Climate, Energy and Environment Ministry Under One Hat PDF Print E-mail
Written by Karl J. Hansen, klimabedrag.dk   
Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:31

Climate, energy and environment are three very different subjects, but is nowadays often administered by the same minister. I am concerned about this grouping, which I think leads to corruption and unscientific planning.

I understand where it comes from. In order to persuade the general population to go for low density energy sources or "green technology", which is a giant leap towards an inferior civilisation, you must provide a persuasive argument for doing so.

Throughout the last 40 years or more, it has been known that using the vagary of weather is a powerful way to scare people to believe in the need for changing our lifestyle for one that is simpler and less energy hungry. Either that or we have to inflict near extinction upon our selves to less than 1,500 millions individuals on the planet.

So in order to run a coherent "green" energy and electricity policy,  it is wise to put energy, climate and environment under the same hat, like Chris Huhne in UK and  Lykke Friis in DK. In the US the issue was largely handed over to a non-democratic organisation called EPA, because President Barack Obama was unable to indulge enough government politicians to engage in the low density energy policy.

What worries me, is that energy policy logically belong to the industry sector, it is an industry, and it is furthermore a key industry. Environment policy ought to be an independent government department and thereby be able to objectively pursue malicious acts within industry, landowners, farmers, fishing, and to protect the all aspects of pollution.

As it is now, the energy department can subjectively decide if the one energy form is more polluting than the other. Further, the energy and climate/environment department can define what is pollution or not, even if it contradicts common sense and science.

The result is that CO2 has now ridiculously been widely defined as a pollution, whereas filling the nature with millions of tons of concrete, steel and giant machinery, utility roads, transformer stations, HVDC cables and much more, is "green", nature friendly and a technological progress.

What I am trying to point out, is that it is a conflict of interest when you put energy, climate and most often environment under the same minister. These areas need to be separated, so they can guard each other. By having separate departments, you are more likely to have the energy department working for cheap and plentiful electricity generation, transport and heating. You would have the climate department ruling over the climate and you would have the environment department making sure we do not live in an unhealthy mess.

If the departments were detached, I would imagine the climate department would realise they have outlived themselves and would find other jobs - why?  - Because, even if you trust the 800 times or so debunked UN IPCC Assessment Reports, their figures will reveal unmeasurable benefits from regulating the so called greenhouse gasses. The energy department could be free to act scientifically and improve our technology, which means finding ways to utilise still higher density energy sources, like uranium, thorium and in the long run fusion technology.

The role of the Climate Change Ministry.
It only has a role when it is part of the Energy Ministry. Detached, the existence of a Climate Ministry is difficult to defend. The reason for this is that climate, which is weather over a multi decadal period, is dynamic and changing all the time. The weather is changing over a full period of about 60 years, and it is changing irregularly over the centuries. Our century is statistically no different from other periods in Earth's history.

There would therefore only be a role for a detached Climate Change Ministry if our civilisation significantly changed the climate, and we could prevent this influence. However, to this date there is absolutely no uncontested proof that mankind is causing any significant Global Climate Change.
Therefore only local climate change is relevant, like change of landscape from forest to agriculture, which changes the local circulation pattern, precipitation, surface temperature, etc.. An iconic example of such a local climate change, is Kilimanjaro.

The Kilimanjaro mountain in Africa has gradually lost more and more of it's sow white top, and the temperature has fallen slightly during the last century. The reason for this, is the logging of forest around Kilimanjaro, causing less precipitation, thus less snow is falling every winter. Rather typically, Kilimanjaro has been used as one of many easy icons for Global Climate Change or rather Man Made Global Warming.

In the view of the above, I find it difficult to see a Climate Change Ministry in any government, in any constellation, as anything else, but a propaganda tool to boost popularity for a policy intended to seemingly go back to low density energy forms.


Politics has to change into scientific thinking.

Currently our energy politics is based on feelings, with almost total disregard for facts and numbers. Take for example the urge to change to Electric Vehicles. EVs themselves produce no CO2 or any other emissions of significance. However, in reality the electric power is generated largely by burning of coal, seen from a worldwide perspective, and the trend is that an increasing percentage is produced by coal. Currently about 42% of all electricity is produced by coal and a few percent by renewable.
world-electricity-production-sources-2010

The EV therefore emits about 200g CO2 per km, whereas the average petrol car emits about 170g CO2 per km, and diesel significant less according to World Wide Fund for Nature. I have not confirmed if WWF has included the power loss from generation to consumer - if not, the EV is emitting way more than 200g CO2 per km. So from the perspective of CO2 and the significant extra cost for an EV, we would have to go nuclear and hydroelectric on a very large scale, for the EV to make any sense. Building more wind farms serves no real purpose, because wind and solar can only act as intermittent extra power. In no country have wind turbines caused a single conventional power plant to close.

There are many good technical reasons why the current "green" energy policy is unhealthy, and damaging for our economy and environment. I have no perfect solution to this issue, but would imagine that closing the UN IPCC and let each country decide, on a scientific basis, what kind of electricity generation is best for them, is one way to improve electricity production, transportation and heating.
Last Updated on Saturday, 23 July 2011 12:19
 

Add comment

To be able to vote, have easier access to write comments, etc., go to Login and login or register yourself.
You are given the option to login via FaceBook.
For at kunne stemme o.a., gå til Login og login eller registrer dig selv.
Du gives mulighed for at logge ind via FaceBook.


Security code
Refresh