The Magic of Emissions Trading
March 16th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Courtesy of Benny Peiser’s CCNet is this translated German news article (thanks to BP):
Germany’s environment minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party) is pushing for the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Germany. “We need eight to twelve new coal plants if we want to get out of nuclear energy,” Gabriel said on Friday at a meeting of the Mainz-Wiesbaden AG (KMW) in Mainz. With regard to the opponents of the planned coal-fired power in Mainz, the minister said: “Those who demonstrate against coal-fired power will get nuclear power plants instead.” Gabriel said, the decision about which power plants are built is the responsibility of companies and not politics. He added that new coal power plants would not increase carbon dioxide emissions.
First of all, old plants would be closed. In additon, the emissions trading scheme would limit the level of emissions. “You can build 100 coal-fired power plants and don’t have to have higher CO2 emissions,” said the environment minister.
Renewable energies would not be able to close the gap in energy supply that will arise due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants by 2020, said Gabriel. Even gas-fired power plants are not a real alternative because their power generation is expensive and thus not competitive for the energy supply of industrial production.
I think that these comments say more than is intended about the possibilities under a cap and trade system.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:43 am
There’s some Science-Based Policy for you.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I regularly check in on the Speigel online English-language news site to get a moderate German/European outlook on the news. The week after they breathlessly reported that Chancellor Merkel was leading the world in the fight against global warming, they were reporting that German businesses had pushed back against the proposed actions, and Merkel had quietly climbed down from her high-flying proposals. The complaints from German businessmen? That German businesses would be at a competitive disadvantage if required to fulfill the proposed requirements. Which was the same argument used by…. George Bush. So now Merkel carries out Bushes’ policies, without publicly owning the decision.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“Those who demonstrate against coal-fired power will get nuclear power plants instead.”
Now if only James Hansen would be so blunt while amongst his new-found friends…
March 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
In Germany, the historical epicentre of the green movement, climate policy seems to have been thrown upside down. That’s because now even the designated leader of the Green Party is now openly considering the building of new coal plants. Shocking? Not at all! It’s called green real politik. Why? Because it’s the only way the Greens would be allowed back into a coalition government after the federal elections later this year. At the end of the day real politik always boils down to saving the party – rather than saving the plant. So much for planetary emergency: “The designated party leader of Germany’s Green Party, Cem Özdemir, has questioned his party’s anti-coal dogma. He could imagine the construction of new coal-fired power plants, said Özdemir – but rowed back quickly because he irritated the membership of his party.
http://www.morgenpost.de/politik/article1055925/Oezdemir_irritiert_die_Gruenen_mit_Energiepolitik.html
March 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Howdy Roger Jr!
Who says we have to reduce CO2 emission? Lots of folks who haven’t done their homework, that’s who.
You shoul read: “Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers” by Monte Heib available at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Using data readily available in the public domain, mine safety engineer Monte Heib calculates that CO2 make only a minor contribution to the so-called greenhousse effect. He didn’t mention the values of the absolute humidity and global Tmean he used for his calculations, which are probably ca 1 % and 15, deg C, resp.
The so-called climate scientists will say his calculation are correct, but the addition of small amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere (ca 30 ml per cubic meter of air from 1950) causes an enhanced “positive water vapor feedback”. Hogwash! The wind is by far the most important physical force that tranports water vapor from large bodies of water (e.g., the oceans) into the atmosphere as well as air pressure differentials.
You should also check out: “Climate Change and Global Warming” by A. Marterman available at:
htp://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php
Using a novel method of analysis of the CET, he shows that there has been no change in Tmean for most months for 300 years. He did find an unsual warming trend in the fall months, however. I can’t imagine the boys in the Met Office are completely unware of this article, especially Phil “Phony Phil” Jones.
Finally, go check: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” by the late John Daly available at: http://www.John-Daly.com. First read “What the Stations Say” where he expalins his criteria for selection of weather stations for analyses of their temperature records. Scroll down and click on “Station Temperature Data”. Note that many of these plots (mostly from remote and rural sites) show no change in Tmean for over a century. e.g. Alice Springs and other locations in the Land of Oz.
Finally, finally, download and read. “Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productvity” by L.B. Klyashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin available at:
http:alexylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
As I said, a lot of folks ain’t doing their homework.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
That’s awesome news #5!
An unpublished Mine Safety Engineer has calculated that CO2 doesn’t matter.
Even better news:
If it turns out he’s wrong, I can still solve the world energy crisis using the zero point energy converter I have hidden under my pillow! Zero emissions.
The only problem is the sound it makes when it runs.
It keeps giving me nightmares in which Al Gore, James Inhofe and a troop of singing penguins get stranded in a tropical rain forest and use a local deposit of coal to commit unspeakable acts.
But its clean coal, so it should be OK.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Don’t be so cynical solman. At least the Mine Safety Engineer hasn’t been corrupted by the consensus opinion for grants business that permeates the climate science field.
I can’t get any grants for my more CO2 is better opinion. That doesn’t mean I am wrong. It just means my opinion is not fashionable at this point in time. Fashion changes. What was warm becomes cool and what cools becomes hot if you know what I mean. If you don’t understand you will if live long enough.