Carbon Emissions Reduction Threatens Alternative Energy Research

The same policies that are supposed to provide funding for alternative energy sources research and development are threatening such initiative.

By Ian Sample
UK Guardian
May 30, 2011

World-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions, scientists claim.

Some facilities must find hundreds of thousands of pounds to settle green tax bills, putting jobs and research at risk.

The unexpected impact of the government’s carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme is so severe that scientists and research funders have lobbied ministers for an exemption to reduce the bills.

Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cuts. “Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill,” a senior scientist at the lab said. “We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.”

The laboratory operates the Joint European Torus (JET), the largest fusion reactor in Europe. It has led the way in research on fusion energy. The Culham lab faces a significant bill because, while energy savings can be made in other areas of the site, the machine incurs a large electricity bill when it is running.

The Prospect union is urging the government to exempt energy use where the focus of research contributes directly to public good and government policy.

“This [tax] will have a negative impact on important research into low carbon energy sources and that cannot be the right consequence of a policy the government is pursuing to promote a low carbon economy,” said Sue Ferns, head of research at Prospect. “There is a potential for the scheme to impact on employment and it adds to pressures to run the equipment less. Even if it doesn’t lead to substantial job losses, these are world-class scientists and every job, every piece of research makes a difference.”

Britain’s main funding body for research centres, the Science and Technology Facilities Council, is trying to persuade ministers to rethink how the scheme applies to scientific laboratories. The STFC’s bill will “inevitably” mean less funding for research across its centres, the Guardian has been told.

All representations have been dismissed by the government, but the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, passed on researchers’ concerns to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for an ongoing review.

Across the UK, laboratories will be required to pay around £1m in annual CRC bills to the DECC. Almost all of that will be met by diverting grants from other areas of government, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

In the October spending review, the government shelved plans to recycle money raised by the scheme to participants, and said it would instead earn £1bn in revenue to support public finances.

Another Oxfordshire laboratory, the Diamond synchrotron light source, expects a £300,000 bill under the CRC. A spokesman said the lab hoped to offset the bill by investing in better climate control and motion-sensitive lighting.

At the Daresbury laboratory in Cheshire, the CRC bill will worsen financial woes that have forced managers to draft redundancy packages and consider cutting back on equipment. “Science is already struggling here and now we are being charged an additional premium to go about our everyday business while working to address the government’s own stated grand challenges in science for the 21st century.,” said Lee Jones, an accelerator physicist at the laboratory.

The DECC said: “All parts of the UK economy will need to play a part in using energy more efficiently. The measures encouraged by the CRC can make organisations more competitive via the cost savings on their energy bills.

“We are working on simplifying the CRC scheme to make it more straightforward and reduce burden on participants. Further details of how we plan to do this will be published in the coming months.”

UN’s call to CO2 action

The fastest-ever rise in greenhouse gas emissions, revealed by the Guardian yesterday, is an “inconvenient truth” the world must face, the UN’s climate change chief said.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN framework convention, said: “This is the inconvenient truth of where human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are projected to go without much stronger international action, ” she said, issuing a call ahead of UN talks in Bonn next week. “I won’t hear that this is impossible.”

Estimates from the International Energy Agency show that last year saw a record CO2 rise, despite the recession and government policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. Most came from emerging economies, including China, but there is evidence the west “exported” billions of tonnes of emissions.

Natural CO2 Emissions Greater than Human Emissions

Human CO2 emissions are insignificant when compared to what nature emits. Consider that 20 percent of the planet’s flora emits a greater amount of CO2 than all humans put together, by a factor of 14. Twenty percent is the total of flora found on land. The rest, 80 percent, is found in oceans and seas. Current alternative energy technologies are four times more expensive and much less efficient than traditional sources. The “greens” reject nuclear energy even though it is much more efficient than other technologies, including wind and ethanol for transportation. Adoption of alternative energy sources and the fear created by the false anthropogenic global warming threat has made people poorer. And the consensus? It is driven by politics, not science or technological advances.

How the Green Movement Failed Us

Eyad Jamaleddine

The word epic comes to mind when describing the perpetuation of lies bestowed on the commoner. Watching the daily news, or

Time Magazine anti-human propaganda

flipping through to the Discovery Channel, it is hard not to notice the never-ending loads of propaganda that are dumped on the viewers. The local television station parrots the talking points of national stations: “The Earth is dying, we must act today, reduce green house gas emissions, establish one child policies and create taxation grids to save our mother Earth.” At a first glimpse one might accept the premise, being that Carbon Dioxide, Methane and other gases emitted by anthropogenic activities are the causes of global warming. However, when one evaluates the authors of the suppositions and their amassed data, it is hard to overlook the flagrant statistical manipulations.

The famous hockey stick graph produced by Mann was a highly influential piece in the public debate. It suggested that, in the shape of a hockey stick, world temperatures were rising dramatically through the industrial and post-industrial era. However, in the past few years, many have questioned the integrity of Mann’s findings. Not only is there lack of statisticians in the American Meteorological Association, which published Mann’s findings, but the paucity and integrity of the data is also a key factor that must be investigated.

Taking into consideration that the initial graph was used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as a lobbying tool to convince the skeptics of Global Warming, it becomes disturbing to see that the replacement of the graph with the newly update one has still not occurred.

Furthermore, contributors to the IPCC report, such as Kevin Trenberth was quoted saying that “global warming is likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity”. Media outlets ran with cover pages fear mongering that global warming would cause an explosion in tropical storms and diverse climate catastrophes that would kill millions, based on the previous quote. What they failed to mention was that the hurricane and tropical cyclone expert Christopher Landsea who was hired by the UN second and third international Panel on Climate Change, to evaluate the link between the changes in tropical cyclones around the world and climate change (global warming), never could establish a link between global warming and an increase in hurricanes or tropical storms!

Although Landsea published his findings, the IPCC ignored his results and in the report, one can find predictions of grave natural catastrophes due to global warming.

Another mass-produced and pushed upon individuals of all ages, are the deafening pictures of ice-melts and ice retractions in the

The infamous Hockey Stick Graph

Arctic and Antarctic. Whether in a University or pre-school, the astute student can recall the PowerPoint presentations with the latter misleading pictures. From artists, building sculptures and placing them in the Antarctic during the melting season, to Al gore fairing a helicopter back and forth around the melting glaciers during the spring, the picture is always followed by the trademark phrase: “There you have it, the ice is melting, water is going to rise, humanity is going to die”.

What is not mentioned is the work of respected scientists, such as Dr. Wingham, Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency’s CryoSat Satellite Missions. As stated by the Canadian National post and other publications, Dr. Wingham has been collecting satellite data for years (without the Cryosat Sattelite), and arriving at startling conclusions. Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming. In fact, one can go further and state that since 1992 and 2003, a whopping 72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass of the Antarctic region is growing at a rate of 5 mm (about 0.2 inch) a year!

The corrected version of the graph

If the latter facts were not enough to discourage the misled green movement or the yuppie followers, than the key would be to go outside and look up, at around noon, on a sunny day. The fixture that is producing heat and causing you to sweat and squint is about 1.496×108 kilometers (~92 957 130 miles) away and is the size of about 1 million, that’s 1 000 000 Earths. The shear size and dumfounding energy of the latter has immense effects on temperature fluctuations. It has been noted that the Sun’s magnetic field has more than doubled in strength in the 20th Century, causing a rise in temperatures. It is also fact the solar activity has been reducing lately, probably causing the drop in temperatures reported worldwide, since 2001. That said, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo space research laboratory has stated that Mars had also been noticing higher temperatures and that ice was melting at lower altitude levels. Further cementing theories relating the Sun activities to Global temperature changes.

Even the staunchest of global warming advocates must agree with leading Meteorologist Hendrik Tennekes, when he stated that forecasting the weather for longer periods then three days is virtually impossible, even with the present computing capabilities. The latter is obvious when one is preparing an outing and happens to depend on meteorological predictions.

With all the latter, maybe green movements around the world should concentrate on true environmental hazard, such as water contamination with various hormones, namely estrogen, GMO crops and the dangers associated with genetically modified organism, the emerging world of Nanotechnogies and the toxicity of latter. Wouldn’t it be nice if the green movement woke up to the hazards of water fluoridation and the effects of the use of Depleted Uranium rounds in the Middle East, causing catastrophic environmental destruction through irradiation? How credible would the green movement be if world depopulation was removed from the agenda? If crippling economic sanctions were not green policies for the third world nations and the millions that die from malnutrition would be allowed access to sanitation? If fascist ideologies of control and domination were not the mono of the globalist green parties, wouldn’t everybody join? Isn’t the contamination of local Canadian and North USA waters with heavy metals a higher priority than counting carbon credits, when global warming is based on biased data and misleading assumptions?

The real question is: who stands to gain? Who is funding this neo-fascist expropriation of wealth and land? The answer is Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Al Gore and many other globalist minions…The same people that brought you the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, the friendly folks behind the scenes trying to shut down the web.

Who is to gain? Definitely not the average individual, with crippling taxation rates, three lost jobs for every “green job” created, taxation by the mile for automotive users, home inspections…

Attention should be turned to the criminals that are robbing the middle class and re-appropriating our wealth for personnel gains. Shame on you Mr. Gore, your carbon footprint is probably higher than all the readers of this article combined. A lavish life, with a couple of mansions and a dozen cars, shouldn’t you be practicing what you preach?