Is COP26 a Cop out? - Why not do this meeting by Zoom conferencing? Here's how we can actually fix the Climate...

 

COP26 - Good Cop or Cop out?

We already have the tools to fix the problem...

The bottom line is that unless China actively takes measures to reduce emissions now then the COP26 is just going to be a talking shop and we might as well not bother.

Are we facing an artificially created 'Climate Crisis'? Can we fix it? Yes we can...

The solution is that humans abandon their individualistic, nationalistic policies and start to work together as a collective species, putting aside religious beliefs and politics and strive for a common good. That's the theory. It could be achievable if the will was there.

But, here's what needs fixing...

Weather has been able to be manipulated for decades by humans which is a fact. 'Cloud seeding' to create rain in Deserts is nothing new. 

Satellites can be used to start fires at ground level by use of lasers, as has happened in California - where fire investigations show houses burned but not the forest around in many cases. Satellites can possibly manipulate the weather too from above.

HAARP Weather control, in use for decades can also influence weather, so can keeping weather patterns localised and ramped up, to create localised hot, cold or wet conditions, thus 'creating' a climate problem. As in Greece recently.

The 'climate change solutions' on offer being promoted in the media to fix that but, someone is making a profit from that or have you not worked that out? Is it a simple case of 'create a problem, show you have a solution and divert attention from what is really going on behind the scenes'?

When the wind turbines don't work and its too dark or cloudy of Solar, Diesel generation is used to supply power as an adjunct to Nuclear. Did you know that?

The gulf stream affects weather - the holes in the earth plates allow heat from the earth's core to escape and heat the ocean able, causing bands of warmer water, this makes the weather change and move as the plates of the Earth close over and new places emerge allowing the warmth to escape. This is natural climate change.

The Earth is subject to the Sun. In AD0001, the Romans were able to grow grapes in Britain, it was warmer then than now and didn't have the fossil fuel burning we do with a 60+ million population. In the 1500's Grapes could be grown at Hampton Court Palace. It was again, warmer than now. The ice caps are artificial, as the fossil data will show you when the ground is uncovered. 

Boris Johnson, the great history buff allegedly likened climate change to the fall of the Roman Empire. The empire fell through internecine warfare and a collapse in society not because of a few degrees of warming. Quite the opposite, when the cold came to Britain, the Romans left.

Clean and free energy has been available to humans since 1954

Yes we have had access to this since 1954 ask Dr Stephen Greer. We are kept into being an oil based commercial economy and to give away 'free' energy means you can't tax it or make money selling it. 

But we would all benefit from this clean, free energy which exists and is being suppressed for the above reasons. Greed.

COVID19 and travel - the Zoom phenomenon

Covid19 has been a welcome game changer in some ways, we can now work from home in some cases blowing that myth out of the water that this was not possible (prior to Covid 19), which saves us travel costs, travel emissions, not having to associate with people we would rather not and being work better and more productively. We don't waste time travelling either. Or pollute.

So why not conduct COP26 by Zoom? 

A big question and I am not really buying 'the need for face to face contact' argument, surely one to one appointments can be sought delegate to delegate by Zoom? 

Or is that too simple? Lead by example, not dictate and do the opposite.

EV's - Battery Electric vehicles - are they a big swindle?

You might feel 'pious in your Prius' as you drive, but the real costs of Green motoring are literally costing the Earth's finite resources.

A Battery powered vehicle costs half as much again as a petrol or diesel vehicle to buy. With the right spares backup, the liquid fuelled vehicle could last 40 years. The battery one 7 years, before its battery needs replacing and the car is likely scrap as the battery cannot be replaced in the car without pulling the structure apart. So, you balance the damage done by making 6 battery cars to equal the life of 1 fuelled car. Do the math. 'Green' doesn't add up here.

But, the charging of the electric cars is the next issue, besides the lack of points that are available or work, is the cost of charging. Some tariffs can cost you the same to charge your battery giving you 200 miles of range if you are lucky, as a tank of petrol or diesel taking you 400 miles. 

The real cost of charging, once there is a sizeable volume of electric road vehicles will hit hard because there is nothing stopping the battery chargers being changed to charge your wallet more to charge your battery. You will not be in control of the charging prices for what electricity you receive. Vehicle excise duty lost to your 'Green' car will be recouped by road pricing and through the charger. You will likely not have any option than to pay up or peter out.

China now holds control over much of the manufacturing and mineral resources concerned with motor vehicle battery production. What is to stop them raising the price a they see fit to whatever level they choose once the fossil fuelled cars are not on sale? Bet they didn't think that one through.

We could switch to synthetic petrol and diesel fuels which ARE carbon neutral. The folly of going down the battery vehicle route will soon become apparent. It grabs headlines and in time hit you in your wallet like an electric version of Dick Turpin. Highway Robbery for the 22nd century.

We can make synthetic fuels from Algae, we cannot make new Cobalt, Lithium or other rare earth metals and elements used in electric car batteries. If we can't recycle these car batteries we will have created yet another fiasco like the Fridge Henge. Why cannot people see through these simple things?

Liquid fuelled motor vehicles using petrol or diesel are the cleanest they have ever been and will get cleaner almost producing no emissions. This is the future. Battery may work in cities, it is not the answer for our needs.

The UK issue of emissions

The UK produces less than 1% of global emissions, China 25%. The place to reduce emissions is obvious. Recently a coal mine project in Britain was halted, it was to produce Coke for Steel making - British steel used by Volkswagen for instance, due to its quality, is well regarded. The mine isn't going ahead I believe, thanks to 'Green' pressure here.

So that means the jobs and the production will go to China which opens 1 coal fired power station a week and uses Coal in their Steel production. An industry which overproduces and 'dumps' cheap steel on the market.

Our British furnace might have been partly powered by renewables or nuclear which would be less damaging to heat up. Go figure. The UK Coal use would be minimal compared to China.

The UK has reduced CO2 output by over 40% it is now time others did the same before the UK is forced down  by using hobbling measures whilst other major nations pollute and do little or nothing. The UK is just looking stupid by trying to set some mythical example it has no real hope of achieving because of costs for one reason.

Burning Wet wood is banned on domestic Wood burning stoves. Yet, a power station can burn wood chips which are wet and this is 'Green' despite as a result producing enormous amounts of CO2 - likely more than efficiently burnt coal would produce. 

Plus these wood chips are from American forests being felled to feed this situation. Add in the shipping from the USA and the Green dividend looks questionable. Who thought this was a great idea? Dunces cap awaits... You could not make this up.

British manufacturing 

Covid has ramped up transport costs especially from China and this means that Britain is now viable in some situations as a manufacturing base again. But we are hobbling ourselves by introducing stringent carbon neutral and net Zero carbon policies foisted on us by eco zealots whilst China still creates large global emissions unchecked. 

Promises from China of mending their ways need to be put in place now not some arbitrary future date.

We cannot have 'real carbon neutrality' - we all breathe out CO2 for a start. Go figure. 

We live in a commercial world, we consume, we have done since the time of the Atlanteans.

At the time of the Dinosaurs the climate was far warmer than today so that the large dinosaurs could exist and the proportion of CO2 the atmosphere contained was far greater than today - the fossil record of plants shows that too. 

In year zero a millennium ago Grapes were grown in Britain as they were in the 1500's - if it was that warm then, it was warmer than the '1.5 degrees catastrophe' that people say will cause problems. Its called science. The sun dictates how warm this planet is. 

Heathrow airport expansion

Do we need this? Of the Heathrow airport expansion - 'Good for business' Mrs May said - but not good for the environment. Covid has knocked a lot of air travel on the head. Most of it was a luxury and not necessary. Our environment has benefitted from less air travel. We can keep that dividend.

E10 Ethanol Petrol - Dump this 'not Green' fuel for Synthetic fuels - these are not the future.

A big con - E10 Petrol is not green at all. 

E10 is less volatile than the old unleaded petrol meaning you need to use more fuel to gain the same performance how can this be 'Green'? The Ethanol in E10 combines with water to damage fuel system parts in some engines. It is worse performing for your engine than E5 by a long while. we proved that in an old car from 1930.

The Ethanol in the E5 and E10 is derived from Sugar Beet cultivation, which makes its own CO2 problems and denying sugar  and food growing land to local populations, potentially creating local food poverty problems too. 

Factor in clearing CO2 absorbing trees for growing this Beet and it just looks like more lunacy on a plate. It will be like Palm Oil all over again, clearing fertile ground, often forested areas to make a product that is not needed.

Creating a big carbon footprint of making the Ethanol and delivering it too is lunacy.

Untreated (with enhancing additives) E10 fuel older than 30 days will need to be disposed of as its usable volatility diminishes, so do councils have the facilities at their waste management plants to collect and store this hazardous fuel in great quantities? Treated with additives, E10 fuel can last 3 years plus and remain usable.

Millions of litres of untreated fuel as a consequence, are likely to be ending up being wasted each year from surplus unused fuel purchased for use in garden machinery alone. A percentage of all the Fuel having to be delivered to petrol stations may have to as a consequence, be 'dumped'. This is hardly green. This is stupidity on a grand scale.

Wild Boar introduced illegally as 're-wilding' measures in the 1980s create the same amount of CO2 that 1 million cars do, as their foraging releases CO2 stored in the earth. 

Rather than the 350,000 cars worth of emissions reduction the RAC claims E10 fuel introduction will make (a figure which I am personally not buying), why not get rid of the Wild Boars, a much bigger problem? Do the math, 350,000 against 1,000,000. And the E10 fuel that will need disposal. 

We are no longer in the EU, let us dump E10 and go back to E5 a better fuel that causes less problems and is more Green and more efficient. A compromise but worth it. On this note, petrol and diesel engines burn more cleanly than ever. They can only improve but not by E10 and Adblue which drastically reduces Diesel vehicle economy.

China and production

China has become the big manufacturing base of the world, it has become a commercial consumer society itself and raised the standard of living of their citizens in recent decades. 

But it also makes a lot of crap we consume and don't need to consume, because our markets create artificial demand for this stuff as part of our 'consumer society'.

We can do without the single use plastic stuff produced for 'Secret Santa' and 'Halloween' events, which are just commercial opportunities. This is the stuff that gets sent to landfill sometimes unused. Why the hell are we doing this? 

Developing countries

Countries that are not currently at 'western' levels of development - should these be encouraged not to develop and given aid not to advance? Can the world's resources cater for their new needs and materials demands if they advance? Do they need to develop?

Since 1970 our world population has almost doubled. That's part of the problem.

As a planet run along commercial lines, unless we find ways of doing that in a better way, we will not make any progress towards the ideals that this sort of conference aims to employ.

We will also run out of resources. Like the elements needed for batteries, whilst Algae we can use to make synthetic fuels is infinite. Go figure.

Electric cars - you're going about it the wrong way...

Small, electric car by Renault

So, you might think an electric car is 'greener' but is it and are the main builders going about building the electric cars the right way?

Firstly, unless you're going to harvest the sun power for later use in a non-hazardous storage system, then the 'green' argument for powering a car is fatuous. That's because your juice is going to come from either burning fossil fuel or from nuclear. Oh, and the battery is its own little eco hazard area where it's made. But there is hope...

Its the way manufacturers go about the design that may be in need of change. Like the forklift and the milk float, they tend to harness the linking of heavy batteries to get the amps for motive power. Which means you end up dragging a ton of lead about which gets more of a problem the more your battery potential energy is used up. 

Maybe they're missing a trick. They should use a small battery to drive a small rotor over a stator coil and get high amp but low voltage power to drive something else and step up to real cooking volts. Just like and ATV stator does.

With high capacity capacitors and solar panels, you could charge up an underfloor power cell during the day and start your drive on free energy. Then, with rotor units in the wheels, you can start to generate more power as you drive, so that hopefully at 30mph you could be making your own volts in excess of what you need to get forward motion. 4 wheels, 4 rotors, no real drag, free power.

I've seen how an ATV stator can kick out over a hundred volts at idle, so scale it and drop all the heavy batteries with their eco disaster problems. Less weight to move and less weight to drag the thing down.

Many electric cars are made just far too heavy, they are over engineered to accommodate heavy assemblies. So lighten it all by using aluminium, more strength for less weight.

Think different, think light, think power and rectification of power.

Look at trains, they are diesel powering generators to provide the power, not direct drive to the wheels.

Political Corruptness - the Climate Change rip off

A normal solstice sunset

In the 1970's the big jump-on industry for the largely otherwise unemployable was the 'race relations' industry, that was supplanted in the 1990's by the 'Global Warming' industry, when it was found that the race relations complaints were actually coming from indigenous white people, the complete turn around of 'cause.' A new Hobby Horse was needed.

So the next industry to latch on to the boob was 'Global warming' and when that was exposed as not happening, indeed 'Global Cooling' as the statistics stated, the so-called 'Warmists' had to find another way to posit their agenda. And so they called it 'Climate change.'

But do we have other arguments for weather and climate pattern changes? Yes. Firstly, lunar orbital change.

We rely on the moon's orbit to drive our tides, we are currently moving away from the moon a little more every year and so by default, the influence of the gravitational forces on our planet lessens, just like on an electric guitar, when you reduce the pickup height away from the string, the signal gets weaker to the amplifier.

Magnetic levitation and equilibrium display

My suggestion is that the lunar trajectorial orbit has changed, rather from being as it was, a flat rotational orbit, I suggest that other planetary influence now has changed the flat linear pattern into a 'light roller coaster' effect, as we see form the funfair ride below, the moon now moves on a path where it rises and falls in its circular rotational orbital path.

Thus, the lunar gravitational effect on our planet is reduced in parts of its orbit, this leads to changes in the tide height and tidal patterns, which then affect the weather.

The funfair roundabout showing the variable linear 'orbit' of up and down movement

The Jetstream that moves around our skies and is another weather affector, is driven by the volcanic activity of the planet core. The Earth plates move periodically and as we know heat rises, this allows areas of the ocean to become hotter spots, which then when hot air hits cold air, helps to form weather patterns. The Earth plates move and rearrange themselves, as a result the hot currents are generated in different areas of the oceans.

This also affects the migratory pattern of marine life, particularly Sharks. The Great White is a migratory species that swims an orbital pattern around the oceans from Florida to Australia, it essentially follows warmer water patterns where its food sources swim. A case of 'follow my larder.'

With the Jetstream moving because of the places the water is heated have changed, we are now finding migrating Sharks are coming close to European waters as they follow the warmth.

Whereby they would tend to be spotted around the African Cape, the movement upwards of a warm water circuit nearer to Europe has meant Great Whites are now off the Cornish Coast and being caught in the Mediterranean where they were previously rare, a 7m Great White was caught off the Italian coast, miles from where it should have been off the Cape.

Similarly, other shark species like Mako have been caught off Cornwall, where they should not really occur. This was trumpeted as 'climate change,' but the reality is a far simpler explanation, it happened by natural movement of the tectonic plates. Sorry.

Oil makes the world go round

We have since the end of WW2 been moving towards a personal transport culture. Unless you lived in a city like London, well served by large capacity people movers, the tube, trains and busses, then it was a car, bicycle or foot for the rest of us.

We now have to rely on personal transport for many of our consumer needs and for those in rural areas, it is the only option in many cases. It is the price you pay for the better quality of life you get in the country. 

A vehicle excise tax on the amount of CO2 your engine generates is the norm now, not based on just ownership, but it is the wrong solution.

You may possess an older car that you rarely use on which you have to pay £240 a year duty, you may do 1000 miles a year in this car, but you may buy a car which has a zero rate duty because it is more modern design engine with lower CO2 emissions and which you can do 30,000 miles a year in for no charge.

Which does the most damage? Surely the answer is obvious. The basic factor is, the more fuel you buy and consume, the greater the penalty for polluting should ultimately be which can be met through the fuel.

Don't think that your vehicle excise duty goes on roads, it goes to prop up the welfare state, they told me that when I worked for them. This makes any 'environmentally friendly' excise policies hot air and 'driving a green car' makes no difference. It's all about money in the end.

One of the biggest rip offs is 'Carbon Credits,' essentially buying a licence to pollute. What this does is in our sector of the world,  is enables a company to buy the right to pollute, the need is to clean up the energy outfall or find alternative energy means, less polluting and to stop the pollution before it starts, not the sticking plaster solution at the end.

Then we do not talk about the elephant in the sky, the jet aircraft. Air travel has expanded enormously since WW2, yet when we talk about CO2 reduction, we always steer away from any mention of the travel industry and air travel's contribution.

Indeed, actually talking of extra runways at airports, like Heathrow, when you need to reduce or relocate is ludicrous. Aircraft are not taxed for CO2 output, when a chancellor proposed this, there was outcry and the idea quietly dropped. We have airports in major urban conurbations, the risk of accident is reasonable. To add to the problem, increases the risk.

The jet engine is now much more efficient than ever, but the fact remains, that a jet engine at Jetstream level altitude of 30,000 feet does create warmth that can affect the weather.

The rise in Asian manufacturing capacity creates its own problem with pollution. Yet it is a hot potato that no one wants to mess with, for cultural and economic reasons most likely. We only have to look at some industrialised parts of China to see the problems of pollution, both air and waterborne have and continue to create. 

This is it seems is the price we have to pay for cheap goods, whilst in the West we are heavily penalised for producing a fraction of the world's pollution and perceived climate altering problems, those elsewhere stick two fingers up and laugh as they continue to pollute without penalty, it would seem.

The UK has 300 years of coal supply in the ground

The nonsense of the situation is that in the UK, we have a 300 year supply of good quality coal, yet because of a stupid EU climate agreement we were signed up to, we are now decommissioning and demolishing coal fired power stations.

Yet in Germany, they are building new ones. This is the sort of complete stupidity that goes on. We can produce clean burn power based on coal. Just like Germany.

American forests are senselessly being felled and wood converted to wood fuel pellets

But oh no, we have to import from America, pellets of reformed wood to burn, which are shipped across the Atlantic by polluting cargo ships. The forests are felled and the trees chipped and made into wood pellets, they are then burned in UK power stations. The so-called 'carbon footprint' of this exercise is far more CO2 heavy than burning coal.

WHY? Because these trees are counted as 'renewable energy' so was coal, it was a tree once!

So what about solar or wind power? Too costly and not viable. Solar, only when there is day light, wind, only when the wind is blowing and not too much. Token windmill tilting.

The answer is free energy. This has been known about for decades but it is free and would destabilise the economy if used.

So there you are, this is the surreal reality if there is such a thing of why we are in this confusing place!