EU Commission U-Turn on Greenhouse Gas Limiting Policies

After the debacle of the banking collapse and while the Eurozone edges closer to the precipice of total meltdown, EU bosses have finally seen the light: “Europe must re-industrialize for the 21st Century.” So says European Commissioner Antonio Tajani. On Wednesday the EU Commissioner announces an initiative that will boldly “reverse the declining role of industry” on the continent.  This policy U-turn undoubtedly conflicts with stated environmental goals.  But more pointedly, this presents a great opportunity for political leaders take a new look at the disputed science at the heart of so much eco-friendliness.

Like a breath of fresh air Die Welt today, with it’s story ‘EU plans to re-industrialization of the continent’ (October 9, 2012), reveals that EU technocrats are gearing up to re-invent Europe’s once great manufacturing sector. Suddenly we are in the midst of a sea change in political thinking at the top of the EU.

Günther Hermann Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy

Günther Hermann Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy

EU Technocrats Declare: “Europe Must Re-Industrialize!”

Tomorrow (October 10, 2012) Commissioner Tajani is to announce a target to raise the share of industrial enterprises as a proportion EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) “to 20 percent by 2020.” Tajani wants to set in train a strategy for a “strong industrial base vital to a prosperous and economically successful Europe.” Accepting the plight of the current global economy Tajani conceded, “the investment outlook is bleak.” The EU is now calling for Europeans to back a continent-wide “third industrial revolution.”

European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger is even more strident than Tajani. He is calling for a complete overhaul of environmental policy that he insists is beset with “negligence.” Taking a swipe at pro-green Angela Merkel he declared, “the number of do-gooders in the Euro Parliament should not remain as high.” He bemoaned that “We are in the midst of [a] de-industrialization” process that has put too much faith in the growth of the financial sector run by people who are “half my age and twice as clever” but are fast becoming unemployed. ThyssenKrupp boss Heinrich Hiesinger also waded in appearing to endorse this new tone by declaring, “Future generations expect from us jobs,” and not just a cleaner environment. Hiesinger points to the high cost of climate change regulations and foresees further job losses due to CO2 limits, especially with the big knock-on effect of higher energy prices.

Hard-pressed taxpayers will say, “about time!” But the biggest obstacle to Tajani and Oettinger’s new vision is that Europe has nailed its colors to the green mast of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Unless they can find a compelling reason to backslide on  carbon dioxide (CO2) limits they will be accused of treachery and cowardice by many- especially on the green left.

 Greenhouse Gas Science Shown to be Full of Holes

But the green energy sector has failed to deliver on its promises for affordable and reliable energy to compensate. Now the European Commission can seize on a way to square the moral and scientific circle to avoid ridicule by finally acknowledging there does exist great uncertainty about the role of CO2 in our climate. Part of the “negligence” Oettinger pinpointed is certainly within the science, itself. Incredibly, there are no less than 63 competing “theories” about the actual mechanics of CO2 and “greenhouse gases” taught at leading universities, many of which are mutually contradictory. The flaws are recognized by many including leading German scientists  that Oettinger could speak to. They can enlighten him that contrary to media hype this has never been “settled science.”

Ever more independent researchers are finding flaws that climatologists decline to address or even acknowledge. Tajani and Oettinger will thus see that the guiding principle of performing due diligence may free them from exclusively relying on government-funded climatologists whose careers are invested in promoting the man-made global warming narrative. Not least among those pinpointing such “negligence” are the 50+ experts at Principia Scientific International (PSI). Only this week a new article based on their findings proves that 33 degrees of  atmospheric warming allegedly due to trace gases like CO2 is simply the product of a bungled equation. With that kind of “science” underpinning policy its no wonder so many wrong turns have been taken. Let’s hope Tajani and Oettinger will now seize the opportunity to talk to fresh thinkers like those at PSI.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “EU Commission U-Turn on Greenhouse Gas Limiting Policies

  1. Pingback: EU Commission U-Turn on Greenhouse Gas Limiting Policies « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. With high taxation they will have to rethink that policy as well if they hope to have any success.

  3. John, you might be interested to note that in the chemical industries there is a massive drive to expand Fischer-Tropsch water-gas shift conversion of CO2 from stack gas emissions to create marketable byproduct as well as using other coal stack emissions. Ammonium sulfate, plastics polymer and urea production are the focus Uhde, BASF and KBR globally in this expansion effort.

    Here is a technical paper on the subject of monetizing carbon dioxide emissions for the manufacture of industrial products:

    http://www.industrialcostanalysis.com/Increasing_Coal_Plant_revenues_Through-Coproduction-OBRIEN.pdf

    and here is a page on the philosophy behind templating such carbon conversion operations for power plants, steel and iron smelting and casting operations, and even municipal waste incineration emissions carbon conversion:

    http://industrialcostanalysis.com/twocarnegie-fordplants.htm

    This is a middle ground both the pro- and anti-AGW sides of the climate argument may embrace without fear of compromising their principles nor their science and most importantly, make money and jobs in the process.

    • johnosullivan

      Thanks for the helpful links. I’m all for any technology that recycles waste products with a common sense profit motive. As you say, there is no fear in compromising principles when the outcome is creating jobs and profit. But as we’ve seen with wind power and solar boondoggles the “profit” for investors is entirely in the taxpayer subsidy and consumers are being hit hard with rising energy costs killing ‘real’ jobs elsewhere.

      • Hello, John. You’re very welcome.

        I would like to point out that unlike the other options such as solar or wind, that which is laid out in my links require no subsidies, the vendors supply the financing and performance bonding, and all these modifications are nothing but re-applying standard operating procedures common to refinery practice.

        That these are low or zero carbon emitting options owing to the fact that they use this carbon to create marketable byproduct is totally beside the point and frankly irrelevant. All that is proposed are free-market non-interventional and conventional business practice for chemical production, most of which procedures having been in place in hydrocarbon engineering environments for the better part of 50 years and more.

        Between you, me and the wall, Jermey Rifkin is a dolt. He would not be caught dead in a KBR-built refinery, or an Uhde ammonia mill, or a Lurgi ammonium sulfate fertilizer plant. He has never been to one.

      • johnosullivan

        Thanks for your helpful comments – simple and straight forward common sense. What you’re advocating fits the philosophy of the 50+ scientists and engineers I represent at Principia Scientific International, where I am CEO. As such I’m happy to endorse anything of this kind when it evinces a better quality natural environment, more jobs and fewer subsidies. Best, John http://principia-scientific.org/

        ________________________________

      • Many thanks, John.
        If I may, should any of your scientific team wish a fully costed spreadsheet on what can be done with a conventional coal-power steam plant of (say) 1,200 MWe output in producing marketable byproduct to include current market pricing for the manufactured emissions-based byproduct, I would be happy to work one up for their consideration and review on my nickel. Takes about two weeks. As you say quite rightly, action speaks louder than words. We have a civilisation to renew and re-empower and future generations for which to provide.

        If this can be treated as a formal inquiry by your institution, the vendors involved will be happy to provide their costing and technical representations as well. It is their daily job to do so and that would be on their nickel as well.

        Many thanks for your work, sir.

  4. Jaime Dinamarca

    If you read the strategy released on Wednesday will see that, while acknowledging the loss of competitiveness by high energy prices, there is no announcement on that item. This strategy will not work for reindustrialize EU because it is based on a philosophy (I mean the book by Jeremy Rifkin) that emphasizes the role of low-carbon energy -which are responsible for the high-energy costs- in the third revolution industrial.

    • johnosullivan

      As the old saying goes: “actions speak louder than words.” On that score we can now feel somewhat relieved that the US, UK and Germany are now investing in more conventional energy sources as it becomes ever more apparent the ‘green sector’ has failed to deliver.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s