CARBON is the key building block for all life on earth. We are made of it, we eat it and we breathe it. To label carbon dioxide, which is a component of the natural carbon cycle, a pollutant as the US Supreme Court did in 2007, is absurd. So, is the concept of trading carbon and taxing carbon.
Yet carbon markets have developed not because the Catholic Church requested them, but because they were justified and promoted by leading scientists in cahoots with well meaning economists.
These markets and trading schemes are part of a new vision for a different world, a world based in essence on junk science and the new religion of environmentalism.
In Australia we have a carbon tax that will become a trading scheme. At least this is the plan. Writing about government-sponsored television advertisements promoting clean energy before the carbon tax was introduced Jeremy Barlow commented:
“There are a great many criticisms that can be made about these extraordinary government advertisements. They have been justified on the basis that we need more information yet they contain little information. They have used taxpayer funds to provide free publicity for a very small group of companies, presumably to the disadvantage of their competitors – something for the government’s Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office to chew over.
"But the real sadness lies in what these advertisements tell us about the failed and excessively cosy relationship between this government and its scientific advisers. In its blind acceptance of the scientific promise, this government tragically has succumbed to the triumph of wishful thinking over common sense.”
Yesterday the European parliament voted against renewing support for its politically mandated carbon price, and so the carbon price has crashed. Headlines in today’s mainstream media include ‘Carbon trading scheme facing strife’.
The optimistic amongst us might be hoping that the end for carbon trading is nigh along with the deranged wishful thinking that Thomas Barlow alludes to.
But read the text of that same article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald by Malcolm Maiden, and it suggests there is opportunity for the carbon price to recover and that the idea of a world-trading scheme may be out of reach, not forever, but just for decades.
Who wrote: “reality is only an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”?
****
Much revealed in government’s new carbon tax TV advertisements by Thomas Barlow https://climatelab.com.au/2011/07/much-revealed-in-governments-new-carbon-tax-tv-advertisements-thomas-barlow/
July 23, 2011
And for more 'old' posts on 'carbon trading' click here .
[...] Remembering Why There Are Carbon Markets (jennifermarohasy.com) [...]
SD,
No I missed it. We're actually out putting in huge hours harvesting the stuff.
We have about a week to go.
I should send Jen a pic from one of our swanky new smart phones. 🙂
I'm glad you and Jen got the joke.
Little Lukey,
glad to see you have joined the Lukewarmers. It is a move in the right direction.
Unfortunately Anhony Twats, like Moshpup, Lucille and a number of other otherwise quite intelligent people have tied their wagon to the idea that CO2 warms at least a little while ignoring that CO2 simply absorbs, radiates, and conducts within the limits of its physical configuration. (whether it is to maintain credibility in a dumbed down propagandized world I don't know) IR radiates omnidirectionally from its sources and its interaction with the surrounds and what those surrounds are doing determine whether there is any temporary warming or cooling.
Some actually recognize that there appears to be a net warming by CO2 close to the surface and a net cooling by CO2 at altitude. The idea goes like this. Without GHG's the atmosphere has no way of cooling until the molecules get VERY hot and start their own exponential IR radiation curve. With no GHG's the atmosphere would warm by contact with the earth and more mechanical disturbances like disturbance by the solar wind. (won't confuse you with electromagnetic considerations)
As we see with the moon, without GHG's to attenuate the visible radiation the surface would get MUCH hotter which would heat the atmosphere in contact with the surface. This would result in convection and a mixing that would ultimately heat the whole atmosphere. As the only cooling would ALSO be contact with the surface at night we see that the temps would be much higher than with GHG's as the hotter atmosphere would NEVER be in contact with the earth due to its low density.
So, what do GHG's really do?? They are a MODERATING force apparently as without them we would be much hotter. Still waiting to see the arguments as to what an all GHG atmosphere would be like. I THINK it would be COLDER as all the atmosphere would be absorbing and radiating, instead of a small portion of it, meaning that less energy would reach the surface and what is there would be radiatied away much faster. Again, waiting to hear the arguments as to what it would be like.
Venus is not an appropriate example due to the enormous difference in mass and pressure for the atmosphere, or is it?? It is radiationg away MORE ENERGY than it absorbs. In other words it is COOLING DOWN!!! Even with that cloud layer that reflects over 60% of the IR!!!!
Remember, you need a conductor to cool or heat and an insulator to prevent cooling or heating. The twisted logic that made CO2, an excellent "conductor", into a heater only shows how off track modern science has become.
"You get used to the stomach cramps after a while."
I think it's more like what Kath said to Kim, "I've always wanted to be effluent".