Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G8_Scorecards_2009.pdf

The above document, prepared jointly by the WWF and the Allianz insurance giant, and distributed to the media and policy makers, compares CO2 emissions and progress on mitigation for the G8 countries. When noticing France AND Germany in similar places on the list, I looked a little further. France, according to this report, has still fairly high emissions from electricity production. A small footnote under one of the graphs though explains why:



So basically, France's CO2 emissions from electricity production are produced by ideological bias, not by fossil fuel combustion. It looks like the German emissions are lower than actual tons of CO2 also because of emission trading schemes. Allianz is of course also a trader in CO2 certificates.

It seems like the new battle-cry is: Enrons of the world, unite !!!

This is PRICELESS, Klaus -- thanks !!

My God they have LOST IT completely. How can they possibly believe they can get away with this outside their own closed-minded circle? This has to be given the widest circulation possible.

WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy
option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and
proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate
policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear
power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per
capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as
if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had
produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).
A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as a
country using gas, the most efficient fossil fuel.

Well that's objective.

I love it.
'When we don't like the data, we lie!'
Now why didn't I think of that.

Rob

If the press does not pick this up and report the idiocy of this statement then they to are smitten with the religion.
Has anyone seen any new reports about this press release?

I've contacted 'the Times' by e-mail to point out this story to them.

You can be happy they used gas emissions (I hope CCGT), as that is normally the most CO2 efficient "non-renewable" energy source....they could have chosen coal too....

It is a very subjective although not so badly chosen policy indicator.

However as a technical indicator, it's just hilarious...

Say What?

Just imagine for a moment this wasn't the WWF, but was some part of the nuclear industry fudging their figures. Imagine the headlines splashed across newspapers and the internet. The glee with which anti-nuclear groups would seize upon it and use it to mischaracterize the industry for YEARS. "How can we believe a word they say now?" they would ask. "How can we trust such people to run such dangerous contraptions?".

These bastards need a good long taste of their own medicine.

Wow. Just wow.

Steve Packard a.k.a. Dr, Buzz0 over at his blog Depleted Cranium pointed out that in many jurisdictions deception like this could lose an organization like the WWF it's tax free status. Now given that they do admit to this manipulation of the data, they might be in the clear, but I am writing Revenue Canada to ask them if this is acceptable behavior for a tax-exempt NGO in Canada.

Those reading this in other countries might consider doing the same with your own tax people, it may not get WWF into any trouble, but you never know...

I noticed that the caveat appears at the bottom of p.17, under the data for France, but it says that it was applied to all countries -- meaning that data for Canada (including Ontario, at 51% nuclear) is similarly doctored, but without the caveat given on the same page, below.....

Thanks Jaro, I will definitely point that out that omission to RevCan in my e-mail.

I've sent the Australian chapter of WWF the following email:

I am writing to express my extreme disgust with the dishonest tactic used by WWF in its assessment of the CO2 emissions assigned to nuclear power generation in the G8 scorecard document:

http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G ... s_2009.pdf

The offending passage reads as follows:

"WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts. To reflect this, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear power was assessed in the following way: Indicators for the “current status” were adjusted, by assuming that electricity from nuclear energy was produced with gas, the most carbon efficient fossil fuel."



As a result of this blatently dishonest approach, nations such as France, which generate virtually CO2-free electricity have their CO2 emission figures falsely inflated to give a completely unrealistic negative picture of the effectiveness of nuclear power as a strategy to fight climate change.

As an organisation dedicated to protecting the environment, the WWF should base its policy positions on scientific fact, not on outworn anti-scientific anti-nuclear religious dogma.



I shall be contacting the Australian Taxation Office to suggest that a review of WWF's tax-free status be undertaken on the basis of the dishonesty displayed in this case.



Kind regards,

Craig Schumacher.