Which means there's no such thing as a "low carbon economy." All of the low carbon schemes put more carbon into the air than they take out.
 
 

The mainstream media keeps talking about "low carbon technology" which supposedly needs to be promoted. There is no such thing. The closest thing to low carbon technology is to burn diesel fuel. Building a windmill puts five million dollars worth of carbon into the air to harness three million dollars worth of electricity. Greens never take into account all of the costs. Every dollar spent is non-green—someone driving to work and using resources to produce something. Green doesn’t work, because it is a substitute for effectiveness, efficiency, constructivity, and rationality. For example, to make cellulosic ethanol, industry cannot transport corn cobs more than 20 miles. So the government is going to subsidize it; and farmers will ship corn cobs 200 miles. The energy required for shipping will be greater than the energy that can be recovered. Green is eating lawn clippings. Think of how bad for the environment agriculture is. All that pollution could be ended if people ate grass instead of agricultural products. So first you abolish agriculture; and then you put scientists to work improving the nutritional value of grass.

 

Each Dollar Spent uses About the Same Amount of Energy About 90% of every dollar spent goes into energy, because energy is an extracted resource and it only compares to other extracted resources, not ballet or sailing. This means a $40,000 electric auto requires $36,000 in energy to produce it. Here's why. Employees drive to work using energy. They buy products, which are sold and produced by employees who drive to work and use energy. They buy products sold and produced by employees who use energy. What in that endless chain is not energy? Only the extracted resources. Each dollar of human activity requires about the same resources, at the same ratio of 90% energy, regardless of what it is directed toward. The other 10% is other extracted resources, mostly metals. Therefore, whether people build windmills, electric autos or go sailing, the same amount of energy is going to be used for each dollar spent. It's just a choice of life-styles. Why then spend the money on windmills or electric autos when it could be spent on education, baseball or anything else at the same cost to energy and the environment? Windmills and Renewables The counter-argument is that windmills (renewables) add back some energy. But they don't add back as much energy as they take out. So the more renewables that are built, the more energy that is lost and the more CO2 that is emitted. Even though a dollars worth of windmills or solar will not take as much energy or add as much carbon dioxide as other things, their purpose is to reduce energy extraction and carbon dioxide production. But the more renewables that are used, the more energy that is lost and carbon dioxide produced. Some might say that less energy is lost building windmills than sail boats, so building windmills creates green jobs. Maybe a "green job" is one which increasing economic activity at less expense in energy and CO2. Why then clutter the environment with expensive metals to increase the economy, when most other activities are more environmentally friendly? Then the argument would be whether renewables (wind, solar, bio-diesel and ethanol) are gaining or losing in the battle. The usual assumption is that they do nothing but gain. Not if the real cost is considered in terms of extractables. Since the government has to subsidize renewables at about 80%, and about 90% of every dollar is energy, the loss due to renewables is 80% x 90% = 72%. This means there is almost three times as much energy wasted as used with renewables. This is because the hardware and production are extremely expensive. Windmills (the main renewable), only function at 27% of their capacity due to wind velocity variations. Auto Efficiency is a Similar Falsehood Another falsehood is that an increase in efficiency in autos is a reduction in energy use. Not so. There is no technology which will increase efficiency at the physics level. Electricity is cheaper because of bulk handling, not because of increased efficiency at the physics level. When electrical production is ramped up for autos, including transmission lines, the expenses will skyrocket. The only reason why some autos appear to get better gas mileage is not because there is a technology which will get more out of the energy; it is because smaller and under-powered cars get less work done. Getting less work done is not an increase in efficiency at the physics level. Some persons might assume that getting less work done with an auto is a savings. Not so. The opposite is true. If people cannot use the most effective method of getting their work done, they will waste more energy using substitute methods. Giving people the complete freedom of making their own choices is the most efficient way to get work done. Supposedly, hybrids save energy by capturing energy while braking. Not so. There is a large amount of inefficiency (heat loss) every time energy is touched, so the small amount of captured energy is wasted in creating complex technology and adding weight to the vehicle. The appearance of improved gas mileage is again due to small size and low power. The same thing could be done with a tiny auto which has a simple design without wasting resources on complex technology. This is explained on the web page titled The 35 mpg Fraud. If there were some method of producing more efficiency at the physics level, the engineers would have been exploiting it to make more money long ago. They don't need uninformed idiots telling them what efficiency is or forcing them to be more efficient. In other words, the present political situation of trying to solve problems through social force is a contempt for engineering and science, which is wasting resources, not saving resources as greens assume.

 

If green were really green, people would already be doing it, and it wouldn’t be called green. Green is driving on a highway instead of through the woods. Green is living in a house instead of a cave.

The state of Michigan produced a model, green house. It cost $800,000. That's $720,000 worth of energy to produce it. Before it's open house to the public, the plumbing froze, because their green heating failed during the winter. What sort of wanton waste is green supposed to be?

Why does green have to be promoted? Supposedly, someone doesn’t know something that the greens know. Bull roar. The technologists and manufacturers evaluated every element of their products and produced the most effective possible, or someone else would come along and replace them.

But green is supposedly putting the environment above waste and abuse. There is a basic conceptual error in assuming that the environment benefits from screwy analysis forced down someone’s throats. It costs money to force something onto people, and spending more money is not green.

It takes so much energy and produces so much pollution for every dollar spent. Each dollar means someone driving to work and using energy and recourses to produce some part of the gross product of the world.

A miniature fluorescent light bulb costs ten times as much as an incandescent—three dollars vs. thirty cents. That’s ten times as much pollution and waste. The amount of electricity used is said to be one fifth. But a lot of factors make that number meaningless. There are endless other costs. First, the fluorescent doesn’t produce as much light, so more will be needed. Then they don’t start fast, so they will be left on all the time instead of when needed. Then they don’t produce a desirable type of light or fit into the same space. Driving people batty causes them to waste time and money trying to overcome their problems. General Electric verified these claims, as explained here.

The same is true of everything that is called green. If people don’t do it for the usual reasons—because it works best for them—then it aint green. And if they do do it for the usual reasons, it aint green. So there is no such thing as green.

If wasteful is not green, then nonwasteful is supposedly green. Not so. Nonwasteful is normal, which is not green. It is normal, because competition and economic stress promote efficiency as normal. A lot of people are not efficient, but they don’t define normal.

There is an inherent contradiction in making sacrifices for the environment, because sacrifice means waste. There isn’t some place where waste can be dumped which is good for the environment. The environment is too expansive and all-inclusive to be separated from other concerns.

Greens assume that sacrifice is green. It isn’t. Sacrifice is extremely wasteful. Sacrifice is only possible when someone is doing something wasteful or ineffective. Doing less of something wasteful or ineffective is not green, it is normal. Doing less of something constructive and effective is not green.

In other words, greens can’t think straight.

During the seventies, there was some unnecessary waste of energy, and correcting it was called green. The easy stuff has already been done, and the non-easy stuff is not green. It costs more, and greens do not do a complete enough analysis in accounting for cost.

New book by environmental chemist, Klaus Kaiser, explains the chemistry and math of green myths for laymen.

The title is, Convenient Myths: the green revolution — perceptions, politics, and facts.

External Links:

• Greenie Watch — by John Ray
• The German Experience With Solar And Wind Energy
• The Negatives of Wind Power — by Jon Boone