The Italian Connection

Since the earliest days of the current pandemic , Italy has been the scary member of the family that you absolutely don ’ t want to emulate , the one cousin that gets into really bad trouble .
The Italians have the highest rate of deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus , and their numbers continue to climb .
Here ’ s the situation today .
Figure 1 .
Deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus expressed as deaths per ten million of the country population .
Percentages of the total population are shown at the right in blue .
All countries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported death .
Most recent daily chart and charts of previous days are available by going here and scrolling down .
Italy , with over six thousand dead , is up well into the blue range .
This is the range of annual deaths from the flu in the US .
If the US coronavirus patients were dying at the same rate as in Italy , we ’ d have 38,000 coronavirus deaths by now in addition to the same number of flu deaths … As a result , there has been much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so high .
People have suggested that it ’ s because they have one of the older populations in Europe .
Others have noted that they often live in extended families .
And some have pointed to their social habits that involve touching , kissing cheeks , personal contact during church rituals , and the like .
But we haven ’ t had good data to take a hard look at the question , or at least I hadn ’ t seen any .
In the comments to my post entitled END @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocate just exactly that , I was given a link by a web friend , Mary Ballon , hat tip to her .
It ’ s a report by a Swiss medical doctor about the COVID-19 deaths in Italy , well worth reading .
And in that document , there ’ s a further link to an Italian Government report .
It ’ s in Italian of course , I have it on good authority that ’ s what they actually speak over there , who knew ?
They reported on the statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths ( 355 out of 2003 total deaths at the time of the report ) .
I got it , and the numbers are very revealing .
Let me start with the age distribution of the 2,003 Italians who had died at the time of the report .
Figure 2 shows that it ’ s almost entirely old people .
Figure 2 .
Age of 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of death .
Out of the 2,003 deaths , seventeen were people under fifty , and only 5 people under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths were of people over 90 .
I ’ d read that the people dying in Italy were old , but I didn ’ t realize quite how old they actually are … One thing I learned on this voyage was that the Italians distinguished between dying FROM the virus on the one hand , and dying WITH the virus on the other .
Once I looked at the state of health of the Italian victims , however , I could see why they had to do that .
Figure 3 shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the unfortunates .
Figure 3 .
Numbers of diseases in the sample of 355 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death .
WOW !
Yeah , they all had COVID-19 .
But three-quarters of them also had hypertension , a third had diabetes , a third had ischemic heart disease , a quarter of them had atrial fibrillation tossing clots into the bloodstream , and so on down the list .
As you can see from Figure 3 , some people must have had more than one other disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breakdown of the number of other diseases per patient .
Figure 4 .
Other diseases ( comorbidities ) of a sample of 355 of the 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death .
For me , this was the most surprising finding of the entire study .
Of all 355 people who died , only three did not have any of the diseases listed above .
Three !
Looking at all of this as a whole picture , I had a curious thought about who they were representing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who died : • More of the patients were over 90 than were under 60 .
• All but three of them had at least one other disease , so basically all of them were already sick .
• Three-quarters of them had two other diseases , and half of them had three or more other diseases .
Half !
My thought was … that ’ s not a sample of the people in the street .
That ’ s not a sample of an Italian family .
I was forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and encouraging .
It is that most of these diseases were probably not community-acquired .
Instead , I would hazard a guess that most of them go by the curious name of “ nosocomial ” infections , viz : Here ’ s what I suspect .
I think that the COVID-19 disease got established in a couple of areas in Italy well before anyone even knew the disease was there , perhaps even before the Chinese recognized it as a novel disease .
And in some fashion , it got into the medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But once there , it was spread invisibly to other patients , in particular the oldest and weakest of the patients .
It went from patient to patient , from patient to visitor and back again , and it was also spread by everyone in the hospital from administrators to doctors and nurses to janitors .
In many , perhaps most cases , they didn ’ t even know they were sick , but they were indeed infectious .
And that ’ s why the pattern of the Italian deaths is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much larger than the rest of the world .
It ’ s not a cross-section of the general population .
It ’ s a cross-section of people who were already quite sick , sick enough that they were already visiting doctors and having procedures or being bedridden in hospitals .
It was 85-year-olds with three diseases .
And it ’ s also why the death rate in Italy is so high—these people were already very ill .
I can see why the Italians are distinguishing between dying FROM the virus and dying WITH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is both discouraging and encouraging .
It ’ s discouraging because getting the virus out of a modern medical facility and a dispersed medical system isn ’ t easy .
Italy has a big job ahead .
And it ’ s discouraging because it means that the medical personnel who are so needed for the fight are getting the disease as well .
Very likely they won ’ t die from it , but they will be hors de combat for three weeks or so .
No bueno .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of aspects .
First , it lets us know what we need to do to prevent the Italian outcome .
We have to , must , keep the virus out the medical system .
• We need to seriously quarantine the sufferers away from other sick people .
• We need to set up testing facilities at all medical centers and test the medical personnel daily .
• In areas with a number of COVID-19 infections , we need to set up separate field hospitals .
There are a number of commercial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding modules , and are pathogen-tight , with airlocks at the doors , HEPA exhaust filters and negative air pressure maintained throughout .
We know how to do this stuff , we ’ ve just got to do it .
• We need to test in-hospital patients at the time of their arrival and continue to test them at intervals during their stay .
• We ’ ll have to be very careful with visitors to patients in the hospitals It ’ s a big job , and we absolutely have to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to not claim that everyone who tests positively for COVID-19 after death actually died FROM the disease .
They may very well have died WITH the disease .
Finally , the other reason it ’ s encouraging that Italy ’ s infection is likely nosocomial is that it removes Italy as the mysterious bogeyman of the COVID-19 pandemic .
In addition , it points to just what we have to do .
IF ( and it ’ s a big if ) we take the proper precautions to protect our vulnerable medical system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that the US will get as high a death rate as Italy has today .
Note that this makes me seriously question the idea of “ flattening the curve ” … if you let the virus into your hospitals and medical system you ’ re toast , no matter how flat the curve is .
So let ’ s end this crazy American lockdown , there ’ s a whole raft of work to be done shoring up our medical sector to withstand the coming wave , and it can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the sand , hundreds of thousands of people not working , jobs disappearing daily , and our economy in a shambles … My very best regards to all , stay well in these parlous times , As Usual : I ask that when you comment , QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ’ RE DISCUSSING .
Knowing who and what you ’ re referring to avoids endless misunderstandings and arguments .
PS—Let me take this opportunity to provide a wider readership to a comment that my obstropulous ( yes , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mosher posted on my blog yesterday .
He ’ s living in Korea and has been a close observer of just how they are succeeding in controlling the virus .
He spells out the level and the details of what we have to do .
His comment is below , my thanks to him .
The key is changing the criteria for testing .
Here [ in Korea ] we test and track .
An employee of a call center in Seoul , was infected .
Office had 207 people .
March 8th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that office was tested .
today 152 have tested positive , they tested floors above and below his floor .
Today 3 more from the 11th floor were found and 1 contact .
They are now tracing the contact , and the contact ’ s contacts .
All will be tested .
The business was in a residential building .
553 of the people in that building were tested .
floors 13-18 This little beastie lives on surfaces for up to 3 days .
See that elevator button ?
the hand rail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle ?
the coffee cup that pretty girl behind the counter handed you ?
it ’ s there .
Now in my building we have hand sanitizer by the elevator buttons .
you get in the habit of not touching public pretty quickly .
Trust me I am not a germ phobe , but the changes have been simple when they are reinforced .
Let me give you a little taste of the highly detailed info we get .
Info that is shared daily in one spot , I will include some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Daegu , every person at high-risk facilities is being tested .
87 percent completed testing and 192 ( 0.8 percent ) out of 25,493 were confirmed positive .
From Daesil Covalescent Hospital in Dalseong-gun , 54 additional cases were confirmed , which brings the current total to 64 .
In-patients on 6th and 7th floors are under cohort-quarantine.
” “ From Guro-gu call center in Seoul , 7 additional cases ( 11th floor = 2 ; contacts = 5 ) were confirmed .
The current total is 146 confirmed cases since 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; 10th floor = 1 ; 9th floor = 1 ; contacts = 54 ) ” “ From Bundang Jesaeng Hospital in Gyeonggi Province , 4 additional cases were confirmed .
The current total of 35 confirmed cases since 5 March ( 20 staff , 5 patients in inpatient care , 2 discharged patients , 4 guardians of patients , 4 contacts outside the hospital ) .
The 144 staff members who were found to have visited the hospital ’ s Wing no .
81 ( where many confirmed cases emerged ) were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Five additional confirmed cases have been reported from the call center located in Guro-gu , Seoul , amounting to a current total of 129 confirmed cases from the call center since 8 March .
As of now , 14 confirmed cases in Gyeonggi Province has been traced to have come in contact with a confirmed patient who is a worker at the 11th floor call center at a religious gathering .
Further investigation and tracing are underway.
” If the US persists in only testing the symptomatic you won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going up in Seoul .
So we will have 15 days of voluntary social distancing .
go to work stay away from crowds wash your hands wear a mask don ’ t touch your face

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Since the earliest days of the current pandemic, Italy has been the scary member of the family that you absolutely don’t want to emulate, the one cousin that gets into really bad trouble. The Italians have the highest rate of deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus, and their numbers continue to climb. Here’s the situation today.
Figure 1. Deaths from the COVID-19 coronavirus expressed as deaths per ten million of the country population. Percentages of the total population are shown at the right in blue. All countries are aligned at the date of their first reported death. Most recent daily chart and charts of previous days are available by going here and scrolling down.
Italy, with over six thousand dead, is up well into the blue range. This is the range of annual deaths from the flu in the US. If the US coronavirus patients were dying at the same rate as in Italy, we’d have 38,000 coronavirus deaths by now in addition to the same number of flu deaths …
As a result, there has been much debate about why the Italian death rate is so high. People have suggested that it’s because they have one of the older populations in Europe. Others have noted that they often live in extended families. And some have pointed to their social habits that involve touching, kissing cheeks, personal contact during church rituals, and the like.
But we haven’t had good data to take a hard look at the question, or at least I hadn’t seen any.
In the comments to my post entitled END THE AMERICAN LOCKDOWN, wherein I passionately advocate just exactly that, I was given a link by a web friend, Mary Ballon, hat tip to her. It’s a report by a Swiss medical doctor about the COVID-19 deaths in Italy, well worth reading.
And in that document, there’s a further link to an Italian Government report. It’s in Italian of course, I have it on good authority that’s what they actually speak over there, who knew? They reported on the statistics of a large sample of the Italian deaths (355 out of 2003 total deaths at the time of the report). I got it, and the numbers are very revealing.
Let me start with the age distribution of the 2,003 Italians who had died at the time of the report. Figure 2 shows that it’s almost entirely old people.
Figure 2. Age of 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of death.
Out of the 2,003 deaths, seventeen were people under fifty, and only 5 people under thirty died, while almost two hundred deaths were of people over 90. I’d read that the people dying in Italy were old, but I didn’t realize quite how old they actually are …
One thing I learned on this voyage was that the Italians distinguished between dying FROM the virus on the one hand, and dying WITH the virus on the other. Once I looked at the state of health of the Italian victims, however, I could see why they had to do that. Figure 3 shows the generous apportionment of serious diseases and conditions among the unfortunates.
Figure 3. Numbers of diseases in the sample of 355 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death.
WOW! Yeah, they all had COVID-19. But three-quarters of them also had hypertension, a third had diabetes, a third had ischemic heart disease, a quarter of them had atrial fibrillation tossing clots into the bloodstream, and so on down the list.
As you can see from Figure 3, some people must have had more than one other disease besides COVID-19. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the number of other diseases per patient.
Figure 4. Other diseases (comorbidities) of a sample of 355 of the 2,003 Italians who had COVID-19 at the time of their death.
For me, this was the most surprising finding of the entire study. Of all 355 people who died, only three did not have any of the diseases listed above. Three!
Looking at all of this as a whole picture, I had a curious thought about who they were representing. I thought … consider the characteristics of the people who died:
More of the patients were over 90 than were under 60.
The average age was 79 years.
All but three of them had at least one other disease, so basically all of them were already sick.
Three-quarters of them had two other diseases, and half of them had three or more other diseases. Half!
My thought was … that’s not a sample of the people in the street. That’s not a sample of an Italian family.
That’s a sample of a totally different population.
I was forced to a curious conclusion, both discouraging and encouraging. It is that most of these diseases were probably not community-acquired. Instead, I would hazard a guess that most of them go by the curious name of “nosocomial” infections, viz:
nos·o·co·mi·al /ˌnōzōˈkōmēəl/ adjective MEDICINE (of a disease) originating in a hospital.
Here’s what I suspect. I think that the COVID-19 disease got established in a couple of areas in Italy well before anyone even knew the disease was there, perhaps even before the Chinese recognized it as a novel disease.
And in some fashion, it got into the medical system. Doesn’t matter how. But once there, it was spread invisibly to other patients, in particular the oldest and weakest of the patients. It went from patient to patient, from patient to visitor and back again, and it was also spread by everyone in the hospital from administrators to doctors and nurses to janitors. In many, perhaps most cases, they didn’t even know they were sick, but they were indeed infectious.
And that’s why the pattern of the Italian deaths is so curious, and their number is so much larger than the rest of the world. It’s not a cross-section of the general population. It’s a cross-section of people who were already quite sick, sick enough that they were already visiting doctors and having procedures or being bedridden in hospitals. It was 85-year-olds with three diseases.
And it’s also why the death rate in Italy is so high—these people were already very ill. I can see why the Italians are distinguishing between dying FROM the virus and dying WITH the virus.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As I said, this is both discouraging and encouraging. It’s discouraging because getting the virus out of a modern medical facility and a dispersed medical system isn’t easy. Italy has a big job ahead. And it’s discouraging because it means that the medical personnel who are so needed for the fight are getting the disease as well. Very likely they won’t die from it, but they will be hors de combat for three weeks or so. No bueno.
On the other hand, it is encouraging in a couple of aspects.
First, it lets us know what we need to do to prevent the Italian outcome. We have to, must, keep the virus out the medical system.
We need to seriously quarantine the sufferers away from other sick people.
We need to set up testing facilities at all medical centers and test the medical personnel daily.
In areas with a number of COVID-19 infections, we need to set up separate field hospitals. There are a number of commercial versions of these that are expandable by adding modules, and are pathogen-tight, with airlocks at the doors, HEPA exhaust filters and negative air pressure maintained throughout. We know how to do this stuff, we’ve just got to do it.
We need to test in-hospital patients at the time of their arrival and continue to test them at intervals during their stay.
We’ll have to be very careful with visitors to patients in the hospitals
It’s a big job, and we absolutely have to do it.
Second, it cautions us to not claim that everyone who tests positively for COVID-19 after death actually died FROM the disease. They may very well have died WITH the disease.
Finally, the other reason it’s encouraging that Italy’s infection is likely nosocomial is that it removes Italy as the mysterious bogeyman of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it points to just what we have to do.
IF (and it’s a big if) we take the proper precautions to protect our vulnerable medical system and personnel, I don’t think that the US will get as high a death rate as Italy has today.
Note that this makes me seriously question the idea of “flattening the curve” … if you let the virus into your hospitals and medical system you’re toast, no matter how flat the curve is.
So let’s end this crazy American lockdown, there’s a whole raft of work to be done shoring up our medical sector to withstand the coming wave, and it can’t be done at home with our heads in the sand, hundreds of thousands of people not working, jobs disappearing daily, and our economy in a shambles …
My very best regards to all, stay well in these parlous times,
w.
As Usual: I ask that when you comment, QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU’RE DISCUSSING. Knowing who and what you’re referring to avoids endless misunderstandings and arguments.
PS—Let me take this opportunity to provide a wider readership to a comment that my obstropulous (yes, it’s a real word) good friend Steve Mosher posted on my blog yesterday. He’s living in Korea and has been a close observer of just how they are succeeding in controlling the virus. He spells out the level and the details of what we have to do. His comment is below, my thanks to him.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-24--Climate Activists Block Coronavirus Stimulus Bill

Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy , but also climate change .
But a split over that appears to have contributed to delays in passing the bill .
“ Democrats won ’ t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday .
McConnell said Democrats were filibustering the $ 1 trillion-plus bill hoping to include policies such as extending tax credits for solar and wind energy .
Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association ( SEIA ) and American Wind Energy Association ( AWEA ) , sent a joint letter to members of Congress last week saying that extending the credits “ would allow our member companies to hire thousands of additional workers and inject billions in the U.S. economy.
” The share of solar and wind energy in the U.S. had been booming .
But now , without help , the SEIA estimates the solar industry could see as much as 50 percent of residential solar jobs lost this year due to the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments and payments , mostly in the rural communities where wind projects usually are built , is at risk .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic is harming the wind industry ’ s ability to build the wind farms envisioned by Congressional legislation and putting at risk 35,000 wind energy jobs , ” says Tom Kiernan , Chief Executive Officer of AWEA .
Eight Democratic U.S. senators also called on fellow lawmakers to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints .
McConnell says this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like these , and the focus should be on addressing the effects of the pandemic .
But others argue now is precisely the right time to think about climate change .
The post Climate Activists Block Coronavirus Stimulus Bill appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change. But a split over that appears to have contributed to delays in passing the bill.
“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday.
McConnell said Democrats were filibustering the $1 trillion-plus bill hoping to include policies such as extending tax credits for solar and wind energy.
Two trade groups, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), sent a joint letter to members of Congress last week saying that extending the credits “would allow our member companies to hire thousands of additional workers and inject billions in the U.S. economy.”
The share of solar and wind energy in the U.S. had been booming. But now, without help, the SEIA estimates the solar industry could see as much as 50 percent of residential solar jobs lost this year due to the pandemic. AWEA estimates $43 billion dollars of investments and payments, mostly in the rural communities where wind projects usually are built, is at risk.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is harming the wind industry’s ability to build the wind farms envisioned by Congressional legislation and putting at risk 35,000 wind energy jobs,” says Tom Kiernan, Chief Executive Officer of AWEA.
Eight Democratic U.S. senators also called on fellow lawmakers to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.
McConnell says this is the wrong time to debate policies like these, and the focus should be on addressing the effects of the pandemic. But others argue now is precisely the right time to think about climate change.
The post Climate Activists Block Coronavirus Stimulus Bill appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2y7pJ4r
March 24, 2020 at 11:18AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-24--Coronavirus Throws EU’s Green Deal Into Disarray

Much remains uncertain as the effects of the Coronavirus ravage economies .
But what seems clear is that any assumptions made about transitioning to the green economy have now been rendered obsolete .
[ … ] The EU ’ s Green Deal , with its target to completely decarbonize by 2050 proposed earlier this month , has not taken the massive economic and social disruption of Coronavirus into account .
Assumptions made just a few weeks ago will now have to be completely revised .
There is particular urgency to revise the EU ’ s medium-term goal of reducing emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2014 .
Máximo Miccinilli , Energy Director at the Center on Regulation in Europe ( CERRE ) , says this 2030 strategy is the “ most exposed element ” of EU climate policy to Coronavirus risks , after the ETS .
He says the Commission must define “ new scenarios that include lower industrial outputs , crises in strategic sectors – e.g .
aviation , automobile , tourism , etcetera – lower carbon prices and other fundamental , socio-demographic developments which would result from a potential five-year long recession.
” This should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adjust the ETS , he says .
Climate campaigners have argued that economic recovery measures that don ’ t take the Green Deal into account risk destroying Europe ’ s chances of meeting the Paris Agreement goals .
As the EU and national governments flood the economy with unprecedented bailout funding , much of that funding will go to emissions-intensive sectors like aviation and industry .
And politicians that have been sceptical about EU climate action are already saying the outbreak means that efforts to tackle climate change should be suspended , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister Andrej Babiš said last week that the EU should “ forget about ” the Green Deal for now while it focuses on Coronavirus .
This was backed by Jan Zahradil , the conservative vice chair of the European Parliament ’ s Committee on International Trade , who said the crisis means climate plans should be reconsidered .
“ No post-virus economy in Europe will be able to handle it , it ’ s too expensive , ” he said on Twitter .
Poland ’ s Deputy Minister of State Assets Janusz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be shut down entirely to allow an increase in coal power generation to lower power prices .
Other conservative lawmakers have already called on the European Commission to delay or weaken new carbon dioxide emissions standards for cars , to protect the automotive industry .
The industry itself hasn ’ t yet called for such a suspension , but Eric-Mark Huitema , the director of European automotive industry association ACEA , said last week that the current situation is “ the worst crisis ever to impact the automotive industry ” .
“ With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the retail network effectively closed , the jobs of some 14 million Europeans are now at stake , ” he said .
The idea of such unrestrained bailouts to polluting industries is horrifying climate campaigners , who fear that years of work putting in place a framework to lower European emissions is about to be undone in a matter of weeks .
They stress that it doesn ’ t have to be this way .
The post Coronavirus Throws EU ’ s Green Deal Into Disarray appeared first on The Global Warming Policy @ @ @ @ @

Much remains uncertain as the effects of the Coronavirus ravage economies. But what seems clear is that any assumptions made about transitioning to the green economy have now been rendered obsolete.
[…] The EU’s Green Deal, with its target to completely decarbonize by 2050 proposed earlier this month, has not taken the massive economic and social disruption of Coronavirus into account. Assumptions made just a few weeks ago will now have to be completely revised. There is particular urgency to revise the EU’s medium-term goal of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030, adopted in 2014.
Máximo Miccinilli, Energy Director at the Center on Regulation in Europe (CERRE), says this 2030 strategy is the “most exposed element” of EU climate policy to Coronavirus risks, after the ETS.
The European Commission’s climate plan aims at defining mandatory trajectories over the next three decades.” he says. “There is, however, an urgent need for including in the modelling exercise the implications of a global sanitary-economic crisis of the magnitude of COVID-19.”
He says the Commission must define “new scenarios that include lower industrial outputs, crises in strategic sectors – e.g. aviation, automobile, tourism, etcetera – lower carbon prices and other fundamental, socio-demographic developments which would result from a potential five-year long recession.”
This should be in addition to urgent measures taken to adjust the ETS, he says.
Climate campaigners have argued that economic recovery measures that don’t take the Green Deal into account risk destroying Europe’s chances of meeting the Paris Agreement goals. As the EU and national governments flood the economy with unprecedented bailout funding, much of that funding will go to emissions-intensive sectors like aviation and industry. And politicians that have been sceptical about EU climate action are already saying the outbreak means that efforts to tackle climate change should be suspended, while industry is propped up.
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš said last week that the EU should “forget about” the Green Deal for now while it focuses on Coronavirus. This was backed by Jan Zahradil, the conservative vice chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, who said the crisis means climate plans should be reconsidered. “No post-virus economy in Europe will be able to handle it, it’s too expensive,” he said on Twitter.
Poland’s Deputy Minister of State Assets Janusz Kowalski said last week the ETS should be shut down entirely to allow an increase in coal power generation to lower power prices.
Other conservative lawmakers have already called on the European Commission to delay or weaken new carbon dioxide emissions standards for cars, to protect the automotive industry.
The industry itself hasn’t yet called for such a suspension, but Eric-Mark Huitema, the director of European automotive industry association ACEA, said last week that the current situation is “the worst crisis ever to impact the automotive industry”.
“With all manufacturing coming to a standstill and the retail network effectively closed, the jobs of some 14 million Europeans are now at stake,” he said.
The idea of such unrestrained bailouts to polluting industries is horrifying climate campaigners, who fear that years of work putting in place a framework to lower European emissions is about to be undone in a matter of weeks. They stress that it doesn’t have to be this way.
The post Coronavirus Throws EU’s Green Deal Into Disarray appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2WBONL7
March 24, 2020 at 10:56AM


Greta’s Latest Miracle

Not only can she see CO2 .
Truly a miracle !
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
Not only can she see CO2. Truly a miracle!
https://twitter.com/Ed95wxtk/status/1242496312387481602
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2QJFXqQ
March 25, 2020 at 04:57AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--Coronavirus Spooks European Car Industry And May Spur Delay Of EU CO2 Regulations

If Europe ’ s flagship automotive industry is seriously damaged by the coronavirus crisis , governments are likely to delay or watering down CO2 regulations .
European Union ( EU ) CO2 rules forcing sedan and SUV makers to in effect “ go electric ” by 2030 was always going to end badly for the automotive industry and consumers , but the coronavirus crisis has suddenly brought this to a head .
As the European automotive crisis deepens , with plants closing temporarily and demand likely to fall by up to 20 % this year , the industry needs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules are going to cause irreparable harm to the business and its huge , highly skilled workforce , and either dilute the demands , or delay them for a while .
Instead , the EU is currently working on actually making the rules even more stringent .
The industry seems too fearful of offending politicians to plead for some protection against the malign impact of the rules , which demand the equivalent of an average 92 miles per U.S. gallon by 2030 .
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association , known by its French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned to seek protection from the impact of the rules because of the crisis .
In response , ACEA issued a statement seeking national government and EU financial support for the industry , which supports about 14 million jobs , unspecified measures to avoid undermining the industry , and a general stimulus to Europe ’ s economy .
The fuel economy rules didn ’ t even get a mention .
The EU Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 ) regime insists carmakers raise average fuel efficiency from the equivalent of about 57 miles per U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 , rising again by 15 % in 2025 , and hitting 92 mpg by 2030 .
That compares with current U.S. draft legislation calling for a 40.5 mpg fleet average by 2030 .
According to a report from investment researcher Jefferies last year , if the auto industry makes no progress in curbing CO2 from 2018 towards meeting the EU ’ s 2020/21 regulations , it faces fines totalling the equivalent of $ 36 billion , twice its estimated profits , and could be forced to raise prices up to 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the industry went backwards not forwards in production of CO2 thanks to the popularity of SUVs and the demise of diesel .
The industry is also spending vast sums investing in research and development of electric cars , and at the same time withdrawing big profit margin gas guzzling top of the range sedans and SUVs to help beat fuel economy fines , while pushing forward low or non-existent profit margin small cars .
Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale analyst Frank Schwope said it ’ s time for these rules to be looked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescued from this crisis .
“ The coronavirus crisis poses unprecedented problems for automobile manufacturers and suppliers .
Production and sales are largely paralyzed for at least 4 weeks .
The European ’ s CO2 targets or the fines ( manufacturers ) face may be softened or postponed , so that companies are not at risk of financial burdens , ” Schwope said .
Guido Nelissen , Economic Advisor with the IndustriAll-European Trade Union also called for some understanding from the EU .
“ Sales in Europe are already down about 8 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year ) and there will be a dramatic drop in sales this year , making it impossible to introduce electric and hybrid cars .
I think we have to ask ( the EU Commission ) for a delay for , say , one year .
It makes no sense to levy heavy fines in tough economic times , ” Brussels-based Nelissen said in a telephone interview .
The post Coronavirus Spooks European Car Industry And May Spur Delay Of EU CO2 Regulations appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF @ @

If Europe’s flagship automotive industry is seriously damaged by the coronavirus crisis, governments are likely to delay or watering down CO2 regulations.
European Union (EU) CO2 rules forcing sedan and SUV makers to in effect “go electric” by 2030 was always going to end badly for the automotive industry and consumers, but the coronavirus crisis has suddenly brought this to a head.
As the European automotive crisis deepens, with plants closing temporarily and demand likely to fall by up to 20% this year, the industry needs the EU to step in, concede its rules are going to cause irreparable harm to the business and its huge, highly skilled workforce, and either dilute the demands, or delay them for a while.
Instead, the EU is currently working on actually making the rules even more stringent. The industry seems too fearful of offending politicians to plead for some protection against the malign impact of the rules, which demand the equivalent of an average 92 miles per U.S. gallon by 2030.
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association, known by its French acronym ACEA, was asked if it planned to seek protection from the impact of the rules because of the crisis. In response, ACEA issued a statement seeking national government and EU financial support for the industry, which supports about 14 million jobs, unspecified measures to avoid undermining the industry, and a general stimulus to Europe’s economy. The fuel economy rules didn’t even get a mention.
The EU Carbon Dioxide (CO2) regime insists carmakers raise average fuel efficiency from the equivalent of about 57 miles per U.S. gallon in 2020/2021, from 41.9 mpg in 2015, rising again by 15% in 2025, and hitting 92 mpg by 2030. That compares with current U.S. draft legislation calling for a 40.5 mpg fleet average by 2030.
Small cars like the Volkswagen Polo will be too expensive to produce by 2030. (Photo by Sjoerd van … [+] GETTY IMAGES
According to a report from investment researcher Jefferies last year, if the auto industry makes no progress in curbing CO2 from 2018 towards meeting the EU’s 2020/21 regulations, it faces fines totalling the equivalent of $36 billion, twice its estimated profits, and could be forced to raise prices up to 10%. Latest data suggests in 2019, the industry went backwards not forwards in production of CO2 thanks to the popularity of SUVs and the demise of diesel.
The industry is also spending vast sums investing in research and development of electric cars, and at the same time withdrawing big profit margin gas guzzling top of the range sedans and SUVs to help beat fuel economy fines, while pushing forward low or non-existent profit margin small cars.
Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale analyst Frank Schwope said it’s time for these rules to be looked at again if the industry is to be rescued from this crisis.
“The coronavirus crisis poses unprecedented problems for automobile manufacturers and suppliers. Production and sales are largely paralyzed for at least 4 weeks. The European’s CO2 targets or the fines (manufacturers) face may be softened or postponed, so that companies are not at risk of financial burdens,” Schwope said.
Guido Nelissen, Economic Advisor with the IndustriAll-European Trade Union also called for some understanding from the EU.
“Sales in Europe are already down about 8% (in the first two months of the year) and there will be a dramatic drop in sales this year, making it impossible to introduce electric and hybrid cars. I think we have to ask (the EU Commission) for a delay for, say, one year. It makes no sense to levy heavy fines in tough economic times,” Brussels-based Nelissen said in a telephone interview.
The post Coronavirus Spooks European Car Industry And May Spur Delay Of EU CO2 Regulations appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2JgkTUS
March 25, 2020 at 04:28AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--Hump Day Hilarity – The Mouse That ….Coughed

Sometimes , life imitates art .
Sometimes , the universe makes a hard left turn .
Or resident cartoonist , @ @ @ @ @ this after it was suggested on another blog .
From the Wikipedia description : The @ @ @ @ @ 1955 Cold War satirical novel by Irish American writer Leonard Wibberley , which launched a @ @ @ @ @ an imaginary country in Europe called the Duchy of Grand Fenwick .
Wibberley went beyond @ @ @ @ @ the premise to make commentaries about modern politics and world situations , including the nuclear @ @ @ @ @ in general , and the politics of the United States .
Like the work ?
@ @ @ @ @ ( though all the bars are closed ) .

Sometimes, life imitates art. Sometimes, the universe makes a hard left turn. Or resident cartoonist, Josh, came up with this after it was suggested on another blog. From the Wikipedia description:
The Mouse That Roared is a 1955 Cold War satirical novel by Irish American writer Leonard Wibberley, which launched a series of satirical books about an imaginary country in Europe called the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. Wibberley went beyond the merely comic, using the premise to make commentaries about modern politics and world situations, including the nuclear arms race, nuclear weapons in general, and the politics of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared
The Mouse Coughs… H/t John P.A. Ioannidis via @JWSpry
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/21/corona-panic-a-fiasco-in-the-making/
Like the work? Buy Josh a pint here (though all the bars are closed).


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--SECOND QUESTION TO UK GOVERNMENT ON CLIMATE COSTS

Below is the second question and then the lengthy response which fails to deal with any of the points raised , though it does raise some very worrying issues .
You can see the question here To ask the Secretary of State for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) , what estimate he has made of the cost of phasing out the use of natural gas in domestic dwellings ; what the planned timescale is for this ; whether such phasing out will be carried out by the UK ( a ) only on a multilateral basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governments of other countries plan to do ; and what funding he plans for implementing that policy .
This is the reply from Kwasi Kwarteng , the Minister for BEIS : Meeting our net zero target by 2050 will require virtually all heat in buildings to be decarbonised and heat in industry to be reduced to close to zero carbon emissions .
It will involve large-scale transformation and wide-ranging change to energy systems and markets .
The way heating is supplied to over 28 million homes , businesses and industrial users will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of heat demand in the UK , no one solution can provide the best option for everyone .
We are currently exploring and testing the different approaches to heat decarbonisation , including heat networks , heat pumps , hydrogen and biogas and improving energy efficiency in new buildings .
– a mix of technologies and customer options will need to be available to decarbonise heat at scale .
The Department is developing policies to deliver low carbon heating in the 2020s and meet our climate targets .
We are planning to publish a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which will set out the immediate actions we will take for reducing emissions from buildings .
These include the deployment of energy efficiency measures and low carbon heating as part of an ambitious programme of work required to enable key strategic decisions on how we achieve the mass transition to low-carbon heat and set us on a path to decarbonising all homes and buildings .
Alongside the action we are taking at home , the UK remains committed to demonstrating global leadership in tackling climate change .
The UK is already demonstrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to tackle climate change .
We ’ ve decarbonised faster than any other G20 nation since 2000 , and through our Clean Growth Strategy and annual reports have a comprehensive and publicly available strategy .
The UK is among the largest contributors of climate finance , providing at least £5.8 billion between 2016 to 2020 to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change , reduce deforestation and support cleaner economic growth .
At the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019 , the Prime Minister announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finance to at least £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025 to drive clean and resilient growth in developing countries .
That last part is unbelievable !
While we are crippling the economy with debt to deal with the coronavirus emergency , he says wewill double the money we will give away to deal with global warming .
We truly are in a mess when a Conservative government is so free with taxpayers money .
Prudence has simply disappeared .

Below is the second question and then the lengthy response which fails to deal with any of the points raised, though it does raise some very worrying issues. You can see the question here
Julian Lewis Conservative, New Forest Eas t
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), what estimate he has made of the cost of phasing out the use of natural gas in domestic dwellings; what the planned timescale is for this; whether such phasing out will be carried out by the UK (a) only on a multilateral basis or (b) irrespective of what the governments of other countries plan to do; and what funding he plans for implementing that policy.
This is the reply from Kwasi Kwarteng, the Minister for BEIS:
Meeting our net zero target by 2050 will require virtually all heat in buildings to be decarbonised and heat in industry to be reduced to close to zero carbon emissions. It will involve large-scale transformation and wide-ranging change to energy systems and markets. The way heating is supplied to over 28 million homes, businesses and industrial users will need to change. Given the diversity of heat demand in the UK, no one solution can provide the best option for everyone. We are currently exploring and testing the different approaches to heat decarbonisation, including heat networks, heat pumps, hydrogen and biogas and improving energy efficiency in new buildings. – a mix of technologies and customer options will need to be available to decarbonise heat at scale.
The Department is developing policies to deliver low carbon heating in the 2020s and meet our climate targets. We are planning to publish a Heat and Building Strategy later this year, which will set out the immediate actions we will take for reducing emissions from buildings. These include the deployment of energy efficiency measures and low carbon heating as part of an ambitious programme of work required to enable key strategic decisions on how we achieve the mass transition to low-carbon heat and set us on a path to decarbonising all homes and buildings.
Alongside the action we are taking at home, the UK remains committed to demonstrating global leadership in tackling climate change. The UK is already demonstrating practical leadership across all aspects of the fight to tackle climate change. We’ve decarbonised faster than any other G20 nation since 2000, and through our Clean Growth Strategy and annual reports have a comprehensive and publicly available strategy. The UK is among the largest contributors of climate finance, providing at least £5.8 billion between 2016 to 2020 to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, reduce deforestation and support cleaner economic growth. At the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will double our International Climate Finance to at least £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025 to drive clean and resilient growth in developing countries.
That last part is unbelievable! While we are crippling the economy with debt to deal with the coronavirus emergency, he says wewill double the money we will give away to deal with global warming. We truly are in a mess when a Conservative government is so free with taxpayers money. Prudence has simply disappeared.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--Never Competitive: Britain’s Wind Industry Begs For Even More Massive Subsidies

The wind industry was founded on lies , built on myth and runs on subsidies .
‘ Propaganda ’ was @ @ @ @ @ Pope , employed with devastating effect by the Nazis and still maintains control over the @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t until the wind industry switched into gear that propaganda really hit @ @ @ @ @ … ]

The wind industry was founded on lies, built on myth and runs on subsidies. ‘Propaganda’ was conjured up by a Catholic Pope, employed with devastating effect by the Nazis and still maintains control over the masses in China. But it wasn’t until the wind industry switched into gear that propaganda really hit its straps. Being […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/2WFpK9N
March 25, 2020 at 01:32AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--The SPR: Consumer ‘Insurance’ or Producer Cronyism? (time to privatize)

Good analysis passes the test of time .
And since policy activism has a long history , the past is prologue .
MasterResource has documented the false claims of energy Malthusianism in this regard .
The excerpt below , nearing a quarter-century of age , concerns the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ( SPR ) , a forgotten , obsolete oil stockpile that could disappear tomorrow and hardly be noticed by the market .
Created by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 ( one of many energy-crises laws ) , the SPR began operations in 1977 .
With a design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s crude-oil inventory is 635 million barrels ( 89 percent of capacity ) .
One-million-gallon product inventories are held for fuel oil and for gasoline in the Northeast .
President Trump announced a 77 million barrel purchase to top off the SPR at full capacity , and a $ 3 billion budget authorization request .
This would equate to nearly $ 40 per barrel .
Compared to current spot prices of $ 25 per barrel , that ’ s two-third ’ s above market .
“ DOE is moving quickly to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the impacts of COVID-19 and the intentional disruption to world oil markets by foreign actors , ” stated DOE Secretary Dan Brouillette in a press release .
Under Secretary Mark Menezes added : UPDATE : Less than two weeks later , the fill plan is in trouble–as it should be .
The happy middle is no government subsidies for crude oil and for wind , solar , electric vehicles , and ethanol .
Let the market decide–as in consumers choice and taxpayers neutral .
Subsidizing every energy versus every other energy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is difficult to call the whole SPR exercise , now in its fifth decade , anything but a government mal-investment–and one in the tens-of-billions-of-dollars .
It ’ s creation was an overreaction to an energy crisis created by 1970s federal price and allocation controls .
( For a five-part history of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , see here . )
The third major oil interruption never came .
Emergency drawdowns have been small .
So it became a money jar for government spending in the last decade or more and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidential proposal , a bit of welfare for small oil producers .
Scholars such as Robert Murphy have called for SPR privatization as an alternative to increasing the federal debt ceiling .
Back in 2016 , Presidential candidates on the Republican side ( Ted Cruz ; Donald Trump ) were open to privatizing the SPR as a means for federal deficit reduction and federal debt retirement .
So here are/were my SPR analysis from back in 1991 , excerpted from a longer article , What Now For U.S. Energy Policy ?
A Free-Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1991 ) .
Despite unprecedented criticism that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been poorly utilized in the current crisis , there have been calls to enlarge the stockpile from its present target of 750 million barrels to 1 billion barrels .
The proposed 10-year , $ 6 billion expansion is unwarranted .
( 1 ) Private entrepreneurship should be the first and last line of defense in an energy “ emergency , ” given the real and theoretical problems of the reserve .
The SPR , hitherto unused when the opportunity seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has uncovered a series of problems with the stockpile .
A front-page Wall Street Journal evaluation pointed out the following problems : a distribution system untested in a true emergency , high-sulfur crude that can not be distilled by many U.S. refineries , corrosion problems , the loss of a $ 90 million facility when its oil is withdrawn , a requirement that only U.S.-flag tankers carry released oil between domestic ports , and a 10 percent DOE set-aside for political distribution .
( 2 ) Are critics of the SPR just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an insurance policy that has not been used ?
Or are there fundamental problems–retrospective and prospective–that suggest that the reserve has been and will continue to be a mistake ?
Looking back , it is clear that the SPR has not been a success .
It was authorized in 1975 , but it was nowhere to be seen when the energy crisis hit in the summer of 1979 .
There were some 80 million barrels in the ground but no drawdown plan or drawdown capability .
The SPR was solely an injection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All President Carter could do was to suspend purchases because of higher prices .
With President Reagan ’ s reserve build-up in 1981 and 1982 , which reversed Carter ’ s fiscal prudence , the average cost of a barrel of SPR oil shot up .
Today some 590 million barrels of oil that have cost approximately $ 20 billion are held in five caverns in Texas and Louisiana .
Simple division gives an average cost of over $ 30 per barrel .
In 1990 dollars , the per barrel cost is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only been expensive insurance , it has been prohibitively expensive insurance .
Its ‘ insurance ’ is growing more expensive each day .
Each year adds another dollar per barrel to the cost of the reserve .
( 3 ) In any case , the SPR will not “ pay back its cost many times over ” as one of its early government architects recently stated .
( 4 ) How long will it take to effect an SPR drawdown , and will it be too late when the crude leaves the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Energy to recommend a drawdown to the president .
Then the serious politicking will start .
For example , military interests will argue against a drawdown to preserve their stake vis-a-vis civilian supply .
Assuming the president agrees to a drawdown , the DOE is to publish a notice of bidding , solicit bids , pick the winners , and physically draw down the oil .
How long would it all take ?
The DOE estimates that it could all be done in 20 days , but that is just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indecision could add weeks or longer .
In the recent test sale of 5 million barrels , the time between Bush ’ s withdrawal announcement ( September 27 ) and the physical flow ( late October/early November ) was four weeks or more .
More than 20 percent of the oil ( 1.1 million of 5 million barrels ) attracted no bids because of quality problems .
In addition to its prohibitive cost , the reserve has uncertain redemption value .
Even the belief that the reserve would “ work ” by damping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been deservedly criticized .
For the petroleum industry , the prospect of a drawdown discourages precautionary ( “ speculative ” ) stockpiling since government oil would be available and prices would fall when the SPR “ flooded ” the market .
The National Petroleum Council has complained that “ excessive reliance on early drawdown of SPR stocks in a disruption could .
.
.
undermine efforts to encourage producer stockpiling and consumer conservation.
” ( 6 ) President Bush ’ s reluctance to begin a major drawdown has reflected those disincentives as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Recent pronouncements about when the SPR would be activated demonstrate that the incentives created by the reserve are a double-edged sword .
The American Petroleum Institute has deviated from its free-market position to support the reserve as an alternative to price and allocation regulation .
But the official line from the DOE and the International Energy Agency is that strategic stockpiles should not be activated until “ physical shortages ” appear .
( 7 ) What would trigger physical shortages ?
Federal price and allocation controls .
The API should reconsider its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not pass muster even as “ second best.
” Expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be throwing good money after bad .
Instead of remaining a valuable asset mired in the political swamp , the SPR can be turned into an entrepreneurial asset .
The reserve can be privatized by selling off either the entire operation or its individual parts .
The new owner or owners should have full rein to buy and sell SPR crude as they desire .
Foreign ownership ( by Saudi Arabia , for example ) should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new owners to liquidate the crude and mothball the reserve must be respected .
After all , the private market would not have constructed the reserve in the first place .
( 1 ) Those estimates were made by the Department of Energy .
See U.S. Department of Energy , The Secretary ’ s Annual Report to Congress : 1988–1989 ( Washington : Government Printing Office , 1990 ) , p. 125 .
( 2 ) Caleb Solomon and Rose Gutfeld , “ Petroleum Reserve Has Lots of Oil , But Using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal , September 5 , 1990 , pp .
A1 , A4 .
( 3 ) Assuming that the SPR has a market worth of over $ 8 billion by valuing its oil at $ 15 per barrel , the opportunity cost is around $ 600 million annually using an interest rate of 7.5 percent .
Dividing that amount by the 590 mil lion barrels in the reserve gives a per barrel cost of 98 cents .
( 4 ) Eric Zausner , “ The Strategic Petroleum Reserve : Use It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , August 23 , 1990 , p. 5 .
( 5 ) Conversation with Edward Badolato , deputy assistant secretary for energy emergencies , U.S. Department of Energy , January 18 , 1989 .
( 7 ) See , for example , OGJ Newsletter , August 13 , 1990 .

Expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be throwing good money after bad. Instead of remaining a valuable asset mired in the political swamp, the SPR can be turned into an entrepreneurial asset. The reserve can be privatized by selling off either the entire operation or its individual parts. – RLB (1991)
Good analysis passes the test of time. And since policy activism has a long history, the past is prologue. MasterResource has documented the false claims of energy Malthusianism in this regard.
The excerpt below, nearing a quarter-century of age, concerns the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a forgotten, obsolete oil stockpile that could disappear tomorrow and hardly be noticed by the market. Created by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (one of many energy-crises laws), the SPR began operations in 1977.
With a design capacity of 714 million barrels, today’s crude-oil inventory is 635 million barrels (89 percent of capacity). One-million-gallon product inventories are held for fuel oil and for gasoline in the Northeast.
President Trump announced a 77 million barrel purchase to top off the SPR at full capacity, and a $3 billion budget authorization request. This would equate to nearly $40 per barrel. Compared to current spot prices of $25 per barrel, that’s two-third’s above market.
“DOE is moving quickly to support U.S. oil producers facing potentially catastrophic losses from the impacts of COVID-19 and the intentional disruption to world oil markets by foreign actors,” stated DOE Secretary Dan Brouillette in a press release. Under Secretary Mark Menezes added:
The small to midsize oil producers, which are the focus of the initial crude oil purchase, employ thousands of Americans…. [We] are taking swift action to assist hard hit producers and deliver strong returns to the taxpayer.
UPDATE: Less than two weeks later, the fill plan is in trouble–as it should be. The happy middle is no government subsidies for crude oil and for wind, solar, electric vehicles, and ethanol. Let the market decide–as in consumers choice and taxpayers neutral. Subsidizing every energy versus every other energy is a fool’s errand, anyway.
SPR Fail
It is difficult to call the whole SPR exercise, now in its fifth decade, anything but a government mal-investment–and one in the tens-of-billions-of-dollars. It’s creation was an overreaction to an energy crisis created by 1970s federal price and allocation controls. (For a five-part history of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see here.)
The third major oil interruption never came. Emergency drawdowns have been small. So it became a money jar for government spending in the last decade or more and, most recently, at least in a Presidential proposal, a bit of welfare for small oil producers.
Scholars such as Robert Murphy have called for SPR privatization as an alternative to increasing the federal debt ceiling. Back in 2016, Presidential candidates on the Republican side (Ted Cruz; Donald Trump) were open to privatizing the SPR as a means for federal deficit reduction and federal debt retirement.
1991 Thoughts
So here are/were my SPR analysis from back in 1991, excerpted from a longer article, What Now For U.S. Energy Policy? A Free-Market Perspective (Cato Institute, January 29, 1991).
Despite unprecedented criticism that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been poorly utilized in the current crisis, there have been calls to enlarge the stockpile from its present target of 750 million barrels to 1 billion barrels. The proposed 10-year, $6 billion expansion is unwarranted. (1) Private entrepreneurship should be the first and last line of defense in an energy “emergency,” given the real and theoretical problems of the reserve.
The SPR, hitherto unused when the opportunity seemed to beckon, has attracted media scrutiny that has uncovered a series of problems with the stockpile. A front-page Wall Street Journal evaluation pointed out the following problems: a distribution system untested in a true emergency, high-sulfur crude that cannot be distilled by many U.S. refineries, corrosion problems, the loss of a $90 million facility when its oil is withdrawn, a requirement that only U.S.-flag tankers carry released oil between domestic ports, and a 10 percent DOE set-aside for political distribution. (2)
Are critics of the SPR just complaining after the fact about the costs of an insurance policy that has not been used? Or are there fundamental problems–retrospective and prospective–that suggest that the reserve has been and will continue to be a mistake?
Looking back, it is clear that the SPR has not been a success. It was authorized in 1975, but it was nowhere to be seen when the energy crisis hit in the summer of 1979. There were some 80 million barrels in the ground but no drawdown plan or drawdown capability. The SPR was solely an injection, not a withdrawal, program. All President Carter could do was to suspend purchases because of higher prices.
With President Reagan’s reserve build-up in 1981 and 1982, which reversed Carter’s fiscal prudence, the average cost of a barrel of SPR oil shot up. Today some 590 million barrels of oil that have cost approximately $20 billion are held in five caverns in Texas and Louisiana. Simple division gives an average cost of over $30 per barrel. In 1990 dollars, the per barrel cost is more than $40. The SPR has not only been expensive insurance, it has been prohibitively expensive insurance.
Its ‘insurance’ is growing more expensive each day. Each year adds another dollar per barrel to the cost of the reserve. (3) In any case, the SPR will not “pay back its cost many times over” as one of its early government architects recently stated. (4)
How long will it take to effect an SPR drawdown, and will it be too late when the crude leaves the caverns? The procedure is for the Department of Energy to recommend a drawdown to the president. Then the serious politicking will start. For example, military interests will argue against a drawdown to preserve their stake vis-a-vis civilian supply. Assuming the president agrees to a drawdown, the DOE is to publish a notice of bidding, solicit bids, pick the winners, and physically draw down the oil.
How long would it all take? The DOE estimates that it could all be done in 20 days, but that is just a “best guess.” (5) Indecision could add weeks or longer. In the recent test sale of 5 million barrels, the time between Bush’s withdrawal announcement (September 27) and the physical flow (late October/early November) was four weeks or more. More than 20 percent of the oil (1.1 million of 5 million barrels) attracted no bids because of quality problems. In addition to its prohibitive cost, the reserve has uncertain redemption value.
Even the belief that the reserve would “work” by damping a market panic and lowering prices has been deservedly criticized. For the petroleum industry, the prospect of a drawdown discourages precautionary (“speculative”) stockpiling since government oil would be available and prices would fall when the SPR “flooded” the market. The National Petroleum Council has complained that “excessive reliance on early drawdown of SPR stocks in a disruption could . . . undermine efforts to encourage producer stockpiling and consumer conservation.” (6) President Bush’s reluctance to begin a major drawdown has reflected those disincentives as well as concern about indirect federal price manipulation.
Recent pronouncements about when the SPR would be activated demonstrate that the incentives created by the reserve are a double-edged sword. The American Petroleum Institute has deviated from its free-market position to support the reserve as an alternative to price and allocation regulation. But the official line from the DOE and the International Energy Agency is that strategic stockpiles should not be activated until “physical shortages” appear. (7) What would trigger physical shortages? Federal price and allocation controls. The API should reconsider its pragmatic support; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not pass muster even as “second best.”
Privatize the SPR
Expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be throwing good money after bad. Instead of remaining a valuable asset mired in the political swamp, the SPR can be turned into an entrepreneurial asset. The reserve can be privatized by selling off either the entire operation or its individual parts.
The new owner or owners should have full rein to buy and sell SPR crude as they desire. Foreign ownership (by Saudi Arabia, for example) should not be prohibited. Even a decision by the new owners to liquidate the crude and mothball the reserve must be respected. After all, the private market would not have constructed the reserve in the first place.
————-
(1) Those estimates were made by the Department of Energy. See U.S. Department of Energy, The Secretary’s Annual Report to Congress: 1988–1989 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 125.
(2) Caleb Solomon and Rose Gutfeld, “Petroleum Reserve Has Lots of Oil, But Using It Could Be a Challenge,” Wall Street Journal, September 5, 1990, pp. A1, A4.
(3) Assuming that the SPR has a market worth of over $8 billion by valuing its oil at $15 per barrel, the opportunity cost is around $600 million annually using an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Dividing that amount by the 590 mil lion barrels in the reserve gives a per barrel cost of 98 cents.
(4) Eric Zausner, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Use It or Lose It,” Energy Daily, August 23, 1990, p. 5.
(5) Conversation with Edward Badolato, deputy assistant secretary for energy emergencies, U.S. Department of Energy, January 18, 1989.
(6) Quoted in Mark Emond, “Strategic Petroleum Reserves: Boon or Boondoggle?” National Petroleum News, March 1988, p. 41.
(7) See, for example, OGJ Newsletter, August 13, 1990.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--Winter sea ice maximum extent on March 5 was the highest since 2013

The most positive thing that US National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice experts could say about this year ’ s winter sea ice maximum was that it wasn ’ t a record breaker .
But it provides ample polar bear habitat when the bears need it most : just before the critical spring feeding season .
In fact , they said : “ The 2020 maximum sea ice extent is the eleventh lowest in the 42-year satellite record , but the highest since 2013.
” All that winter ice is essential polar bear habitat just before the critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) and it ’ s one of the reasons that polar bears are thriving .
The table included in this year ’ s maximum sea ice report was a list of the ten lowest years since 1979 and 2020 wasn ’ t on it .
The winter max extent for 2020 was 15.05 mkm2 .
The report also noted that , “ for the Arctic maximum , which typically occurs in March , the uncertainty range is ~34,000 square kilometers ( 13,000 square miles ) , meaning that extents within this range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made special pains to point out that “ maximum extent is not predictive of minimum extent “ .
In other words , don ’ t get your hopes up that ample sea ice this winter will mean abundant sea ice at the end of summer .
NSIDC Masie graphs for 5 March below , by region starting with the Northern Hemisphere : The Baltic Sea and Sea of Okotsk ( below ) are included in the Arctic total but polar bears don ’ t live there , so the lower than usual ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no impact on available polar bear habitat .
NSIDC Masie ice chart for 5 March 2020 puts the total ice extent at 15.1 mkm2 : Crockford , S.J .
2019 .
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened .
Global Warming Policy Foundation , London .
Available in paperback and ebook formats .
Crockford , S.J .
2020 .
State of the Polar Bear Report 2019 .
Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39 , London .
pdf here .

The most positive thing that US National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice experts could say about this year’s winter sea ice maximum was that it wasn’t a record breaker. But it provides ample polar bear habitat when the bears need it most: just before the critical spring feeding season.
In fact, they said: “The 2020 maximum sea ice extent is the eleventh lowest in the 42-year satellite record, but the highest since 2013.” All that winter ice is essential polar bear habitat just before the critical spring feeding season (Crockford 2019, 2020) and it’s one of the reasons that polar bears are thriving.
The table included in this year’s maximum sea ice report was a list of the ten lowest years since 1979 and 2020 wasn’t on it. The winter max extent for 2020 was 15.05 mkm2.
The report also noted that, “for the Arctic maximum, which typically occurs in March, the uncertainty range is ~34,000 square kilometers (13,000 square miles), meaning that extents within this range must be considered effectively equal” and made special pains to point out that “maximum extent is not predictive of minimum extent“.
In other words, don’t get your hopes up that ample sea ice this winter will mean abundant sea ice at the end of summer.
NSIDC Masie graphs for 5 March below, by region starting with the Northern Hemisphere:
The Baltic Sea and Sea of Okotsk (below) are included in the Arctic total but polar bears don’t live there, so the lower than usual ice levels in those regions this winter have had no impact on available polar bear habitat.
NSIDC Masie ice chart for 5 March 2020 puts the total ice extent at 15.1 mkm2:
References
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. pdf here.
via polarbearscience
https://ift.tt/33LZgF3
March 25, 2020 at 12:49AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-25--Guardian: Covid-19 Teaches Us Delaying Climate Action is “Deadly”

In the minds of climate alarmists , the climate crisis is every bit as immediate and deadly as the Chinese Coronavirus epidemic .
Delay is deadly : what Covid-19 tells us about tackling the climate crisis Rightwing governments have denied the problem and been slow to act .
With coronavirus and the climate , this costs lives .
The coronavirus pandemic has brought urgency to the defining political question of our age : how to distribute risk .
As with the climate crisis , neoliberal capitalism is proving particularly ill-suited to this .
Like global warming , but in close-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how lives are lost or saved depending on a government ’ s propensity to acknowledge risk , act rapidly to contain it , and share the consequences .
On these matters , competence and ideology overlap .
Governments willing to intervene have been more effective at stemming the virus than laissez-faire capitalists .
The further right the government , the more inclined it is to delay action and offload blame elsewhere .
International comparisons suggest this could be making infection and death rates steeper .
Take the US , where Donald Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic after weeks of claiming fears were exaggerated .
Until recently , his government put more money into shielding the oil industry than providing adequate testing kits .
He reportedly ordered officials to downplay early warnings because he did not want bad news in an election year .
The US now has one of the fastest rising numbers of new cases in the world .
In the UK , Boris Johnson acknowledged the risk , but did little about it .
Though not as extreme in his denial as Trump or Bolsonaro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then dabbled with a policy of “ herd-immunity ” that was reportedly driven by Dominic Cummings ’ desire to protect the economy , even if it cost pensioners ’ lives .
The UK has since shifted tack and enforced a lockdown , but its controls are still haphazard .
Last week , daily deaths in the UK were reckoned to be on a steeper upward curve than Italy was at the same stage .
In Asia , China initially attempted to hide the problem from the public when the virus emerged in Wuhan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce a strict lockdown and provide extra hospital beds .
South Korea , Taiwan and Thailand also appear to have turned the corner thanks to different combinations of extensive testing , quarantine measures and public health education .
Chinese Communists lying about an outbreak of a new disease is not a new thing .
I ’ m angry at China for lying , yet again , and I ’ m upset that many of our politicians complacently accepted China ’ s assurances .
People in all of our governments must have been aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying about SARS .
Given China ’ s track record of lies and bad decisions , to uphold China as model of how to respond to a crisis is as out of touch with reality as claiming climate change is a problem .
The Covid-19 crisis only occurred because Chinese authorities silenced doctors who tried to warn people .
Early action could have stopped the virus in Wuhan .
China claims they have now contained the outbreak , but after all the lies , how can we trust anything the Chinese government says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stable door after the horse has bolted , then trying to hide the truth .
There is a country which really does deserve praise for their response to a recent outbreak , a country which a few years ago demonstrated skill courage and determination when dealing with a deadly disease .
That country is Nigeria .
In 2014 , a deadly Ebola outbreak which could have torn through the Nigerian capital Lagos , a city of 21 million people , was contained to 19 people , 7 of whom sadly died .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up what was happening , or pretend it was business as usual .
Nigerian authorities were honest , open and decisive .
Their efforts stopped the deadly 2014 Lagos outbreak in its tracks .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In the minds of climate alarmists, the climate crisis is every bit as immediate and deadly as the Chinese Coronavirus epidemic.
Delay is deadly: what Covid-19 tells us about tackling the climate crisis
Jonathan Watts
Rightwing governments have denied the problem and been slow to act. With coronavirus and the climate, this costs lives.
The coronavirus pandemic has brought urgency to the defining political question of our age: how to distribute risk. As with the climate crisis, neoliberal capitalism is proving particularly ill-suited to this.
Like global warming, but in close-up and fast-forward, the Covid-19 outbreak shows how lives are lost or saved depending on a government’s propensity to acknowledge risk, act rapidly to contain it, and share the consequences.
On these matters, competence and ideology overlap. Governments willing to intervene have been more effective at stemming the virus than laissez-faire capitalists. The further right the government, the more inclined it is to delay action and offload blame elsewhere. International comparisons suggest this could be making infection and death rates steeper.
Take the US, where Donald Trump is only now acknowledging the seriousness of the pandemic after weeks of claiming fears were exaggerated. Until recently, his government put more money into shielding the oil industry than providing adequate testing kits. He reportedly ordered officials to downplay early warnings because he did not want bad news in an election year. The US now has one of the fastest rising numbers of new cases in the world.
…
In the UK, Boris Johnson acknowledged the risk, but did little about it. Though not as extreme in his denial as Trump or Bolsonaro, Johnson’s government first dithered, then dabbled with a policy of “herd-immunity”that was reportedly driven by Dominic Cummings’ desire to protect the economy, even if it cost pensioners’ lives. The UK has since shifted tack and enforced a lockdown, but its controls are still haphazard. Last week, daily deaths in the UK were reckoned to be on a steeper upward curve than Italy was at the same stage.
…
In Asia, China initially attempted to hide the problem from the public when the virus emerged in Wuhan, then mobilised huge public resources to enforce a strict lockdown and provide extra hospital beds. South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand also appear to have turned the corner thanks to different combinations of extensive testing, quarantine measures and public health education.
…