Wood Burning in UK = Massive Air Pollution

Regular readers know I’ve been going on about the UK power plant DRAX switching from coal to wood pellets.

And I’ve mentioned the EU directives that encourage wood boilers to be installed in the UK instead of gas.

And I’ve mentioned the trees being felled to burn in Europe.

And the morons at my alma mater SFU.

 

Guess what … the air is filthy in the UK .

 

The current weather conditions, coupled with an “unusually high amount of domestic wood burning“, has led to the highest pollution alert being issued.”

Wood is a crappy high CO2 high particulate matter fuel. Combine that with diesel cars (which I’ve also mentioned) and the great killer fogs aren’t far away.

_93665307_hi011812907

 

Advertisements

Cash For Ash – Northern Ireland

Another insane scheme to subsidize the burning of wood unravels.

November 2012: The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is set up by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in a bid to encourage businesses to switch from oil or gas to wood pellet boilers.”

Just stop and think. They subsidized wood pellets (one of the dirtiest fossil fuels) to get people to switch from natural gas (the cleanest fossil fuel). Not only that … wood pellets produce way more CO2 than natural gas.

Utter insanity.

Why?

“It is part of Northern Ireland’s plan to meet renewable energy targets.”

Ahhh. The scheme relied on the stupidity of people and politicians confusing the term green and renewable with clean and CO2 free.

Sure. Wood pellets are renewable. But they are filthy with particulate matter and they produce 2x more CO2 (or more) than gas.

What went wrong? Can you guess?

Autumn 2013: A whistleblower contacts the department, warning of flaws with the RHI, which she claims overpays businesses and does not provide an incentive to be energy efficient. Officials at the department look into her allegations but they are dismissed.”

Right. The subsidy pays you more if you burn more wood pellets. To an unlimited amount. If the government promised to pay you 10$ for every 5$ bill you burned there would be mass bonfires of $5 bills.

Summer 2015: Officials move to cut the subsidy paid to businesses, which has no cap, after realising an error in how the initiative was set up means companies could make hundreds of thousands of pounds off it.

The more heat a business generates, the higher the subsidy it is paid, making the scheme bad for both the taxpayer and the environment. For every £1 a business spends on fuel, it gets £1.60 in subsidies from the government.

Insane.

There is a jump in applications to join the scheme before the changes come into effect.

No shit.

Read the article … if you can stomach it.

 

A global tax on meat and milk … to punish the Poor and Middle Class

“A new report has called for taxes to be added to food prices in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent obesity-related deaths by cutting consumption.

The team of researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food in the U.K. and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington modelled what effects tax hikes on meat and dairy products would have on consumption, gas emissions and health.

The report based the amount of tax charged on how much greenhouse gas emissions each food group was responsible for through its farming and transportation around the world. Therefore meat including beef, lamb and pork would incur higher taxes than rice and other crops.

The report found that a 40 per cent tax on beef would reduce consumption by 15 per cent and cut global greenhouse gas emissions by around 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, while a 20 per cent tax on milk cut consumption by around 7 per cent and reduced emissions by around 200 million tonnes.”

Instead of taxing meat and milk, lets tax stupid climate research and private jets at 100%. Or maybe 1000%. And trips to climate conferences.

Whatever it takes to punish people who wrote that report or are named Leonardo DiCaprio or work for organizations like The International Food Policy Research Institute.

Simon Fraser University Hates Air Quality in Vancouver

Imagine a giant wood stove at the top of Burnaby Mountain (where my alma mater SFU is situated).

Imagine all the CO2. Imagine all the smoke.

It appears the idiots running SFU hate air quality in Vancouver and the lower mainland.

“The district energy system will produce energy using locally sourced biomass that would otherwise be destined for local landfills. It could include urban wood waste (from tree cuttings and trimmings), uncontaminated wood waste (such as wood chips from sawmills and shavings), and clean construction wood waste.”

If we know anything about wood waste we know:

  1. They will run out of wood waste and start burning whole trees
  2. There will be more CO2 produced than if they were burning coal (let alone natural gas)
  3. There will be more particulate matter than if they are burning clean natural gas.

SFU

 

 

Biomass is a Filthy Con

You know … I don’t agree with Henry A Waxman on much. At all in fact until I read this. But I do on part of this recent article.

And I don’t agree with Waxman that there is urgency on CO2 or climate change.

I only obliquely agree with him because the hypocrisy of a “green” that hates clean natural gas while supporting biomass burning is breathtaking.

Anyway … here is what he has to say:

… the House bill includes a little-known provision that would altogether ignore the carbon pollution emitted by burning biomass—trees and other wood products—to generate power.

Logging companies claim that biomass burned for power is “carbon neutral” – thus, not yielding a net pollution increase. They claim that growing new trees absorbs enough carbon pollution to offset the emissions created by burning mature trees. In effect, they assert that wood power is as clean as solar or wind electricity. This is simply not true. The reality is that burning biomass to generate electricity can produce more carbon pollution than it saves by replacing coal.

This biomass loophole would increase carbon pollution at a time when it is imperative that we reduce it. New trees require up to a century of growth to absorb enough carbon dioxide to offset pollution from mature tree combustion. Worse, there is no guarantee that replacement trees planted today to offset the pollution will survive that long. And even if the new trees eventually offset this pollution after a century, climate change is happening now. We can’t wait.

Notice the BS he is trying to peddle that only “logging companies” want biomass. Almost every greenie wants biomass. There is tremendous amounts of money involved in biomass and biomass subsidies.

 

Governments around the world are exempting the CO2 and pollution biomass is producing. Its a giant con. As is most of the subsidy farming and green anti-CO2 hysteria.

EU Biofuels = 80% More CO2 Than Oil

No surprise for anyone paying attention.

A study published in late April by an environmental group found that Europe’s biofuel regulations created 80 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than the conventional oil they replaced. The report estimates the biofuels create new emissions equivalent to putting an extra 12 million cars on the road.

Europe has been blending small percentages of biofuels into conventional gasoline and oil and diesel specifically to reduce CO2 emissions. The continent plans to require biofuels account for 10 percent of all fuel used by 2020. The EU’s CO2 emissions are estimated to have increased by 0.7 percent last year relative to 2014, even though the continent has spent an estimated $1.2 trillion financially supporting green and bio-energy with the goal of lowering CO2 emissions.

 

Earth Day 1970 Predictions

Earth day 1970 predictions didn’t come true.

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”