Australia Rejects UN “Socialism Masquerading as Environmentalism”

australiaIf ever we Americans needed a blueprint on what to do about this global warming hype used by politicians to usher in a sweeping socialistic wealth distribution policy it is now.

Australia offers up a very good example on what not to do as well as hindsight on what to do:

“The new Australian government, elected by a landslide on a platform opposing carbon taxes and “global-warming” schemes as United Nations climate theories were imploding, delivered a blunt message to UN alarmists this week: No more “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.” With the new conservative-leaning cabinet taking a stand against UN machinations and radical domestic restrictions imposed under the previous Labor Party government, Australian authorities also publicly refused to sign up for any new contributions, taxes, or charges at this week’s embattled UN global-warming summit in Poland. ” Read from the source New American

Fortunately Australia has been through the air and energy tax already and have sense rejected and kicked out many of the politicians who brought it about. Although they fell for the hype about global warming and voted for the tax they have now rejected and pushed all of those corrupt politicians from office in a landslide victory.

Imagine that the platform opposing politicians won on was a platform opposing the “carbon tax”. It wasn’t on real economic issues like loss of jobs, bad economy, etc. but on a manufactured system disguised to look like environmentalism but what was actually masqueraded Socialism.

This several billion dollar tax that hit Australia has a stepbrother just as bad that Obama disguises under environmental names to convince Americans we need as well. Supposedly, if we don’t allow Obama to triple your electricity rate with EPA regulations and CO2 carbon taxes the earth will catastrophically warm and sea levels will rise.

If the earth wasn’t in a 17 year cooling period Australians and Americans might still be buying it but the empirical evidence and thousands of scientists who disagree have persuaded many to think otherwise.

The sustainability environmentalism movement was brought into the Australian government successfully in the past and the voters allowed a massive CO2 emissions tax to occur which dramatically raised everyone’s electricity rate beyond anything previously thinkable.

Doesn’t what happened in Australia seem similar to the Obamacare fiasco? Didn’t many Americans vote for it because they thought it would be an Affordable Care Act?

The Australians had good intentions because they believed the government of Australia really did want to save the environment. Turns out CO2 emissions aren’t pollution at all and solar and wind energy barely puts a dent in reducing these emissions.

Do you realize the new Australian government was elected in a landslide after the carbon tax scheme had been in effect for a few years based on the main platform being ant-carbon tax? When citizens have several billion dollars stolen away from them with a lie that it is to save the environment they apparently sit up and take notice.

Let’s hope that the Australian experiment in this tax combined with the lies about Obamacare will allow Americans to not rest a blind eye regarding this same carbon tax the politicians will attempt to push here.

You can already see that in Texas they have allowed the EPA to regulate some coal power plants out of operation although this is being fought by some great Texas leaders.

In summary, Australia offers us an example of what we must do. We cannot vote for politicians who accept UN IPCC global warming as science as they were setup as a think-tank to prove global warming in order to justify a global energy tax. The UN IPCC is not an unbiased group of scientists but were set with the task of proving a theory and under this mandate they receive their funding. We as voters must elect those officials who are outspoken that they will not approve of the largest ever tax increase in American history via a tax on energy.

 

 

Burning Wood in Power Plants Not The CO2 Cleansing Effect They Thought

“When burned, biomass emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like any other combustion. A 2012 paper by Synapse Energy Economics estimated that burning biomass emits 50 to 85 percent more CO2 than burning coal since the energy content of biomass is lower than coal relative to its carbon content.”

clip_image002_thumb4So why are more and more power plant adopting wood instead of coal to generate electricity if it actually creates more CO2 than even coal? My assumption would be that wood is cleaner because it doesn’t pollute the environment with lead, radiation and other contaminates that come off of coal burning.

My assumptions are completely wrong, the whole reason power plants have chosen wood is because of the faulty assumption that it emits less CO2 than coal. This assumption has sense been proven wrong but regardless climate policy has caused a huge bio-mass movement that sees increasing amounts of power generation via burning wood.

I live in Tyler Texas and we even have plans for a biomass power plant to built very close to my house. So all of this is in reality very close to home for me. I of course don’t think that CO2 is harming or catastrophically warming the planet but I find it funny how biomass requires twice the amount of coal to give the same energy output, the switch to wood is all about the EPA and UN regulations and nothing about science or economy, and this form of generation is more than twice the cost of generating via coal.

Talk about the government trying to fix a problem but then only making the problem worse.

You can read more about this here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/wood-burning-power-plants-misguided-climate-change-solution/

38 Percent of Electricity Comes From Coal Yet Many Plants To Close to Save Planet From CO2 Emissions?

co2The President’s Climate Action Plan 2013 (ObamaAir Tax) has shown it’s main attack will be on coal power.

When you see those smoke stacks for coal power plants that isn’t smoke but steam from water, albeit there are some particulate in there that actually is pollution.

The EPA would like you to think that is dirty black smoke coming from those stacks which is why they often print coal power plant steam as a black and white picture.

Coal power plants do have a pollution problem that we must continue to address and retrofit these plants to filter out mercury but the steam coming out of the top of these is simply steam. The EPA though is mainly concerned about CO2?

The major opposition to coal power from looking at The President’s Climate Action Plan has to do with CO2 emissions which is about as natural as an emission as you can get.

Water, plants, animals, humans, and most natural living things give off CO2.

To think that man-made CO2 is really destroying the earth and must require the shutting down of the equivalent of 11 states electricity service power is ridiculous.

priceThe estimate is that Obama’s Assault on Coal will Lead to an 80% Electricity rate hike. This is not a scare tactic as you can see in places like Germany where similar CO2 emission standards have resulted in similar rate hikes.

Ironically Germany being far from our example of a conservative country has drastically reversed course from it’s benchmark level state wide solar electric grid.

After rates exceeded 24 cents per kilowatt hour the public opinion soured on the green movement as the risk-reward was way out of whack.

Germany’s rush for coal continues even now into 2013. After opening two new coal power stations in 2012, 6 additional ones are due to open this year, with a combined capacity of 5800MW, enough to provide 7% of Germany’s electricity needs

The governments own estimates from the graph the US Department of Energy has released show what we can expect our electricity prices to do.

Do you really want to pay 30 – 40 cents per kilowatt hour for your electric rate for the sole purpose of reducing CO2.

In just a few years you can expect to pay 15 cents per kilowatt hour for your electric service. I expect any government estimations to be far off and so it will likely be more like 18 – 20 cents per kilowatt hour.

If you use 1,000 kilowatt hours that comes out to about $150 a month before taxes with a 15 cent rate. When using 2,000 kilowatt hours your bill would be $300 a month.

Families across the U.S. pay 11% less for electricity in states where more than half comes from coal.

As fossil fuels have become cheaper we have seen the average U.S. household pay 2.5% less for electricity this summer making it the 3rd straight summer decline.

Just as electricity starts getting affordable the government wants to close the cheapest forms of electricity generation and make you think renewable energy will catch up.

I promise you the renewable energy will not catch up in time to keep your electricity bill at a similar price as you were paying. This would make sense if we kept coal working and clean with new retrofits while slowly expanding our grid with renewable sources of electric power.

The most sensible approach would be the smaller extremely cheap forms of electricity generated with these ultra-small nuclear reactors being developed.

Solar has proven to be a disaster not just in the US but in Germany as well. Many of the large US solar grid tie-ins have ballooned in cost way out of line with their budget and when removing subsidies shows that their per kilowatt hour rate exceeds 16 cents per kilowatt hour.

Solyndra and First Solar are two government solar schemes full of fraud and failures and now the president is stepping into phase two of more of the same with ObamaAir 2013 Clean Air Act and Tax.

If the government wants carbon free energy why not start with the cheapest source which is Nuclear energy. It’s America’s largest carbon-free electricity generator out there.

The innovations in nuclear are truly amazing and much more innovative compared to the faulty solar projects the government has installed in Arizona deserts and require hardly any land mass.

As cheap forms of carbon-free electricity take off such as nuclear than consider taking coal power offline.

What is happening is that the president is simply bowing to the wishes of those who gave him his power. The green movement hates coal and wants it gone immediately.

The lies that solar is as cheap as fossil fuels is used to get the rest of the public on board but in the end the sticker shock will effect the average Joe in the US like it has done in Germany.

The Obama administration will have to back track from their green agenda just as Germany is doing and employ a more sensible approach but this won’t happen until billions of tax payer dollars are wasted in the process.

And why do we have to put up with this? The politicians have enough public support and this green agenda is their power, it’s what keeps them in office, and helps silence their detractors.

They can simply point to solar and wind being for good and oil and fossil fuels being evil and most people can understand how this could be a fight against pollution and a modern day solution even while they never consider the financial cost.

In summary everything has a risk reward ratio, a budget, a capital payoff amount, and tax payers who pay for all of this. We shouldn’t be used to support a green agenda which is being used more for political gain than cheaper cleaner energy for the citizens.

 

Electricity Bid helps you find an electric rate and provider to save you money and keep life simple.

Get in touch with us!