climatechangedispatch--2020-05-29--Canada’s Offshore Oil Industry Needs Help, So Ottawa Touts Net-Zero

Written by Rex Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news At the rate things are going in the province , it might not be around in 2050 to emit any emissions at all .
Even during the plague year , Ottawa can not get off its carbon-emissions high horse .
A couple of days ago Premier Dwight Ball of Newfoundland and Labrador and a host of others pleaded in a conference call for urgent assistance to the devastated offshore oil industry .
The industry is moving closer to the autopsy table by the hour .
Then from Seamus O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal cabinet ( wherever it is these days , and whatever it is doing ) , came an email which pointedly didn ’ t say it was considering the urgent request — how could it not ?
— but did say that the “ province ’ s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 is good for our environment and good for our economic competitiveness.
” In what dreamland did that line emerge ?
O ’ Regan gets an emergency request asking for immediate aid from the premier on May 26 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fantasy projection 30 years into the unknowable future , 2050 .
Which , as chance would have it , is presumably around the time Parliament might reopen .
At the rate things are going in Newfoundland , with all major projects canceled or on hold , with deficit and debts at historic levels , with the outports dying , business in lockdown , the tourist industry heading for its worst year in decades , restaurants closed or abandoned , unemployment at a record level … it ’ s not net carbon emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s minister should be fantasizing over .
Here ’ s something to chew on : Newfoundland itself might not be around in 2050 .
There might not be a province to emit the damn emissions .
Newfoundland used to have powerhouse representation .
I can only imagine what a difference there would be in the province ’ s situation today if the sadly departed Hon .
John Crosbie was still holding a seat .
I know one thing .
He wouldn ’ t be burbling in some vapid , rote , clammy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Elizabeth ( “ oil is dead ” ) May , or the Sierra Club war room — about carbon emissions or windmills .
But I should be fair .
Newfoundland has its spoonful from the tidal sweep of billions that monarch Justin Trudeau has loosed during his pre-noon epiphanies under the Tent of Commons .
A vast $ 75 million has been authorized .
You could host a full IPCC climate conference with that kind of money .
But what for , I hear you ask ?
Why , as Mr. O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the industry reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
” Dear god .
What is this ?
Alberta 2.0 ?
Does he not know , can he not understand , if the industry ceases to exist it won ’ t need help — I despise this phrase more and more — “ to reduce its carbon emissions.
” There won ’ t be any emissions from a dead industry .
As for Premier Ball and his urgent plea , he ’ s in a separate dreamland .
Does he really think , with all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past five to 10 years to guide him , that the Trudeau/McKenna/Butts Green Liberal government is going to assist offshore oil ?
Appealing to this prime minister about “ oil ” when he has bigger things on his mind — a seat on the useless UN Security Council , the walk down the cottage steps every morning — is an utter non-starter .
He could just as well have gone up to the top of Signal Hill and pleaded with the wind-tossed seagulls for help , as send an SOS for the offshore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s been the response of Alberta ’ s calls for the same .
He could remind himself of the pipeline blockade .
The demolition by protest and lawfare of every major project attempted .
The virtual shutdown of the Alberta economy .
And has Alberta seen any change of attitude towards its energy crisis during the COVID-19 handout orgy ?
Premier Ball should by now have realized a simple fact , proven by its policies : Ottawa does not like the oil industry .
The voice of one who knows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has had this to say about federal “ support ” during this crisis .
All help comes with the rider “ that oil companies show a 30-year climate plan to get a five-year bridge loan.
” He notes that 30 or more companies have tried to “ access ” the federal program “ and are unable.
” Unlike Ball , Waterman names the reality .
“ It would have been more direct to say that oil and gas producers and oilfield service companies need not apply .
”

Written by Rex Murphy on May 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the rate things are going in the province, it might not be around in 2050 to emit any emissions at all.
Even during the plague year, Ottawa cannot get off its carbon-emissions high horse.
A couple of days ago Premier Dwight Ball of Newfoundland and Labrador and a host of others pleaded in a conference call for urgent assistance to the devastated offshore oil industry.
The industry is moving closer to the autopsy table by the hour.
Then from Seamus O’Regan, Newfoundland’s minister in the federal cabinet (wherever it is these days, and whatever it is doing), came an email which pointedly didn’t say it was considering the urgent request — how could it not? — but did say that the “province’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 is good for our environment and good for our economic competitiveness.”
In what dreamland did that line emerge? O’Regan gets an emergency request asking for immediate aid from the premier on May 26, 2020, and he emails in response a fantasy projection 30 years into the unknowable future, 2050.
Which, as chance would have it, is presumably around the time Parliament might reopen.
At the rate things are going in Newfoundland, with all major projects canceled or on hold, with deficit and debts at historic levels, with the outports dying, business in lockdown, the tourist industry heading for its worst year in decades, restaurants closed or abandoned, unemployment at a record level … it’s not net carbon emissions going to zero in 2050 that Newfoundland’s minister should be fantasizing over.
Here’s something to chew on: Newfoundland itself might not be around in 2050. There might not be a province to emit the damn emissions.
Newfoundland used to have powerhouse representation. I can only imagine what a difference there would be in the province’s situation today if the sadly departed Hon. John Crosbie was still holding a seat.
I know one thing. He wouldn’t be burbling in some vapid, rote, clammy email — which could have been written by Elizabeth (“oil is dead”) May, or the Sierra Club war room — about carbon emissions or windmills.
But I should be fair. Newfoundland has its spoonful from the tidal sweep of billions that monarch Justin Trudeau has loosed during his pre-noon epiphanies under the Tent of Commons.
A vast $75 million has been authorized. You could host a full IPCC climate conference with that kind of money.
But what for, I hear you ask? Why, as Mr. O’Regan wrote, “to help the industry reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.” Dear god. What is this? Alberta 2.0?
Does he not know, can he not understand, if the industry ceases to exist it won’t need help — I despise this phrase more and more — “to reduce its carbon emissions.” There won’t be any emissions from a dead industry.
As for Premier Ball and his urgent plea, he’s in a separate dreamland.
Does he really think, with all the evidence of Alberta’s plight these past five to 10 years to guide him, that the Trudeau/McKenna/Butts Green Liberal government is going to assist offshore oil?
Appealing to this prime minister about “oil” when he has bigger things on his mind — a seat on the useless UN Security Council, the walk down the cottage steps every morning — is an utter non-starter.
He could just as well have gone up to the top of Signal Hill and pleaded with the wind-tossed seagulls for help, as send an SOS for the offshore to Ottawa.
Ball could ask himself what’s been the response of Alberta’s calls for the same.
He could remind himself of the pipeline blockade. The demolition by protest and lawfare of every major project attempted. The virtual shutdown of the Alberta economy.
And has Alberta seen any change of attitude towards its energy crisis during the COVID-19 handout orgy?
Premier Ball should by now have realized a simple fact, proven by its policies: Ottawa does not like the oil industry.
The voice of one who knows that industry, Adam Waterman of Alberta, has had this to say about federal “support” during this crisis.
All help comes with the rider “that oil companies show a 30-year climate plan to get a five-year bridge loan.”
He notes that 30 or more companies have tried to “access” the federal program “and are unable.” Unlike Ball, Waterman names the reality. “It would have been more direct to say that oil and gas producers and oilfield service companies need not apply.”
Read rest at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-29--Alarmists, Media Blame Cyclical Locust Plagues On Climate Change

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades , following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history .
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame .
“ India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years , and the climate crisis is partly to blame , ” says an article published in Ecowatch .
Nevertheless , the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invasions .
The article presents no evidence to back up its assertion because no such evidence exists .
“ Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan , but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974 , ” writes Ecowatch .
As the article admits , these events have happened repeatedly before , with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming ice age .
Locust plagues have struck periodically , but with some regularity all over the globe throughout history .
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes , “ [ t ] he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad , the Bible , and the Quran .
Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.
” And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe , with one paper noting , “ The history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , and when records are more complete in later history seemingly almost continuous in occurrence .
If it was like this in Europe where the majority of historical records come from , how much more so must it have been in Africa where conditions were much more conducive to locusts ?
” As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States , “ the speed , ferocity , and devastation of locusts , particularly the Rocky Mountain locust , would have once been a fact of life for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas to Minnesota.
” The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875 , which was 150 years of global warming ago , during the late stages of the Little Ice Age .
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water , crops , plants , and vegetation .
This has benefited people , desirable wildlife , and locusts .
The benefits of more water and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions for all life .
Another natural but , in some sense , a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic .
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns , however , many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned .
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to the 2020 locust eruption .
In Africa , where the current locust eruption first arose , above-average rainfall , heavy vegetation , and multiple years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the locust population boom .
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa , the Middle East , and the Indian subcontinent .
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa , areas with limited roads and infrastructure , and really erupted just as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting .
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population .
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war , leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours .
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides themselves .
In short , myriad factors have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa , Asia , and the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are historically unusual .
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed , it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans , wildlife , vegetation , and crop production .
Climate alarmists , however , don ’ t want people to hear that .
Instead , they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal climate would be one of drought , crop failure , water shortages , and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else @

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on May 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades, following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history.
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame.
They are lying.
“India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years, and the climate crisis is partly to blame,” says an article published in Ecowatch.
Nevertheless, the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is especially severe compared to other historical locus invasions.
The article presents no evidence to back up its assertion because no such evidence exists.
“Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan, but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974,” writes Ecowatch.
As the article admits, these events have happened repeatedly before, with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when the mainstream media were warning about a coming ice age.
Locust plagues have struck periodically, but with some regularity all over the globe throughout history.
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes, “[t]he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad, the Bible, and the Quran. Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.”
And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe, with one paper noting,
“The history of locust plagues shows how pervasive plagues were, and when records are more complete in later history seemingly almost continuous in occurrence. If it was like this in Europe where the majority of historical records come from, how much more so must it have been in Africa where conditions were much more conducive to locusts?”
As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States, “the speed, ferocity, and devastation of locusts, particularly the Rocky Mountain locust, would have once been a fact of life for a sweep of American farmers from California to Texas to Minnesota.”
The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875, which was 150 years of global warming ago, during the late stages of the Little Ice Age.
Farm Progress says:
“In 1875, the largest locust swarm in history was recorded over the Midwest — 198,000 square miles. (For a size reference, California covers 163,696 square miles.) The 1875 swarm was estimated to contain several trillion locusts and probably weighed several million tons. That was the largest locust cloud in world history, according to Jeffrey Lockwood, author of ‘The Devastating Rise and Mysterious Disappearance of the Insect that Shaped the American Frontier.’”
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water, crops, plants, and vegetation. This has benefited people, desirable wildlife, and locusts.
The benefits of more water and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis, simply because locusts also benefit from better conditions for all life.
Another natural but, in some sense, a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Wikipedia notes,
“Recently, changes in agricultural practices and better surveillance of locations where swarms tend to originate, have meant that control measures can be used at an early stage. The traditional means of control are based on the use of insecticides from the ground or the air, but other methods using biological control are proving effective.”
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns, however, many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned.
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to the 2020 locust eruption.
In Africa, where the current locust eruption first arose, above-average rainfall, heavy vegetation, and multiple years of good crop production made conditions ripe of the locust population boom.
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent.
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa, areas with limited roads and infrastructure, and really erupted just as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting.
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region.
In other regions, political instability also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population.
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war, leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours.
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides themselves.
In short, myriad factors have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but there is no evidence that they are historically unusual.
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed, it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans, wildlife, vegetation, and crop production.
Climate alarmists, however, don’t want people to hear that.
Instead, they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal climate would be one of drought, crop failure, water shortages, and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else.
Yeah, ok.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-29--Bishops Tout EU ‘Green Deal’ As Recovery Plan For Pandemic

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news The Catholic bishops of the European Union ( COMECE ) have endorsed the European Green Deal as an “ underpinning strategy ” for a continent-wide plan of recovery from the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Ecological justice ” must be at the core of Europe ’ s response to the pandemic , the bishops stated in a position paper Wednesday because the coronavirus outbreak “ has revealed both our dependence as well as our disastrous impact on a heavily fragile eco-system.
” “ A virus that causes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not live healthy on a sick and polluted planet , ” the bishops said .
“ We should acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic is linked to the larger socio-ecological crisis that has become increasingly visible to us through climate change , biodiversity loss and its devastating consequences on the most vulnerable , ” they said while urging the EU to “ seize this moment as an opportunity to work for radical change.
” “ We , therefore , welcome the Commission ’ s proposal to integrate the European Green Deal as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call upon EU member states to translate their pledges towards climate neutrality and the care for the environment into tangible actions that will spur ecological conversion in Europe , ” they said .
“ This pandemic should be proof for us that urgent action is needed , ” the bishops added .
In rolling out the European Union ’ s proposed €750 billion pandemic recovery fund Wednesday , European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the recovery plan “ turns the immense challenge we face into an opportunity , not only by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our future : the European Green Deal and digitalization.
” The European Commission has said that 25 percent of the EU ’ s updated seven-year €1 trillion budget proposal and €750 billion recovery plan will be set aside for climate action .
Last December Ms. von der Leyen called Green Deal Europe ’ s “ man on the Moon moment , ” aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 .
According to the European Commission , “ climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and decouple economic growth from resource use .
“ The European Green Deal is our roadmap for making the EU ’ s economy sustainable , ” the EC declares .
“ This will happen by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas and making the transition just and inclusive for all.
” The progressive leader of the European bishops ’ conferences , Jesuit Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich , has stated his belief that climate change is the most urgent problem facing humanity .
Backing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversion , ” the cardinal says that he buys fair-trade coffee instead of Nespresso , no longer uses plastic bottles , and has changed his diesel car for a hybrid one .
“ We bishops have to change our lifestyle , and if we older people succeed in doing it , then the younger ones can do it too , ” he said .
“ But if I can not change my own lifestyle , how can I say to young people to do so ?
” In late 2018 , Hollerich signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take immediate action to overcome the “ devastating effects of the climate crisis.
” The appeal called for keeping global warming below 1.5ºC as well as a shift toward sustainable lifestyles , respect for indigenous communities , and the implementation of a “ financial paradigm shift ” in line with global climate accords .
This entails “ putting an end to the fossil fuel era and transitioning to renewable energy ” as well as rethinking the agriculture sector to ensure it provides healthy and accessible food for everyone , with a special emphasis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following last year ’ s European elections , Hollerich said he was delighted with the successes of green parties while lamenting the rise of populist-nationalist groups .
“ It is positive that in several places numerous young people voted for ecological parties , which means that the themes of environment and creation can become important in the future , ” Hollerich said , noting that “ as a Church ” the victory of the green parties “ makes us happy .
”

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on May 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Catholic bishops of the European Union (COMECE) have endorsed the European Green Deal as an “underpinning strategy” for a continent-wide plan of recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.
“Ecological justice” must be at the core of Europe’s response to the pandemic, the bishops stated in a position paper Wednesday because the coronavirus outbreak “has revealed both our dependence as well as our disastrous impact on a heavily fragile eco-system.”
“A virus that causes a lung disease made us realize that we cannot live healthy on a sick and polluted planet,” the bishops said.
“We should acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic is linked to the larger socio-ecological crisis that has become increasingly visible to us through climate change, biodiversity loss and its devastating consequences on the most vulnerable,” they said while urging the EU to “seize this moment as an opportunity to work for radical change.”
“We, therefore, welcome the Commission’s proposal to integrate the European Green Deal as an underpinning strategy into the recovery plan and call upon EU member states to translate their pledges towards climate neutrality and the care for the environment into tangible actions that will spur ecological conversion in Europe,” they said.
“This pandemic should be proof for us that urgent action is needed,” the bishops added.
In rolling out the European Union’s proposed €750 billion pandemic recovery fund Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the recovery plan “turns the immense challenge we face into an opportunity, not only by supporting the recovery but also by investing in our future: the European Green Deal and digitalization.”
The European Commission has said that 25 percent of the EU’s updated seven-year €1 trillion budget proposal and €750 billion recovery plan will be set aside for climate action.
Last December Ms. von der Leyen called Green Deal Europe’s “man on the Moon moment,” aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.
According to the European Commission, “climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world” and therefore Europe needs to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and decouple economic growth from resource use.
“The European Green Deal is our roadmap for making the EU’s economy sustainable,” the EC declares. “This will happen by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas and making the transition just and inclusive for all.”
The progressive leader of the European bishops’ conferences, Jesuit Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, has stated his belief that climate change is the most urgent problem facing humanity.
Backing up Pope Francis’ call for “ecological conversion,” the cardinal says that he buys fair-trade coffee instead of Nespresso, no longer uses plastic bottles, and has changed his diesel car for a hybrid one.
“We bishops have to change our lifestyle, and if we older people succeed in doing it, then the younger ones can do it too,” he said. “But if I cannot change my own lifestyle, how can I say to young people to do so?”
In late 2018, Hollerich signed an appeal calling on government leaders to take immediate action to overcome the “devastating effects of the climate crisis.”
The appeal called for keeping global warming below 1.5ºC as well as a shift toward sustainable lifestyles, respect for indigenous communities, and the implementation of a “financial paradigm shift” in line with global climate accords.
This entails “putting an end to the fossil fuel era and transitioning to renewable energy” as well as rethinking the agriculture sector to ensure it provides healthy and accessible food for everyone, with a special emphasis on promoting agroecology, the appeal said.
Following last year’s European elections, Hollerich said he was delighted with the successes of green parties while lamenting the rise of populist-nationalist groups.
“It is positive that in several places numerous young people voted for ecological parties, which means that the themes of environment and creation can become important in the future,” Hollerich said, noting that “as a Church” the victory of the green parties “makes us happy.”
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-29--Colorado River Water Woes Are Real — But Not Climate Related

Written by Bonner Cohen , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Unless greenhouse-gas emissions are drastically reduced , the already shrinking Colorado River could shrink another 31 % by 2050 , two scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) warned in a recent study published in the online journal Science .
The study , “ Colorado River Flow Dwindles as Warming-Driven as Loss of Reflective Snow Energizes Evaporation , ” was written by P.C.D .
Milly and K.A .
Dunne .
It appeared in Science on Feb. 20 , 2020 .
In the arid and semi-arid West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodity .
As the region ’ s population has grown , so too has the demand for water .
Deciding who gets how much of this scarce resource has marked water-management disputes in the West since the late 19th century .
Snowfall rates along the course of Colorado can vary greatly from year to year , leaving the 40 million people it serves in over how much water will flow down the river .
In other words , dealing with the mighty Colorado , the river that cuts through the Grand Canyon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer simulations of the Colorado River Basin , the two USGS researchers determined that , on average , a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the West ’ s largest river by more than 11 % .
To forecast the river ’ s future , the two researchers combined their simulations with climate models ( yes , those ) that predict temperature increases under purely hypothetical greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios .
In other words , all we have to do is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing our use of fossil fuels , and the Colorado River will live happily ever after .
Or so their argument goes .
“ Writing in the American Spectator ( May 21 ) , Greg Wachler points out that “ evapotranspiration has robbed the river of vast quantities of water because public land managers have allowed forests to grow unnaturally clogged with too many trees – the same bad management that caused 100 million acres of catastrophic fires in the last 20 years.
” “ Water evaporates from the trees before ever hitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he explains .
“ The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that the Colorado River loses almost four million acre-feet per year from evapotranspiration… ” Wachler is president of the Natural Resources Group and is the former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources .
In addition to overgrowth of forests managed , or mismanaged , by federal agencies , the Colorado has another tormentor : Tamarisk , an invasive and non-native species .
A deciduous shrub or small tree , tamarisk ( also known as salt cedar ) originated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost half the river systems in the U.S. and is causing trouble everywhere it spreads .
“ Tamarisk is among nature ’ s thirstiest plants , lowering water tables and drying up springs , wetlands , and riparian areas .
One tree can drink more than 200 gallons of water per day , and they often grow in stands of up to 3,000 trees per acre , ” Wachler says .
“ Tamarisk now covers nearly two million acres of river banks.
” Given what is known about the thirsty non-native species , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tamarisk trees nationwide consume an astounding 1.2 trillion gallons of water a day .
“ If replaced by the native cottonwood and willow vegetation ( which in their natural density consume less than a fourth of the water ) , 75 percent of the water would remain in the rivers – nearly a trillion gallons per day , ” he says .
The harm wrought by the tamarisk has been known for decades , but the agencies responsible for managing the millions of acres of federal land in the West have done little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that task has fallen to practitioners of private conservation , most notably Grand Junction , CO-based non-profit RiversEdge West ( formerly the Tamarisk Coalition ) .
But with an annual budget of under $ 4 million , RiversEdge West can restore less than 2,000 acres of riverbank a year .
Still , Wachler notes , that far surpasses what they feds have done .
Our sad experience with the lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a grim reminder of how public policy based on dubious models can go astray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with the climate or with a virus .

Written by Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. on May 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Unless greenhouse-gas emissions are drastically reduced, the already shrinking Colorado River could shrink another 31% by 2050, two scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) warned in a recent study published in the online journal Science.
The study, “Colorado River Flow Dwindles as Warming-Driven as Loss of Reflective Snow Energizes Evaporation,” was written by P.C.D. Milly and K.A. Dunne. It appeared in Science on Feb. 20, 2020.
In the arid and semi-arid West, water has always been a prized commodity. As the region’s population has grown, so too has the demand for water.
Deciding who gets how much of this scarce resource has marked water-management disputes in the West since the late 19th century.
Snowfall rates along the course of Colorado can vary greatly from year to year, leaving the 40 million people it serves in over how much water will flow down the river.
In other words, dealing with the mighty Colorado, the river that cuts through the Grand Canyon, has always been a challenge.
Using computer simulations of the Colorado River Basin, the two USGS researchers determined that, on average, a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the West’s largest river by more than 11%.
To forecast the river’s future, the two researchers combined their simulations with climate models (yes, those) that predict temperature increases under purely hypothetical greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios.
In other words, all we have to do is curb atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by reducing our use of fossil fuels, and the Colorado River will live happily ever after. Or so their argument goes.
Evapotranspiration and an Unwelcome Intruder
“Writing in the American Spectator (May 21), Greg Wachler points out that “evapotranspiration has robbed the river of vast quantities of water because public land managers have allowed forests to grow unnaturally clogged with too many trees – the same bad management that caused 100 million acres of catastrophic fires in the last 20 years.”
“Water evaporates from the trees before ever hitting the ground, much less the river,” he explains. “The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that the Colorado River loses almost four million acre-feet per year from evapotranspiration…”
Wachler is president of the Natural Resources Group and is the former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
In addition to overgrowth of forests managed, or mismanaged, by federal agencies, the Colorado has another tormentor: Tamarisk, an invasive and non-native species.
A deciduous shrub or small tree, tamarisk (also known as salt cedar) originated in Eurasia. Tamarisk has taken root in almost half the river systems in the U.S. and is causing trouble everywhere it spreads.
“Tamarisk is among nature’s thirstiest plants, lowering water tables and drying up springs, wetlands, and riparian areas. One tree can drink more than 200 gallons of water per day, and they often grow in stands of up to 3,000 trees per acre,” Wachler says. “Tamarisk now covers nearly two million acres of river banks.”
Given what is known about the thirsty non-native species, Wachler calculates that the approximately 6 billion tamarisk trees nationwide consume an astounding 1.2 trillion gallons of water a day.
“If replaced by the native cottonwood and willow vegetation (which in their natural density consume less than a fourth of the water), 75 percent of the water would remain in the rivers – nearly a trillion gallons per day,” he says.
Private Conservation to the Rescue
The harm wrought by the tamarisk has been known for decades, but the agencies responsible for managing the millions of acres of federal land in the West have done little to address the problem.
Of necessity, that task has fallen to practitioners of private conservation, most notably Grand Junction, CO-based non-profit RiversEdge West (formerly the Tamarisk Coalition).
But with an annual budget of under $4 million, RiversEdge West can restore less than 2,000 acres of riverbank a year. Still, Wachler notes, that far surpasses what they feds have done.
Our sad experience with the lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a grim reminder of how public policy based on dubious models can go astray. This is true whether the models deal with the climate or with a virus.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-29--Study: Arctic Waters Were 4°C Warmer And Sea Ice-Free ~2100 BC

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news Today , the region north of Svalbard is encrusted with sea ice for all but a few weeks per year , and summer sea surface temperatures ( SSTs ) hover near 0°C .
Scientists ( Brice et al.
, 2020 ) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago .
In early September 2019 , Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “ disappearing ” sea ice that had captured their ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presently free of sea ice for only a few weeks per year ( late August ) .
Observational measurements ( Rösel et al.
, 2018 ) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years ( 1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015 , 2017 ) than it was in 1955 ( 0.94 of a meter ) .
A study site northeast of Svalbard ( Brice et al.
, 2020 ) reveals today ’ s sea surface temperatures of “ < 0°C ” are at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few thousand years ago when the Arctic was sea ice-free for all but “ a couple of months ” every year .
Notice the graphics that show today ’ s sea ice monthly duration ( ~11 months per year ) and summer sea surface temperatures ( zero degrees Celsius ) are among the highest and lowest ( respectively ) of the Holocene .
Per Brice et al .
( 2020 ) , the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “ optimum ” during “ the interval around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Stone Age human settlements north of Svalbard were “ feasible ” .
“ Although our core was collected offshore , far from human settlement , the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history .
Hence , our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard .
Such a finding does not support directly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed by Christiansson and Simonsen ( 1970 ) but provides a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on May 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Today, the region north of Svalbard is encrusted with sea ice for all but a few weeks per year, and summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) hover near 0°C.
Scientists (Brice et al., 2020) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago.
In early September 2019, Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “disappearing” sea ice that had captured their ship in central Svalbard.
This region is presently free of sea ice for only a few weeks per year (late August).
Observational measurements (Rösel et al., 2018) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years (1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015, 2017) than it was in 1955 (0.94 of a meter).
A study site northeast of Svalbard (Brice et al., 2020) reveals today’s sea surface temperatures of “<0°C” are at least 4°C colder than they were just a few thousand years ago when the Arctic was sea ice-free for all but “a couple of months” every year.
Notice the graphics that show today’s sea ice monthly duration (~11 months per year) and summer sea surface temperatures (zero degrees Celsius) are among the highest and lowest (respectively) of the Holocene.
Per Brice et al. (2020), the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “optimum” during “the interval around 3000-2000 cal yr BP” such that late Stone Age human settlements north of Svalbard were “feasible”.
“Although our core was collected offshore, far from human settlement, the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history. Hence, our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard. Such a finding does not support directly the hypothesis of Stone Age settlements in Svalbard proposed by Christiansson and Simonsen (1970) but provides a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--Green-Energy Wish List Masquerades As Climate Poll

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news Last week , a raft of newspaper headlines declared “ Canadians still support climate action : poll.
” We are intended to believe that “ COVID-19 ’ s economic and health challenges haven ’ t diminished ” ordinary people ’ s enthusiasm for green policies .
But this poll has oodles of problems .
First , it was sponsored by Clean Energy Canada .
Embedded within the term clean energy is the philosophical argument/political statement/moral judgment that our current , dominant forms of fossil fuel-based energy are dirty .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t neutral .
Its entire purpose is to promote some ideas and to disparage others .
What actually happened here is an organization with an agenda drew up a fantastical wish list and then invited Canadians to agree that the items on that wish list are awesome .
Big surprise that lots of people think upgrading broadband Internet service and public transit is a good idea – especially when the pollster , Abacus Data , declares them “ part of an effort to attract companies to invest and grow businesses in Canada.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of “ Creating more spaces in towns and cities where people can walk and cycle without fear of vehicles.
” But the realistic questions , surely , are : Big surprise that , in the words of Clean Energy Canada ’ s press release , As if that were a likely scenario .
Canada contains half of 1 % of the world ’ s total population .
We are a huge country , with an exceptionally low population density .
This is just delusional .
Big surprise that many people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free to help get more cars off the road and reduce emissions and congestion.
” But nothing is free .
The germane questions are : This poll would have been truly useful had it asked people whether the coronavirus pandemic has changed their attitudes toward using public transit .
Are they now more likely to pack themselves into crowded commuter trains , city buses , and subways than a year ago ?
Less likely ?
Or the same ?
I relied on public transit during the three decades I lived in downtown Toronto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would never have described myself as a germophobe .
But I now reside in a small town – and the world has changed .
The next time I visit Toronto , I ’ m unlikely to repeat my previous routine – parking the car an hour away , boarding a commuter train , relying on subways , buses , and streetcars within the city , then boarding another commuter train .

Written by Donna Laframboise on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Last week, a raft of newspaper headlines declared “Canadians still support climate action: poll.”
We are intended to believe that “COVID-19’s economic and health challenges haven’t diminished” ordinary people’s enthusiasm for green policies.
But this poll has oodles of problems.
First, it was sponsored by Clean Energy Canada. Embedded within the term clean energy is the philosophical argument/political statement/moral judgment that our current, dominant forms of fossil fuel-based energy are dirty.
A ‘clean energy’ outfit isn’t neutral. Its entire purpose is to promote some ideas and to disparage others.
What actually happened here is an organization with an agenda drew up a fantastical wish list and then invited Canadians to agree that the items on that wish list are awesome.
Big surprise that lots of people think upgrading broadband Internet service and public transit is a good idea – especially when the pollster, Abacus Data, declares them “part of an effort to attract companies to invest and grow businesses in Canada.”
Big surprise that lots of people like the idea of “Creating more spaces in towns and cities where people can walk and cycle without fear of vehicles.” But the realistic questions, surely, are:
– how much do such projects cost? – what other ways might we need/choose to spend the same money?
Big surprise that, in the words of Clean Energy Canada’s press release,
91% are interested in the idea of Canada as the world leader in electric buses.
As if that were a likely scenario. Canada contains half of 1% of the world’s total population. We are a huge country, with an exceptionally low population density. This is just delusional.
Big surprise that many people are in of favor “Making public transit free to help get more cars off the road and reduce emissions and congestion.” But nothing is free. The germane questions are:
– who should cover some portion of public transit costs – those actually using it, or everyone via their tax contributions to various levels of government? – is a devastating economic crisis the right time to increase government expenditures and responsibility?
This poll would have been truly useful had it asked people whether the coronavirus pandemic has changed their attitudes toward using public transit.
Are they now more likely to pack themselves into crowded commuter trains, city buses, and subways than a year ago? Less likely? Or the same?
I relied on public transit during the three decades I lived in downtown Toronto. Prior to this pandemic, I would never have described myself as a germophobe. But I now reside in a small town – and the world has changed.
The next time I visit Toronto, I’m unlikely to repeat my previous routine – parking the car an hour away, boarding a commuter train, relying on subways, buses, and streetcars within the city, then boarding another commuter train.
Read rest at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--How Virginia Is Deluding Itself About Net-Zero Energy

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news A few days ago I had a post about how tightening “ green ” energy regulations in Europe are gradually strangling sectors like the automobile and chemical industries .
The post was titled “ Europe Is Firmly Committed To Economic Suicide.
” Here in the U.S. , we have a large coterie of “ blue ” states that are hungering to follow the EU economic model — California , New York , New Jersey , Connecticut , Massachusetts , and others .
A latecomer to this party is Virginia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in 2018 , for the first time in a generation , the Democrats took control of both houses of the legislature .
They wasted no time in passing a big chunk of the progressive agenda en masse , in the form of over a thousand bills that had been blocked by their adversaries for decades .
The new laws cover everything from abortion to guns to the minimum wage to tax increases , and plenty more .
Of course , at the top of the agenda , as it always seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To slay this particular dragon , Virginia now has the newly-enacted Virginia Clean Economy Act or VCEA .
Here is a link to a legislative summary of the VCEA ; and here is a link to the full text .
The full text is almost impossible to follow because it comes in the form of interlineations to the previous public utility regulatory statute .
But the basic idea is that 58 % of Virginia ’ s electricity must come from fossil-fuel-free sources by 2030 , and 100 % by 2050 .
These standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric utilities that cover the state .
This will all be accomplished by various tweaks to rate regulations and other economic incentives .
And thus will Virginians do their part over the course of the next three decades to save the planet .
A friend in Charlottesville sends me a link to a May 26 article from their local rag , Charlottesville Tomorrow , with the headline “ Virginia Clean Economy Act may help get state ’ s economy back on track post-COVID-19.
” He asks for my comment .
You will already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of the piece ( Leah Small ) thinks that the VCEA is an unalloyed positive .
First , according to Ms. Small , it is obvious that electricity from wind and solar has now become cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels ( the VCEA is “ [ m ] eant to support market forces that have .
.
.
driven down the cost of renewables to rates lower than fossil fuels .
.
.
.
” ) .
And on top of that , the conversion to “ green ” energy provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , Leah is the typical completely innumerate journalist who has been 100 % taken in by a scam , flying under the banner of “ fighting climate change , ” the real point of which is to jack up electricity rates in Virginia and then transfer billions of ratepayer dollars into the hands of crony capitalist wind and solar energy developers , all to no effect whatsoever on the climate .
To get just a starting sense of how innumerate Ms. Small is , notice her calling that 2.6-megawatt Dominion Energy Offshore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Actually , it is an insignificantly tiny pilot project consisting of a big two wind turbines .
Maybe if it works out there will be more to come .
But let ’ s get to the heart of the matter : • The business that wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels is a complete hoax , as I have written about many times .
From my post of March 8 , 2019 : “ [ T ] he claim that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leaving out the incremental costs — including costs of backup and/or storage — imposed by their random intermittency.
” An electric grid needs to work with near 100 % reliability 24/7 , or else it is worthless .
This post from November 18 , 2018 , drawing on the work of Roger Andrews , demonstrates how the cost of backup and/or storage will drive up the cost-to-consumers of electricity by a factor of some 15 to 20 as you try to approach 100 % electricity generation from wind and solar .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At lower percentages of electricity from wind and solar , the cost-to-consumers of electricity gradually creeps up .
The basic problem is that no matter how much wind and solar generation you add , you can ’ t get rid of any of your fossil fuel plants because they are needed for times ( such as calm nights ) when the wind and sun combined produce nothing .
Therefore as you buy more wind and solar , you are paying the full capital costs for one-and-a-half , and then one-and-three-quarters , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without redundant systems , they currently pay an average of 11.4 cents per kWh for electricity .
Compare that to states where wind and solar generation has become significant .
For example , in California , where wind and solar are pushing 40 % of electricity generation but they still have full fossil fuel backup , the average cost-to-consumer is 18.34 cents .
In Germany , where they have actually gotten the percentage of electricity from wind and solar above 40 % for significant periods of time , they pay about 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current price in Virginia .
You can ’ t get beyond the 40s without phasing out the back-up fossil fuel plants and going for storage , like batteries .
That ’ s when you will get electricity prices 5 and 10 and even 20 times our current averages .
No jurisdiction has gone there yet , and frankly , I don ’ t believe that any jurisdiction ever will .
Virginia ’ s “ 100 % renewable by 2050 ” thing is a total fantasy .
The current pols are just expecting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no one will even remember who they were .
• But how about the VCEA ’ s mandate of 58 % of electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2030 ?
Won ’ t that drive electricity prices up by three or five times or more ?
Probably not by that much .
If you are wondering how they came up with that magic number of 58 % , it appears to have been strategically selected .
The missing fact is that currently , Virginia gets more than 30 % of its electricity from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the figure was more than 40 % ) ; and , as far as I can see , nothing in the VCEA appears to do anything to get rid of those .
( There are provisions in the VCEA to discourage construction of any additional nukes. )
.
Nuclear plants generate no carbon emissions .
Assuming an average of 35 % of Virginia ’ s electricity from the nukes , that means that to get to the 58 % “ non-fossil-fuel ” goal by 2030 , only about 35 % of the remainder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar .
This figure is comparable to California , and therefore can probably be achieved by increasing consumer electricity costs to the same extent that California has done , by something in the range of 50 – 100 % , most to all of which will however go into the pockets of the wind and solar developers .
• Assume that Virginia actually builds these wind and solar facilities to generate some 35 % of its electricity by 2030 .
How much can we expect its CO2 emissions to go down ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) electricity is only about 30 % of energy usage , and you still aren ’ t attacking other big things like automobiles , airplanes , home heating , and industry ; and ( 2 ) even in the electricity sector , your emissions reductions are going to be limited so long as you keep around the 100 % fossil fuel backup for the wind and solar .
In Germany , during the time of the “ Energiewende , ” like wind and solar have gone to over 40 % of electricity generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 908 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2009 to 805 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2019 — about an 11 % decline , despite electricity prices having climbed to close to triple the U.S. average .
• And then there is the potential effect , or lack thereof , on the climate .
The U.S. in total generates some 14 % of world CO2 emissions , about 4.8 Gigatons per year ; and Virginia , with 8.5 million people , is about 2.5 % of the U.S. by population .
That would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions , or about 120 megatons per year of CO2 .
If you could somehow achieve the 11 % reduction that Germany has achieved , that would make Virginia ’ s emissions about 108 megatons per year .
Over in China , per figures from the Rhodium Group reported at Reuters , they are emitting annually just under 14 billion tons CO2 equivalent , which is going up at a rate of 3 % per year .
That would be some 420 additional megatons from China each year , totally swamping any reductions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia may hope to achieve , even by doubling or tripling its consumers ’ costs of electricity .
And finally , I come to Ms. Small ’ s contention that all of this constitutes a tremendous “ economic development ” opportunity for Virginia .
If the people of Virginia are forced to pay 50 % or 100 % more for the exact same electricity , I would have said that they are poorer by that amount .
This is the opposite of economic development .

Written by Francis Menton on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A few days ago I had a post about how tightening “green” energy regulations in Europe are gradually strangling sectors like the automobile and chemical industries.
The post was titled “Europe Is Firmly Committed To Economic Suicide.”
Here in the U.S., we have a large coterie of “blue” states that are hungering to follow the EU economic model — California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and others. A latecomer to this party is Virginia.
In Virginia, you may be aware that in 2018, for the first time in a generation, the Democrats took control of both houses of the legislature.
They wasted no time in passing a big chunk of the progressive agenda en masse, in the form of over a thousand bills that had been blocked by their adversaries for decades.
The new laws cover everything from abortion to guns to the minimum wage to tax increases, and plenty more. Of course, at the top of the agenda, as it always seems to be, was “climate change.”
To slay this particular dragon, Virginia now has the newly-enacted Virginia Clean Economy Act or VCEA.
Here is a link to a legislative summary of the VCEA; and here is a link to the full text. The full text is almost impossible to follow because it comes in the form of interlineations to the previous public utility regulatory statute.
But the basic idea is that 58% of Virginia’s electricity must come from fossil-fuel-free sources by 2030, and 100% by 2050.
These standards are made mandatory upon the two major electric utilities that cover the state. This will all be accomplished by various tweaks to rate regulations and other economic incentives.
And thus will Virginians do their part over the course of the next three decades to save the planet.
A friend in Charlottesville sends me a link to a May 26 article from their local rag, Charlottesville Tomorrow, with the headline “Virginia Clean Economy Act may help get state’s economy back on track post-COVID-19.”
He asks for my comment. You will already have guessed from the headline that the author of the piece (Leah Small) thinks that the VCEA is an unalloyed positive.
First, according to Ms. Small, it is obvious that electricity from wind and solar has now become cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels (the VCEA is “[m]eant to support market forces that have . . . driven down the cost of renewables to rates lower than fossil fuels. . . .”).
And on top of that, the conversion to “green” energy provides a tremendous economic development opportunity:
Annually, the VCEA could create at least 13,000 clean energy jobs supporting efficiency upgrades, installations, and manufacturing, a recent study shows. Major utility-owned projects – such as the 2.6-megawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project by Dominion Energy, scheduled to be completed by 2026, would go toward meeting VCEA mandates for energy generated from renewable sources.
In short, Leah is the typical completely innumerate journalist who has been 100% taken in by a scam, flying under the banner of “fighting climate change,” the real point of which is to jack up electricity rates in Virginia and then transfer billions of ratepayer dollars into the hands of crony capitalist wind and solar energy developers, all to no effect whatsoever on the climate.
To get just a starting sense of how innumerate Ms. Small is, notice her calling that 2.6-megawatt Dominion Energy Offshore Wind Project a “major utility-owned project.”
Actually, it is an insignificantly tiny pilot project consisting of a big two wind turbines. Maybe if it works out there will be more to come.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter:
The business that wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels is a complete hoax, as I have written about many times. From my post of March 8, 2019: “[T]he claim that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power is just based on the simple deception of leaving out the incremental costs — including costs of backup and/or storage — imposed by their random intermittency.” An electric grid needs to work with near 100% reliability 24/7, or else it is worthless. This post from November 18, 2018, drawing on the work of Roger Andrews, demonstrates how the cost of backup and/or storage will drive up the cost-to-consumers of electricity by a factor of some 15 to 20 as you try to approach 100% electricity generation from wind and solar. That is not a small increment.
At lower percentages of electricity from wind and solar, the cost-to-consumers of electricity gradually creeps up. The basic problem is that no matter how much wind and solar generation you add, you can’t get rid of any of your fossil fuel plants because they are needed for times (such as calm nights) when the wind and sun combined produce nothing. Therefore as you buy more wind and solar, you are paying the full capital costs for one-and-a-half, and then one-and-three-quarters, and then two completely redundant systems. In Virginia, without redundant systems, they currently pay an average of 11.4 cents per kWh for electricity. Compare that to states where wind and solar generation has become significant. For example, in California, where wind and solar are pushing 40% of electricity generation but they still have full fossil fuel backup, the average cost-to-consumer is 18.34 cents. In Germany, where they have actually gotten the percentage of electricity from wind and solar above 40% for significant periods of time, they pay about 30 cents per kWh — almost triple the current price in Virginia. You can’t get beyond the 40s without phasing out the back-up fossil fuel plants and going for storage, like batteries. That’s when you will get electricity prices 5 and 10 and even 20 times our current averages. No jurisdiction has gone there yet, and frankly, I don’t believe that any jurisdiction ever will. Virginia’s “100% renewable by 2050” thing is a total fantasy. The current pols are just expecting that by the time we get to 2050, no one will even remember who they were.
But how about the VCEA’s mandate of 58% of electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2030? Won’t that drive electricity prices up by three or five times or more? Probably not by that much. If you are wondering how they came up with that magic number of 58%, it appears to have been strategically selected. The missing fact is that currently, Virginia gets more than 30% of its electricity from four large nuclear reactors (in 2017 the figure was more than 40%); and, as far as I can see, nothing in the VCEA appears to do anything to get rid of those. (There are provisions in the VCEA to discourage construction of any additional nukes.). Nuclear plants generate no carbon emissions. Assuming an average of 35% of Virginia’s electricity from the nukes, that means that to get to the 58% “non-fossil-fuel” goal by 2030, only about 35% of the remainder will need to come from wind and solar. This figure is comparable to California, and therefore can probably be achieved by increasing consumer electricity costs to the same extent that California has done, by something in the range of 50 – 100%, most to all of which will however go into the pockets of the wind and solar developers.
Assume that Virginia actually builds these wind and solar facilities to generate some 35% of its electricity by 2030. How much can we expect its CO2 emissions to go down? There are two major problems: (1) electricity is only about 30% of energy usage, and you still aren’t attacking other big things like automobiles, airplanes, home heating, and industry; and (2) even in the electricity sector, your emissions reductions are going to be limited so long as you keep around the 100% fossil fuel backup for the wind and solar. In Germany, during the time of the “Energiewende,” like wind and solar have gone to over 40% of electricity generation, greenhouse gas emissions have declined only from 908 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2009 to 805 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2019 — about an 11% decline, despite electricity prices having climbed to close to triple the U.S. average.
And then there is the potential effect, or lack thereof, on the climate. The U.S. in total generates some 14% of world CO2 emissions, about 4.8 Gigatons per year; and Virginia, with 8.5 million people, is about 2.5% of the U.S. by population. That would make Virginia about 0.35% of world CO2 emissions, or about 120 megatons per year of CO2. If you could somehow achieve the 11% reduction that Germany has achieved, that would make Virginia’s emissions about 108 megatons per year. Over in China, per figures from the Rhodium Group reported at Reuters, they are emitting annually just under 14 billion tons CO2 equivalent, which is going up at a rate of 3% per year. That would be some 420 additional megatons from China each year, totally swamping any reductions of say 10 or 12 megatons that Virginia may hope to achieve, even by doubling or tripling its consumers’ costs of electricity.
And finally, I come to Ms. Small’s contention that all of this constitutes a tremendous “economic development” opportunity for Virginia.
If the people of Virginia are forced to pay 50% or 100% more for the exact same electricity, I would have said that they are poorer by that amount. This is the opposite of economic development.
Read rest at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--Profits Count More Than Ever, Not Corporate Virtue-Signaling

Written by Matthew Lau on .
Posted in Latest news There has been much discussion , as the economy begins to reopen , as to what the role of businesses under the “ new normal ” should be .
A recent article in Fortune magazine predicts the public will be more demanding of corporations to use their resources “ for the benefit of society at large.
” An Ernst & Young report similarly notes there will be increased public pressure on companies “ to proactively address societal challenges , from income inequality to climate change.
” Much of the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stakeholder capitalism ” model .
The pandemic has clearly accelerated the shift .
Seizing on this changing perception of the role of corporations , the Trudeau government is using its “ Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility ” program to browbeat businesses into declaring their support for “ environmental sustainability and national climate goals ” in order to access a bridge loan from the federal government and survive the lockdown-created recession .
Businesses shouldn ’ t just be doing business , apparently ; it ’ s also their responsibility to support the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with tasking corporations with addressing climate change — or for that matter income inequality , community development , or any other item on a long list of public issues — is that corporations already have an important responsibility .
Taking on additional ones will detract from the purpose for which they exist .
The real social responsibility of corporations was identified most famously by Milton Friedman 50 years ago in an essay in The New York Times Magazine , with the admirably succinct title : “ The Social Responsibility of Business Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has altered this fundamental responsibility of business .
Corporations are still owned by shareholders .
It is still the interests of those shareholders — and they are generally interested in maximizing profits — that corporations should serve .
There are also compelling practical reasons , which have only been strengthened by the current economic crisis , for businesses to be responsible for increasing profits rather than achieving collateral objectives .
With massive declines in employment and income in recent months , a speedy and robust economic recovery is urgently needed .
The recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring and capital investment , which are what enable productive activity .
But without profits , hiring and investment can not be sustained .
With the economy in its worst shape since the 1930s , profits are therefore now more important than ever .
Corporations need to focus on their bottom lines .
If they are distracted by collateral activities like reversing climate change , the economic recovery will be weakened and delayed .
It is by pursuing profits that corporations ultimately benefit the wider society .
Earning profits allows them to deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to workers , and goods and services that enrich consumers ’ lives .
The Friedman doctrine on the responsibility of businesses was influenced by Adam Smith .
According to Smith , a person in a capitalist economy who puts his capital to work intending his own gain is “ led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention … By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
” By contrast , Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
” The first part of Smith ’ s quote highlights the fact that corporations must do good in order to earn profits .
The idea that they should instead focus on “ social ” goals to achieve good mistakenly assumes that profit-maximizing corporations ordinarily are operated rapaciously , to the detriment of workers and consumers .
The reality is that competition renders any such abuse unsustainable and unprofitable .
Businesses must deal fairly with both employees and customers or risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the firms that do affect to trade for the public good ?
The result of their efforts is often to waste resources .
People who run telecommunications companies , for instance , presumably are experts in telecommunications .
But there is no reason to suppose they have special knowledge about climate change , income inequality , community development , or any of the other issues activists might want them to address .
Holding corporations responsible for solving climate change is like hiring a plumber to complete your tax returns or an accountant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigned does not match the skill or occupation .
Efforts and resources will be wasted — which is the last thing we should want when trying to recover from the worst economic downturn in generations .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Matthew Lau on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There has been much discussion, as the economy begins to reopen, as to what the role of businesses under the “new normal” should be.
A recent article in Fortune magazine predicts the public will be more demanding of corporations to use their resources “for the benefit of society at large.”
An Ernst & Young report similarly notes there will be increased public pressure on companies “to proactively address societal challenges, from income inequality to climate change.”
Much of the corporate world has already shifted towards this “stakeholder capitalism” model. The pandemic has clearly accelerated the shift.
Seizing on this changing perception of the role of corporations, the Trudeau government is using its “Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility” program to browbeat businesses into declaring their support for “environmental sustainability and national climate goals” in order to access a bridge loan from the federal government and survive the lockdown-created recession.
Businesses shouldn’t just be doing business, apparently; it’s also their responsibility to support the federal government’s climate agenda.
The main problem with tasking corporations with addressing climate change — or for that matter income inequality, community development, or any other item on a long list of public issues — is that corporations already have an important responsibility.
Taking on additional ones will detract from the purpose for which they exist.
The real social responsibility of corporations was identified most famously by Milton Friedman 50 years ago in an essay in The New York Times Magazine, with the admirably succinct title: “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.”
Nothing since has altered this fundamental responsibility of business. Corporations are still owned by shareholders. It is still the interests of those shareholders — and they are generally interested in maximizing profits — that corporations should serve.
There are also compelling practical reasons, which have only been strengthened by the current economic crisis, for businesses to be responsible for increasing profits rather than achieving collateral objectives.
With massive declines in employment and income in recent months, a speedy and robust economic recovery is urgently needed. The recovery must and will be led by private-sector hiring and capital investment, which are what enable productive activity.
But without profits, hiring and investment cannot be sustained. With the economy in its worst shape since the 1930s, profits are therefore now more important than ever. Corporations need to focus on their bottom lines.
If they are distracted by collateral activities like reversing climate change, the economic recovery will be weakened and delayed.
It is by pursuing profits that corporations ultimately benefit the wider society. Earning profits allows them to deliver financial returns to investors, productive jobs to workers, and goods and services that enrich consumers’ lives.
The Friedman doctrine on the responsibility of businesses was influenced by Adam Smith.
According to Smith, a person in a capitalist economy who puts his capital to work intending his own gain is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention … By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
By contrast, Smith continued, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
The first part of Smith’s quote highlights the fact that corporations must do good in order to earn profits.
The idea that they should instead focus on “social” goals to achieve good mistakenly assumes that profit-maximizing corporations ordinarily are operated rapaciously, to the detriment of workers and consumers.
The reality is that competition renders any such abuse unsustainable and unprofitable. Businesses must deal fairly with both employees and customers or risk losing them to competing firms.
What of the firms that do affect to trade for the public good? The result of their efforts is often to waste resources.
People who run telecommunications companies, for instance, presumably are experts in telecommunications.
But there is no reason to suppose they have special knowledge about climate change, income inequality, community development, or any of the other issues activists might want them to address.
Holding corporations responsible for solving climate change is like hiring a plumber to complete your tax returns or an accountant to repair your sink. The task assigned does not match the skill or occupation.
Efforts and resources will be wasted — which is the last thing we should want when trying to recover from the worst economic downturn in generations.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--Quarantines, Lockdowns Had No Impact On Global CO2 Levels

Written by Climate At A Glance on .
Posted in Latest news The COVID-19 , aka Coronavirus pandemic , is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as businesses close , airlines cancel flights , energy production is reduced , and people shelter in their homes and drive less .
Climate activists expected this economic downtown to translate to less energy usage , and therefore less CO2 emissions globally .
While that has indeed happened , with China seeing a 40 % emissions drop , and an expected 11 % reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proof they were seeking .
What scientists are looking for is any evidence of a decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn .
University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer used a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal CO2 cycle2 , due to plant photosynthesis increases/decreases with seasons , from the Mauna Loa CO2 data , and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events , which change the rate of ocean outgassing of CO2 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ global CO2 levels has been observed 3,4 .
As can be seen in Figure 1 , the latest CO2 data show no downtrend , but instead just a ripple , that is not unlike other ripples in the graph when there was no crisis and resulting economic downturn .
The newspaper USA Today did a fact check on this issue and found the same result .
NOAA ’ s Earth System Research Laboratories also studied the issue5 and concluded : “ That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature , humidity , soil moisture , etc .
These natural variations are large , and so far the “ missing ” emissions do not stand out.
” Clearly , there is no indication that the forced reductions have had any effect on global CO2 levels , suggesting that natural forces , such as ocean outgassing of CO2 overwhelm man-made contributions .
This further suggests that the calls from climate alarmists to reduce fossil fuel use , automobile use , airline travel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of complaints they make about modern life-enhancing energy use applications will have little or no effect if implemented as they demand .
• Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2 ?
Mauna Loa Data Say , Not Yet by Dr. Roy Spencer March 22 , 2020. https : //www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/ • None Seasonal Changes in Carbon Dioxide NASA ’ s Scientific Visualization Studio May 4 , 2017. https : //svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4565 • None March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn Dr. Roy Spencer April 7 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Current Economic Slowdown Won ’ t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record by Dr. Roy Spencer May 15 , 2020. http : //www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/ • None Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19 ?
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories May 2020. https : //www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html Read more at Climate At A Glance

Written by Climate At A Glance on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The COVID-19, aka Coronavirus pandemic, is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as businesses close, airlines cancel flights, energy production is reduced, and people shelter in their homes and drive less.
Climate activists expected this economic downtown to translate to less energy usage, and therefore less CO2 emissions globally.
While that has indeed happened, with China seeing a 40% emissions drop, and an expected 11% reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. this year, it didn’t translate into the proof they were seeking.
What scientists are looking for is any evidence of a decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn.
University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer used a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal CO2 cycle2, due to plant photosynthesis increases/decreases with seasons, from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events, which change the rate of ocean outgassing of CO2.
The result: no obvious downtown in global CO2 levels has been observed 3,4.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the latest CO2 data show no downtrend, but instead just a ripple, that is not unlike other ripples in the graph when there was no crisis and resulting economic downturn.
The newspaper USA Today did a fact check on this issue and found the same result.
NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratories also studied the issue5 and concluded:
“That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out.”
Clearly, there is no indication that the forced reductions have had any effect on global CO2 levels, suggesting that natural forces, such as ocean outgassing of CO2 overwhelm man-made contributions.
This further suggests that the calls from climate alarmists to reduce fossil fuel use, automobile use, airline travel, beef consumption, and an entire litany of complaints they make about modern life-enhancing energy use applications will have little or no effect if implemented as they demand.
Further reading:
Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2? Mauna Loa Data Say, Not Yet by Dr. Roy Spencer March 22, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/ Seasonal Changes in Carbon Dioxide NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio May 4, 2017. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4565 March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn Dr. Roy Spencer April 7, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/ Why the Current Economic Slowdown Won’t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record by Dr. Roy Spencer May 15, 2020. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/ Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19? NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories May 2020. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Read more at Climate At A Glance
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--Media Fail: Climate Change Is NOT Making Trees Shorter

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Among the top Google News results for “ climate change ” is a National Public Radio ( NPR ) article with the headline , “ Climate Change and Deforestation Mean Earth ’ s Trees Are Younger and Shorter.
” The article ’ s title and desired message to casual Internet surfers are that warmer temperatures stunt tree height and make trees shorter .
In reality , the article merely ( mis ) reports on a study asserting that deforestation is resulting in younger forests with trees that have yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fake tree-height scare as click-bait misrepresenting sound science .
As scientists have repeatedly documented , more atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are assisting trees to grow taller and more rapidly .
NPR references an article in Science finding that a variety of factors are putting pressure on old-growth forests worldwide .
These factors include logging , clear-cutting , and land-use changes .
After deforestation removes disproportionately old-growth forests , the remaining trees and forests tend to be younger .
Younger forests don ’ t have as many very tall trees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors of the Science article claimed deforestation leads to younger forests , in which tree size will be shorter than fully mature trees in older forests .
The authors of the Science study noted this while asserting that climate change may be causing an increase in forest fires .
Drought is the climate factor that would impact forest fires , yet objective data and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) report there is no documented evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency or severity of droughts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate at a Glance : Drought , objective data show a decline in drought as our planet modestly warms .
Accordingly , the only asserted link between climate change and forest fires – drought – does not exist .
Even if such a link did exist , the result would be that climate change hypothetically causes more forest fires , not that climate change is making trees shorter .
Shame on you , NPR , for deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Among the top Google News results for “climate change” is a National Public Radio (NPR) article with the headline, “Climate Change and Deforestation Mean Earth’s Trees Are Younger and Shorter.”
The article’s title and desired message to casual Internet surfers are that warmer temperatures stunt tree height and make trees shorter.
In reality, the article merely (mis)reports on a study asserting that deforestation is resulting in younger forests with trees that have yet to reach their full height. Fashion NPR’s fake tree-height scare as click-bait misrepresenting sound science.
As scientists have repeatedly documented, more atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are assisting trees to grow taller and more rapidly.
NPR references an article in Science finding that a variety of factors are putting pressure on old-growth forests worldwide. These factors include logging, clear-cutting, and land-use changes.
After deforestation removes disproportionately old-growth forests, the remaining trees and forests tend to be younger. Younger forests don’t have as many very tall trees as older forests.
Thus, the authors of the Science article claimed deforestation leads to younger forests, in which tree size will be shorter than fully mature trees in older forests.
The authors of the Science study noted this while asserting that climate change may be causing an increase in forest fires.
Drought is the climate factor that would impact forest fires, yet objective data and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report there is no documented evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency or severity of droughts.
In fact, as documented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, objective data show a decline in drought as our planet modestly warms.
Accordingly, the only asserted link between climate change and forest fires – drought – does not exist.
Even if such a link did exist, the result would be that climate change hypothetically causes more forest fires, not that climate change is making trees shorter.
Shame on you, NPR, for deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print