Solar Power: Cheap and Green?

Image via WikipediaMy commute to and from work each day is at least an hour each way.  On Friday and Saturday nights, I deliver pizzas.  On average, I probably spend about 20 hours a week in my car with the radio on.  During that time, I get to hear a lot of radio commercials.

One commercial that I have heard frequently that caught my attention was one from a company called Solar City.  They are a company that offers to install solar panels to your home or business.  The commercial advertises that they will help you save on your electricity bill with as little as zero down with their solar lease.

Let me restate here my position on anthropomorphic global warming.  I believe that the vast majority of climate change occurs as a natural phenomenon.  Any man made contribution to that change is miniscule.  Attempts to try to reverse climate change would be unnecessarily expensive and essentially futile.

That being said, I do believe that conserving our natural resources is a good thing, providing that the effort to do so is not too expensive or overly inconvenient. Take for example CFL light bulbs. Due to the mercury in them they create a potential hazard if thrown in the garbage, however, I would guess that most people do just that.  Plus they are a lot more expensive than incandescent bulbs.

Anyway, back to Solar City.  On their website, they have a solar calculator so you can see how much money you could save on your electric bill by having one of their systems installed.  You input your address and info on your home, and they give you four different scenarios.  Since I am all for saving a little cash, and not averse to conservation, I decided to check them out.

If I went with their zero down option, my monthly bill (combined electric bill and lease) would go up $33 per month and my total expense over 20 years go up nearly $11000.  The next option would be to put a $3600 down payment on a system.  My total monthly bill would still go up in the near term.  Assuming that electricity rates rise according to the scenario of their calculator, I would not start saving on my electric bill five or six years.

They also offer a scenario of putting down $11000 or purchasing a system outright for $24000.  If I purchased a system outright, my electric bill would go down about $70 per month, but it would take nearly 30 years for me to recoup my initial investment.  Since I look at things from a cost vs value perspective, none of their programs would be for me.

Solar energy is often touted as being good for the environment.  Once the panels are installed, that would definitely be the case.  However, the manufacture and disposal of solar panels is another matter entirely.  They are manufactured with toxic heavy metals and gases, some of which are carcinogenic and poisonous.  Their lifespan is usually 20-30 years, and once they are no longer operable would need to be disposed of in special toxic waste dumps.  So much for green.

I actually used the Solar City calculator a couple months ago.  At that time, the calculator said that I would save about $15 per month under the zero down scenario.  I guess that since then, the various tax incentives that were available at that time had expired because the calculator did not show any savings for those incentives as it did the first time I checked them out. 

   

Ray Stevens-"The Global Warming Song"

Since Barack Obama decided to politicize the BP oil spill by pushing cap and trade legislation, which is based on the alleged science of global warming, it is appropriate that Ray Stevens would release "The Global Warming Song."  As usual, Ray is funny and spot on.  We all want a clean planet, but follow the money trail.  This is worth watching if just for some of the pictures and reading the crawl on the bottom of the screen during the "news" segments.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Come to the USA (dickstersrandomthoughts.com)
• Sir Paul Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers - Says of Obama, "I Really Love Him" (newsbusters.org)

Surviving the Latest Blizzard

It looks like we have made it through the second blizzard to hit the DC area in less than a week.  The first one hit Friday and Saturday dumping about two feet of snow.  It took me about four shifts of digging after that one to get the cars out.  On Tuesday and Wednesday, blizzard number two hit the region.  It only dropped about a foot of snow on us.  It took only two shifts of digging to get the cars out.

With the latest round of snowfall, the 2009-2010 winter is the snowiest on record in the DC area. It has surpassed the previous snowiest winter of 1898-1899, and there is still nearly six weeks of winter remaining.

On Monday, the Washington Examiner had a post online regarding an editorial written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. just 15 months ago. RFK, Jr. is a hypocrite in the order of Al "I invented the Internet & Global Warming" Gore. They type of person who flies around in his private jet while telling everyone else what they need to do to save the planet.  The Examiner reprinted most of the editorial, but to sum it up, RFK, Jr. blamed the lack of snow in the DC region in recent years on global warming.

Fast forward to today.  As I said, this has been the snowiest winter on record in the DC region. We now have Time magazine writer Bryan Walsh telling us that the record snowfalls are a result of "global warming."  We also have MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan telling us the same thing.  The Heritage Foundation has an excellent rebuttal to Walsh's argument.

Now, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I am a thinker and I do tend to think logically.  On the one hand, you have a global warming alarmist, RFK, Jr saying that due to global warming, the DC region doesn't get much snow fall.  Then when the DC region does get snowfall, and a bunch of it, we get more global warming alarmists saying it is due to global warming.  Which is it?  Doesn't seem logical to me.

Let me put it into our old mathematical equation of if a=b, and b=c, then logically, a=c.  In this case "a" will be DC not getting snow; "b" would be global warming, and "c" would be DC getting a bunch of snow.  So a=b is DC not getting snow=global warming; next b=c would be global warming=DC getting a bunch of snow, therefore DC not getting snow=DC getting a bunch of snow.  Again, doesn't seem logical to me.

Now I know that one season doesn't a trend make.  However, the global warming cultists want to attribute everything to their cause.  Even if those two things are polar opposites.  The phrase, "You can't have your cake and eat it to," comes to mind.

Music Monday-Jimmy Buffett "Boat Drinks"

I have spent the better part of the last two days shoveling out the two cars from the two feet of snow that fell Friday and Saturday.  I am physically exhausted and unbelievably sore.  The worst part is, I just saw a weather alert saying there was a winter storm watch is in place for the area for Tuesday night and we could get another 5 or more inches of the white stuff.  There is just no place to put anymore snow.

I was checking the Capital Weather Gang and they say we only need one more inch to surpass the second snowiest winter in DC history and only nine inches to surpass the snowiest winter ever of 1898-1899.  That is over 100 years ago for all you global warming cultists out there.  Right now, they are saying that four inches is a decent bet and that eight or more inches a distinct possibility.

 I don't know how much more of this I can take.  I am definitely sick of the snow and suffering from a bit of cabin fever right now.  I have made enough progress with the shoveling that I will be able to get the cars out tomorrow.  So, even though it is a few more hours until Monday for me, here is my choice this week for Music Monday, "Boat Drinks" by Jimmy Buffett.  It pretty much sums up how I feel today.  

Come join Music Monday and share your songs with us. One simple rule, leave ONLY the actual post link here. You can grab this code at LadyJava's Lounge Please note these links are STRICTLY for Music Monday participants only. All others will be deleted without prejudice.





PS: Because of spamming purposes, the linky will be closed on Thursday of each week at midnight, Malaysian Time. Thank you!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Virginia GOP Mocks Epic Snow Storm As '12 Inches Of Global Warming' (thinkprogress.org)
• Snowmageddon! (endoftheworld-signtopia.blogspot.com)
• The Biggest Snowstorm of My Life (aka Snowmageddon) in Video (scrapsofmygeeklife.com)

EPA and Carbon Dioxide

A couple days ago, I alluded to hearing Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) on the Grandy and Andy show on WMAL 630 here in DC. Inhofe made the statement on the program that the cap and trade legislation that was passed in the House and proposed in the Senate was dead and would not pass. He did express that even though the proposed legislation would not be passed, we should be concerned about the Obama administration attempting to regulate, rather than legislate, carbon dioxide emissions.

On Monday, the legitimacy of those concerns were realized when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide is a health hazard. This ruling paves the way for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of power plants, factories, and transportation.  The White House's denies that the EPA ruling has absolutely nothing to with Barack Obama's trip to the global warming summit in Copenhagen, but it sure is convenient.  Further proof that the administration is willing to do anything it takes to push it's leftist agenda, even if it takes bypassing the legislative process.

The truth about carbon dioxide is that it is vital to life on the planet.  All plant life needs carbon dioxide to grow.  In turn, that plant life uses that carbon dioxide and in turn produces oxygen through the process of photosynthesis.  It is part of the miracle of the balance of life on planet Earth.  The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources and very little from the sources they seek to regulate.  The EPA even states that if we were to achieve the goals set forth in previous global warming conferences like the Kyoto Protocol, it would have little to no impact on global temperatures.

There are some things that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions will accomplish for our country.  We can expect to see all of our energy costs increase.  That may not matter for some folks, but for the middle and lower income households will be impacted to a greater degree.  We can expect to see some manufacturing jobs move overseas to China and India where they will not be subjected to the same degree of emissions control.  What with unemployment currently at 10% officially, do we really need to see more Americans out of work?

Below, you can see Senator Inhofe's response to the decision by the EPA.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Business Fumes Over EPA Rule (online.wsj.com)

Jon Stewart, Al Gore, and Climategate

I don't particularly care for Jon Stewart and his style of humor, however, when he is mocking Al Gore and the news of Climategate, I can bear it for a bit.

Stewart is correct that the hacked emails do not prove that global warming is false.  What it does show, is that the global warming proponents are not about the scientific method, but rather pushing an agenda.

Meanwhile, Al Gore has canceled his scheduled speech at the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen next week due to "unforeseen" changes in his schedule.  Right, Al.  Climategate has nothing to do with you not attending a conference that you have made the driving force of your life since you lost to Dubya in 2000.

I heard Senator Jim Inhofe on the radio the other morning and he asserts that the cap and trade legislation is dead.  That was the genesis of his "We won. You Lost. Get a Life," comments to Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climategate: Follow the Money (thetruthwarblog.blogspot.com)
• The power of ClimateGate: Al Gore forced to sacrifice Copenhagen cash cow (michellemalkin.com)
• Climategate: GOP Opens Probe Into Climate-Change E-Mails (huffingtonpost.com)

Nutritional Food Labeling

I have been in the retail food industry for nearly all my adult life.  Over the years, I have seen a number of changes to the labeling requirements on food.  The labeling has become more and more complicated as the government has required more and more information to be included on the labels.

It used to be that the labels would show the total amount of fat in a serving.  Now you see total fat, saturated fat, and a few years ago, trans fat.  Same with carbohydrates.  Now you see total carbs, dietary fiber, and sugars.  You need to be a chemist to understand all the information on the label.

To be honest, I rarely look at the nutritional labeling.  About the only time that I ever do it is if I am actively trying to watch what i eat or am trying to lose weight.  Even then, I am primarily looking at calories and percentage of fat in a serving.

So I really don't need any new information on my food labels.  I especially don't need it for something as bogus as what the folks in Sweden are starting to see on their nutritional labels.  Sweden has begun requiring that the carbon impact of the product be included on the label so that consumers can make an informed choice on how their food products are impacting carbon emissions.  One such label reads "Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product."

The Swedish government has also issued new dietary guidelines for selecting food products.  For instance, they recommend that people choose carrots over items like tomatoes and cucumbers.  The reason being that tomatoes and cucumbers have to be grown in heated greenhouses causing higher emissions.  Being ornery, I would probably deliberately choose the higher carbon impact items.  I have to ask, how much info do you pay attention to, if any, on a label, and would the inclusion of carbon impact on a food label change how you eat?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 10 Things the FDA Can Do to Improve Nutrition Labeling (fooducate.com)
• Is a 'Traffic Light' Coming to Food Labels? (health.usnews.com)
• FDA to Create a Standardized Front of Pack Nutrition Label? (fooducate.com)
• To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates (nytimes.com)

Global Warming Insanity

The global warming cultists continue to come up with assinine ideas for saving the planet.  Here are just a few of the items that I have heard of lately.

1. A new book has been released called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living which says that a medium sized pet dog has the same carbon footprint as an SUV and you would be better off owning a goldfish or canary.  Try playing catch with a canary, and when was the last time a barking goldfish scared off an intruder.
2. California, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are looking at banning plasma televisions.  Thank God I have yet to be able to afford one of those and am still using an old fashioned tube TV.  
3. A New York Times environmental reporter has floated the idea of offering carbon credits to families that limit themselves to having one child.  Tough break there for Jon & Kate Plus 8.
4. The state of California was also considering a ban on black cars.  Suffice to say that I was going to make a smartass remark in regards to what would be the next thing to ban, but I censored myself.  Use your imagination.
   

I have said it before and will say it again, the whole environmental movement is all about controlling your lifestyle and the choices you make.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s book claims (telegraph.co.uk)
• Save the planet. Eat a dog. (pixelrn.posterous.com)

Got Milk?

Image via Wikipedia

Back in May, I found an interesting article about how governement advisors in Britain were developing menus to cut out so called "high carbon" foods like lamb or beef. I cited it as another example of how insane the whole global warming cultists have become. The reality is that it is really more about controlling out lifestyles than anything else.

In another example of the insanity of the climate change cult, Tesco, one of the largest supermarket chains in Britain has decided to label some 500 items with the "carbon footprint" of those items. Their goal is to help customers make "green" purchasing decisions.

The first item that will receive carbon footprint labeling is milk, one of their best selling items. The largest impact on greenhouse gasses in the production of milk comes during the agricultural phase of production, primarily from the methane emissions from the cows. The labels will only appear on regular milk products and not organic milk. Apparently, the cows that are used for organic milk do not fart quite as much as regular dairy cows.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Study: Ancient farmers started global warming (cnn.com)
• Climate sceptics and believers unite (guardian.co.uk)
• What's the environmental impact of milk? (guardian.co.uk)
• Tesco to put 'carbon labels' on milk (guardian.co.uk)

Another Blow to Consensus

Image via Wikipedia

The Journal of Geophysical Research, after a six month peer review process, has published a new paper that argues that nearly all changes in global temperatures since 1958 can be attributed to natural causes. It is another study that calls into question Al Gore's so called consensus that the science of climate change is settled.

Chris de Frietas, a climate scientist from Aukland University in New Zealand, along with Australian scientists John McLean and Bob Carter are the publishes of the study. Their conclusions are that at least 80% of climate change can be attributed to internal climate systems, specifically El Nino and La Nina. The trio found that their was a direct corelation between those systems and temperature change. Changes in the El Nino and La Nina patterns were followed consistently by changes in temperatures. They also conclude that increases in volcanic activity will have a measured cooling effect on temperatures.

Their conclusions are that there is very little impact by humans on climate change. They do not dispute that there are increase in CO2, but question whether it has an impact or poses any danger. Studies like this should give rise to serious debate, but as de Frietas states the debate has been degraded by politics, ignorance, alarmism, and the claims that the science is settled. He adds that the idea of consensus is unscientific. One thing that probably isn't open for debate is that these three gentleman most likely won't be invited to dine any time soon with the ultimate political alarmist Al Gore.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing (themoderatevoice.com)
• El Nino's back, can affect weather worldwide: experts (ctv.ca)
• El Nino may bring strange weather by fall (calgaryherald.com)

Report: Dump Cap and Trade

I didn't want to continue to dwell on the whole global warming/cap and trade subject today, but an interesting report was issued today while Barack Obama and the other leaders are trying to work out an agreement on reducing CO2 emissions. The report, from an international group of academics, says that the Kyoto Protocol has failed. Their recommendations are that cap and trade schemes do not work and should be abandoned.

The group recommends that instead of cap and trade, that emphasis should be placed on efforts to improve energy efficiency and to decarbonize the energy the energy supply. They cite the Japanese model of energy policy of setting realistic targets and working towards real efficiency gains. As an example, they cite the Japanese iron and steel industry as having reduced carbon emissions by 19% strictly from increased efficiency.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 'Time to ditch climate policies' (news.bbc.co.uk)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

Cover via Amazon

I spent the better part of today on an airplane flying from Maryland to California for business. So while waiting in airports and while on the plane, I spent most of my time reading. I finished reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Christopher C. Horner. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is considered an expert on global warming legislation, having testified before the US Senate and European Parliaments. Now I am no expert on global warming, but I am staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight, so I will give it a shot.

Horner goes into detail about how the global warming agenda is really more about trying to gain more control over our lives and destroying the American way of life. He discusses in great length the way Al Gore and the other global warming alarmists try to shut off any debate on the subject of global warming. If Gore and company say the science is settled enough times, then it must be true. Anybody that would dare dispute that must be in the pocket of big business. Those who do question global warming, are either cut off from funding or worse, defamed.

The book opens with the argument that the "Green" movement is the new red. It is really nothing more than an anti-American and anti-capitalist agenda. Did you know that Earth Day, April 22nd, is also the day of Vladimir Lenin's birth? Do you think it is a coincidence that Earth Day would fall on the same day as the birth of the first head of the Soviet Union? Maybe, but it makes me wonder.

Horner also goes into the science of global warming. He shows how the current warming trends are not anything out of the ordinary for planet earth. In fact, the Earth has been much warmer than it currently is. One would think that if CO2 was causing global warming, then increases in CO2 would correspond with increases in temperatures. It isn't always the case. Dr. Willie Soon, a Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist, plotted Arctic air temperatures against both CO2 concentrations and solar activity. The graph below shows that solar activity seems to be the overriding factor in climate change.
Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth gets a lot of scrutiny as well. Horner shows numerous examples where Gore utilizes the most extreme examples to try to make his points. Most models of global warming project modest sea level rising, in the range of a few inches to an extreme of a few feet. A far cry from the 20 foot rise that Gore projects. There are several other examples he gives where Gore uses outright exaggeration, or worse.

The final chapter deals with the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate voted 95-0 on a resolution to tell Clinton/Gore that the US should not enter into any agreement that would not include countries such as China and India or would have harmed the US economy, which is precisely what Kyoto would have done. Clinton actually signed the treaty, but never sent it to the Senate for ratification because it would not have passed. Also, Europe has expressed their displeasure with the United States because we are not a part of the Kyoto agreement. It interesting to note that since agreeing to cut back emissions (which they were using a cap and trade program to achieve this), European emissions have actually increased. In fact, from 1997-2004, European CO2 emissions grew at a faster rate than the US. From 2000-2004, that rate of increase was 3 times the rate of the United States. So all Europe got out of their cap and trade policies was higher energy costs, and an increase in CO2.

I highly recommend this book if you want to get beyond the hype of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth hysteria and hype. All of the efforts to try to curb CO2 will have a negligible impact on temperatures, and will only lead to higher costs and a decline in the US standard of living.

Fireworks and the USA

Image via Wikipedia

I debated on whether or not to post something about Michael Jackson and the intense media coverage since his death. Perhaps I may make a post about that subject in the next day or two. Instead, since we are fresh off of our 4th of July celebration, I decided to post about two articles that I found on CNSNews.com regarding Fireworks.

By now, if you read here on a regular basis, you know that I think any climate change is primarily solar in nature. I am not a fan of the whole concept of the idea of cap and trade or any legislation that would increase our energy costs or impact our standard of living. I have posted about it here, here, and here.

So what did that little side rant about global warming have to do with fireworks. The first article that I came across talked about the fireworks industry coming under greater regulation if the cap and trade bill passes the Senate. Because fireworks give off CO2 when exploded, the fireworks industry could be subject to the bill. As such, the costs of our neighborhood celebrations will further stretch the already tight budgets of our local governments.

The second article, deals with the fireworks display at the National Mall. Most of the fireworks that were shot off were made in Communist China and not the USA. It just seems extremely ironic, not to mention inappropriate, that on the holiday where we celebrate our freedom as Americans that we would be using fireworks made from a totalitarian regime. I'm just saying.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's Not Really a Party Until Someone Shoots Rockets Out of Their Butt (readwriteweb.com)
• Tom Donohue: Let's Put a Lid On Cap-and-Tax (huffingtonpost.com)
• Al Gore: If you question global warming cult, you're a Nazi (michellemalkin.com)

EPA Suppresses Internal Report

As if we needed further proof that the whole global warming, climate change hysteria is nothing more than a left wing attempt to further grow governmental control into our lives is the report that the EPA has suppressed an internal report that is skeptical of global warming because it did not conform to the wishes of the current administration.

The report states that the scientific data that the EPA is using in their effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is at least three years out of date. The report states that ocean and solar cycles are responsible for fluctuations in global temperatures. (What a concept that the sun could be responsible for warming the Earth.) The author of the report also states that he sees no reason to try to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at this time. The report also says that the EPA has ignored recent scientific findings such as the fact that global temperatures have been declining for the past 11 years.

It is disturbing that a supposedly independent government agency would suppress a report that could have potentially had an impact on the outcome of a bill as important as the recent climate bill. That it would suppress the report because it did not conform to the desired results the administration wanted is further proof that the people need to take back control of the government.

House Passes Climate Bill

Speaking of stupid people, a significant blow to liberty and the American standard of living was delivered yesterday with the House of Representatives passing the American Clean Air and Energy Act.

The United States is currently suffering through tough economic times. This bill will make it tougher, but the left wing ideologues only care about their agenda. Obama himself has said that a cap and trade system will "necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket."

In addition, we can also expect that gasoline prices will rise much more than it would have without this legislation. The costs of all goods and services, including necessities, will go up as companies will pass those costs on to consumers. With unemployment currently at 9.4% and expected to top 10%, this bill will add to unemployment as companies will ship jobs overseas to countries where they will not be subject to the same caps on emissions.

I also like how the mainstream media is portraying only the GOP as claiming that this is nothing more than a huge energy tax. To quote John Dingell (Dem-MI), "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one." So much for Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on 95% of working families. Sure he is not raising "income" taxes but a tax is a tax regardless of what the tax is on.

If alternative forms of energy were viable, that would be one thing. I am all for giving tax incentives for companies to explore and develop those alternatives. However, until those alternatives are viable, it makes no sense to destroy the existing forms of energy that have made this the country the greatest known to man.

To those 44 Democrats that chose common sense over party politics, I congratulate you on taking a stand. To the 8 so called Republicans who voted for this bill, and essentially led to it's passage, I say you might as well pull an Arlen Specter and switch your party affiliation over to the Democrats. There is no way that conservative or moderate could in good conscience vote for such a radical left wing piece (of shit) legislation. Mark Levin has posted the names and phone numbers of the RINO's that voted for the bill encouraging people to call and voice your displeasure with their actions.

Let's hope that common sense will reign in the Senate and that this garbage will not make it to the desk of President Obama. If not, it may be time to start looking for a country that values liberty because the USA as we know it will cease to exist.

Coming to a Menu Near You

I am all for a cleaner planet. In my junior high school days, I was a member of our ecology club. We went to local streams in our area, collected water samples, and tested them for various pollutants. I do not want to see black smoke spewing from factories. We should explore developing cleaner forms of energy.

I do recycle, and I have switched over to more energy efficient light bulbs. Conservation of our resources is a good thing. However, I am not a fan of the current "Green" movement. I have come to the conclusion that it is more an effort to exert control over our lives, and in particular our lifestyles. When I see news reports that show that Mars and Jupiter are also showing signs of "global warming" it leads me to believe that our Sun is the cause.

In another example of how insane the global warming cultists have gotten, in Britain, government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out so called "high carbon" foods. According to their studies, lamb is one of the worst offenders. To produce 2.2 pounds of lamb, 37 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced. Beef is only slightly better. They also want to cut back on the consumption of tomatoes and alcoholic beverages.

If you don't think that this could happen here, then think about this. The Europeans are further along in following the global warming cultists. Barack Obama is doing everything he can to make the United States more like Europe. This is the road that Barack Obama and the other leftists are trying to take this country down.

Dangerous Legal Decision

Regardless of where you stand on global warming or climate change, the news this week out of Great Britain is disturbing. Six Greenpeace activists were charged with causing property damage to a coal fired power plant in Kent, England. They were cleared of the charges by the jury.

The activists used the "Lawful excuse" defense under the Criminal Defense Act of 1971. That law states that a "lawful excuse" exists if damaged caused by an action can be shown to prevent greater damage, as in breaking down a door to try to keep a fire from burning the whole house down. Their "lawful excuse" was that by causing damage to the coal fired power plant, they were trying to prevent the greater damage of global warming.

There is still considerable debate (unless you are Al Gore) in the scientific community on how much of climate change is man made, and how much is natural weather cycles. In fact, you can find a lot of arguments against man made global warming at GlobalWarmingHoax.com.

There is a huge difference between vandalizing a legitimate business involved in a legal activity, and breaking down a door to fight a fire. It is too bad that a jury in Great Britain isn't intelligent enough to know the difference. My bigger fear is that we here in the states might eventually make the same boneheaded decisions.