Why is the E.U. funding the building of fossil fuel power stations?

I suggest that you have these kinds of discussions over at http://www.ecohuddle.com/ because too many people on this site are here to spread their conspiracy theories about how global warming is a hoax.

Many people come up with arguments against the existance of human-caused global warming that make it sound like it's so obviously false that even a child could spot it. We hear that the scientists haven't considered that the sun might be causing it. We hear that they obviously haven't studied history and seen that the earth has warmed before. We are told that since warming can increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it must be impossible for CO2 to cause the current warming. We're told warming or CO2 is actually good for the planet, or that Al Gore invented global warming to make money, that antarctic ice is increasing, scientists methods or instruments are dodgy or that the earth is actually cooling. All those scientists must be complete morons if they're making as many mistakes as some people are telling us. Or maybe, just maybe it's worth looking to see if there are reasonable answers to all these popular concerns. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php is a great place to start.

If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion? Global warming is highly complex, and it takes a while to fully understand what it is, why it's happening and why it's a threat. This is a potential minefield to anyone who's not an expert on the subject. To illustrate the point try this: Google geocentric theory (the idea that the sun goes round the earth) and you'll find arguments that you won't be able to counter without resorting to some form of "But everyone knows most scientists say otherwise!"

It's understandable that people want to come to their own conclusions, but by far the best way to start doing that is to look not so much at what's being said, but at WHO is saying it. These are just some of the most significant people warning us of the human-caused global warming threat:

First, the scientists:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authors from 130+ counties, working more than 6 years to review thousands of peer-reviewed papers. They published their first report on climate change in 1990 and have published an updated one every 5 years since then. They conclude, among other things, that global warming is happening, that it's caused by humans, and that it's a potentially very serious threat to us. http://www.ipcc.ch/

The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC:

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified."

The National Academy of Sciences (US), (founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, 1 in 10 of its members is a nobel prize winner!)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (around since before the US Civil War. It's the largest scientific society in the world, with 144,000 members!)

Royal Society (United Kingdom),

Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Science Council of Japan,

Russian Academy of Sciences,

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),

Royal Society of Canada,

Académie des Sciences (France),

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),

Indian National Science Academy,

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),

Australian Academy of Sciences,

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,

Caribbean Academy of Sciences,

Indonesian Academy of Sciences,

Royal Irish Academy,

Academy of Sciences Malaysia,

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

See the full statement here: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1361...

Government sources:

In 2008 (i.e. still during the George W. Bush era), all 16 US intelligence agencies (who aren't normally known for being green), including the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency jointly produced a report known as the National Intelligence Assessment. The report warned of a wide of a wide range of national security threats if global warming isn't properly addressed.

The Pentagon, in 2003 (i.e. also in the George W. Bush era) released a study which warned: "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/...

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are meeting in Copenhagen in December this year to discuss what action to take against global warming.

John McCain promised to take action against climate change http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04spr/mccain1.asp?r=n (again, this would suggest that it's NOT in fact a liberal plot)

Also in Britain where I live, all the major political parties, including the conservative party agree that global warming is man-made and a threat.

China has declared that it will take action on climate change http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/13/china-signal... and has recently closed coal power plants with a total of 7,467 generating units.

The president of the Maldives made the following remarkable short speech: http://vimeo.com/3661273

Corporations:

One would have thought that big corporations would be the last people to accept that global warming is real, given that many of them, particularly oil companies, may stand to lose out if consumption of their products is necessarily reduced:

Exxonmobil is an oil giant, and the largest company in the world. For a long time they have funded those who deny global warming http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war... However, in 2007 they finally stated that global warming is a serious risk and must be addressed by governments.

80 global corporations including Shell, BP, Duke Energy, Michelin and British Airways wrote a document to G8 leaders calling for stronger action against climate change.

Wanna see even more sources? The list just goes on and on! Click the following link:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#...

____________________

So who are the skeptics?

At this date, there is only 1 professional scientific organization which does not concur that the science clearly points to man-made global warming being a serious threat. That's the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who state that the globe is warming but that their membership is divided on the degree of human influence. However, this is not all that surprising when you consider that they may feel that their jobs will be threated by action taken against global warming.

The Oregon Petition/petition project etc:

An online petition which anyone can sign. The number of signers is now up to 31,000, although you may hear it quoted as a lower number if someone isn't up to date. To sign you're supposed to hold a science degree, although it can be in ANY area of science, the names are not disclosed and nobody actually checks to see if the signers really do have degrees. http://www.petitionproject.org/

A compiled list of 400 scientists against global warming:

Amazingly, some people on this list are counted multiple times, and many are not scientists but engineers, inventors, economists etc.

A few think tanks and advocacy organizations (i.e. people with agendas to push, NOT scientists!):

e.g. The Heartland Institute, The Marshall Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute...

A tiny handful of oft-quoted individual scientists.

Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer etc.

Most of these skeptics are qualified in fields other than CLIMATE science, which is the relevant field.

A slew of journalists, writers, bloggers and documentary makers who present different versions of events, where global warming is portrayed as shambles/conspiricy/liberal plot. They are pretty successful at convincing people, because your average member of the public doesn't know any better.

__________________

Forget the shouting match and and the highly confusing media debate. We rely on science in just about every aspect of our lives, and global warming is a scientific issue. Although we can never know the future for certain, it is wisest to base our actions on what the overwhelming majority of the worlds experts are telling us!

Actually if you read the small print, the power stations they are building also burn processed waste that would have gone to landfill and they are needed.

There's two points. Neither you me or anybody else would be enthralled with the idea of an incinerator next door, so lets call it a solid fuel plant. Carbon Capture Storage; it might be untried and extremely expensive in terms of fuel burnt, but it is a justification of method used.

Then our scientists have done some projections and the figures don't add up. Global population will continue to increase, but Europe will remain relatively stable, immigration aside. That puts the squeeze on food imports. Self sufficiency requires more water. Nuclear power requires lots and lots of water, but you need to think about where you can locate your reactors and then vector in the unpredictable effects of global warming.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, if we don't use them somebody else will. Not to say the EU knows what it's doing, but it's paving the way for fortress Europe. America is moving in the same direction for the same reason; relying on the exports of countries outside the bloc isn't feasible, because they will start to dry up.

Being an engineer I can tell you that at this moment in time it isn't possible to only use renewable power.

Generating power is very complicated, power must be generated where it is required and the power being generated must equal demand exactly at all times. Most renewables are too remote or unable to be timed correctly to be useful.

Until there is a sensible way of storing electricity in large volumes renewables cannot be used as our main power source which is why traditional power plants are still being made.

But please note that modern fossil fuel power plants are more efficient and produce less CO2 than previous ones. But if you really want to make a difference join an energy firm and change things from the inside.

The first thing to question would be if these alternatives are really able to deliver power on a wide scale as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The second thing is to wonder who the rich countries really are. The ever increasing dept load of many western countries doesn't really leave them in a great position to build other countries energy systems especially when their own system will need the same changes. To see if it is wasted money goes back to the question of the value of government spending abroad on all sorts of other projects in the past. The government can and should aid poorer countries but I would rather see private enterprises create new business models in these countries. This would help more economically and perhaps require poorer governments to function better and not just wait for handouts. To me its not wasted, its just not the best way of doing it.

The renewable Energy alternatives are not that easy to just built a lot of wind turbines or something like that. The renewable ENERGY sources have disadvantages as well and they don't produce very much electricity anyways. My personal favourite of the renewable energy recorces is Geothermal if you want to know what that is then just google it.... The renewable Energy resources are very expensive to built and they cost so much. Solar power is incredible expensive and they wind turbines as well. But the biggest problem which affects all the renewable energy resorces is that they don't work all the time which is very bad. they dont create very much energy neither. I know fossil fuels are running out and they need to find something to produce a lot of energy. I am sure they'll find something. They are working on a project to produce electricity. It's called fusion power.

Depends on where they are building the power stations. If they build a fossil fuel station in third world countries thats a good thing becuase like it or not its still the cheapes way to generate power which is a much needed resources in those countires.

Easy, because both wind and solar power are not constant sources of power. It use solar power energy you will need huge batteries made out of heavy metals that create more harmful pollution. Same with wind power. Even wave power is not always a constant source of energy. Just because there are renewable alternatives, doesn't mean the alternatives will give the steady energy required.

Because of the fact that: A,there is no way of stopping the earths "natural" cycle of global warming and ice ages!!,B,the entire planets energy needs could be solved by a 280 square mile solar cap ting field in the sahara desert(the most advanced NASA style cells!),and all vehicles could be electrically powered (since 1955)....but alas...oil has made a fortune for those who are in power!!,hemp is a good example of this,the most organic and useful source of fuel and yet in the united states(a major source of hemp production),...until a hundred years ago ..the incoming president outlawed hemp production as he owned a paper /cut down all the trees company...do you smell a rat??

I'm guessing they need new energy plants. Since almost all the alternative options are a joke, they probably wanted to go with one that might actually produce energy at an affordable rate.

Could you please give more information? eg Your source(s), the location of these power stations, the EU funding commitment and so on.

Thank you.in anticipation

Maybe they double checked this report on the reality of co2 and found that science overrules alarmist hype every time,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....