It would appear that Denmark ISN'T meeting its Kyoto commitments.

[NNadir]

Denmark is 21.53% higher on CO2 emissions than it committed to being when it joined Kyoto.

Here is the web source: http://www.energy.eu/#Domestic

Please scroll down to the nice graphic on European Kyoto performance.

Denmark, which is an exporter of both dangerous natural gas and dangerous oil, continues its program of "Drilling, Baby drilling!" at sea.

What a surprise!!!

[wtmusic]

1. CO2 is from burning Danish wind turbines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m09vkAIJBXQ

[NNadir]

2. Denmark recently announced a moratorium on shore based wind turbines.

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/scitech/92-technology/49869-dong-gives-up-on-land-based-turbines.html

[DrGregory]

5. With the size of Denmark..

Denmark recently announced a moratorium on shore based wind turbines.
==================================================

They can do that with a country the size of Denmark

Because Denmark is so small, everybody is within a fairly
short distance from the sea. The amount of coastal waters
per land area is LARGE for Denmark.

The United States on the other hand is the reverse. The
ratio of our coastal waters area to the interior land
area for the USA is SMALL.

The USA couldn't just use coastal wind turbines. The USA
would have to have land based turbines which the Danes it
now appears, are loathe to accept.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

4. Reminds me of James Taylor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m09vkAIJBXQ
============================================

"....sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground.

I've seen fire and I've seen rain..."

[DrGregory]

3. Just as Dr Patrick Moore stated...

Denmark is 21.53% higher on CO2 emissions than it committed to being when it joined Kyoto.
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's just as Dr. Patrick Moore stated in his seminar to the
World Affairs Council of Western Michigan a few years ago:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1

Denmark for all its HUGE investment in wind turbines; when it comes
down to not what it says on the nameplate, but how much energy the
turbines can really deliver; Denmark gets about 18% of its electricity
from the wind. The other 82% comes from fossil fuel-based backup
power.

This is the MISTAKE that good scientists do NOT want the USA to make.
As one poster here, and as Dr. Moore points out above; if we make the
wrong choice in choosing our power sources to avoid global warming;
we won't have enough time to correct that choice before we reach the
global warming "tipping point"; and we can't prevent the negative
effects no matter what we do.

To a scientist, it is so OBVIOUS - western Europe did the experiment
for us. Different countries took different approaches, and we can
now score the winners / losers.

Referring to Dr. Moore's seminar above:

Denmark went all in with wind power; and Denmark is a LOSER
( worst in CO2 emission per capita in Europe )
Germany went all in with solar; and Germany is a LOSER
( second only to Denmark in being worse in CO2 per capita )

France and Sweden were the WINNERS. They have CO2 emission
per capita that are HALF of Denmark and Germany and a THIRD
of the USA.

France did it by being almost totally nuclear.
Sweden did it by being half nuclear and half hydro.

The countries of Europe already did the experiment.

Why would we follow the path of the LOSERS, and not the WINNERS?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

9. Patrick More is a paid spokeman for the Nuclear Energy Institute - the PR arm of the nuke industry.

Open Access
This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."

Patrick Moore is a former Greenpeace activist who has been a corporate consultant since at least 1991. He began working for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, in 2006. The Coalition was organised and funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute, with help from the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton that has a $8 million account with the nuclear industry.<1> In October 2008, Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes." <2>

According to Environment News Services: "Nuclear power advocates are hoping that Moore and Whitman can sell the American public on the benefits of nuclear power and help spark the resurgence of an industry that has not constructed a new plant in some 30 years".<3>

An editorial in the Colombia Journalism Review noted the benefit to the nuclear industry of having Moore and Whitman front their PR exercise, as in subsequent media articles Moore was often quoted as a "founder of Greenpeace" or an "environmentalist," but not as a paid consultant to the nuclear industry: "Life is complicated. So are front people for industry causes — or any cause, in a world of increasingly sophisticated p.r. We have no position on nuclear power. We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton ... should have such an easy time working the press".<1> (See Patrick Moore: Media coverage that doesn't disclose Moore's nuclear consultancy work for details of media not disclosing Moore's nuclear consultancy work).

In an article together, Moore and Whitman argued the coalition will "help raise awareness of the benefits of clean and safe nuclear energy and continue to build support for nuclear energy as a component of a comprehensive plan to meet America's future electricity needs".<4>

The name of the coalition is no co-incidence, nor was the language used in the article, such as clean, cheap and safe. It reflects a world-wide public relations push by the nuclear industry to portray itself as "clean" and "safe".

Because of Moore’s earlier connections with Greenpeace, despite the fact that he left the organisation some twenty years ago...

Lots more...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_Nuclear_Power


And his views on some other issues might interest people.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore


The only service Moore performs is greenwashing; he lends his name to gain public acceptance for dirty industries.

[Confusious]

11. He's almost like lovins, who you constantly post

except maybe he takes money from nuclear because he believes in in it, whereas

lovins takes money from the demon, coal and and oil.

Does lovins believe in coal and oil?

[DrGregory]

13. SO WHAT!!

Patrick More is a paid spokeman for the Nuclear Energy Institute - the PR arm of the nuke industry.
================================

Unlike some here, I use my own brain and make my own judgments.

If Dr. Moore makes a cogent argument and documents the premises
of said argument - then I DO NOT CARE who he works for or who pays him!

I can sympathize with those that don't have the brain power to
analyze arguments for themselves and have to rely on someone's
associations in order to draw conclusions as to their veracity.

However, I choose to think for myself and not let others do
my thinking for me.

Somebody's got to do it.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

15. "Unlike some here, I use my own brain"

Speak for yourself

"I can sympathize with those that don't have the brain power"

I can't say that you have improved the E/E forum.

[DrGregory]

16. Don't like independent thinkers?

"I can sympathize with those that don't have the brain power"

I can't say that you have improved the E/E forum.
=================================================

What - you don't like independent thinkers?

Would you rather have a forum full of lemmings that
can only parrot the Party line?

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

17. "lemmings "

"only parrot the Party line?"
=================================================
I cannot say that you have improved the E/E forum.

[joshcryer]

6. Surprised this got kicked to the second page.

Wonder if there was a concerted effort to bury it.

[Kolesar]

7. "If you feed them, they will keep coming back" eom

[NNadir]

8. I wouldn't call it "feeding." I have another word for it.

Denial.

The number of anti-nukes who can understand a result based on data is still zero.

The anti-nuke faith, long unchallenged, has done enormous damage to earth's atmosphere. I'm not here because of particular anti-nukes, but because like other faith based cults, their cult received undeserved and unmerited acceptance in such a way as to create great harm.

Have a nice day pretending that Denmark is meeting its Kyoto commitments.

[Kolesar]

10. Honey, go out back and throw a shoe or something

it's late

[NNadir]

12. How about I just throw the figures for that offshore drilling hellhole Denmark?

You know the one I'm talking about don't you, the ones about waste dumping, that would be um, carbon dioxide.

The one that all the anti-nukes deny because it conflicts with their religious faith.

I repeat, in the face of your denial: Denmark is drilling, drilling, drilling and drilling shit that ends up as dumped waste in the atmosphere.

Here's a pic from the anti-nuke coloring book, the Danish Energy Agency's website:



http://www.ens.dk/en-US/OilAndGas/FieldsandProduction/Reserves_and_forecasts/Sider/Forside.aspx

[Nihil]

19. Well, if you consider the number of older posts ...

... that received a single "update" consisting of the word "Kick" from one of two
dedicated anti-nukes around that time, yes, there was a concerted effort to bury it.

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

20. True, but...

...it is important not to loose sight of enormous ass-hattery when it occurs. Such kicks can therefore serve some purpose, even if it's not the intended one.

[DrGregory]

14. Why Windmills can't fly..

It would appear that Denmark ISN'T meeting its Kyoto commitments.
---------------------------------------------

Evidently they didn't read the following:

Why Windmills Can't Fly: The Non-Science of Wind Energy

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Windmills_cant_fly.pdf

Dr. Greg

[Meeker Morgan]

18. Is *anybody* meeting their Kyoto commitments?

Seems to be the way governments are playing it "meeting Kyoto commitments" are for the other guy.

What with the US and China not having any "Kyoto commitments", it's just posturing anyway.