Failed Environmental Doomsday Predictions

 

2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

Al Gore Nobel Lecture Edition Erroneous Predictions

50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

The long term trend towards the greening of Europe. A big change was occurring long before the environmental movement.

Earth Day was on April 22, 1970.  Here are some pictures that show how green Europe was before and after 1970.  It appears to me that there was at least as much of a change towards becoming green between 1900 and 1970 versus the period after Earth Day from 1970 to 2010.

Information is available here from the Washington Post.

MIT develops new incandescent light bulb that is cheaper than LEDs

From the UK Telegraph:

Researchers at MIT have shown that by surrounding the filament [in the traditional incandescent bulb] with a special crystal structure in the glass they can bounce back the energy which is usually lost in heat, while still allowing the light through. . . . 

Usually traditional light bulbs are only about five per cent efficient, with 95 per cent of the energy being lost to the atmosphere. In comparison LED or florescent bulbs manage around 14 per cent efficiency. But the scientists believe that the new bulb could reach efficiency levels of 40 per cent. . . . 

But if the new bulbs live up to expectations they would cost under 50p a year to run and even improve health. . . .

Why would anyone buy recycled paper? 62% more expensive and recycled paper means less demand for paper and fewer trees

Click on picture to enlarge

Here is a picture that Nikki Goeser took earlier today from a Staples store in the Nashville area.  This is a huge difference in price!  It takes more energy to recycle paper.  This price doesn't even include all the time costs involved with people separating out their garbage to be picked up.

The unintended consequences of plastic bag bans

From Bloomberg:

When the city council in Austin, Texas, passed a single-use plastic shopping bag ban in 2013, it assumed environmental benefits would follow. The calculation was reasonable enough: Fewer single-use bags in circulation would mean less waste at city landfills. 

Two years later, an assessment commissioned by the city finds that the ban is having an unintended effect –- people are now throwing away heavy-duty reusable plastic bags at an unprecedented rate. The city's good intentions have proven all too vulnerable to the laws of supply and demand. 

What's true for Austin is likely true elsewhere. Plastic bag bans are one of America's most popular environmental measures of recent years . . . . 

plastic bags simply aren't that big of a problem. . . . . A more finely tuned litter survey in Fort Worth, Texas (reported in the Austin assessment) found that just 0.12 percent of the weight of litter in the city (which does not have a ban) comes from single-use bags. 

Nonetheless, . . . weight isn't the only measure of environmental impact. Single-use plastic bags pose outsized problems in the form of visual pollution on the landscape . . . . 

reducing the use of a product that's harmful to the environment is no guarantee of a positive environmental outcome. . . . To that end, the city encouraged residents to instead use reusable bags. Those bags have larger carbon footprints, due to the greater energy required to produce their stronger plastics, but the city figured the overall impact would be lower, as consumers got acquainted with the new, more durable product.  What the city didn't foresee is that residents would start treating reusable bags like single-use bags. . . .

John Stossel on CNN's airing of ‘Deceitful’ Blackfish Documentary

CNN uncritically kept on running the film as news:

But in January 2013, when director Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s documentary Blackfish about these alleged abuses debuted at Sundance, the niche murmurs began to get louder. And after the doc first aired on CNN in October, the protests hit the mainstream. . . . 

John Stossel shows the false claims made in the movie.

If you want the best fuel economy, don't buy the smallest cars. Yes, that is right.

So much for all the people who have bought more dangerous cars because they thought they were getting better fuel economy or saving money on gas.  From the UK Telegraph:

Drivers looking for savings at the petrol pump could be making a mistake if they swap their estate or 4x4 for a smaller car, according to research which suggests that fuel economy estimates are biased against larger vehicles. . . . 

The discrepancy between manufacturers’ claims and the road data was especially stark for vehicles with smaller engines, which generally have to work harder to accelerate. 

Tests showed that vehicles with an engine size up to one litre had an average advertised 60.3mpg, but consumption was measured at 38.6mpg in tests, a drop of 36 per cent. 

Average consumption for cars with one to two-litre engines was measured at 46.7mpg, 21 per cent lower than the advertised 59.1mpg. This meant they travelled further on the same amount of fuel than the average smaller car. . . .

It is also interesting that there is almost no difference in fuel economy between midsize and larger cars.

There are at least a couple US cars with 1 Liter engines.

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost
2014 Smart fortwo

UPDATE: Here is something that I found at Green Car Reports:

The worst offenders were vehicles with engines displacing 1.0 liter or less (no sub-1.0-liter engines are available in the U.S.), which missed the mark by 36 percent. Engines between 1.0 liter and 2.0 liters were second worst, at 21 percent. . . .

 

A great example of the lack of perspective on the environment: Environmentalists really believe that a single lane road through federally protected wilderness park will severely endanger wildlife

A road that would allow people access to emergency medical care or preserve the environment?  Do environmentalists really believe that a single lane road through a 315,000-acre sanctuary will endanger wildlife?  Almost all of Alaska is federal land.  From Politico:

More than 15 years later, his daughter, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski — along with the rest of the Alaska congressional delegation — is still fighting for the road, insisting it’s the only viable way to ensure that King Cove’s 965 largely native Alaskan residents have access to emergency medical care. 

What seems like a simple request is anything but. The proposed road would cut through federally protected wilderness land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, a 315,000-acre sanctuary near the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. And the Interior Department says the road would threaten vulnerable plants and animals that rely on the area’s unique ecology. 

The oftentimes ugly fight has pitted Alaska politicians against the federal government for decades, sowing mistrust and frustration. It has also reinforced the view of many in Alaska that policymakers in the Lower 48 are out of touch with their needs. . . .

Where did billions of dollars in aid for climate change go?

Click to make larger

The Washington Post has this headline: "Wealthy nations pledged billions to help the poor adapt to climate change. Where did it all go?"  

2010-2012: The first $35 billion in climate aid. Between 2010 and 2012, the world's wealthy nations say they provided $35 billion to help poorer countries adjust to climate change, as promised at Copenhagen. (You can see a full breakdown of these pledges from the World Resources Institute here.) . . .The United States, for instance, says it provided $7.5 billion in "fast start" climate finance between 2010 and 2012, spread out across more than a hundred countries. . . .Poorer nations have pressed for more aid to help adapt, particularly since they both face greater risks but are also less responsible for the carbon-dioxide emissions currently in the atmosphere. . . .

Look, I don't think that a warmer planet would on net be very beneficial, but assuming that you believe that it is bad, what is this "less responsible" claim?  Compare CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP for the US and China.  In 2008, CO2 KG per dollar of GDP was 126 percent higher in China than the US.  Earlier data for all countries is available here.

Electric car sales are pretty weak

From the Detroit News:

General Motors Co. said Friday that Chevrolet Volt sales fell 32 percent in October in the face of falling gas prices. 

The Detroit automaker said Volt sales fell to 2,022, down from 2,961 in October 2012. For the year, U.S. Volt sales are now down 2.7 percent to 18,782. 

At the same time, Nissan Motor Co.’s all-electric Leaf sales were up 27 percent in October to 2,002 and are up 167 percent for the year to 18,078. 

"We are seeing sluggish sales of some plug-in hybrids such as the Ford C-Max — down 21 percent — and Chevy Volt — down 32 percent. The most likely culprit responsible for the decline is gas prices and enticing traditional gas-powered vehicles that achieve 40 mpg plus. With fuel prices expected to fall further, the auto industry will be watching carefully to see if the pattern continues,” said Edmunds.com senior analyst Michelle Krebs. . . .

Toyota Motor Corp. said sales of its Prius plug-in hybrid were up 7 percent to 2,095 and are up 4.6 percent for the year to 10,069. In early October, Toyota said it was cutting the price of the slow-selling vehicle by $2,010 for the entry model and $4,620 for the more expensive model with more options. 

So how do these numbers compare to total US sales?  The Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) has been pretty high.

 The SAAR eased to 15.22 million last month. The figure was down from September's 15.26 million and below most forecasters' expectations in the mid-15 million range. . . .

The SAAR for Volt, Leaf, and plug-in Prius thus come to a total of 73,428, or about .48% of total sales.  Tesla has a goal of "21,000 units of Model S this year."  Adding that in raises the percent to 0.62%.

Some of the benefits from warmer temperatures

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the little ice age in 1850.  Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University has a new study:

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves. 

Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates. 

The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates. . . . 

Ezra Levant from Sun News confronts the Mohammed of environmentalists, David Suzuki (kind of a creepy guy)

While Ezra's show is on David Suzuki, I did learn something very interesting about a CNN host, George Stroumboulopoulos.  Stroumboulopoulos is apparently a very left wing follower of Suzuki and has interviewed Suzuki for the CBC (Stroumboulopoulos' other job).  I have a question for my Canadian readers.  Stroumboulopoulos is on the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation.  How can the CBC have a TV host do an interview with someone when the interviewer is on the board of directors for the foundation of the person being interviewed?  Even though Stroumboulopoulos bio at CBC mentions this connection, virtually every segment that I have been able to watch on CBC where Stroumboulopoulos is interviewing Suzuki has omitted this information (here is one from May 2012 where his connection is mentioned, but I think that that was because the discussion was on the Foundation).

By the way, in watching these clips of Suzuki being interviewed by SSSS, Suzuki has some bizarre statements about the US.  He talks about the US from 1973 when there was the Arab Oil embargo (3:27): "In the United States of course they did what they always do, started shooting each other at the gasoline pump.  It was really very, very scary." I was able to find one somewhat related story from 1973.  Apparently, in December 1973 there was a gas station attendant in Detroit who fatally shot a motorist who was trying to steal gasoline (that story got coverage around the country (e.g., here and here also).  I found another case from November 1973 where a police officer was charged with shooting a 12-year-old boy who he thought was stealing from a gas station, but there was no evidence "ever found linking the two youths to the burglary."  But it looks as if they were believed to have stolen $8, not gasoline.

Add solar panels and lose your home in a fire

Solar panels are not close to being cost effective since the energy savings won't offset the capital costs of the panels, but now there might be a new bigger cost: some real difficulties for firefighters.  My guess is that this will show up in higher insurance premiums for buildings with solar panels.  From Fox News:

Firefighters across the nation are alarmed at the prospect of battling blazes in buildings topped with solar panels, which can create new risks of roofs collapsing, an inability to gain footing and even potential electric shock. 

Two recent fires involving structures decked with solar panels have triggered complaints from fire chiefs and calls for new codes and regulations that reflect the dangers posed by the clean-energy devices. A two-alarm fire last week at a home in Piedmont, Calif., prompted Piedmont Fire Chief Warren McLaren to say the technology “absolutely” made it harder on firefighters. Weeks earlier, in Delanco, N.J., more than 7,000 solar panels on the roof of a massive 300,000-square foot warehouse factored into Delanco Fire Chief Ron Holt’s refusal to send his firefighters onto the roof of a Dietz & Watson facility. 

“We may very well not be able to save buildings that have alternative energy,” New Jersey’s Acting Fire Marshall William Kramer told The Star-Ledger. . . .

Did banning PCBs cause other more harmful chemicals to be used to replace them?

From Fox News:

If you purchased a couch before 2006, there’s a possibility it could be filled with foam containing the chemical polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) – a substance banned in California and phased out by manufacturers nationwide after it was linked to low IQ in children.
Fortunately, new research from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) indicates that the 2006 ban on the substance has had impressive, far-reaching effects, indicating that taking fast action against toxic substances can create huge benefits for human health.
“PBDEs became more in vogue as a substitute for PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl ethers), which were banned in the 70s and used to reduce flammability,” Tracey Woodruff, the director of UCSF’s program on reproductive health and the environment, told FoxNews.com. “They’re found in computers (and) a lot in foam, polyurethane foam used in coaches, to decrease flammability.”
However, PBDEs quickly fell under scrutiny after studies started to show an association between exposure to the chemical and low IQ.  Further concern was raised when studies revealed that increasingly large quantities of PBDEs were appearing in women’s breast milk. . . .

Why do environmentalists want to kill Bald Eagles?

Study: 'Alarming' number of eagles killed by wind farms

58 Bald Eagles have apparently been killed by wind farms in the last five years, but the number is increasing rapidly.  Right now wind farms are exempt for 5 years form the normal penalties imposed on those who kill Bald Eagles.  Apparently, President Obama is moving towards extending this exemption for 25 years. 

Ezra Levant on what environmental activists know and how they get paid to protest

The story is available here.

Is the world really overcrowded?: Sure doesn't look like it

If the world's population was concentrated in Texas at the same concentration as NYC, would we say that the world had no room for other people?  Hardly.

Chevrolet Volt sales continue slow, GM cuts price by $5,000, but was already losing money on each sold before price cut

$7,500 tax credit, pricing it so low that they are losing money on each car, and they still couldn't sell more than 30,000 in 2012.  From Bloomberg:

GM loses money on each Volt it sells while not disclosing a specific figure. The model, which is eligible for a $7,500 U.S. tax credit, was introduced in 2010 and has struggled to meet some sales targets. Volt is GM’s flagship car for its efforts to have about 500,000 vehicles on the road by 2017 with some form of electrification. The car can travel 38 miles (61 kilometers) on battery power before a gasoline engine engages. . . . 

Leaf sales accelerated this year after Nissan Motor Co. (7201) in January added an S version of the Leaf that’s cheaper than the SV and SL models. Unlike the Volt, the Leaf has no extended range engine. Leaf sales more than tripled to 11,703 through July from 3,543 during the same period a year earlier, outselling Volt in the U.S. by 60 vehicles. . . . 

Even with the accolades, the car struggled to garner the kinds of sales sought by Chief Executive Officer Dan Akerson, who had forecast global Volt sales of 60,000 in 2012, before settling for about half that amount. 

In late April, Akerson said GM was working to cut the price of producing the Volt by as much as $10,000 each without removing features for the next-generation version which he indicated could come out in 2015 or 2016. . . .

Whatever one thinks of electric cars the Volt has been a waste of taxpayer dollars with government subsidies and a product of government control following the bankruptcy.

Obama's EPA Regulatory Overreach in One Diagram

Under Obama, the EPA has disapproved state proposals at an astounding rate.   The number of regulatory disapprovals under Obama's first four years is greater than the number during the preceding 12 years combined.  Even more amazing is the number of times that the EPA has taken over state regulatory programs is eight times greater than that during the entire preceding 12 years (including four of those under Clinton).  The information was put together by the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The ALEC report documents the huge costs of the EPA's intervention and shows the trivial benefits produced by it.  Because the EPA has more mandates than it can handle, the EPA has replaced state participation with that of environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club.

Environmentalists excited: It takes 63% longer to fly a single-seat solar plane from Cincinnati to DC than to drive

The fastest route for cars between Cincinnati and Dulles International Airport (IAD) outside DC is hardly a straight line.  But despite that disadvantage the new solar plane that environmentalists are excited that a solar powered plane that can hold nothing more than the pilot took 14 hours and 4 minutes.  The car, which you could load down with all sorts of cargo, would take 8 hours and 37 minutes.  To put it differently, the solar plane took 63 percent longer to make the trip -- non-stop, not a very fun trip.  The trip apparently averaged 30.9 miles per hour over the 435 miles (not exactly the "around 40 mph" noted in the article).  Can the AP do division to check out the facts that they are given?  Possibly environmentalists simply don't value people's time.  From the AP:

. . . Solar Impulse's website said the aircraft with its massive wings and thousands of photovoltaic cells "gracefully touched down" at 12:15 a.m. EDT after 14 hours and four minutes of flight from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Dulles in Washington's Virginia suburbs. . . . 

It's the first bid by a solar plane capable of being airborne day and night without fuel to fly across the U.S, at speeds reaching about 40 mph. The flight originated from San Francisco via Arizona, Texas, Missouri and Ohio onward to Dulles with stops of several days in cities along the way. 

Organizers said in a blog post early Sunday that Piccard soared across the Appalachian mountains on a 435-mile (700-kilometer) course from Cincinnati to the Washington area, averaging 31 mph (50 kph). It was the second phase of a leg that began in St. Louis. 

The plane, considered the world's most advanced sun-powered aircraft, is powered by about 12,000 photovoltaic cells that cover its enormous wings and charge its batteries during the day. The single-seat Solar Impulse flies around 40 mph and can't go through clouds; weighing about as much as a car, the aircraft also took longer than a car to complete the journey from Ohio to the East Coast. . . . .