Without belabouring the metaphor any further, what has reduced the seemingly unstoppable impetus of the climate change policy brigade? The answer is really two-fold: a failure to achieve meaningful agreement in Copenhagen , which had been billed as the make-or-break summit, and a series of revelations about the workings of the IPCC panel which raise serious questions about credibility. Taken together, the resultant loss in policy-making momentum may never be regained. The consequence is likely to be that any meaningful post-Kyoto agreement might have to be negotiated in light of considerably more evidence than we currently have, which is surely no bad thing.

When faced with criticism – much of it both legitimate and measured, although it must be admitted that some of it became quite personal and vitriolic – the climate change establishment closed ranks and condescendingly dismissed all the points raised. Dissenters were routinely said to be in the pay of the oil industry (despite the fact that companies have little to fear from the policies mooted) or disparaged as flat-Earthers or even village idiots. They framed the debate (while seeking to close it down) as between “scientists” on one hand and “sceptics” on the other (fortunately, the term “denier” is now less frequently heard), with the implicit assumption that no scientist could possibly disagree with the mainstream view. Ad hominem slurs were common.

Human nature being what it is, this failure to acknowledge the credibility of any criticism riled many sceptics so much that, when evidence of sloppiness, closed-mindedness and downright obstruction among key climate scientists started to appear, quite a few went straight for the jugular. Claims that the various revelations totally discredit the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis and the work of the IPCC are wide of the mark but, in such a highly partisan and polarised debate, understandable.

In fact, the various “gates” paint an unflattering picture of arrogance and unscientific behaviour within the influential clique of scientists and policymakers central to the IPCC process. A little humility and acceptance of the faults would not be amiss and would very likely enhance the IPCC’s reputation. Instead, there are the beginnings of a full-blown counterattack and the setting up of an “independent” enquiry which promises to be anything but.

The problems (or faults, or mistakes, call them what you will) which have been publicised do not in themselves undermine the AGW hypothesis, but taken together they do call into question the supposedly objective nature of the massive assessment reports which the IPCC publishes periodically (the fourth, and most recent, AR4, in 2007). Discounting for now evidence which either conflicts with AGW or supports alternative hypotheses, climategate and its ilk hint at a process where scientific open-mindedness comes a distant second to the search for evidence which supports what has come to be seen as a self-evident truth, that humans are disrupting climate.

The leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which will inevitably continue to be referred to as climategate, showed the defensiveness of the key scientists responsible for collating the global temperature record. While we should not place too much weight on particular words or expressions (after all, who does not at some time or another regret committing some things to email?) there appears to have been a clear attempt to withhold data, together with non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

While requests for data from people known to be critical of your work must be very annoying, good science has nothing to fear from open questioning of results. But the exact temperature record is not really the key issue, average temperature being sensitive to the means used to derive it. Nevertheless, hiding the raw data can only give rise to suspicions about how selectively it might have been used.

In many ways a more worrying incident was the inclusion of a statement in AR4 that Himalayan glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This conclusion was questioned, in particular by the Indian government, which published an independent report coming to very different conclusions (and which was dismissed as “voodoo science” by Rajendra Pachauri , current head of the IPCC).

It turned out that the quote had come from a non-peer reviewed WWF report and had no basis in reality. In itself a small thing, but it gives cause for concern that the authors of the chapter in question could include such a reference. Were they simply slapdash, or were they happy to include anything, however tenuous, which supported their case?

There was too much publicity for these and other concerns (including being selective with cut-off dates to ensure inclusion of the ‘right’ papers and exclusion of the ‘wrong’ ones) simply to be ignored. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has asked the InterAcademy Council (comprising various national academies of science) “to conduct an independent review of the IPCC’s processes and procedures to further strengthen the quality of the Panel’s reports on climate change”.

Doubtless there will be a few minor slaps on the wrist over procedure. Pachauri himself may be sacrificed, given his rather intemperate way with critics. But the IPCC juggernaut itself will lumber on unchanged, with the same mission: to assemble evidence that our species is the major driver of climate change.

The IAC investigation is the defensive part of the campaign, but the climate establishment is also back on the offensive. Take, for example, a recent article in the UK Times (We climate scientist are not ecofanatics) by Sir John Houghton, first head of IPCC’s working group 1, in which he said that the IPCC was actually being too cautious in its conclusions. It is worthwhile looking at a few quotes:

“The IPCC is too big an organisation to be captured by an ideological cabal or fall foul of group-think”, which simply shows a staggering lack of understanding of human behaviour.

“The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in”. Such as a WWF report?

“But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change”. The belief that if people do not believe you, they cannot be honest.

Quite frankly, if that is going to be the nature of the debate, we are in for a long period of trench warfare. Time to invent the rhetorical equivalent of the tank.

The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242

A 3,000-year record from 52 of the world’s oldest trees shows that California’s western Sierra Nevada was droughty and often fiery from 800 to 1300, according to a new study led by University of Arizona researchers. 

Scientists reconstructed the 3,000-year history of fire by dating fire scars on ancient giant sequoia trees, Sequoiadendron giganteum, in the Giant Forest of Sequoia National Park. Individual giant sequoias can live more than 3,000 years.

“It’s the longest tree-ring fire history in the world, and it’s from this amazing place with these amazing trees.” said lead author Thomas W. Swetnam of the UA. “This is an epic collection of tree rings.”

The new research extends Swetnam’s previous tree-ring fire history for giant sequoias another 1,000 years into the past. In addition, he and his colleagues used tree-ring records from other species of trees to reconstruct the region’s past climate.

The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry.

“What’s not so well known about the Medieval Warm Period is how warm it was in the western U.S.,” Swetnam said. “This is one line of evidence that it was very fiery on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada – and there’s a very strong relationship between drought and fire.”

Droughts are typically both warm and dry, he added.

Knowing how giant sequoia trees responded to a 500-year warm spell in the past is important because scientists predict that climate change will probably subject the trees to such a warm, dry environment again, said Swetnam, a UA professor of dendrochronology and director of UA’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

During the Medieval Warm Period extensive fires burned through parts of the Giant Forest at intervals of about 3 to 10 years, he said. Any individual tree was probably in a fire about every 10 to 15 years.

The team also compared charcoal deposits in boggy meadows within the groves to the tree-ring fire history. The chronology of charcoal deposits closely matches the tree-ring chronology of fire scars. 

The health of the giant sequoia forests seems to require those frequent, low-intensity fires, Swetnam said. He added that as the climate warms, carefully reintroducing low-intensity fires at frequencies similar to those of the Medieval Warm Period may be crucial for the survival of those magnificent forests, such as those in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Since 1860, human activity has greatly reduced the extent of fires. He and his colleagues commend the National Park Service for its recent work reintroducing fire into the giant sequoia groves.

The team’s report, “Multi-Millennial Fire History of the Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park, California, USA,” was published in the electronic journal Fire Ecology in February. A complete list of authors and funding sources is at the bottom of this story.

To study tree rings, researchers generally take a pencil-sized core from a tree. The oldest rings are those closest to the center of the tree. However, ancient giant sequoias can have trunks that are 30 feet in diameter – far too big to be sampled using even the longest coring tools, which are only three feet long.

To gather samples from the Giant Forest trees, the researchers were allowed to collect cross-sections of downed logs and standing dead trees, he said. It turned out to be a gargantuan undertaking that required many people and many field seasons.

“We were sampling with the largest chain saws we could find – a chain-saw bar of seven feet,” he said. “We were hauling these slabs of wood two meters on a side as far as two kilometers to the road. We were using wheeled litters – the emergency rescue equipment for people – and put a couple hundred pounds on them.”

To develop a separate chronology for past fires, co-authors R. Scott Anderson and Douglas J. Hallett looked for charcoal in sediment cores taken from meadows within the sequoia groves.

“We can compare the charcoal and tree-ring fire records. It confirms that the charcoal is a good indicator of past fires,” Swetnam said.

Such charcoal-based fire histories can extend much further into the past than most tree-ring-based fire histories, he said. The charcoal history of fire in the giant sequoia groves extends back more than 8,000 years.

Increasingly, researchers all over the world are using charcoal to reconstruct fire histories, Swetnam said. Many scientists are analyzing the global record of charcoal to study relationships between climate, fire and the resulting addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Swetnam’s co-authors are Christopher H. Baisan and Ramzi Touchan of the University of Arizona; Anthony C. Caprio of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in Three Rivers, Calif.; Peter M. Brown of the Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research and Colorado State University in Fort Collins; R. Scott Anderson of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff; and Douglas J. Hallett of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

The National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest and Calaveras Big Trees State Park provided funding.

University of Arizona News Release: Giant Sequoias Yield Longest Fire History from Tree Rings

“The IPCC is not a self-selected group of scientists with a political agenda. It was founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme with a mandate to produce accurate, balanced assessments about human-induced climate change.”

Whoops! So the IPCC aren’t investigating the causes of climate change, they are assuming a human cause.

“…a report from Greenpeace or any other campaigning body would not be included because the science would not be considered robust enough.”

Whoops! again. Houghton accepts the Himalayan glacier ‘error’ but fails to recognise the input from a WWF report. In fact the IPCC relied on many non-peer reviewed reports including ones from Greenpeace and WWF.

Sir John was alleged to have previously said:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

He denies having said this and there is no proof of him having used those exact words, but he did say this in 1995:

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Moving on to Sir James Lovelock via Climate Depot:

Lovelock: ‘Effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up’

Lovelock: ‘I think you have to accept that the skeptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway. They have been a breath of fresh air’

‘Lovelock places great emphasis on proof…He is concerned that projections are relying on computer models…because models of that kind have let us down before’

SHOCK: UK Green Guru James Lovelock Reconsiders Warming Views?!: Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions ‘Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age’

Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic’

Lovelock in 2010: ‘I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing. We’re not guilty’

Lovelock in 2010: ‘Observations done by hand are accurate but all the theoretical stuff in between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with climate change’

Flashback 2009: Environmental guru Lovelock slams carbon trading: ‘Most of the green stuff is verging on gigantic scam’

Finally, some sanity from ‘consensus’ climate scientist Dr Judith Curry interviewed in Discover magazine:

Excerpts:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?
I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

…

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.”

…

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes.

In December, TPA research revealed the enormous potential cost of that pledge:

If Britain continues a strong performance relative to other advanced economies in cutting emissions intensity, the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide produced per million pounds of GDP, we can expect emissions intensity to fall by nearly 30 per cent by 2020.
With economic growth in line with Treasury expectations, that will mean that carbon dioxide emissions can be expected to fall to around 489 Mt by 2020.  That means the cut from 1990 emissions levels will be nearly 18 per cent (the current target requires a 34 per cent cut in British emissions).
To meet a 42 per cent target at the present rate of improvements in emissions intensity, the size of the economy in 2020 would need to be cut by 30 per cent from expected levels, or nearly £507 billion (2005 prices).  That would leave GDP lower than it was in 2004.
The rate of carbon intensity improvement would need to nearly double to meet a 42 per cent target without compromising national income.  That is highly unlikely given that even existing technologies such as nuclear and tidal power, or carbon capture and storage, are unlikely to be able to make a major contribution by 2020.
Following on from that research, we submitted the following FOI request in order to find out the projected cost that the Government was basing its decisions on:

Freedom of information request for any analysis of the potential cost of strengthened climate change commitments at Copenhagen

Dear Sir/Madam,

During the Copenhagen conference, it was reported (e.g. here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6827738/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Britain-could-make-biggest-emissions-cuts.html) that the British delegation was working to secure an ambitious deal that would involve the UK committing to a 42 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.  I am writing to enquire about any analysis that might have been undertaken of the potential cost of honouring such a commitment.

In particular, I am requesting: any and all documents concerning the potential financial and/or economic cost of Britain meeting a pledge to cut emissions by 42 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.  Or, any such analysis provided to the delegation by e-mail.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.

My preferred format to receive this information is electronically, but if that is not possible I will gladly accept letters at the address below.

Best,
Matthew Sinclair
In their response, the Department said that they held the information and acknowledged that there was clearly a public interest in disclosure.  But shockingly they refused to release the information on the grounds that doing so would make their negotiations more difficult.  You can read their response here:

Download DECC response to TPA FOI request

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“It is astonishing that DECC think that the public should be kept in the dark about the potential cost of a new pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 42% by 2020.  There is no way for a proper democratic debate to take place if they aren’t open about the costs they expect the country to have to bear to meet the proposed target.

It is utterly implausible that revealing their projection of the cost will really affect Britain’s negotiating position, as any great insight that suggests the cost of cutting emissions to meet the target is likely to be much higher or lower than we think is almost certain to affect other European countries in a similar way.  Even if we accept the spurious case that making the cost public will affect the negotiations over a new deal though, that is a necessary price to pay.  There is no way that parliamentarians, the media and the public should be expected to just trust the Department’s judgement on such a major commitment.

It might be that DECC’s projection of the cost is high and, with many people struggling in the recession and expecting big bills to get the public finances under control, the public will reject the new target.  That would hardly be unreasonable given that major emitters like the US and China clearly aren’t coming close to following Europe’s lead in adopting expensive climate change policies.  Or, it might be that the analysis suggests a low cost on the basis of some very suspect assumptions about the economy or the task of rapidly cutting emissions.  Maybe the Department have bought their own hype that Britain can capture the markets of the future by making people pay a fortune for expensive renewable energy in higher electricity bills, which is like saying that if someone buys enough copies of Microsoft Office they’ll become as rich as Bill Gates.  In that case, people should be able to challenge the Government’s thinking.  Regardless, it is completely unacceptable for the decision to be stitched up behind closed doors.  No matter how important climate change policy is, it can’t be above democratic scrutiny.”

TaxPayers’ Alliance: New Research: Government refuse to tell us how much they think their pledge to cut emissions 42% by 2020 will cost

The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.

It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.

Read more in The Sunday Times: Ed Miliband’s adverts banned for overstating climate change

But local authorities have never managed to prosecute on the grounds of noise nuisance because it is so difficult to prove.

The main problem is the intermittent nature of noise from wind farms that makes it difficult to measure. Inspectors have to be on the site when the noise is worst, even though that could be in the middle of the night. They also have to prove it is persistent even though it is difficult to know when the wind will change.

To try and solve these problems the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has commissioned research on how councils should be investigating noise.

“There is a possibility that local authorities are not currently investigating complaints about noise from wind farms due to the absence of any formal technical guidance,” an internal document reads.

“Defra wishes to let a contract to provide local authorities with a methodology by which to investigate noise from wind farms, to support local authority enforcement of statutory nuisance legislation.”

The research results, which are due out later this year, should make it much easier for councils to crackdown on noisy wind farms if they are causing a nuisance to residents.

Telegraph.co.uk: Noisy wind farms face crackdown

Now we have the press release below from ‘Transport & Environment’ involving  4 of the 10 Green groups:

Green groups sue Commission over withheld biofuels docs

On Monday 8 March 2010, a coalition of environmental groups filed a legal action against the European Commission over its refusal to release documents.

The documents contain previously undisclosed information on the negative climate impacts of widespread biofuels use in the EU. The lawsuit, brought by ClientEarth, Transport & Environment, the European Environmental Bureau, and BirdLife International, alleges several violations of European laws designed to promote transparency, democracy, and legitimacy in EU policy-making.

“The public’s right to this information is a fundamental principle of European law. That the Commission should choose to deny our rights on such a critical issue as the science underpinning our climate policies is astounding,” said Tim Grabiel, Staff Attorney at ClientEarth, the public-interest legal organisation representing the coalition. “It is regrettable that the Commission’s consistent obstructionism compels us to go to court.”

The efforts to gain access to this information began on 15 October 2009 – more than 144 days ago. Following intense internal deliberations and multiple extensions, the Commission refused to turn over the documents by the statutory deadline, 9 February 2010. Instead, it informed the coalition of their right to sue. In response, the coalition has taken the rare step of taking the issue to the General Court of the European Union.

“The papers released so far give the strong impression that the Commission is preparing to present the studies’ findings in a way that supports previously taken decisions, rather than assessing the real implications of these decisions and correcting them,” said Pieter de Pous, Senior Policy Officer at the EEB.

At issue is the future regulation of biofuels in the European Union. Member States are required to use renewable sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020, which will be met in large part through the increased use of biofuels. A well-known consequence of biofuels production, however, is the conversion of forests and other natural areas into cropland to replace those croplands lost to biofuels production – a phenomenon called indirect land-use change (ILUC) that releases significant greenhouse-gas emissions. The requested documents sought in the ClientEarth v. Commission case reveal the science on those impacts.

Nuša Urbančič, Transport & Environment, says: “Current EU biofuels policy guarantees that Europe will use lots of biofuels, but it doesn’t guarantee reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; in fact it seems likely it will make things worse. The first step to fixing this broken policy must be full transparency about what the true impacts are. That’s why this legal action is so important.”

The Commission is currently withholding around 140 documents, according to its own figures.

The coalition’s application will be reviewed by the Registrar of the General Court of the European Union, and later served upon the Commission, after which it will have two months to respond. A hearing date has yet to be set.

“We continue to hope that the Commission will finally opt for full transparency,” said Ariel Brunner, Head of EU Policy at BirdLife International. “Sound climate policies require an open, inclusive and science-driven debate.”

James Thornton, lawyer and CEO of ClientEarth, says: “The Commission might not be seeking to hide the truth, but the result of its stance is that crucial information is being withheld until it’s no longer relevant. Its own access laws and work to mitigate climate change are being compromised by its inaction. The Commission’s delaying tactics are totally against the spirit of the law.”

Footnotes

Notes to editors:

The full text of the legal filing can be downloaded here.
The General Court of the European Union was formerly known at the Court of First Instance.
Applicants that have been refused access to documents have standing to bring an action under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, also known as the Public Access Regulation, and Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In fact, when refusing a request, the Commission informs the applicant of their right to initiate court proceedings.
There is precedent for the General Court to grant activists standing. For example, a recent case involves the WWF who brought an action against the Council to get certain documents. The court rejected its pleas in law and dismissed the case, but that was on the merits of the claims and not on standing. See Case T-264/04, WWF European Policy Programme v. Council of the European Union (2007), paragraph 36.
However, ClientEarth v. Commission challenges not only the refusal to release the documents, but seeks to address the underlying pattern of the Commission in engaging in what the European Ombudsman has called “maladministration” – that is, delaying the disclosure of documents needlessly without adequate justification until those documents are no longer relevant or the decision has been made. It does this by asking the court to order the release of all requested documents without redaction or delay for failure to make valid claims during the administrative process, without consideration of any reasons offered by the Commission afterward. That is what the law requires, and will ensure good faith participation in the administrative process going forward.
The spirit of the law is that the information should be forthcoming. That is what the process in the regulation is designed to do. Our climate strategies are matters of public policy, and the public should be invited into the policy-making process, not excluded from it by having critical information indefinitely hidden from scrutiny.
For further information:

Dudley Curtis
Communications Manager
+32 (0)2 289 1042
dudley.curtis@transportenvironment.org

10 March 2010

Moonbat’s spat over feed-in tariffs continues with a repost from his nemesis, Jeremy Leggett, defender of the solar industry.

For once, though, we are completely on Moonbat’s side. Only now is the enormity of the government’s proposal beginning to sink in, with its intention to have a full two percent of UK electricity supplied from micro-generation by 2020. This will largely be delivered by solar panels, the most profitable option for small installations.

Actually, solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of producing electricity, costing £4,000-6,000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. Without massive government support, payback times (with interest) could be a hundred years or more to recoup the typical installation costs of between £3,000 and £20,000. Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, that would never have happened.

However, from 1 April, the government is offering 41.3p per kWh produced – a supposed “feed-in” tariff although it is paid even if the owner uses all the electricity produced. From this, it estimates that a typical 2.5kW well sited installation could earn £900 a year and save £140 a year on the electricity not used – the subsidies calculated to give a 5-8 percent return on investment.

The income from the electricity sales is not taxed so, for a higher bracket taxpayer – who would have to pay for the electricity out of earned income, the payback time can be reduced to as little as 15 years. By 2020, however, the government estimates that the subsidy – paid by electricity users – will be costing £8.6 billion annually. Since only the better off will be able to afford the installation costs, this amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to those fortunate enough to be able to buy the equipment.

To get to this state, the number of installations, currently approximately 100,000 and, up from an estimated 82,000 at the end of 2004, will need to increase to something like 7-10 million. And, as a rough estimate, the capital cost could be in the region of £100 billion – for two percent of our electricity production – with which we could buy 100 percent of our requirement in the form of brand new nuclear power stations.

It is this capital expenditure which will be defrayed by the feed-in tariff, replacing a composite scheme which included installation grants.

There was an inkling of how profitable solar was becoming last year when Guardian journalist Ashley Seager spent £8,500 on solar roof panels (having got a 50 percent grant for a system that cost £17,500) and claimed the experience to be financially rewarding.

That was before the government’s feed-in tariff came into force and, when it does the owners will be able to sell all the electricity they produce at 41.3p per kWh, even if they use it all themselves.

Just how insane this really is can be seen from a similar scheme introduced in Germany in 2004 – with a 57.4 euro cent/kWh subsidy for domestic users. This pushed solar power capacity to about 9GW, delivering about 1.35 GW, or about one percent of total German production – including some massive industrial installations, which get a slightly lower subsidy rate.

But the cost has been massive. German electricity consumers last year paid more than £10 billion in subsidies, forcing chancellor Merkel to cut the tariff by 15 percent this month, with more cuts in the pipeline.

With the UK feed-in tariff – and other tax incentives – solar panels are now a good investment for anyone who can afford them, which means that there will almost certainly be a massive uptake. The government may well reach its 2020 target of two percent but the rest of us will be paying dearly for the privilege.

Even allowing for a low end installation cost of £4,000 per kW installed, the load capacity of domestic panels in the UK rarely exceeds 10 percent. This means that the 2GW needed by 2020 to make up 2 percent of our electrical production would still cost in the region of £80 billion. At this rate, no wonder Merkel finds the subsidies unaffordable. And yet, David Cameron wants not 2 but 15 percent, jacking up capital costs to a potential £600 billion.

If the current scheme is already insane, what the Tories are proposing is a multiple of insanity. And we can afford neither.

EU Referendum: A multiple of insanity

Recognising a bargain when they see it, the investment firm Low Carbon Accelerator (LCA) has invested £500,000 in wind and solar power project developer Vigor Renewables in order to cash-in on UK feed-in tariffs (FITs).

Vigor, we are told, is a new company formed to take advantage of changes to UK FITs, which aims to partner with land-owners, as well as commercial property owners and managers, to build and operate renewable power generating assets across the UK.

Each of the solar and wind energy sites they build will be designed to qualify for the FITs which come into effect in the UK on 1 April 2010 and “guarantee an inflation linked income for sub-5MW renewable energy projects.” For solar projects, the incentives are available for 25 years and for wind 20 years.

In an unfortunate turn of phrase, Vigor managing director Oliver Hughes says the FIT has created a “wealth of opportunity” for renewable energy developers in the UK. “We are pleased that LCA, as a pioneer in clean-tech investment, has recognised this opportunity and the return potential for investors and for property and land-owners,” Hughes said.

So it starts … the pigs rush to the trough, scooping up the cash by the handfuls. They would be mad not to do so. The government has devised an utterly mad system designed to put £8.6 billon a year into the kitty, available for anyone able to afford the initial investment. AND THE REST OF US PAY.

This one, like so many, has crept in under the radar, a perverted, distorted reverse Robin Hood scheme where the poor are robbed to give to the rich. And even with today’s debauched currency, £8 billion plus A YEAR is a lot of money – you could build four aircraft carriers a year with that, every year.

This is money which is going to be siphoned out of our pockets, all to produce electricity in one of the least efficient and most expensive ways known to man. On our backs, will arise a vast, bloated “green” industry, milking the poor and the less-well-off, just to pay homage to a mad obsession. In Zimbabwe, runaway inflation produced scenes such as the one shown. If you see something similar in Britain, you are looking at a solar energy developer.

AND IT IS OUR MONEY.

EU Referendum: It’s started

In an exclusive chat with HT, Director WIHG Dr AK Dubey has said that the conditions of Himalayas are controlled by the winter snowfall rather than external factors like much hyped Global Warming. He told that for a concrete result, at least 30 years of continuous research with steady outcome is needed to confirm the actual impact.

“According to a data for over 140 years available with a British weather observatory situated in Mukteswar (2311m) in Almora has actually revealed that temperature in that region witnessed a dip of .4 degrees,” he said.

Hindustan Times: ‘Global Warming has no impact on Himalayas claims Wadia Director’

Reef ecosystems were able to persist through massive environmental changes imposed by sharply falling sea levels during previous ice ages, an international scientific team has found. This provides new hope for their capacity to endure the increasing human impacts forecast for the 21st century.

In the world’s first study of what happened to coral reefs when ocean levels sank to their lowest recorded level – over 120 metres below today’s levels – a study carried out on eight fossil reefs in Papua New Guinea’s Huon Gulf region has concluded that a rich diversity of corals managed to survive, although they were different in composition to the corals under more benign conditions.

“Of course, sea levels then were falling – and today they are rising,” said Professor John Pandolfi of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland.

“But if we want to know how corals cope with hostile conditions, then we have to study what happens under all circumstances.

“We’ve seen what happens to corals in the past when sea levels rose and conditions were favourable to coral growth: we wanted to see what happened when they fell and conditions were adverse.

“When sea levels drop you get a catastrophic reduction in coral habitat and a loss of connectivity between reefs.

“Well, those circumstances are in some respects similar to what corals are experiencing today due to human impacts – so there are useful parallels.”

“Although it is little asked, the question of where reef species go when faced with extreme environmental situations is highly relevant for understanding their prospects of survival in the future – and what we need to do to give them the best chance,” Professor Pandolfi said.

In the Huon region, the team found, coral reefs survived the hard times low of sea levels with as much richness of species – but with a different composition to what they had during the good times.

“As a rule the coral colonies during the period of low sea levels were closer to the sea floor and slower-growing in comparison with times of high sea levels.”

“What we have found suggests that reef systems are able to survive adverse conditions given suitable shallow rocky habitat.

“An interesting finding of this study is that complex coral ecosystems were maintained during the less optimal periods of low sea level. These may have been critical to the re-establishment of nearby reefs once environmental conditions began to improve.”

“The fossil record shows that reefs have been remarkably successful in surviving large environmental disturbances.

“However, the combination of drastic environmental changes that we’re seeing today, such as degraded water quality, depleted fish stocks, coral bleaching, ocean acidification and loss of habitat are unprecedented in the history of coral reefs.

“Although this study clearly highlights the resilience of reef ecosystems, it is important not to underestimate the magnitude of the challenges that reefs are currently facing. “

Professor Pandolfi says we somehow have to find ways of preventing or offsetting each of these impacts if we expect our reefs to ride out the major climatic changes of the 21st century in as good condition as they have in the past.

Their paper: “Community dynamics of Pleistocene coral reefs during alternative climatic regimes”, by Danika Tager, Jody M. Webster, Don Potts, Willem Renema, Juan C. Braga and John M. Pandolfi appears in the latest issue of Ecology 91(1), 2010.

More information:
Professor John Pandolfi, COECRS and UQ, +61 (0)7 3365 3050 or 0400 982 301.
Danika Tager, CoECRS and UQ, 0406 372 178
Jenny Lappin, CoECRS, +61 (0)7 4781 4222
Jan King, UQ Communications Manager, +61 (0)7 3365 1120
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/

The University of Queensland New Release: Ancient corals hold new hope for reefs