Tuesday, September 20th 2011, 6:39 AM EDT
TUC Climate Change Policy Link
To the TUC Leaders (via the TUC Information Service),
Following on from your Information Service's response to my web enquiry (see below) I would appreciate some enlightenment from the TUC as to why they have, without question, taken the government's position on climate change to heart.
For as far as I understand the matter, the TUC was formed to look after the workers and to fight any and all government schemes that would undermine the well-being of the workers.
From your unequivocal alignment with government policy that
Climate change resulting from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions poses the greatest threat to our existence on this planet. To contain that threat, the world needs to cut emissions by about half by 2050 and to start reducing emissions now.
you appear unaware of two issues:
1. There has never been any proof positive that human activities have influenced the climate and
2. Reducing "emissions" [of carbon dioxide] will lead to wholesale job losses and widespread poverty.
Please stop for one moment and read the selected excerpts below, then please read this seven-page essay (Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect by Joseph E. Postma) then ask me to visit your offices for a 30-minute presentation on the truth about climate change and what drives it.
Pension funds will be raided to finance the unrealistic quest for energy sources that are not reliable, intermittent, hugely expensive and, quite frankly, not necessary for the prosperity of the workers or the climate for that matter.
There is no point to fight against pension issues if the foundation for the pensions crisis is not tackled and that foundation is a governmental financial black-hole due to its unrealistic goals to try and stop climate change.
#Government climate change targets will put £500 on the average family's fuel bill within four years, a study warns today. The report warns that the political elite's obsession with renewable energy will damage Britain's competitiveness without necessarily doing anything to tackle climate change. --Jason Groves, Daily Mail, 15 September 2011
#Last winter over three quarters of people rationed their energy use because of cost, while over 14 million households went without heating at some point to keep their energy costs down. The total amount of people pushed into fuel poverty now stands at an estimated 6.87 million. --My Finances News, 15 September 2011
#The Coalition is committed to a policy, mandated by the EU, of ensuring that 40 per cent of Britain’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. The renewable source that has been chosen to provide most of the electricity is wind.
As our columnist Christopher Booker has pointed out, this creates a serious problem: wind does not blow at a constant rate, which makes it unreliable as an energy supply. There is no way to store the surplus electricity produced when there is too much wind; and when there is no wind, there is no electricity from wind turbines.
The full folly of these turbines is revealed in our report today. Because the electricity it produces cannot be stored, one wind farm has been paid more than £1 million simply to ensure that it does not produce electricity for eight hours.
The company profiting from this lunatic process is not British, but foreign – in common with most of those firms operating wind farms in this country.
That would not be of any concern were these companies actually adding to our prosperity, but they are not: they are destroying value rather than creating it, a process only made possible because the Government takes our money and gives it to them.
In return, taxpayers face higher electricity bills and an economy that is damaged because its costs have been artificially inflated by the decision to use wind as a principal source of power. It is a ludicrous situation.
#A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began. The program has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies. --Carol Leonnig and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, 15 September 2011
#Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.
Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'
#Two major public sector unions have announced they will ballot members for "mass strike action" over increases to pension contributions. Unison and the Public and Commercial Services union told the TUC's annual conference the action would involved the "fight of our lives". The BBC understands this could involve extended, co-ordinated strikes, starting in late November. But the government said widespread action would make the public "angry".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14907909
#Attracting new investors is key: MCT has a plan with the German-owned energy company RWE npower renewables to build a ten megawatt tidal project off the coast of Anglesey, ten times bigger than its existing schemes. The challenges it faces before the project actually goes ahead — if, indeed, it does — reflect those of the wider industry. RWE, like most big energy companies, is a big investor in renewable energy, but its balance sheet is groaning for want of new sources of investment. In Britain alone, an estimated £200 billion is needed over the next decade in new energy infrastructure. The renewable industry, therefore, is looking beyond traditional sources of capital, hoping to tap pension funds to finance its projects, which require vast amounts of money upfront. The idea is still in its infancy, but, as it surely will for renewable companies’ share prices, the wind may yet blow in its favour. http://www.mappingbritishbusiness.co.uk/renewable-energy/sector-overview/
#For decades, advocates of 'peak oil' have been predicting a crisis in energy supplies. They've been wrong at every turn. Things don't stand still in the energy industry. With the passage of time, unconventional sources of oil, in all their variety, become a familiar part of the world's petroleum supply. They help to explain why the plateau continues to recede into the horizon—and why, on a global view, Hubbert's Peak is still not in sight. Daniel Yergin,The Wall Street Journal, 18 September 2011
The TUC, along with all other trade unions, ought to be at the forefront in stopping the government in its drive to reduce emissions for the purpose of affecting climate change - even reducing those emissions to zero will have a nil effect except destroy jobs.
Since when does a trade union agree with government policies that will destroy millions of established jobs whilst promoting the few new jobs in the so-called "renewable energy" market?
You are surely aware of the job markets in Spain, Denmark and Germany with regards the job losses?
For every job created in renewables, 2.3 jobs in real industries have been destroyed.
Is that the TUC's motto these days?
(with thanks to firstname.lastname@example.org for his CCNet newsletters)
(Bcc'd to interested parties)