I have been a bit under the weather over the last few days, in fact I have had a sort of flu like symptoms for the last week, you know with a sinus headache and a general feeling of utter lethargy. On top of that joyous present from my son I have been having a rather bad patch with my back. that has seen my doctor prescribe me some even stronger pain medication and to be honest it makes be feel like I’m a bit “off with the fairies” sometimes. In fact my interest in politics has been a bit subdued lately. Oh I have been fighting the good fight a bit in Latte land and now I think its time to offer a new post here to the loyal readers of the Sandpit. So without further adieu I’m going to consider the viability of the UN sponsored “global carbon trading scheme”. The Guardian is of course one of the most partisan and pro AGW papers on the planet so lets have a look at the report in the latest edition:
click for source
What I am struck by upon reading this article is an inescapable feeling that the whole UN scheme is, like the Gillard monstrosity just another Ponzi scheme where its all about creating “confidence” but because that confidence is predicated on false expectations and and eternally growing pool of “investors” the whole thing is bound to fail sooner rather than later:
Governments have a last chance to restore confidence in the system when they meet in Qatar this December to discuss climate change. But few participants hold out any hope that they will agree to toughen their 2020 emissions targets, which are scarcely even on the agenda. Instead, governments are focusing on drawing up a new climate change treaty by the end of 2015, which would stipulate emissions cuts for the period after 2020.
As I have been saying for ages if the response to AGW can not be made to happen at a truly global level then any efforts from a minority of the global emitters is at best pointless and futile.At worst it will be an expensive exercise in climate piety that is of no value what so ever. There is only one answer to the AGW question that is to do nothing, wait and see if any of the dire prognostications come to pass and if they do then we deal with each problem as it actually presents itself rather than spending huge amounts of effort and treasure trying to forestall things that may never happen.
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
What I am struck by is the inescapable feeling that moderate Labor voters and rusted-on Labor voters have allowed this situation to develop and eventuate. Because of their irrational hatred of Tony Abbott they have sided with this union-dominated and green-seduced Gillard government at the expense of good governance.
Now that Labor itself is backing away from the Greens, from the Carbon Tax and from closing down the coal industry, it remains to be asked, why did they ever believe in it in the first place?
It seems the skeptics were right, or at least more realistic than the alarmists who foretold of doom to the human race in the near future.
Flannery’s tipping point, predicted to occur some years ago, has been shown to be not only a joke, but also a costly waste of resources. Money spent employing Flannery and his team of climate charlatans could have been spent far better on projects for the homeless and disadvantaged.
Come to think of it, the NBN scheme which is currently falling in the dirt, is another example of how Labor could have helped Australia’s needy. Unless Conroy’s NBN provides access to the homeless, the poor and the needy, it’s a white elephant.
It wasn’t Labor who got Australia up to speed on the internet back in 1995. It was private enterprise.
So whether AGW initiatives or the NBN, I am still dumb-struck as to how Labor’s policies are of any benefit to everyday Australians.
I’d suggest that symbolic, feel good projects are of little worth and generally have a short shelf life.
And don’t help the average person one iota.
GD the picture of the wind turbine reminds me of the absurdity and the truth re wind power and the Greens and Labor desire to eliminate all non green energy.
AUSTRALIA will need to spend a further $30 billion on wind farms by 2020 – about four times the capital investment in power stations in the national energy market during the past decade – to comply with the government’s enforceable targets for renewable energy generation. The former NSW Labor government paid Capital Wind Farm double the price of ”dirty energy” for buying green power from a wind farm, so it can advertise its desalination plant as environmentally friendly.
A SINGLE 555-MEGAWATT GAS FIRED PLANT IN CALIFORNIA GENERATES MORE ELECTRICITY IN A YEAR THAN DO ALL OF THE STATES WIND TURBINES.
The much touted UK Whinash wind farm project, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from Sydney to Perth and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Sydney and Perth costs three giant wind farms.
Wind power can never close a power station of any sort; the fallibility of the “wind supply” necessitates full capacity (plus contingency reserve) back up from a power station if there is not to be a power cut, or risk thereof. The small amount of power derived from them is more expensive than any other method and even this is subsidized by the government.