To no surprise, the real winter cold enfolded most of Europe. Again.

In parts of Europe, people have died. Travelling is out of the question, as trains are stranded and the roads are dangerous. How comforting then to be able to enjoy the heating at home, cook  up a warm soup, or even venture outside in solid armour, buy a paper around the corner and escape into an even cosier corner with a hot drink.

That’s because, regardless of the extreme weather, where I am, energy works. In many places it doesn’t. As half of the nuclear plants here are down, rivers frozen and – quite naturally – all windmills are standing still, it’s a blessing to be able to, at least partly, trust that different forms of energy will somehow find their way into my hide out.

A private energy market is simply a necessity on days like this.

However, be careful not to let someone else pick up that tab. To my surprise, EU Comissioner Hedegaard has issued a warning against the general enthusiasm over bio fuels. Reports Euractiv:

A draft Commission impact assessment, obtained by EurActiv last week, indicates that the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels such as palm oil, soybean and rapeseed may exceed those of fossil fuels when wider factors are considered.

This is because tropical forests and wetlands are often cleared to compensate for lands taken to grow biofuels elsewhere, a process known as indirect land use change, or ILUC.

“Personally, I’ve always been very cautious on biofuels,” Hedegaard told EurActiv in an interview. “It’s great to see the potential in new technologies, but we should take very much care in Europe that we are now not establishing a new big industry that we then – after some time – say, wow, that was not so good.”

Well worth considering in our cosy corners.

Please Stay There Dear Friend

One of the major news of the week has, strangely, been that we are subject to a solar storm. Beautiful to watch the following weather phenomena, but not dangerous, as it’s not strong enough to penetrate the atmosphere. Good so, but an enlightening reminder that the planet’s best friend – and worst enemy – is the sun. Eventually it will blow, or fade out. Predictions, not to mention possible precautions, are difficult, at least today. Maybe not in 3000 years time.

However, in a way insignifant alarms like this, serve as a constant reminder, that indeed we cannot control the climate. There’s a more powerful – and unpredictable – force out there. And it’s name is not carbon dioxide.

After studying these news, however, eyes are immediately drawn to the proposed “Weather Law” in South Africa. Only the governmental weather bureau will be permitted to issue reports and warnings. Consequently, a friendly warning from a fellow sailor – or a neighbour, would be prosecuted.

At least the Durban COP 17 conference would have been banned.

The most famous bet in the environmental debate is probably the one between the Late Julian Simon and alarmist Paul Erlich in 1980, over predicted shortage in natural resources. As much as the story still amuses me, it also serves as a constant reminder of the optimism we all deserve more of.

In this proud tradition, the no less proud Dr David Whitehouse, found himself in a global warming bet,staged by the BBC. Reports Whitehouse:

 ”…eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.

Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”

Later today, January 13^th, “More or Less” returns to the bet,which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”

Congratualtions! Considering the hilarious amounts of money circling around in the alarmist hemisphere, maybe serious gambling could be a solid way for realists to make a decent living.

Denmark, taking over the rotating EU presidency has outlined its priorities for the next half year. Not surprising, really, but still awkward.

Reports Euractiv:

“Environment Minister Ida Auken called for making energy efficiency legally binding, dismissing concerns that weak economies and the eurozone debt crisis would trump the environment in EU policy debates in the months ahead.

‘It’s not enough to be focusing on the financial crisis right now, and then not look at just as important or just as severe a crisis – namely the environmental crisis,’she said at a briefing 12 days before the country’s EU presidency begins. ‘We have all possibilities to keep the environment on the agenda despite the hard times on the economic front.”

It might of course be that also the financial crisis is better handled with as little political intervention as possible, but remember COP 15 in Copenhagen. The presiding country at that time, Sweden, declared it the absolutely most important event during the period, in spite of having to handle the Lisbon treaty, and the host country, Denmark put loads of prestige on the table. Do I need to remind you that all agree it was an – expensive – fiasco.

Energy efficiency is better driven by market forces, in spite of the standard charades in Brussels. As for climate policy, admit that it’s just down to shuffling money in a loop none can get out of.

Meanwhile, Castro on Cuba has also declared his priorities for the next year: Prevent nuclear war and protect the environment.

Rather courageous for a dictatorial family that once drew the world closer than ever before, or after, towards a global nuclear war and has spent half a century destroying the environment for its subjects by persecuting, imprisoning and starving them.

thank you for following us. The attention around both our site and other activities has indeed grown over the past years. The only regret is that there has not been time to answer all comments properly. Let me take the opportunity however, to compliment on the Durban Poem, submitted by one of our friends.

At the same time, it’s worth noticing that the hysteria in the climate debate has decreased simultaneusly. Remember December of Copenhagen. What remains now is basically the fancy, regular meetings and the fuzz over quite too much tax money for the delegates to play with.

But environmental – and political – problems remain. Pollution, starvation and misery prevail, wherever common decency and private property is replaced by reshuffling of tax money, expropriation and hasty legislation.

CFACT Europe remains devoted to sound science and decency, not only in the climate debate. During the year, we have been represented at joyful events, such as the Annual Liberty Ball in Brussels, and more solemn occasions such as the the funeral of the late Dr Otto von Habsburg, in Vienna.

In the year to come, you might excpect some chanches and improvements to the web site. This is a work in progress, but if anyone of you run a blog or web site related to our task, please link to us and get in contact for cross linking.

Happy New Year

Einar Du Rietz, Associate Editor, CFACT Europe

Sidewalks are slippery, with the newly arrived and thus unusual European winter. Traffic is as bad as every year and people are frantic to make last minute purchases.

Then comes another old tradition, with a new name. It used to be some mumbo jumbo about not exploiting something, now the young hooligans blocking traffic and shopping malls call it a Climate Action.

Could, in the midst of winter, these kids at least try to show some decency towards their fellow men and women, who are just out to – with or without wheelchair or crutches – risking their health in order to spend a nice holiday.

Grumpy? You bet. But, Yes, this is not a season for grumpiness. Please take my advice, go sit on Santa’s lap instead of harassing people. Who knows, we might even get peace, prosperity and a clear sky to contemplate on that star up above.

The fact that you didn’t make it in Durban does not give you the right to deny others to enjoy the pleasures of the season. Merry Decency to you all.

Wiser from the Copenhagen hysteria, all sides – except President Zuma, who is forced to show some enthusiasm, and in a way The Holy Father, who wants a “credible” outcome (nothing wrong with credibility) - seem to agree that COP17 in Durban wont accomplish anything. As for me, I’m content with that, but it’s still fun to watch the show, including side appaerances from all places. Guess we can look forward to a lot of that.

In the UK, PM Cameron’s “Green Guru”, Steve Hilton suddenly comes out as a realist, saying he doubts the entire Global Warming idea.

Reports the Daily Mail:

‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’

Meanwhile, Canada seems to abandon ship as far as Kyoto goes.

“[Environment Minister, Peter] Kent said in the House of Commons on Nov. 22 he won’t sign a document at the Durban conference that extends the Kyoto targets.

‘Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us,’ Kent said.” according to CTV News.

And this is just the beginning. Roughly, on the table is: Kyoto, expiring next year. The EU, not having any problems with the obligations, are for an extension, and the big players never joined. A global binding treaty that was hoped for in Copenhagen and now, if ever, might appear at least as a draft resolution in three years.

Remains the 100 billions, pledged, but still unclear how, to be spread over the earth. This is COP17. Guess the by now professional summit globerotters find that a fair sum for others to pay, in order to continue the circus.

Hey Lady! Got a Light?

Don’t you agree? On the anti smoking issue, that is. On the one hand, people in general are just giving up, resigning in the face of oppression and harassment. On the other, some – maybe an increasing amount of people – are beginning to feel that enough is enough. Some even dare to say so in public.

Let me be one of them, enouraged by a – today non smoking – brother in arms.

Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance has made a bold effort to reintroduce science into the debate, otherwise carried out either by uninformed legislators or the, often just as uninformed, public.

The passive smoking, or as it is sometimes referred to, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), roughly took off about 30 years ago with a widely quoted EPA report in the US, quickly dismissed as nonsense by a subsequent analysis from the Congressional Research Center, not gaining much attention. Legislators followed. Air traffic came first, then public buildings, airports, trains, restaurants, now even pubs, and the hyenas are out sniffing for balconies, peoples homes, and now even their cars. Oh, yes, forgot the outdoor cafes, already banning smoking in some places, and probably the top thing next European summer. Sure, there has been a load of more or less scientific attempts since then.

Writes Gabb:

“The argument from “passive smoking” is based on falsehoods. There is no way of gathering meaningful data, nor even sound epidemiological evidence that passive smoking exists. The alleged figure of 300,000 children harmed every year in the UK by passive smoking is what is called a “junk statistic.” It is in the same league as the claims made in the 1980s about the number of people who would die of aids by 1990, or the claims made in the 1990s about the numbers who would soon be dead from mad cow disease. It is almost as gross a falsehood as the fraudulent global warming claims made by British scientists.”

Letting voodoo into the rules for governmental buildings is one thing. As for the airlines, well, the result apparently was less cost for ventilation/fresh oxygen, and a jump in so called air rage, which in turn was used as an excuse to cut down on the free drinks.

But moving further, to the situation today, when it’s regarded as perfectly normal to harass smokers standing on the sidewalk (where-else should we be), it’s strange to notice the – frankly rather stunning- disrespect for private property. Some European countries still allow smoking in bars, if not in restaurants, but even that is to be taken away. Germany, seems to be one of the few decent countries left. Austria introduced a rule a few years ago that you had to have separate sections and advertise on the entrance door if you were a smokers place or not. Quite acceptable from a patron’s point of view. This is now tightening. Belgium has fallen, as has France. One of the last times I had a decent smoke indoors was in the secluded smokers area (air proof) at one one Copenhagen’s oldest hang-outs, in connection to the Climate Fiasco in 2009.

Remains the fact that smoking can be impolite, just as hitting on total strangers, or invading private property. Remains the golden rule of survival in a civilized society: Common Decency.

Driver Still Behind the Wheel

I love a sunny story and the most recent one I stumbled upon, cherished in the environmental movement, is a recent innovation – still under development – of a new method to turn toxic textile.factory effluent into clean water.

Go for it, Maria Jonstrup!

One of the most disturbing ingredients of the environmental debate, is the tendency to find a conflict between a decent environment and scientific and industrial innovations. While some, and indeed Dr Jonstrup’s, are admittedly labelled Green, others are seen as the enemy. What’s really the historical perspective, if we agree that environment means the living conditions for humans?

To make a travesty of Howard Roark’s court speech in The Fountainhead: Once upon a time, one man found out how to tame fire. He was probably burned at the stake by the local environmental organization.

Virtually all innovations have initially been under attack by environmental, or religious sceptics, be it electricity, motor vehicles or nuclear power. The current exception normally is what’s referred to as Green Invention, most often not primarily because it’s good for the environment, but because it got the blessing by the government, in other words is financed with tax money.

Jonstrup seems to be a welcome exception to this. Another one would be the recently started experiments with “no driver vehicles”, including trucks, using advanced GPS equipment to navigate, thus optimizing the fuel consumption and emissions. Don’t be scared. The tests so far have a human driver along, just in case, a bit as in commercial aircraft on autopilot. Exciting! What I like is that it’s developed in cooperation between universities and industry. Good luck!

“Honey has always been considered an entirely pure product for the purposes of food labelling laws. But Europe’s highest court has now decreed that pollen is an ingredient of honey rather than an intrinsic, natural component.”

writes the Telegraph

watch?v=qeGtaSWzFRA for more honey.

It just so happens that I’m quite allergic. Not as severe as some younger friends, as the hassle tends to diminish with age, but still enough to remain careful. The so called allergy family (all allergies belong to groups, for example sea food, which I have no problems with) is nuts. Along with this comes mould – also penicillin in it’s original form – almonds and certain fruits and berries. And pets. The only thing really lethal is normally nuts. A younger friend never enters a Thai restaurant or leave her home without cortisone in her pocket. I’ve outgrown pet allergy, and can try different kinds of food, but I will never in my life test one singe nut again. It’s really not worth it.

Sometimes, however, I get the feeling that the worst threat, at least to my mental well-being, is not the sneezing during springtime, but busy body government. When chocolate bars simply had to list ingredients – and you also could find some safe brands – it was easy to pick something suitable. Since some years back, manufacturers are required to point out that virtually every product “may contain traces of nuts”. My younger friend naturally does not even look at candy, but for me, it would be nice to be able to make an informed choice. “May contain” means that the product is manufactured in an environment where other products, containing nuts, have been produced.

And now they are out to hit on the honey. The European Court that is, eager to put another burden on a struggling line of business.

“ Industry experts warned that the “ludicrous” ruling could drive smaller British honey suppliers and beekeepers out of business.”

As long as we can, let’s put honey in our evening cuppa, or rum. The latter based on sugar by the way.