
More? Even with this addendum the whole downside is not covered.
*There are strong indications that the process to produce the fuel – including the machinery necessary to cultivate the crops and the plants to produce the fuel – has hefty carbon emissions.
*Water Use: Massive quantities of water are required for proper irrigation of biofuel crops as well as to manufacture the fuel, which could strain local and regional water resources.
*Smell: Biofuel production produces heavy smells depending on the type of materials used, and those smells are generally undesirable near large communities. While manufacturing plants can be isolated, this will add to the carbon emissions necessary to bring fuel to population centers.
As with wind energy, there is a small but genuine demand for biofuel. Inflated bureaucracy, especially unelected NGOs like the European Commission are like AIDS to society and like AIDS, the effects are devastating and remedies can be dire. When ideology supplants common sense, damaged and feeble minds are fertile ground. The free market and the public are subjected to the impositions of the beliefs of lunatic billionaires and fanatic activists without the legal constraint of cost benefit studies.
Had truly independent and exhaustive studies been conducted on CO2 emissions reduction (regardless of whether it is a warming gas), biofuels, wind farms and carbon credits with the results binding, I believe we would be bureaucratic boondoggle and propheteer free today, and much better off as individuals.
The US subsidised biofuel production with $29 billion between 2002-8, (the EU €45 subsidy per hectare of energy crops). Without that, as for wind energy, the boondoggle would be hot air. Without millstone legislation, carbon credits (hot air trading of EC permission to pollute) would be toilet paper.
Also see:
co2didit.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-enviro-lunacy.html
Quotes by Rockefellers [closely associated with and agent of the Rothschild bank octopus]
*** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
–- David Rockefeller
"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart."
-- David Rockefeller, before a Congressional committee
"...conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller / More here.
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being
No comments:
Post a Comment