FOR years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations has warned us that greenhouse gas emissions from our fossil fuel consumption threaten the world's climate in ways we will regret. This year it won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts.
You don't have to be a true believer in human-caused climate change to take the IPCC's opinion seriously. We are contributing to a change in the chemistry of the global atmosphere by increasing its carbon dioxide concentration at an appreciable rate. Even a sceptical person must accept that there is a risk associated with altering the balance of greenhouse gasses on a global scale. And there is no doubt that the most effective way to limit this risk is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
It is the IPCC that my former colleagues in Greenpeace, and most of the mainstream environmental movement, look to for expert advice on climate change. Environmental activists take the rather grim but measured language of the IPCC reports and add words such as "catastrophe" and "chaos", along with much speculation about famine, pestilence, mass extinction and the end of civilisation as we know it.
Until the past couple of years, the activists, with their zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, have succeeded in squelching any mention by the IPCC of using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels for electricity production. Burning fossil fuels for electricity accounts for 9.5 billion tonnes of global carbon dioxide emissions while nuclear power emits next to nothing. It has been apparent to many scientists and policymakers for years that this would be a logical path to follow. The IPCC has now joined these growing ranks advocating nuclear energy as a solution.
In its recently issued final report for 2007, the IPCC makes a number of unambiguous references to the fact that nuclear energy is an important tool to help bring about a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Greenpeace has already made it clear that it disagrees. How credible is it for activists to use the IPCC scientists' recommendations to fuel apocalyptic fund-raising campaigns on climate change and then to dismiss the recommendations from the same scientists on what we should do to solve it?
Already, the 442 nuclear reactors worldwide are producing 16% of our electricity. It follows that 1000 reactors would produce 36% and so on, with negligible greenhouse gas emissions, replacing fossil fuel plants. But Greenpeace's policy is that we should not only build no new reactors but that we should shut down all the existing ones, thus inevitably forcing us to replace them with fossil fuel power plants. Oh no, says Greenpeace, we can replace the fossil fuel plants with wind and solar power. Here it is at its most deceitful.
Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar energy, both of which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels, hydroelectric plants and nuclear power. Given that we want to reduce fossil fuels and that potential hydroelectric sites are becoming scarce, nuclear power is the main option. But Greenpeace and its allies remain in denial despite the fact that many independent environmentalists and now the IPCC see the situation clearly.
Over the past 10 years, Germany and Denmark have poured billions of taxpayers' euros into wind and solar energy in the vain hope that this would allow them to shut down fossil fuel and nuclear plants. They have not succeeded because every solar panel and every wind turbine must be backed up by reliable power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Wind does have a role to play when peak power is needed and the wind is blowing because then it is possible to turn off some fossil generation. Solar power is so expensive that only the richest countries can afford the luxury. The real crime is that precious dollars spent on solar panels rob money that could be spent on much more cost-effective technologies such hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal and biomass sources.
I have long realised that in retrospect we made a big mistake in the early years of Greenpeace when we lumped nuclear energy with nuclear weapons as if they were all part of the same holocaust. We were totally fixated, and rightly so, on the threat of all-out nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States and we thought everything nuclear was evil.
We failed to distinguish the beneficial and peaceful uses of nuclear technology from its destructive and even evil uses. It would be like including nuclear medicine with nuclear weapons just because nuclear medicine uses radioactive materials, most of which are produced in nuclear reactors.
Greenpeace and company are stuck in the 1970s when it comes to the policy on energy as it relates to climate change. They have invested a great deal of time and money convincing their supporters that nuclear energy is evil. It is time they came clean on the reality facing us all in the 21st century. They should accept the wisdom of the scientists at the IPCC and recognise that nuclear energy is a big part of the climate change solution. And they should stop misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar power can do the job on their own. I will be the first to commend them for their courage.
An adviser to government and industry, Dr Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/09/2007 10:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
" The real crime is that precious dollars spent on solar panels rob money that could be spent on much more cost-effective technologies such hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal and biomass sources."
No, the real crime is that every square meter of solar panel, unless it is placed on something that is already built, deprives the surface of a square meter of sunshine and destroys a square meter of habitat.
#3
America has plenty of guys with experience operating nukes. I feel the ten year lead time to build a plant is ridiculous and needs to come down.
Also, many smart guys are thinking about the problem of distributed electrical power with solar and wind. They will solve it.
Plenty of room for expansion in geothermal as well.
However, the biggest change that will really affect modern life and will be an enormous benefit to USA National Security is the rise of Li-ion battery technology. 2008 will be an Elvis Year for electric vehicles.
#7
TOPIX/NEWSCIENTIST > A FINAL WARNING ON GLOBAL WARMING.
D *** NG IT, WE have Have HAVE H-A-V-E HHHAAVVEEE TO SAVE THE WORLD BEFORE 2020 SO THAT RUSSO-CHIN "WAR IS DESIRED" ANTI-US GLOBAL WAR CAN DESTROY IT! THE WORLD CAN NEVER BE SAVED UNLESS EARTH CAN DESTROY THE ANTI-SURRENDERING SUN ONCE AND FOR ALL.
#8
TOPIX > THE HINDU - HAS THE GOOD BECOME THE ENEMY OF THE BEST? Does the world need new Treatises to resolve lingering or newfound problems. E.g. TOPIX > RUSSIA BLOG - THE USA MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH THE NEW RUSSIA + GCC CHALLENGES US POLICIES ON IRAN, ISRAEL.
#1
"Here is what happened: The rate of violent acts dropped in Iraq; therefore the American intelligence services discovered that Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003. This means that the resumption of violence will make American intelligence services find out that there is a secret military program that is different from the peaceful and famous one.
I don't know, smells like the usual sources are getting ready to work against any rationale to take out Iran's nuclear facility.
Remember the article about the fire at Iran's nuclear site. Must have been something because it made the news yhrough the backdoor and then disappeared into a black hole without any denials being issued.
#3
Gorb: How is the President ignoring the NIE? Didn't he publicly thank the authors?
This is the most convincing piece I have ever read at Debka. Let's hope they have no idea what they are talking about. It sounds like yet another American President has decided to throw Israel under the bus.
#4
If this is not a complete hoax or a blilliant piece of intentional misinformation to lull the senses of Ahmadinagad against a decapitation strike (and to be honest I dont believe it is), then I think that G W Bush will go down in history as the first american president to initiate a third world war or at least a wholsale war in the middle east by simply sitting and doing nothing.
It is clear to me that if the true picture known to the Israeli intelligence community points to the continuing clandestine Iranian nuclear program, Israel will be forced to strike first and strike hard.
What Bush (or maybe Condi ?) does not understand is that while the US and Europe may be able to recover from a limited Iranian nuclear strike, For Israel such a thing will be an existential threat which cannot to be allowed to happen even in theory.
In my mind, if the change in American policy on Iran is indeed a fact, an Israeli first strike is inevitable even if it means the total disruption of Israel/US relationship.
Remember - Bush or no Bush, we cannot and will not allow a second Holocust to happen through inaction.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/09/2007 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Or Bush has very cleverly thrown the hot potato(e) into the laps of the Europeans, who have so deftly negotiated with the Iranians, the Russians, who have built their reactors and the Chinese, who are just all around irritants, to deal with the problem as they become targets well before the US does and they would all me much more effected by the outbreak of an Arab-Israeli war. Or they can mount a public clamor for Bush to do something for them.
#8
The Olmert government is paying the price for the military and diplomatic mismanagement of the war against Lebanons Hizballah of 2006.
Yes.
The US openly supported Israel in that war only to find that the Israeli government and some military leaders were inept, unfocused, unserious and in a few cases probably corrupt.
Our forces in Iraq absorbed increased Iranian weapons and attacks after that debacle.
To be fair, we had our Fallujah I as well. But bad as it was to suffer our own government's stumbles it was really damaging to us in Iraq to back Israel openly during that war only to have her mess up so incompetantly.
#9
Fact is Iran really is Europe and Israel's problem. The USA really doesn't have the political capital to say our intelligence agencies have spotted WMD. I'm happy to pass the baton and let others take some political risks for awhile.
#11
r.J. Schwartz wrote: I'm happy to pass the baton and let others take some political risks for awhile.
Dear Mr. Scwartz,
when the nukes start flying, dont expect Israel (frankly I dont give a shit about Europe) to give any consideration to US interests in the ME.
selling Israel to the dogs may turn out to be a double ended stick.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/09/2007 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Yes.
The US openly supported Israel in that war only to find that the Israeli government and some military leaders were inept, unfocused, unserious and in a few cases probably corrupt.
Lotp,
so when your friend stumbles - you stab him in the back ?
I just remind you that Olmert was never elected by anyone. we "inherited" him as a result of Sharon's coma !
Indeed Olmert is corrupt and not to be trusted, however, has Israel stabbed the US in the back after Nixon was impeached ?
Friends are tested at a time of trouble and not when everything is "just roses"
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/09/2007 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I agree, Elder. But the Lebanon debacle seriously eroded Bush's ability to take on Iran right now. That's unfortunate, but it's also a reality.
"so when your friend stumbles - you stab him in the back ?"
I think Winston Churchill nailed it when he said, "no such thing as enemies and friends, only business". Israel is turning into a liability for America so America is inturn dumping it.
#17
Israel is important to us and will continue to be for, at the very least, the remainder of the WoT. So needless to say, that means a really long time.
However, Israel carries with it a lot of baggage via the territories.
It is very important to the U.S. and to Israel that they stop perpetuating the unsuccess of occupation. The only reason occupation has been tenable for as long as it has is due to the imcompetent and barbaric natue of the Palestinians. If Arafish had used Gandhi as a role model, he would have brought his people a state decades ago, but as the saying goes, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
A solution to the Palestinian issue will likely need to forced upon them since they're uncapable of doing anything for themselves. Whether it be removal of the Palestinians or a state, it needs to happen.
My own opinion is that Israel can't address the Palestinians properly until there is a Palestinian state to deal with. Israel ahs gone to war kicked the asses of all the states around them. Those states have learned through conditioning not attack Israel. The Palestinians can't learn that until they have a state to lose.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/09/2007 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
our British Columbia anti Joooo friend Leah Ashley is showing her disturbing bias. America's interests, generally, are the same as Israel's. Leah, apparently, wants to wear a burka and be smacked when she doesn't STFU. If she's OK with the second part, then I am too
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2007 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Leah is indeed an idiot of the most profound sort.
#20
wrong..... Americas interests were generally the same as Israels during the cold war. This time however Israel has only turned America into an outcast through it's unconditional support. What good has America recieved since Jonathan Pollard, the USS Liberty, and lastly Israels misadventures in Lebanon. You claim the, "war on terror" but with America continuing its path of unconditional support for you it alienates and pushes out the moderates and only creates and strengthens the radicals, which in turn is not in Americas interests.
America for a while has not worked in its interests for some time probably due to the powerful Jewish Lobbys such as AIPAC, the ADL and the strong influence jews have in the media supporting the neocons in the past. Hopefully with this report America can slowly start going back to be the honest broker it once was and force peace in the Middle East starting with a Palastinian state.
P.S #18 FRANK G. If you were not a Jew you would see the wrongs that the Jews were comitting and in turn you would be an anti Jooo too ...oooooooooh.
#23
Dear Leah Ashley (for google's sake), nice try, b*tch. I'm a Roman Catholic, and I make NO apology for my support of Israel, the Jooooos, or our mideast policy that helps Israel. Inasmuch as you're comfortably ensconced in British Columbia, I have no opportunity to physically bitch-slap you, so I'll have to accept this forum. I've seen your previous unintelligent comments. They have done nothing other than convince the other side that twits like you should be publicisized, ridiculed, and shamed. Care to give us a mailing address? Idiot
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2007 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#24
"P.S #18 FRANK G. If you were not a Jew you would see the wrongs that the Jews were comitting and in turn you would be an anti Jooo too ...oooooooooh."
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!! Leah, if stupidity were music you'd be a 50-piece brass band.
We need an "Asshole Of The Week" award. Seriously...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/09/2007 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Leah, you ignorant dunce. Your personal bias has once again lead you to believe what is not true. the percentage of Jews on this board is actually fairly low.
Myself, I'll admit that I, moreso than most on this site, am very critical of Israeli policy. There's a difference between being critical and being blind, my young bigot. I know better than to believe in some conspiracy nonsense that tells me some mystical "Jooish Lobby" controls American foreign policy.
If you're genuinely intereseted in a clue, this is a great place to pick one up.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/09/2007 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Actually, Miss Ashley, the Jews do own the world, including that part your computer is attached to. And the part that supplies your electricity and hot water, and the grocery stores. We own your bank, the job you hope to get someday... oh, and we own your parents, too.
Do try a bit harder to keep us from noticing you. It's so unpleasant when we have to actually take care of annoyances.
Shes likely to show up on Christmas Eve supper this year Drunk off her ass and ruin the whole show because someone didn't give her the drumstick this Thanksgiving.
******************************************
These are times that test men and test alliances.
a thesis:
Israel has the perfect opportunity to take out Iran's nuke facilities, tomorrow.
Look what happened to Syria and the aftermath.
Aftermath you say, what aftermath?
The USA and Israel did that together.
Was this lost on Iran?
Ha! don't think so.
Does Israel have the ability to neutralize Iran's air defences? YES.
Israel has the attack aircraft,
the air refueling capability,
the proper targets in Iran,
the proper munitions,
all Israel needs is the "Need To" and the "WILL" to set back Iran's Nuke operations for 8-10 years or more.
Hezbollah will attempt to fire thousands of rockets at Israel etc. but let's all hope that Olmert and co. have been busy coming up with plans and solutions to mitigate that problem and a few others since 2006.
#28
Last i checked the Jews don't own the world but according to Gen. Wesley Clark they do own New York and Jewish money has been flowing, trying to get America to attack Iran. This goes with alot of peoples assesments...generals, politicians, think tanks, etc... that attacking Iran would be catastrophic to American interests in the region and abroad. The whole Middle East would be destablized, the Hormuz got get shut down creating an economic recession, Hizbolla and Hamas would drag Israel into another war, Syria could be dragged in, Iraqs shites would attack American targets in Iraq, Iran will respond with it's ballistic missles against American and Israeli interests abroad.
You think you will be fighing terrorism but you will only strengthen it bye creating 10-20-100 terrorists for everybuilding destroyed and terrorist killed.
#29
Ashley is probably my sister in law who grew up poor in Canada and goes off every so often about how the Jews control the banks etc. I never had any white trash on my side of the family, so it was at first shocking to me but then it became almost funny to watch her turn from a normal looking human being into a little chuckie doll whose head would spin as she covered the room with projectile vomits of vile green puke.
#30
The only reason anybody here mentions Clarks name is when it's an insult.
One question, would you care to provide any proof that "Jewish money is flowing to try to get America to attack Iran."?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/09/2007 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#31
JPOST > IRAN CONFLICT wid Israel will be UNAVOIDABLE unless Iran cooperates and reveals its nucprogs. Suggests ISRAEL NOT AFRAID TO PREEMPT. *TOPIX > ISRAEL CONTINUES TO BELIEVE IRAN WILL HAVE NUCLEAR BOMB BY 2010, despite new US NIE.
#32
Poor, stupid General Wesley Clark, ret. has said a great many things since his retirement party, to which not a single one of his bosses came, I heard -- no doubt a US Armed Forces record. He almost started a war with Russia over Kosovo in a fit of pique, my dear Miss Ashley. Is that really the kind of person you want to pin your world view to?
Goodness, Whomong Guelph4611 -- I hope it doesn't get into the gravy!
#33
Besides, I thought the Italian Mafia owned New York. We do mean the city, not the state, right? Because I know for a fact the Poles and the Italians split Buffalo, the internationalist professors get Amherst, the doctors get Williamsville and, I believe, Orchard Park, and the Muslims have Lackawanna's First Ward. That's where the Lackawanna Six came from.
#35
see that g(r)om? The hate I endure because I'm not a Joooo? LOL. Leah's a fool and a flaming bag of sh*t. :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2007 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
#36
g(r)omgoru, she's for real, just one of these stupid ignorant bigotted anti-semitic byatches. It is likely that someone poured that shit into her braincase and connected it into an infinite loop. Probably beyond repair.
The release to the US Congress of the NIE Iranian threat report has unleashed a wave of discussions streaming directly into the debate about the war on terror. From there, obviously, the ripple effects of the findings - plus their politicization - are feeding the critics of the War in Iraq; but more importantly, impacting both the friends and the foes of the United States, including principally the Iranian regime.
Basically, Americans and their allies are faced with a new assertion, created by this intelligence estimate, that the decision makers in Tehran had already abandoned their nuclear military strategy as of 2003; and hence, the US and its coalition would be at fault if it engaged in any military action against targets inside Iran. Specifically, due to American intelligence conclusions, the public - both domestic and international - are being led to believe that in the fall of 2003, the Iranian leadership had decided to stop its process of building an atomic weapon; and that further, today, in the fall of 2007, there isn't an Iranian nuclear threat to America, to the region and to the international community.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: 3dc ||
12/09/2007 00:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
And what did the NIE have to say a few years back about the fall of the Berlin Wall?
#2
If this is not a complete hoax or a blilliant piece of intentional misinformation to lull the senses of Ahmadinagad against a decapitation strike (and to be honest I dont believe it is), then I think that G W Bush will go down in history as the first american president to initiate a third world war or at least a wholsale war in the middle east by simply sitting and doing nothing.
It is clear to me that if the true picture known to the Israeli intelligence community points to the continuing clandestine Iranian nuclear program, Israel will be forced to strike first and strike hard.
What Bush (or maybe Condi ?) does not understand is that while the US and Europe may be able to recover from a limited Iranian nuclear strike, For Israel such a thing will be an existential threat which cannot to be allowed to happen even in theory.
In my mind, if the change in American policy on Iran is indeed a fact, an Israeli first strike is inevitable even if it means the total disruption of Israel/US relationship. Remember - Bush or no Bush, we cannot and will not allow a second Holocust to happen through inaction.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/09/2007 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
then I think that G W Bush will go down in history as the first american president to initiate a third world war or at least a wholsale war in the middle east by simply sitting and doing nothing.
President Saddam Hussein, would you please comment on this statement?
#5
Elder
(i) Debka plagiarized their article from Samson blinded", which also has much better insight into Bush's motivation.
(ii) Since the principal Iranian treat is to Saudia---which USA sees as a threat to its oil supply---there's no chance they'll remain unactive (much as they'd like Israel to do their dirty work and take the shit shower, again).
#8
Both the US and Israel have legitimate complaints about the behavior of the other over the years.
And we are also critically important to one another.
Please, folks - we can erode cooperation by our comments here or we can take the long view of what serves both our countries.
For my part, I support Israel. And to put that in perspective I live close to one of the largest conservative Jewish communities in the US. A community that continually votes as a bloc to support pandering Democratic politicians. including after 9/11.
I also live an hour's drive from the country's largest city - a city in which secular Jews have waged vicious, unrelenting lawfare against Christian observances across this nation of mine.
Doesn't matter. Israeli-US alliance has served to keep the Arabian barbarians and their clients somewhat in check for decades. This is not the time to erode that cooperation.
#9
So the Intelligence Estimate was based on public statements from Iranian officials. The Iranians have been denying infiltrations in Iraq, since the intervention, yet Iranian nationals have been captured in Iraq. And cash in the hands of Shiite terrorists has been traced back to the Ayatollahs. Never believe a liar.
#10
COmpare wid WAFF.com > ISLAM IS SHAPING THE NEW EUROPE -staking its place via ever-growing + ECON-POL INFLUENTIAL MINORITIES; + ISLAM AND ITS [historical]IMPACT ON EUROPE.
Last Friday night, Ayaan Hirsi Ali visited the Phoenix area to accept the 2007 Goldwater Institute Award. Someone from the Goldwater Institute noticed that my brother had posted something about this on his blog, as mentioned previously at Rantburg (in the highlighted section at bottom of this post). They gave him two tickets, so I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the fund-raising dinner for free. If you'd like to read my brother's report on this, follow the main link. I added a few comments there too.
She is such an amazing person and impressive speaker; the admiration - and love, really - for her in the room was electric. Steve Forbes gave a rousing speech before Ms. Hirsi Ali as well. I had never thought of Mr. Forbes as being particularly charismatic before, but his speech was just what was needed to get the audience alert and focused after a nice meal and several award ceremony type speeches. I felt like a bit of a slacker being in a room so full of accomplished people, but it was an honor to be able to attend. It's nice to see the Goldwater Institute paying attention and reaching out to the blogging community, and my brother and I are very greatful to them.
#2
You are so right about Bolton as Secretary of State, tw. And although I would like to see him in that position under any GOP administration, I can't imagine anyone but Giuliani thinking the confirmation fight would be worth it. Oh, but it so totally would! :-)
I hope you're having a great Hanukkah. I still have the Ketiva ve-chatima tovah you posted before my vacation, cut & pasted into one of my notebook files, so I see it all the time. And it has been a good year so far too, so thanks. :-)
#3
You are a dear, ryuge. Yes I am, although now that the trailing daughters are in high school and have lives more their own, we aren't able to light the candles every night.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
