How much carbon is being “priced”?

The World Bank have put out a rather breathless account:

The share of greenhouse gas emissions covered by domestic carbon pricing initiatives increased significantly over the past year, led by the launch of six carbon markets in China. Today, 39 national and 23 sub-national jurisdictions – responsible for almost a quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions – have implemented or are scheduled to implement carbon pricing instruments, including emissions trading schemes and taxes, building the momentum for a bottom-up approach to climate action.

Sounds huge. Seems a bit inconsistent with what the International Energy Agency was saying last year:

Fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $523 billion in 2011, around six times the level of support to renewable energy. Currently, 15% of global CO2 emissions receive an incentive of $110 per tonne in the form of fossil-fuel subsidies while only 8% are subject to a carbon price.

Just 8% of CO2 emissions are subject to a “price” – a far cry from the “almost a quarter” the World Bank coyly alludes to – but doesn’t quite claim as being the emissions actually subject to a “price”. Rather those jurisdictions that are home to “almost a quarter” of emissions have implemented or are scheduled to implement a “price”. Very clever sleight of hand. Lots of double counting, carve outs and exemptions etc.

Update: In the Report itself (less likely to be read by journalists than just the press release) the World Bank claim:

about 12% of the annual global GHG emissions.

That’s the current coverage and the “scheduled” coverage.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to How much carbon is being “priced”?

  1. stackja

    Are erupting Indonesian volcanoes being counted?

  2. Baldrick

    Over the years, the World Bank has collaborated with the United Nations in nearly every region and sector, deepening this engagement since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the international community.

    Enough said.

  3. Sam Oldfield

    Why is it that more and more of the statistics, warnings and spin I hear on climate change comes from the World Bank and the IMF? There are half a dozen international agencies for monitoring climate change and other environmental issues but every time I look around someone is citing the world bank. What makes these guys an authority on the subject?

  4. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    Estimates of future volume of production, future sales, future costs, or future profits or losses are not facts, but speculative anticipations. There are no facts about future profits.
    — Ludwig von Mises

    Same for carbon pricing?

  5. Alfonso

    Hee, hee….ya gotta love the cover narrative.
    These boys don’t give a rat’s arse about pretend “socially beneficial” CO2 pricing….
    their CAGW purpose is to create and trade the derivatives thereof, a market that when UN mandated and compulsory world wide will dwarf all other derivative markets except currencies and interest rates.
    Hence the intense BS.

    The boyos are just talking their book.

  6. Rohan

    So who prices the natural sources of CO2?

  7. AP

    I have a great business idea – and, this is about as good as wind turbines: How about we plug active volcanoes with concrete, using government grants or zero interest finance, then claim an aggregate, up-front carbon credit, assuming the plug will last um, say, 30 years. Is this hare-brained enough to get some EU funding?

    “Volco-plugs: saving the planet for a cleaner future”

  8. Robert O.

    Still have yet to see a significant mathematical relationship between global temperatures and levels of Carbon dioxide: without any, a carbon tax, scheme or whatever, will achieve very little since the science seems to be saying there are other factors, some of which are unknown, influencing climate. The relationship between cosmic particles and the formation of cloud nuclei is plausible, and I really don’t think a solar tax will impede these either.

  9. Any way of totalling up the CO2 from grass, branches, dung, twigs, peat, coal, charcoal, alcohol, kero etc burnt daily inside dwellings by billions of people who aren’t on a grid? Is there something about the fuel burnt with relative efficiency and safety in a power station that makes it nastier? Wouldn’t it be the other way around?

    Ah, but it never has been about the CO2, has it? It’s about top-down control by a New Class who are saving us from top-down control by an Old Class.

    The road to serfdom is paved with green intentions.

  10. 2dogs

    Just 8% of CO2 emissions are subject to a “price” – a far cry from the “almost a quarter” the World Bank coyly alludes to

    Virtually all fossil fuels are subject to a state imposed price. There is no fossil fuel exporting country which does not tax or impose royalties on the extraction of the fossil fuels.

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    How much carbon is being “priced”?

    UN CER’s are currently at about 23 cents per tonne. Which is still too high.

    Rather like Zimbabwe dollars, the price is fundamentally based on something invisible, difficult to measure, easy to cheat on and which pretty much depends on how many are printed.

    Intrinsically worthless.

  12. johno

    Who would have thought. A taxpayer funded international organisation spreading falsehoods to promote the warmerist’s cause.

    If the ‘science is settled’ why do they have to lie to us so much. Surely the ‘facts would speak for themselves’.

  13. JohnA

    Sam Oldfield #1330327, posted on June 2, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    Why is it that more and more of the statistics, warnings and spin I hear on climate change comes from the World Bank and the IMF? There are half a dozen international agencies for monitoring climate change and other environmental issues but every time I look around someone is citing the world bank. What makes these guys an authority on the subject?

    Because they are less discredited than the IPCC.

  14. manalive

    Fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $523 billion in 2011, around six times the level of support to renewable energy …

    No level of taxpayer or energy consumer derived subsidy can make the sun shine or the wind blow.

  15. Developments across the Pacific around climate change will change the rules we play to here.

    From the report –

    Surveyed about the new EPA standards, the response was very positive: 53 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats support EPA emission standards to combat climate change. Even in red, southern states, a majority favored action on climate change.

    Heather Taylor-Miesle, the director of the NRDC Action Fund, the group’s political arm, said the polling shows American attitudes are shifting on the issue of climate change, putting Republicans out of touch with their own constituents.

  16. egg_

    So who prices the natural sources of CO2?

    They’ll just have to plug those damn volcanoes that are spoiling the racket.

  17. Demosthenes

    Heather Taylor-Miesle, the director of the NRDC Action Fund, the group’s political arm, said the polling shows American attitudes are shifting on the issue of climate change, putting Republicans out of touch with their own constituents.

    Public opinion is fickle, and changes depending on their impressions of their local weather, not on the strength of the evidence about climate trends. The next few years are likely to give political cover to Obama and the EPA.

  18. Bruce of Newcastle

    Numbers – NRDC advocate wind farms despite their statement on the front page of their website:

    NRDC works to safeguard the earth — its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends

    And under the ‘wildlife’ tab they “defend some of our hemisphere’s most imperiled species” including “migratory birds” .

    Wind energy is the most harmful form of energy to wildlife, especially migratory birds. Millions of birds and bats are killed by wind farms every year including many threatened and endangered species. So they are liars and hypocrites.

    Why would you believe poll results from liars and hypocrites Numbers?

  19. Fibro

    I will be applying to the Climate Change Commission for a grant based on the fact that my dog regularly farts and therefore is a contributor to emissions. My grant will be used to study the impact of variosu dog foods on the respective fart power of my dog so that I can produce a thesis paper on the effects of dog fart power on the planet, therefore not only elevating myself to the status of a ‘distinguished notariaty on climate change’ but alo get free dog food for a year.

    If only it wasn’t true………………….

  20. Rohan

    They’ll just have to plug those damn volcanoes that are spoiling the racket.

    Egg, what are the introductory share prices going for with the predicted big players in that emerging green industry?

  21. Millions of birds and bats are killed by wind farms every year including many threatened and endangered species.

    “Millions” is simply rubbish.
    Not a lot of research has been done, but the most comprehensive study produced figures closer to between 140000 and 320000 annually.
    That is about .000015% of those killed by feral cats, .00032% of those killed by electricity transmission lines, and about .00004% killed by fossil fuel powerplants.
    I know who the liars and hypocrites are.

  22. egg_

    Rohan
    #1331302, posted on June 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Apologies, missed AP’s preceding post.
    Didn’t the Russian Mafia trouser $3b of EU carbon trading?

  23. squawkbox

    Not a lot of research has been done, but the most comprehensive study produced figures closer to between 140000 and 320000 annually.
    That is about .000015% of those killed by feral cats, .00032% of those killed by electricity transmission lines, and about .00004% killed by fossil fuel powerplants.
    I know who the liars and hypocrites are.

    So, spudpeeler, by your mathematics every year 1.5 trillion birds and bats are killed by cats, 71 trillion are killed by powerlines, and 57.5 trillion are killed by fossil fuel powerplants. What a demented old fart you are.

  24. Rabz

    by your mathematics every year 1.5 trillion birds and bats are killed by cats, 71 trillion are killed by powerlines, and 57.5 trillion are killed by fossil fuel powerplants

    That sounds about right.

  25. squawkbox

    Hey, I only averaged spudpeeler’s numbers – it could be considerably more. But sorry, read 72 billion and 575 billion for the last two numbers quoted. Decimal points are tricky things :-) Spuds’ numbers are absurd in any case.

  26. Rabz

    1.5 trillion birds and bats are killed by cats

    Squawks, apparently the CSIRO figure is 27,375,000,000 animals killed by feral cats per annum – which of course, doesn’t sound absurd either.

  27. Spuds’ numbers are absurd in any case.

    They are not “my” numbers.
    Go to the link and check the references.
    Your reasoning ability is on par with your arithmetic.
    Both are shot….

  28. squawkboxxx

    so, tell me spuds, how do you get from 3.1 billion birds killed by cats in the US to 1.5 trillion in the world?

  29. old bloke

    Given that most atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans, who is taxing the fish?

  30. squawkbox

    Your reasoning ability is on par with your arithmetic.
    Both are shot….

    Hey, spuds, you are the one who has escalated from your link 3 billion birds killed by cats in the US to 1.5 trillion worldwide. So cats killing birds in the US are a mere 0.2% of the worldwide total.Using a Wikipedia link on a controversial subject to boot. So convincing.

  31. egg_

    Given that most atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans

    Aren’t the climate modellers quietly waking up to the fact that it’s the ocean, stupid (and of course the Sun) that most affects climate?

  32. Bruce of Newcastle

    “Millions” is simply rubbish.

    Numbers – you do realise that the climateers have an interest to underreport this? And both the operators and the regulators likewise have an interest in underreporting?

    The underreporting problem is enormous. The ‘official’ method of reporting bird and bats mortality is to count carcases within 50 m of the base of the tower. But the actual zone of impact is more than 10 times this:

    Big Wind & Avian Mortality (Part II: Hiding the Problem)

    Even the environmental community is starting to break ranks:

    UK Ecologist: ‘Wind Farms Driving Birds, Bats to Extinction’

    And its not just simple impact. More effects from breeding disturbance, noise and EMF have been found in the following metastudy of 600 reported studies:

    Wind Farms Severely Harmful to Wildlife, New Study Finds

    I could tell you about the windfarm licences which allow a certain number of critically endangered golden eagles to be killed, which, if it had applied to a copper mine say would have created lefty green anguish which would be heard around the world. Yet zip…except from some Audobon Society people who are starting to break ranks in horror of the hypocrisy and carnage.

    I could talk about how the Californian condor reintroduction project is imperiled by wind turbines. About the case where bird watchers flocked to a Scottish island to see a rare bird which had not been seen in the UK for decades only to be shocked when it was wiped from the sky by a wind turbine blade in front of their eyes and cameras. I could tell you about the school in Southern England who “did the right thing” by putting a wind turbine on school grounds…and had to have a teacher to come in at 6am each day to pick up carcases so the kids would not be upset.

    These things are appalling. You defending them is horrifying. How can you defend such hypocrisy?

  33. So convincing.

    The Wikipedia link takes you to the references.
    Perhaps you don’t know how to use them.
    Not my problem.
    The simple fact is that far fewer birds are killed by windfarms than by other man made structures.
    You find this fact unpalatable because it conflicts with your ideology.
    That is also not my problem.
    I don’t have a position for or against wind farms, but I have a strong objection to bullshit.
    From – Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines:
    A Summary of Existing Studies and
    Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian
    Collision Mortality in the United States

    August 2001
    Wallace P. Erickson
    Gregory D. Johnson
    M. Dale Strickland
    David P. Young, Jr.
    Karyn J. Sernka
    Rhett E. Good
    Western EcoSystems Technology Inc.
    Summary of the research -

    The results of our review and updated estimates indicate that avian collision mortality attributable to windpower at the current level of production in the U.S. is minor in comparison to other sources of collision mortality. The current levels of mortality caused by wind plants do not appear to be causing any significant population impacts (except possibly for golden eagles at Altamont (Hunt et al.1999), although several possible contributors to this decline have been proposed). Due to recent declines in many species of birds, especially some raptors and many Neotropical migrants, however, any additional mortality may be a cause for concern. Monitoring programs in place at many of the newer generation wind plants will continue to provide information to better understand avian mortality levels and to continue to determine factors important for siting wind plants. Because the cumulative impacts of all mortality factors on birds continue to increase as the human population climbs and resource demands grow, efforts by every industry are important to reverse avian mortality trends and to minimize bird deaths.

  34. Senile Old Guy

    The Wikipedia link takes you to the references.

    Don’t get sucked into an argument over that link.

    The figures are cumulative and do not take into account the prevalence of the various threats to the birds (or the species of bird and their conservation significance, and numerous other things).

    It would be similar to comparing cumulative car accident deaths in the NT to those in NSW and concluding that the NT was a lot safer.

  35. Rabz

    Bruce,

    That’s one almighty smackdown. Don’t expect a response.

  36. This article also provides a comparison between windfarm fatalities and those caused by other energy production facilities -

    Abstract -

    This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

    (Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity)

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

    Science Direct – Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241–2248

  37. That’s one almighty smackdown. Don’t expect a response.

    That’s really funny.

    Breitbart and a Free Market energy blog a smackdown?
    You can’t tell the difference between polemic and fact.

  38. Rabz

    And utterly preposterous data on links to wikipedia constitute fact?

    Remove the log from your own eye, you bloviating old hypocrite.

  39. Senile Old Guy

    (Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity)

    It’s here, if you want to pay $20 to find out the rather important detail of the data and assumptions that went into those calculations. I don’t.

  40. Bruce of Newcastle

    And Numbers I’ll add a bit more for you to think about.

    In 2009 Exxon was fined $600,000 for killing 85 birds. $7,000 a head. PacifiCorp was fined $1.4 M for the deaths of 232 eagles fried on power lines. $6,000 a head. Syncrude Canada was fined $3 M for 1,606 bird deaths. $1,800 each.

    So if the number was 140,000-320,000 per annum (and which is just the US, if you’d looked at the linked blog post) that would be a fine of $252 million per year for the US wind industry alone, using the lowest fine figure and the smallest estimate. If Obama and the USEPA weren’t complete hypocrites.

    The actual fine is zero. Utter hypocrisy.

  41. Remove the log from your own eye, you bloviating old hypocrite.

    It maters little that the links originate in a Wiki – they take you to sites that inform – you know, how it says at the top of the page – To educate, entertain, and inform.
    Substituting abuse for reason does not constitute an argument.
    If you really believe that windfarms are a bigger threat to avian well being than other forms of energy production, provide the research to back that belief.

  42. Bruce of Newcastle

    Aside. Numbers reminds me of Stalin who so helped the Ukranians that tens of millions died.

    The Left are soooo conscious of their superiority that what does it matter that millions of birds, bats and humans have to die for their aims to be achieved.

    What a liar. What a hypocrite. And he’s a perfect representative of the species homo lefty greenerii.

    Numbers, you do not convince people by lying incessantly. But convincing people with secret police and gulags may work. Have you considered trying a putsch?

  43. Aristogeiton

    No context at all, but DIAF Numbers.

  44. Senile Old Guy

    Whoops! Time for me to quit.

    Numbers had already linked to it.

    I will, however, point out that the journal is Energy Policy, Science Direct is the database where numbers found it.

  45. Say “Yes” to Killing Endangered Birds’:

    The Tasmanian sub-species of the wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) is protected by State and Federal law and, under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, it is an offence even to disturb its general habitat. Fewer than one hundred and thirty breeding pairs are left in the State.

    If a farmer or hunter or anyone else deliberately killed a wedge-tailed eagle, the Greens would be among the first calling loudly for exemplary punishment—but not when giant whirligigs slaughter the birds.

  46. cohenite

    Wind and solar are not energy dense which means to nominally produce the same installed capacity as the fossils they have to cover 100s of square kilometres. For instance for a solar farm to have the installed capacity of Bayswater of 2600 MW it would need to cover 500 square kilometres. Everything in that 500 square kilometres would be dead, on the ground and above it. And of course solar NEVER produces at the installed capacity.

    Numbers, you are a complete dickhead.

  47. Numbers, you are a complete dickhead.

    Why? Because I pointed out that this -

    Millions of birds and bats are killed by wind farms every year including many threatened and endangered species.

    is absolute rubbish.
    As proved above, windfarms are far less harmful to bird species than other forms of energy production. None of you have been able to find any evidence to refute that fact, simply because it doesn’t exist.
    And Cohenhite injects a red herring about solar, conveniently showing that this is about ideology, not scientific fact.
    Talk about enough rope…..
    The abuse and name calling simply emphasizes your desperation.

  48. Bruce of Newcastle

    windfarms are far less harmful to bird species than other forms of energy production

    Liar. I have been attempting to find out exactly how coal and nuclear are supposed to cause so many bird deaths, and you know what – its all crap. The best I could find is this:

    Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region.

    Complete crap. I will take them one by one. SO2 in the amounts produced by coal plants is harmless because all Western coal plants are fitted with FGD. So the amount of SO2 remaining is tiny. No effect. NOx also is by and large removed. And what isn’t is quickly oxidised by the atmosphere and is rained out. The biggest source of NOx anyway is cars, and their main threat to wildlife is impact. CO2 is another crap excuse since the only way CO2 can affect birds and bats is via global warming, and that’s not happening. Mercury is also crap. The amount of mercury emitted by coal plants is tiny. Most of the mercury you see deposited in the environment is natural. Do birds die in convulsions because of dust? No. Its complete confection. And I have been dealing with mercury for decades, I have published papers and I do know what I’m talking about.

    And how exactly do nuclear plants hurt birds and bats? No one says. The one mention of mortality mechanism I can find is they “fly into buildings”. Pull the other one its got bells on.

    Numbers, can you actually conceive that these activists might be trying to justify their own cushy positions, and are just a bit gunshy about the carnage they are causing? Sovacool for example is a deep green activist professor and IPCC contributor.

  49. cohenite

    Solar isn’t a red herring numbers. And when it coms to birds it’s more of a cooked Goose. The installation in the article, Brightsource, at 10 square kilometres is a relatively small one but a large concentrating one.

    And let me add that anyone who defends renewables is a dickhead. So just suck it up numbers.

  50. Bruce of Newcastle

    is absolute rubbish.

    Numbers, you yourself cited a study which says:

    somewhere between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from collisions with wind turbines

    When you follow the link in the article you will see (a) its only the US and (b) bat numbers are not included.

    So how many worldwide then? Well the US has about one seventh world wind capacity. Seven times even the low end number is 980,000 a year of birds alone. Add in bats and even that study is saying millions.

    So you lied hypocritically again.

  51. Bruce and Cohenite
    Find some research that shows that windfarms are a greater risk to avian species than other forms of energy generation, or pull your heads in.
    Until you can do that, you are pissing into the wind.

  52. Rabz

    anyone who defends renewables is a dickhead

    As well as stupid, mad and misanthropic.

  53. cohenite

    So you lied hypocritically again.

    Bruce, as a scientist you must know numbers don’t lie.

  54. anyone who defends renewables is a dickhead

    Who is defending renewables?
    I’m simply pointing out a few facts.
    Nobody has been able to refute them, and they don’t fit your narrative, so you resort to abuse.
    Pretty much sums up the mindset of the Glibertarian.

  55. Token

    Does Numbers have the clown mask on or off today. It looks like it is on.

    Enjoy baby-sitting the homophobic old bigot peoples.

  56. cohenite

    Ok, numbers so you don’t support renewables; good for you. Renewables are shit and a monstrous diversion of funds from real pollution, energy and general infrastructure alternatives.

    The point about renewables and killing wildlife is that the culpability is so more much more given the green assumption of moral superiority about these dud energy sources. Is that clear?

  57. cohenite

    more much more

    A lot!

  58. Snoopy

    Cigarette smoking is far less harmful to people than riding bicycles. None of you are able to find any evidence to refute that fact, simply because it doesn’t exist.

    Nyah, nyah.

  59. The point about renewables and killing wildlife is that the culpability is so more much more given the green assumption of moral superiority about these dud energy sources.

    What amazing logic.
    Culpability is linked to thought patterns.
    The latest liberty quote from the Glibertarian thought police.
    I wonder how that would go written into the criminal code?
    And I’m still waiting for your proof that windfarms are more dangerous to birdlife than other forms of energy production.

  60. Senile Old Guy

    Bruce of N cites this:

    Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region.

    I knew it was going to be something like that. Note that I mentioned “assumptions” earlier. For the fossil fuel, they will simply add in anything remotely connected and count it as “wildlife killed by fossil fuel”.

  61. Snoopy

    I knew it was going to be something like that. Note that I mentioned “assumptions” earlier. For the fossil fuel, they will simply add in anything remotely connected and count it as “wildlife killed by fossil fuel”.

    I’ll be they haven’t factored in the wildlife killed while manufacturing and transporting the components for wind farms!

    Everyone can play this game.

  62. cohenite

    Culpability is linked to thought patterns.

    It can’t be, greens don’t have any. Thought patterns.

  63. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’m simply pointing out a few facts.

    Numbers – So far on my count I have refuted every “fact”, or should I say piece of propaganda, that you have raised.

    Vampires, if asked about their effect upon humans, will say that their saliva has amazingly positive benefits for human health. Climate activists speak like this too.

  64. incoherent rambler

    It can’t be, greens don’t have any. Thought patterns.

    Not true. It is logic and reason, that is difficult for them.

  65. .

    Find some research that shows that windfarms are a greater risk to avian species than other forms of energy generation, or pull your heads in.

    Why are dissembling for renewables robber barons? Its fucking obvious you twit.

    “Provide some evidence people who never go in the water don’t get eaten by sharks”

    Would you like a p-values with that as well?

    Imbecile.

  66. jupes

    Until you can do that, you are pissing into the wind.

    FMD Numbers can’t you read?

    Bruce has done precisely that. He has debunked your propaganda point by point. Forensically.

    Even for a teacher you are exceedingly stupid.

  67. incoherent rambler

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

    Public servants (especially scientists and engineers) should certainly be banned from expressing

    political opinion

    .

    Words like “denier”, “believer”, “deny”, “believe” should be banned from their public statements.

    Who said we should fund activists?

  68. Time for a recap.
    Bruce of Newcastle (#1331070, on June 3, 2014 at 9:29 am)
    posts –

    Wind energy is the most harmful form of energy to wildlife, especially migratory birds.

    I link to a Wiki that provides a graphed comparison of avian fatalities through windfarms with other forms of energy production and reveals that what Bruce posted is bullshit.
    The usual suspects have a conniption and post opinion pieces sponsored by Right wing blogs, that describe in gruesome details the horrendous results of collisions between birds and wind turbine generators (#1331754, posted on June 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm and #1331844, posted on June 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm)
    I link to at least two studies that show that windfarms are less dangerous to birds than other forms of energy production (#1331800, posted on June 3, 2014 at 6:44 pm and #1331823, posted on June 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm).
    Despite my repeated invitations, no body has been able to come up with any data that either refutes my original point that windfarms are less dangerous than other forms of energy production, or confirms Bruce’s contention that windfarms are the “most harmful form of energy to wildlife”.
    In the meantime, I am subjected to non-stop abuse –

    Enjoy baby-sitting the homophobic old bigot peoples.
    Remove the log from your own eye, you bloviating old hypocrite.
    Numbers, you are a complete dickhead.

    This is a neat summary of how the conceptually challenged on this blog deal with discussion and debate.
    The bit about To educate, entertain, and inform. applies, especially as it refers to entertain.
    It’s reminds me of bear-baiting, although slightly more humane.
    Back in the day, I’m sure the bears also demonstrated more self-awareness………

  69. .

    If you seriously believe that running a car engine on oil and petroleum fuel from an oil well and refinery, ship and tanker to the service station kills more birds than from the requisite energy harvested from windmills, we can’t convince you are wrong.

    You’ve just assumed nonsense projections about global warming are right.

    Their models don’t work and they are based on fudged data and the relationships are not valid.

    No birds have died because of global warming. Many species are coming back under conservation efforts DURING this apparently deathly time.

  70. Bruce of Newcastle

    I link to at least two studies that show that windfarms are less dangerous to birds than other forms of energy production

    And I showed that the “data” is rubbish, as the mechanisms for bird deaths via coal and nuclear plants are ludicrous.

    Argument from authority is not truth, it is rhetoric. You should know that Numbers. Ante up with something to justify your pretty pictures. Its propaganda from a pack of activists who are earning big bucks.

    And even E.on today is saying exactly this, despite being the biggest wind generator in Europe:

    Stop feeding renewable energy beast, urges E.On

    Speaking in London at the annual conference of Eurelectric, the European electricity industry body of which he is president, Mr Teyssen said: “10 years ago renewables were in an immature state and needed to be nurtured.

    “Today they are the biggest animal in the zoo and if you continue to treat them as imbeciles and feed them baby nutrition you will just get a sick big cat.” He claimed the only people blocking debate about ending financial aid for renewables were those who “just want to harvest subsidies without accountability”.

    Completely damning.

  71. If you seriously believe that running a car engine on oil and petroleum fuel from an oil well and refinery, ship and tanker to the service station kills more birds than from the requisite energy harvested from windmills, we can’t convince you are wrong.

    You posted that, I didn’t.
    I posted that fewer birds are killed by windfarms than other energy generators, and you have posted nothing that refutes that.

    And I showed that the “data” is rubbish, as the mechanisms for bird deaths via coal and nuclear plants are ludicrous.

    No you didn’t.
    You posted opinion.
    It showed nothing except your bias against renewable energy.
    If you’re so sure of your opinion, you’ll find a study that compares bird deaths through windfarming with bird deaths from other energy generators.

  72. cohenite

    How about this numbers: green energy which kills birds and stuff is a contradiction in terms.

  73. .

    1735099
    #1332860, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:47 am
    If you seriously believe that running a car engine on oil and petroleum fuel from an oil well and refinery, ship and tanker to the service station kills more birds than from the requisite energy harvested from windmills, we can’t convince you are wrong.

    You posted that, I didn’t.

    Um…yes I did.

    Birds don’t die from oil wells unless something goes wrong, which is very rare. Not much roadkill. Not many killed by refineries. Not many killed at petrol stations. The number of birds killed by climate change is zero. Many species such as Bald Eagles, Wedge Tails and Condors are recovering in this time of “climate change”.

    There are many non doctored photos of the dead bodies of birds near windmills from various places around the world.

    It is undeniable the wind farms near Altamont, CA., kill many endangered American Condors.

    Climate change or conventional energy production has killed few if any birds.

  74. egg_

    Do the Greens have recipes for turbine roadkill?

  75. Birds don’t die from oil wells unless something goes wrong, which is very rare. Not much roadkill. Not many killed by refineries. Not many killed at petrol stations.

    Plenty of other activity associated with energy production and transmission kills birds. (USA figures) -

    Transmission lines – 174 – 175 million pa
    Fossil fuel powerplants – 14 million pa
    Communication towers – 6.8 million pa
    Oilfield waste pits – .50 – 1 million pa
    Nuclear powerplants – .33 million pa

    I wonder what your definition of “not many” is?

    Wind turbines – .02 – .57 million pa – positively benign in comparison.

  76. .

    Numbers how are you going to distribute green energy without power lines?

    Those numbers are bullshit anyway.

  77. Bruce of Newcastle

    You posted opinion

    I posted expert opinion as someone who has worked with sulfuric acid plants, gaseous emissions, pollution control, mercury, NOx and power for a quarter century and more.

    In the West the amount of SO2 which escapes flue gas desulfurization is miniscule. How the small amount remaining in the gas stream could cause millions of bird deaths is a mystery to me. I am prepared to be convinced if you have the data. You don’t. All you have is opinion (I think that is the word you used) from experts (who almost certainly are less expert than me), who are on the take from Big Climate, and you expect me to believe you?

    And most of the bird deaths ascribed to coal power is due to CO2, that seems clear from the deaths/GWh relative numbers. All those “deaths” are pure mythology based on the triple assumption of modelled temperature (which is dead wrong), that CO2 is harmful due to CAGW (which it isn’t) plus stupid assumptions about what a rise in temperature would do to bird mortality. If any impartial scientist actually looked at it they would find CO2 is good for birds and bats since it increases biosphere productivity, insect growth and food for both genera. And the tropics are famous for their diversity and number of birdlife.

    I am sorry Numbers, but your religion doesn’t convince me. And your other religion has this thing called the Ninth Commandment, which you seem to take great liberty with over and over and over. Well its your soul not mine.

  78. cohenite

    Those numbers are bullshit anyway.

    Bullshit is too complimentary: 3.7 BILLION birds killed by cats and fido PA; FFS.

    How about this: what is the ratio of bird deaths from renewables to fossils as a proportion of usable grid power produced by either energy type?

  79. incoherent rambler

    Did we mention seagull eating whales?

  80. Token

    Numbers how are you going to distribute green energy without power lines?

    LOL, watch for the predictable reaction now his illogical meanderings have left him looking like a moron once again.

  81. Bruce of Newcastle

    Looks like Numbers has sloped off into the sunset, his trail littered with avian carcases.

  82. Gab

    Okay, that did make me laugh, Bruce.

Comments are closed.