Energy

hypocrite

Crank your AC. Eco-Hipsters: Earth Good, Air Conditioning Bad

Part of the whole Church of Global Warming movement is to demonize and our technology at every turn.  If it wasn’t for our machines, the earth wouldn’t ever warm.  It would stay nice and cool, at the same temperature forever.  And one of the greatest threats to mother Earth is not your car, but your Air Conditioner.

From the Washington Post:

Washington didn’t grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn’t even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.

This isn’t smart. In a country that’s among the world’s highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers. The energy required to air-condition American homes and retail spaces has doubled since the early 1990s. Turning buildings into refrigerators burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases, which raises global temperatures, which creates a need for — you guessed it — more air-conditioning.

A.C.’s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again.

So, you’re doing it, you air conditioning using bastards.  I hope you’re happy with yourselves.

Actually, upon reading this article, my AC will remain at 66 for the next week.  Why would I do that?  To spite them?  Well, yes.  I would.  But more importantly, I am going to up my energy usage because of this other bit of news:

From the Telegraph.co.uk:

Alice Springs: coldest day on record

The Outback Australian town of Alice Spring is suffering what is likely to be its coldest day on record, with temperatures struggling to reach more than 42.8F (6C).

I know I know what you’re saying.  “But a record cold doesn’t mean anything” or “it’s the trend that matters.”

Well, it doesn’t matter, does it?  Because if the “Trend” mattered, then the current trend of downward temps over the last 12 years would matter right?  What about Temps?  If we shouldn’t be paying attention to the record “cooling” temps (because its not proof of cooling), then any heat-wave news or or all of the record heat wouldn’t matter because its not proof of Global Warming.

To say the “Cooling” isn’t proof of no AGW but the Warming is, is like saying a TV station title White Entertainment Television is raciest but Black Entertainment Television is not.

So, while the Eco-Hipsters are sweltering in the heat and reading this, I’d like them to read something else while they’re at it:

hy·poc·ri·sy? ?/h??p?kr?si/  Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]

–noun, plural -sies. 

  1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
  2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
  3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Wind Power’s Embarrassing Effect on Global Warming

By James M. Taylor

Efforts to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by replacing coal and natural gas with wind power appear to be doing more harm than good. A new study shows replacing coal and natural gas with wind power increases carbon dioxide emissions. Government policies designed to fight global warming by encouraging, subsidizing, or mandating renewable power may be making global warming worse.

In a paper published at the free-market Web site Master Resource, electrical engineer Kent Hawkins shows when wind power surpasses 5 percent of power generated, the frequent ramping up and ramping down of other power sources to compensate for wind’s unpredictable variability causes such inefficiency in power generation that overall carbon dioxide emissions rise.

For a good analogy, consider this: A driver who keeps his or her speed at a consistent 60 miles per hour will get better gas mileage than one who frequently accelerates and decelerates between 45 and 75 miles per hour. The inefficiency of frequently ramping up and ramping down vehicle speed is substantial enough that the vehicle driving at variable speeds will burn up more gasoline than many vehicles with a lower fuel economy rating.

The same appears to hold true for power generation. Power plants in the Netherlands, Colorado, and Texas switched some of their generation from coal and natural gas to wind power. Because wind speeds are variable and unpredictable, plant operators were forced frequently to vary the ordinarily steady, constant generation of baseload power to back up variable wind power. Whereas a small amount of wind power generation helped reduce carbon dioxide emissions, those emissions began surpassing prior levels once wind power exceeded 3 percent of the power mix.

If the proponents of federal legislation to force reduction of carbon dioxide emissions are sincerely concerned more about alleged global warming than the accumulation of government power to hand out money and favors to preferred industries and contractors, these real-world carbon dioxide facts should put an immediate freeze on renewable power subsidies, renewable power mandates, and cap-and-tax global warming plans. How Congress responds to these new findings will tell us much about the true motivation behind proposed global warming legislation.

The apparent failure of wind power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions should come as no surprise given the record of failure for other global warming schemes. Congress has long mandated and subsidized ethanol and other biofuels to reduce greenhouse gases, but studies these biofuels create more greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycles than does gasoline. Global warming activists are now racing to rewrite legislation to eliminate counterproductive biofuel programs. A better course of action would have been not to have enacted the subsidies and mandates in the first place.

In the lawmaking process, as in life itself, rushing to enact “solutions” to speculative problems before the facts are known usually produces more harm than good. Keeping this axiom in mind, Congress need not rush to enact carbon dioxide restrictions on the American economy. After all, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling, not rising, and they have been declining for the past decade. To the extent global emissions are rising, the fault does not lie with the United States.

Before hamstringing the U.S. economy with expensive mandates that may cause more harm than good, Congress owes it to the American people to get the facts.

James M. Taylor (jtaylor@heartland.org) is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.  Reprinted with permission from the author.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes