climatechangedispatch--2020-06-12--Study: As Sea Levels Rise, Island ‘Drowning’ Is Not Inevitable

Written by Mr. Alan Williams on .
Posted in Latest news Coral reef islands across the world could naturally adapt to survive the impact of rising sea levels , according to new research .
The increased flooding caused by the changing global climate has been predicted to render such communities – where sandy or gravel islands sit on top of coral reef platforms – uninhabitable within decades .
However , an international study led by the University of Plymouth ( UK ) suggests that perceived fate is far from a foregone conclusion .
The research , published in Science Advances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modeling of island morphology alongside physical model experiments to simulate how reef islands – which provide the only habitable land in atoll nations – can respond when sea levels rise .
The results show that islands composed of gravel material can evolve in the face of overtopping waves , with sediment from the beach face being transferred to the island ’ s surface .
This means the island ’ s crest is being raised as sea level rises , with scientists saying such natural adaptation may provide an alternative future that can potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management challenges , possibly involving sediment nourishment , mobile infrastructure , and flood-proof housing .
The research was led by Gerd Masselink , Professor of Coastal Geomorphology in Plymouth , working with colleagues at the University of Auckland ( New Zealand ) and Simon Fraser University ( Canada ) .
“ In the face of climate change and sea-level rise , coral reef islands are among the most vulnerable coastal environments on the planet .
Previous research into the future habitability of these islands typically considers them inert structures unable to adjust to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies predict significantly increased risk of coastal flooding and island inundation , and the concept of ‘ island loss ’ has become entrenched in discourses regarding the future of coral reef island communities .
In turn , this has led to attention being focused on either building structural coastal defenses or the exodus of island communities , with limited consideration of alternative adaptation strategies .
“ It is important to realize that these coral reef islands have developed over hundreds to thousands of years as a result of energetic wave conditions removing material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material towards the back of reef platforms , thereby creating islands .
The height of their surface is actually determined by the most energetic wave conditions , therefore overtopping , flooding , and island inundation are necessary , albeit inconvenient and sometimes hazardous , processes required for island maintenance.
” Co-author Professor Paul Kench , currently Dean of Science at Simon Fraser University , Canada , said : “ The model provides a step-change in our ability to simulate future island responses to sea-level rise and better resolve what the on-ground transformations will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our results suggest that island drowning within the next few decades is not universally inevitable .
Understanding how islands will physically change due to sea-level rise provides alternative options for island communities to deal with the consequences of climate change .
It is important to stress there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that will be viable for all island communities – but neither are all islands doomed.
” For the research , scientists created a scale model of Fatato Island , part of the Funafuti Atoll in Tuvalu , and placed it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COAST ) Lab at the University of Plymouth .
It was then subjected to a series of experiments designed to simulate predicted sea level rises with the results showing that the island ’ s crest rose with the rising sea level while retreating inland , as a result of water overwashing the island and depositing sediment on the island ’ s surface .

Written by Mr. Alan Williams on Jun 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Coral reef islands across the world could naturally adapt to survive the impact of rising sea levels, according to new research.
The increased flooding caused by the changing global climate has been predicted to render such communities – where sandy or gravel islands sit on top of coral reef platforms – uninhabitable within decades.
However, an international study led by the University of Plymouth (UK) suggests that perceived fate is far from a foregone conclusion.
The research, published in Science Advances, for the first time uses numerical modeling of island morphology alongside physical model experiments to simulate how reef islands – which provide the only habitable land in atoll nations – can respond when sea levels rise.
The results show that islands composed of gravel material can evolve in the face of overtopping waves, with sediment from the beach face being transferred to the island’s surface.
This means the island’s crest is being raised as sea level rises, with scientists saying such natural adaptation may provide an alternative future that can potentially support near-term habitability, albeit with additional management challenges, possibly involving sediment nourishment, mobile infrastructure, and flood-proof housing.
The research was led by Gerd Masselink, Professor of Coastal Geomorphology in Plymouth, working with colleagues at the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and Simon Fraser University (Canada).
Professor Masselink, who heads Plymouth’s Coastal Processes Research Group , said:
“In the face of climate change and sea-level rise, coral reef islands are among the most vulnerable coastal environments on the planet. Previous research into the future habitability of these islands typically considers them inert structures unable to adjust to rising sea level. Invariably, these studies predict significantly increased risk of coastal flooding and island inundation, and the concept of ‘island loss’ has become entrenched in discourses regarding the future of coral reef island communities. In turn, this has led to attention being focused on either building structural coastal defenses or the exodus of island communities, with limited consideration of alternative adaptation strategies.
“It is important to realize that these coral reef islands have developed over hundreds to thousands of years as a result of energetic wave conditions removing material from the reef structure and depositing the material towards the back of reef platforms, thereby creating islands. The height of their surface is actually determined by the most energetic wave conditions, therefore overtopping, flooding, and island inundation are necessary, albeit inconvenient and sometimes hazardous, processes required for island maintenance.”
Co-author Professor Paul Kench, currently Dean of Science at Simon Fraser University, Canada, said:
“The model provides a step-change in our ability to simulate future island responses to sea-level rise and better resolve what the on-ground transformations will look like for island communities. Importantly, our results suggest that island drowning within the next few decades is not universally inevitable. Understanding how islands will physically change due to sea-level rise provides alternative options for island communities to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is important to stress there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that will be viable for all island communities – but neither are all islands doomed.”
For the research, scientists created a scale model of Fatato Island, part of the Funafuti Atoll in Tuvalu, and placed it in the Coastal Ocean and Sediment Transport (COAST) Lab at the University of Plymouth.
It was then subjected to a series of experiments designed to simulate predicted sea level rises with the results showing that the island’s crest rose with the rising sea level while retreating inland, as a result of water overwashing the island and depositing sediment on the island’s surface.
Read rest at University Of Plymouth
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-15--British Columbia Breaks Cold And Snow Records

Written by Cap Allon on .
Posted in Latest news Record cold and late-spring snow helped drive-home the Grand Solar Minimum message across the BC Interior over the weekend .
According to KelownaNow Meteorologist Wesla English , the Interior –one of the three main regions of the Canadian province of British Columbia– broke a slew of cold records on Saturday .
Kelowna , Kamloops , Clearwater , Penticton , Salmon Arm , and Vernon were among the areas to set new all-time record low-max temperatures for June 13 .
“ A cool upper low over Southern BC produced chilly temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highs in several areas , ” wrote English .
Below is a breakdown of the records ( data courtesy of Environment and Climate Change Canada , and originally reported by kelownanow.com ) : • Kelowna set a new daily record min-high of 12.8C on Saturday , a reading comfortably topping the previous record of 13.3C set in 1981 .
• Kamloops saw its all-time record low smashed , from 1923 ’ s 15C to this weekend ’ s 13.4C .
• But it was Salmon Arm that actually saw the biggest change — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old record of 14.4C from 1971 .
• While the 13.9C set at Penticton pipped the previous record — 1981 ’ s 14C .
In addition to the cold , this weekend delivered rare late-spring snow to BC , adding to Ontario ’ s record June snowfall last weekend that brought power outages to parts of the province .
Wet snow accumulated near the summit of the Okanagan Connector between Merritt and Kelowna on Sunday , causing Environment and Climate Change Canada to issue a special weather statement for Nicola and Okanagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is negatively impacting Canadian farmers , just as it did last year when planting was the most-delayed on record .
A recent report from agricensus.com warns that “ cold weather is slowing emerging Canada crops ” .
The COLD TIMES are returning in line with historically low solar activity , cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays , and a meridional jetstream flow .
Even NASA agrees , in part at least , with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle ( 25 ) seeing it as “ the weakest of the past 200 years , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prolonged periods of global cooling here .

Written by Cap Allon on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Record cold and late-spring snow helped drive-home the Grand Solar Minimum message across the BC Interior over the weekend.
According to KelownaNow Meteorologist Wesla English, the Interior –one of the three main regions of the Canadian province of British Columbia– broke a slew of cold records on Saturday.
Kelowna, Kamloops, Clearwater, Penticton, Salmon Arm, and Vernon were among the areas to set new all-time record low-max temperatures for June 13.
“A cool upper low over Southern BC produced chilly temperatures on Saturday, breaking record low daytime highs in several areas,” wrote English.
Below is a breakdown of the records (data courtesy of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and originally reported by kelownanow.com):
Kelowna set a new daily record min-high of 12.8C on Saturday, a reading comfortably topping the previous record of 13.3C set in 1981.
set a new daily record min-high of on Saturday, a reading comfortably topping the previous record of 13.3C set in 1981. Kamloops saw its all-time record low smashed, from 1923’s 15C to this weekend’s 13.4C .
saw its all-time record low smashed, from 1923’s 15C to this weekend’s . But it was Salmon Arm that actually saw the biggest change — Saturday’s low-max of 12.4C crushed the old record of 14.4C from 1971.
that actually saw the biggest change — Saturday’s low-max of crushed the old record of 14.4C from 1971. Clearwater’s 12.8C busted the 13.3C from 1966.
busted the 13.3C from 1966. While the 13.9C set at Penticton pipped the previous record — 1981’s 14C.
In addition to the cold, this weekend delivered rare late-spring snow to BC, adding to Ontario’s record June snowfall last weekend that brought power outages to parts of the province.
Wet snow accumulated near the summit of the Okanagan Connector between Merritt and Kelowna on Sunday, causing Environment and Climate Change Canada to issue a special weather statement for Nicola and Okanagan Valley.
“June-uary continues!” reads a tweet issued by @ECCCWeatherBC:
Sunday, June 14, 2020: June-uary continues! Low freezing levels mean travellers on the Okanagan Connector will experience a winter wonderland between Elkhart and Brenda Mine this morning and early this afternoon.https://t.co/NCxudUapEd#DriveBC #BCstorm pic.twitter.com/cNDQhPwmhw — ECCC Weather British Columbia (@ECCCWeatherBC) June 14, 2020
All this cold and snow is negatively impacting Canadian farmers, just as it did last year when planting was the most-delayed on record. A recent report from agricensus.com warns that “cold weather is slowing emerging Canada crops”.
The COLD TIMES are returning in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jetstream flow.
Even NASA agrees, in part at least, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Read more at ElectroVerse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-15--Why Nuclear Power Is Crucial To Our National Security

Written by Nick Lindquist on .
Posted in Latest news The world is facing a time of great uncertainty .
Amidst a pandemic , a global recession , and immense civil unrest , we are seeing global democracy also come under attack .
China is using the current state of the world as an opportunity to continue their imperialist prospects by cracking down on the formerly autonomous city of Hong Kong and creeping into India .
The EU has been reluctant to condemn China for its actions in Hong Kong and its role in allowing COVID-19 spread .
This leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing as the lone maverick against despotism .
The question now becomes : what can we do and how do we protect ourselves ?
A huge part of the answer is energy independence , particularly a stable nuclear power supply .
Nuclear power is all around an incredible energy source .
For one , it is very scalable , accounting for about 20 % of the nation ’ s energy supply .
This is due to the immense power produced each time a plant is fired up .
One single uranium fuel pellet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one metric ton of coal or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas .
This also makes nuclear the perfect energy source when disaster strikes and the grid needs more power .
Furthermore , nuclear power emits zero CO2 to produce , making it the largest clean energy source in the country .
In addition to these baseline benefits , we need a stable supply for our navy operations .
The Navy currently operates 101 nuclear reactors that power our aircraft carriers and submarines .
Due to the concentration of fuel in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years without refueling .
This gives us an unprecedented advantage on the seas .
This advantage helps keep America , and much of the world , safe from the perils of oppressive regimes and bad actors .
Unfortunately , this key advantage is at risk of being lost .
The pandemic and recession have only weakened our commercial nuclear energy suppliers and many will be on the brink of shutting down soon .
The breakdown of the commercial nuclear energy industry threatens our Navy ’ s access to research , development , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while China and Russia are in the process of ramping up their nuclear energy industries .
To make matters worse , our uranium supply chain is deeply problematic .
Most of the uranium fuel supply for nuclear reactors in the US came from domestic sources in the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s .
Since then , however , the amount of domestically sourced uranium has been on the sharp decline and today it accounts for only a fraction of our supply .
Though much of our uranium fuel comes from stable democracies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a good portion coming from Russia and China .
It is clear that we must reinvigorate the commercial nuclear energy sector and rethink the way we obtain uranium .
For starters , we can remove the archaic and overbearing regulatory barriers that are currently in place that don ’ t provide a net societal benefit .
For example , regulations should be based on calculated risk and safety rather than arbitrary numbers like they are based on today .
No nuclear project should take over a decade to approve .
Additionally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracts dating back to the 1990s with energy companies and begin collecting nuclear waste in a national repository .
Because the DOE failed to do so , temporary storage of nuclear waste costs the taxpayers $ 2 million per day , making the national repository the most economical action for both energy companies and the taxpayer .
The government should also embrace public-private partnerships to carry out important advanced nuclear research in order to meet the needs of both the public and private sectors .
Lastly , we need to obtain our uranium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stockpile .
By authorizing more domestic uranium development and obtaining the rest from allies like Canada and Australia , we will shrink the global influence of countries like Russia while also ensuring our national security interests are addressed .
Nuclear power is crucial to our national security interests .
Without it , we lose military strength and weaken American energy dominance .
Scaling back regulations , reestablishing the national nuclear repository , and obtaining responsibly sourced uranium will translate to renewed investor confidence in nuclear power .
Investments in nuclear power in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy industry and , in turn , allow our Navy to retain their major advantage .
The United States is exceptional .
We need to protect it for generations to come by embracing nuclear power again .

Written by Nick Lindquist on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The world is facing a time of great uncertainty. Amidst a pandemic, a global recession, and immense civil unrest, we are seeing global democracy also come under attack.
China is using the current state of the world as an opportunity to continue their imperialist prospects by cracking down on the formerly autonomous city of Hong Kong and creeping into India.
The EU has been reluctant to condemn China for its actions in Hong Kong and its role in allowing COVID-19 spread. This leaves the United States with great responsibility, standing as the lone maverick against despotism.
The question now becomes: what can we do and how do we protect ourselves? A huge part of the answer is energy independence, particularly a stable nuclear power supply.
Nuclear power is all around an incredible energy source. For one, it is very scalable, accounting for about 20% of the nation’s energy supply. This is due to the immense power produced each time a plant is fired up.
One single uranium fuel pellet is capable of providing as much power as one metric ton of coal or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
This also makes nuclear the perfect energy source when disaster strikes and the grid needs more power. Furthermore, nuclear power emits zero CO2 to produce, making it the largest clean energy source in the country.
In addition to these baseline benefits, we need a stable supply for our navy operations.
The Navy currently operates 101 nuclear reactors that power our aircraft carriers and submarines. Due to the concentration of fuel in each uranium pellet, ships can operate for 20 years without refueling.
This gives us an unprecedented advantage on the seas. This advantage helps keep America, and much of the world, safe from the perils of oppressive regimes and bad actors.
Unfortunately, this key advantage is at risk of being lost. The pandemic and recession have only weakened our commercial nuclear energy suppliers and many will be on the brink of shutting down soon.
The breakdown of the commercial nuclear energy industry threatens our Navy’s access to research, development, and uranium fuel.
This is occurring while China and Russia are in the process of ramping up their nuclear energy industries. To make matters worse, our uranium supply chain is deeply problematic.
Most of the uranium fuel supply for nuclear reactors in the US came from domestic sources in the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s.
Since then, however, the amount of domestically sourced uranium has been on the sharp decline and today it accounts for only a fraction of our supply.
Though much of our uranium fuel comes from stable democracies like Australia and Canada, there is still a good portion coming from Russia and China.
It is clear that we must reinvigorate the commercial nuclear energy sector and rethink the way we obtain uranium.
For starters, we can remove the archaic and overbearing regulatory barriers that are currently in place that don’t provide a net societal benefit.
For example, regulations should be based on calculated risk and safety rather than arbitrary numbers like they are based on today. No nuclear project should take over a decade to approve.
Additionally, the Department of Energy should fulfill their contracts dating back to the 1990s with energy companies and begin collecting nuclear waste in a national repository.
Because the DOE failed to do so, temporary storage of nuclear waste costs the taxpayers $2 million per day, making the national repository the most economical action for both energy companies and the taxpayer.
The government should also embrace public-private partnerships to carry out important advanced nuclear research in order to meet the needs of both the public and private sectors.
Lastly, we need to obtain our uranium more responsibly and establish a national uranium stockpile.
By authorizing more domestic uranium development and obtaining the rest from allies like Canada and Australia, we will shrink the global influence of countries like Russia while also ensuring our national security interests are addressed.
Nuclear power is crucial to our national security interests. Without it, we lose military strength and weaken American energy dominance.
Scaling back regulations, reestablishing the national nuclear repository, and obtaining responsibly sourced uranium will translate to renewed investor confidence in nuclear power.
Investments in nuclear power in the private sector will revitalize our commercial nuclear energy industry and, in turn, allow our Navy to retain their major advantage.
The United States is exceptional. We need to protect it for generations to come by embracing nuclear power again.
Read more at Townhall
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-15--The Very Stupid Oil-As-Nuisance Climate Litigation

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news It occurs to me to address the question of exactly what about the “ oil-as-nuisance ” litigations is stupid , and what is not as stupid .
The matters that I refer to include the cases , discussed in the last post , of the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five of the largest oil companies , recently reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and sent to be heard in the California state courts .
The matters in question also include numerous other very similar cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaints copied word-for-word from each other ) brought by many other California cities and counties , as well as by various other jurisdictions around the country , not the least of them being my own New York City .
To begin with the “ stupid ” category , there is the fundamental mangling of the whole concept of a legally actionable nuisance .
The classic examples of actionable nuisance involve the polluting next-door neighbor , whose sewage or coal ash inundate your property ; or the extremely noisy bar downstairs that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are all using the oil , getting from it our light and heat and transportation .
As I wrote in a post in June 2018 ( reporting on the then-recent trial court dismissal of the Oakland and San Francisco cases ) : Although the named plaintiffs are just a few cities , and the defendants are just a few oil companies , the underlying theory is that everyone who uses fossil fuels is harming everyone who lives on the planet .
We ’ re all potential plaintiffs , and we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll fix everything by suing ourselves !
It ’ s a particularly absurd instance of the usual touching faith of progressives in the efficacy of our flawed institutions to fix all human problems by issuing some kinds of orders from on high .
So let ’ s move over to the “ not as stupid ” category .
In that category , we have the environmental lawyers who cook these things up .
As I understand it , the lead guy devising the national strategy on this is named Matthew Pawa , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts .
Go to the end of the New York City complaint , and you will find his name , along those of many colleagues at his own firm and other firms that regularly work with him .
Pawa and his colleagues pose as environmental crusaders , people who are going to use the tools of the law to save the planet and bring about environmental justice .
Are they really ?
The whole idea is preposterous .
Even if you firmly believe that the use of petroleum and products derived from it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped , the chance that that result will be brought about by these lawsuits is zero .
What does not have a zero chance — indeed , what has a very substantial chance of occurring — is that these lawsuits will make Mr. Pawa and his colleagues very , very rich .
Now consider the position of the defendants , the oil “ majors ” Exxon , Chevron , ConocoPhillips , Royal Dutch Shell , and BP .
At least until the very recent sharp drop in the price of oil occasioned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making very good money producing and selling oil around the world ; and with the high likelihood that the profitability of the oil business will return shortly to normal levels .
As noted in Thursday ’ s post , these companies have excellent defenses on the merits of these cases .
The “ nuisance ” legal theory is nonsensical .
And nothing about “ science ” supports the idea that increased emissions of CO2 over time will swamp the plaintiff cities with rising seas , let alone subject them to other speculative horribles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , locusts , or whatever .
And the five defendants are a relatively small and decreasing piece of the world emissions picture , which is increasingly dominated by production from new sources and by a generation of electricity in the Third World ( China , India , Africa , South Asia ) , mostly from coal .
As noted on Thursday , Christopher Monckton was urging the defendants to emphasize science as a defense , where they have far the better case .
I joined Monckton in that urging .
But unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usual psychology of major corporate defendants in litigation situations where billions of dollars might be at stake .
Here ’ s the usual psychology of the corporate executives : never let your company go to a trial where there is even a small possibility that the judgment could be monetary damages so large as to threaten the corporate franchise .
It doesn ’ t matter how strong your case is .
The judge may be crazy .
Or you could get a jury that goes crazy .
Or ( as here ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you need to defend your position before not one but twenty or fifty judges and/or juries , any one of which could go crazy even after you have won the first ten or twenty cases .
Which brings me to the model of the great tobacco settlement back in 1998 .
Without the slightest doubt , this is the holy grail that Mr. Pawa and his colleagues are seeking .
The tobacco companies agreed to provide a large and continuing stream of revenue to all the states and municipalities that had brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the effect of driving up the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products .
So the states agreed to restrict entry into the market for selling cigarettes only to companies that were participating in the settlement .
That way , the defendants could safely raise their prices without facing additional competition .
( Were you aware of that piece of the tobacco settlement ? )
You could look at the tobacco settlement and say , that doesn ’ t make a lot of sense .
After all , the states could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other tobacco products , which would have had basically the same effects of raising the prices of cigarettes , getting money for the states , and applying equally to new entrants to the market .
Yes , but here are the differences : ( 1 ) the politicians didn ’ t have to actually pass a tax in the legislature , ( 2 ) the politicians could claim to be somehow punishing “ big tobacco , ” even as the costs , of course , got passed right on to their citizens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raked in multiple billions of dollars .
Meanwhile , there was a decline in tobacco usage , but the amount that drop is attributable to the higher prices from the settlement is dubious .
Certainly , there never was any possibility that a settlement in this form was going to eliminate tobacco usage , or even put a big dent in it .
And indeed , once the settlement was in place , the states became effective partners of the tobacco companies , dependent on them for important ongoing revenues .
The oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware of this history .
Indeed , Wachtell Lipton , the firm representing ConocoPhillips in the oil-as-nuisance cases , was at the center of the tobacco settlement 22 years ago .
The oil majors really won ’ t even mind forking over a few annual tens of billions of dollars each into a master ’ s national settlement fund , as long as they can increase their prices sufficiently to cover the outlay .
And that can be accomplished by the settling states passing laws that no other oil company is allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the master settlement and makes payments based on its market share .
It ’ s a win-win !
The politicians claim credit for punishing the evil oil companies and raise billions of dollars for pet projects that never need to be justified to taxpayers .
The oil companies get permanent protection from the tide of lawsuits , at a cost of a marginal decline in the volume of sales .
But after all , their growth markets are in the Third World anyway .
The plaintiffs ’ lawyers walk away with billions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is where we get back to the “ stupid ” category .
First , every American ( or at least those in the settling states ) gets hit with higher prices for gasoline , maybe by 10 % or even 20 % or 30 % .
Everyone is poorer by that much .
The poor get hit the hardest .
And what about the effect on the environment ?
At best we might be talking about a decline of 5 % or so in the use of petroleum-derived fuels in the U.S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmist climate models , the effect on world temperatures would be in the hundredths of one degree — not even within the measurement accuracy of any known instrumentation .
But then , “ saving the planet ” was never really the point .
That was just the cover story .

Written by Francis Menton on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It occurs to me to address the question of exactly what about the “oil-as-nuisance” litigations is stupid, and what is not as stupid.
The matters that I refer to include the cases, discussed in the last post, of the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five of the largest oil companies, recently reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and sent to be heard in the California state courts.
The matters in question also include numerous other very similar cases (often with page after page of the complaints copied word-for-word from each other) brought by many other California cities and counties, as well as by various other jurisdictions around the country, not the least of them being my own New York City.
To begin with the “stupid” category, there is the fundamental mangling of the whole concept of a legally actionable nuisance.
The classic examples of actionable nuisance involve the polluting next-door neighbor, whose sewage or coal ash inundate your property; or the extremely noisy bar downstairs that makes your apartment uninhabitable.
But here, we are all using the oil, getting from it our light and heat and transportation.
As I wrote in a post in June 2018 (reporting on the then-recent trial court dismissal of the Oakland and San Francisco cases):
Although the named plaintiffs are just a few cities, and the defendants are just a few oil companies, the underlying theory is that everyone who uses fossil fuels is harming everyone who lives on the planet. We’re all potential plaintiffs, and we’re all potential defendants! And we’ll fix everything by suing ourselves! It’s a particularly absurd instance of the usual touching faith of progressives in the efficacy of our flawed institutions to fix all human problems by issuing some kinds of orders from on high.
So let’s move over to the “not as stupid” category. In that category, we have the environmental lawyers who cook these things up.
As I understand it, the lead guy devising the national strategy on this is named Matthew Pawa, a lawyer who practices out of Newton, Massachusetts.
Go to the end of the New York City complaint, and you will find his name, along those of many colleagues at his own firm and other firms that regularly work with him.
Pawa and his colleagues pose as environmental crusaders, people who are going to use the tools of the law to save the planet and bring about environmental justice.
Are they really? The whole idea is preposterous.
Even if you firmly believe that the use of petroleum and products derived from it is destroying the planet and must be stopped, the chance that that result will be brought about by these lawsuits is zero.
What does not have a zero chance — indeed, what has a very substantial chance of occurring — is that these lawsuits will make Mr. Pawa and his colleagues very, very rich.
Now consider the position of the defendants, the oil “majors” Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP.
At least until the very recent sharp drop in the price of oil occasioned by the Coronavirus pandemic, these companies were making very good money producing and selling oil around the world; and with the high likelihood that the profitability of the oil business will return shortly to normal levels.
As noted in Thursday’s post, these companies have excellent defenses on the merits of these cases. The “nuisance” legal theory is nonsensical.
And nothing about “science” supports the idea that increased emissions of CO2 over time will swamp the plaintiff cities with rising seas, let alone subject them to other speculative horribles like more hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, locusts, or whatever.
And the five defendants are a relatively small and decreasing piece of the world emissions picture, which is increasingly dominated by production from new sources and by a generation of electricity in the Third World (China, India, Africa, South Asia), mostly from coal.
As noted on Thursday, Christopher Monckton was urging the defendants to emphasize science as a defense, where they have far the better case. I joined Monckton in that urging.
But unfortunately, that urging does not comport with the usual psychology of major corporate defendants in litigation situations where billions of dollars might be at stake.
Here’s the usual psychology of the corporate executives: never let your company go to a trial where there is even a small possibility that the judgment could be monetary damages so large as to threaten the corporate franchise.
It doesn’t matter how strong your case is. The judge may be crazy. Or you could get a jury that goes crazy.
Or (as here), the plaintiffs could set you up so that you need to defend your position before not one but twenty or fifty judges and/or juries, any one of which could go crazy even after you have won the first ten or twenty cases.
Which brings me to the model of the great tobacco settlement back in 1998. Without the slightest doubt, this is the holy grail that Mr. Pawa and his colleagues are seeking.
The tobacco companies agreed to provide a large and continuing stream of revenue to all the states and municipalities that had brought litigation.
Of course, that agreement had the effect of driving up the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
So the states agreed to restrict entry into the market for selling cigarettes only to companies that were participating in the settlement.
That way, the defendants could safely raise their prices without facing additional competition. (Were you aware of that piece of the tobacco settlement?)
You could look at the tobacco settlement and say, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
After all, the states could have just imposed higher taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, which would have had basically the same effects of raising the prices of cigarettes, getting money for the states, and applying equally to new entrants to the market.
Yes, but here are the differences: (1) the politicians didn’t have to actually pass a tax in the legislature, (2) the politicians could claim to be somehow punishing “big tobacco,” even as the costs, of course, got passed right on to their citizens, and (3) the plaintiff lawyers raked in multiple billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, there was a decline in tobacco usage, but the amount that drop is attributable to the higher prices from the settlement is dubious.
Certainly, there never was any possibility that a settlement in this form was going to eliminate tobacco usage, or even put a big dent in it.
And indeed, once the settlement was in place, the states became effective partners of the tobacco companies, dependent on them for important ongoing revenues.
The oil companies are all of course very well aware of this history. Indeed, Wachtell Lipton, the firm representing ConocoPhillips in the oil-as-nuisance cases, was at the center of the tobacco settlement 22 years ago.
The oil majors really won’t even mind forking over a few annual tens of billions of dollars each into a master’s national settlement fund, as long as they can increase their prices sufficiently to cover the outlay.
And that can be accomplished by the settling states passing laws that no other oil company is allowed to sell into their states unless it joins the master settlement and makes payments based on its market share.
It’s a win-win! The politicians claim credit for punishing the evil oil companies and raise billions of dollars for pet projects that never need to be justified to taxpayers.
The oil companies get permanent protection from the tide of lawsuits, at a cost of a marginal decline in the volume of sales. But after all, their growth markets are in the Third World anyway. The plaintiffs’ lawyers walk away with billions.
What’s not to like? This is where we get back to the “stupid” category. First, every American (or at least those in the settling states) gets hit with higher prices for gasoline, maybe by 10% or even 20% or 30%.
Everyone is poorer by that much. The poor get hit the hardest.
And what about the effect on the environment? At best we might be talking about a decline of 5% or so in the use of petroleum-derived fuels in the U.S.
Even if you believe the most alarmist climate models, the effect on world temperatures would be in the hundredths of one degree — not even within the measurement accuracy of any known instrumentation.
But then, “saving the planet” was never really the point. That was just the cover story.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-15--WMO Forecasts Hottest Summer Evah! Meteorologist Wants Proof

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news On May 26 , the World Meteorological Organization ( WMO @ @ @ @ @ warning of “ another record-breaking heat season ” for the northern hemisphere this summer , @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 pandemic amplifying the health risks of the hot weather .
Media outlets picked @ @ @ @ @ spread panic stories of mayhem and climate breakdown among the public .
But veteran Swiss @ @ @ @ @ models from the ECMWF , doesn ’ t see any evidence of another “ record-breaking @ @ @ @ @ Kachelmann has yet to receive an explanation from the WMO .
Like the ECMWF model @ @ @ @ @ shows , the northern hemisphere has extensive cool patches , and so no signs of @ @ @ @ @ summer this year .
Whether it ’ s the World Health Organization ( WHO or @ @ @ @ @ set up to guide policy are doing a lousy job and are in need of @ @ @ @ @ leaders have already called for .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On May 26, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a press release warning of “another record-breaking heat season” for the northern hemisphere this summer, along with the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic amplifying the health risks of the hot weather.
Media outlets picked up the WMO warnings and spread panic stories of mayhem and climate breakdown among the public.
But veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann, citing models from the ECMWF, doesn’t see any evidence of another “record-breaking summer”.
He tweeted:
Dear @WMO I’ve wondered since you wrote thishttps://t.co/2JEahOzwIi What forecast data led you to the conclusion that we could expect the hottest summer for the Northern hemisphere ever in this year. Wherever I look, I can’t see any evidence. Can you help me? Thanks. pic.twitter.com/zMrlZRtCTC — Jörg | kachelmannwetter.com🇨🇭 (@Kachelmann) June 12, 2020
So far Kachelmann has yet to receive an explanation from the WMO.
Like the ECMWF model for the next 45 days shows, the northern hemisphere has extensive cool patches, and so no signs of a “record-breaking northern hemisphere summer this year.
Whether it’s the World Health Organization (WHO or the WMO, global institutions set up to guide policy are doing a lousy job and are in need of extensive reform, as some leaders have already called for.
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--2020-06-15--Time To Stop Pretending Politicians ‘Follow The Science’

Written by Raymond J. de Souza on .
Posted in Latest news It is instructive that across Canada the pandemic measures were suspended , or disregarded , or superseded in order to facilitate mass protests against racism .
Instructive and welcome , independent of any judgment on the value of the pandemic protocols or the protests , but because it illustrates the problems with the refrain , ubiquitously heard these last years , to “ follow the science , ” or pursue “ evidence-based ” policy .
Perhaps the pandemic , which has amply demonstrated how false that admonition is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ … ] So when the prime minister took a knee in a jam-packed demonstration on Parliament Hill , he was not following the science .
After all , the science of public health told us that it was so dangerous for a person to take two knees in an empty cathedral that all the churches were closed .
[ … ] “ Following the science ” is an emission from the climate-change debate .
But a scientific finding does not mandate a course of action .
That ’ s a matter for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scale of values .
Climate science is no different in Europe than it is in Asia , but climate policy is much different in Brussels than in Beijing .
Does the Chinese regime not “ follow the science , ” or does it come to different conclusions based on its values ?
The massive economic pain caused by the pandemic has been marvelous in terms of lower carbon emissions .
That ’ s the science , but no one is advocating the economy be kept closed in the light of that evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values come into play .
As they always do .
The science will tell us — indisputably !
— that the safest anti-virus mode of transport is the single-use car .
Science tells us — indisputably !
— that it is safer to use disposable coffee cups rather than germ-ridden reusable ones , to use single-use plastic grocery bags than to bring our own from home , safer to wrap as many things in as much plastic as possible .
So should the nation ’ s entire carbon and plastic policy be consigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows the evidence ?
That won ’ t happen , because anti-virus safety is not the only concern and not the only scientific issue .
And the pandemic has taught us that even when the issue is narrow , there are a variety of policy responses .
Indeed , Canada went from a national policy of “ flattening the curve ” in order to enable the health-care system to cope with the spreading virus to a quite different , and more costly , policy of “ stopping the spread.
” The science didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Science can only inform policy .
It does not dictate it .
The pandemic has also shattered the myth of a class of neutral sages — the scientists — who bestow upon a grateful population “ the science.
” The World Health Organization ( WHO ) , a repository of leading members of this new clerisy , turned out to have made judgments according to their own political values , namely appeasing the regime in Beijing , which , entirely coincidentally , just dropped $ 2 billion into WHO coffers .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientist , so perhaps it is an occupational hazard that I suspect that sometimes scientists follow the money rather than science .
That ’ s not being unkind to scientists .
It is simply to consider them human , as well .
We need science and scientists , but we do not live by science alone .
We never have .
For demonstrating that , the prime minister ought to take a bow , after taking a knee .

Written by Raymond J. de Souza on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It is instructive that across Canada the pandemic measures were suspended, or disregarded, or superseded in order to facilitate mass protests against racism.
Instructive and welcome, independent of any judgment on the value of the pandemic protocols or the protests, but because it illustrates the problems with the refrain, ubiquitously heard these last years, to “follow the science,” or pursue “evidence-based” policy.
Perhaps the pandemic, which has amply demonstrated how false that admonition is, will lead to its retirement. […]
So when the prime minister took a knee in a jam-packed demonstration on Parliament Hill, he was not following the science.
After all, the science of public health told us that it was so dangerous for a person to take two knees in an empty cathedral that all the churches were closed. […]
“Following the science” is an emission from the climate-change debate. But a scientific finding does not mandate a course of action. That’s a matter for policy, for weighing competing interests against a scale of values.
Climate science is no different in Europe than it is in Asia, but climate policy is much different in Brussels than in Beijing.
Does the Chinese regime not “follow the science,” or does it come to different conclusions based on its values?
The massive economic pain caused by the pandemic has been marvelous in terms of lower carbon emissions.
That’s the science, but no one is advocating the economy be kept closed in the light of that evidence. Other factors, trade-offs, and values come into play.
As they always do. The science will tell us — indisputably! — that the safest anti-virus mode of transport is the single-use car.
Science tells us — indisputably! — that it is safer to use disposable coffee cups rather than germ-ridden reusable ones, to use single-use plastic grocery bags than to bring our own from home, safer to wrap as many things in as much plastic as possible.
So should the nation’s entire carbon and plastic policy be consigned to the landfill because it no longer follows the evidence?
That won’t happen, because anti-virus safety is not the only concern and not the only scientific issue. And the pandemic has taught us that even when the issue is narrow, there are a variety of policy responses.
Indeed, Canada went from a national policy of “flattening the curve” in order to enable the health-care system to cope with the spreading virus to a quite different, and more costly, policy of “stopping the spread.”
The science didn’t change but the policy did. Science can only inform policy. It does not dictate it.
The pandemic has also shattered the myth of a class of neutral sages — the scientists — who bestow upon a grateful population “the science.”
The World Health Organization (WHO), a repository of leading members of this new clerisy, turned out to have made judgments according to their own political values, namely appeasing the regime in Beijing, which, entirely coincidentally, just dropped $2 billion into WHO coffers.
I was trained as an economist, not a scientist, so perhaps it is an occupational hazard that I suspect that sometimes scientists follow the money rather than science. That’s not being unkind to scientists. It is simply to consider them human, as well.
We need science and scientists, but we do not live by science alone. We never have. For demonstrating that, the prime minister ought to take a bow, after taking a knee.
Read full post at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-15--A Swedish Teenager Tries To Dictate Canadian Politics

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news Rather , she is the child of Swedish celebrities , an opera singer , and an actor .
Having turned 17 in January , she is a media mirage .
A publicist ’ s creation .
Thunberg is too young to vote in Sweden .
She is too young to vote here , in Canada .
Yet she keeps trying to tell our Prime Minister what to do .
Last September , she was granted a private audience with Justin Trudeau in a Montreal hotel .
Afterward , she told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , obviously not doing enough.
” In February , via Twitter , Thunberg promoted a newspaper article written by US climate activist Bill McKibben , headlined When it comes to climate hypocrisy , Canada ’ s leaders have reached a new low .
Published in the UK Guardian , that article attacked an oil project amid fears that , nine years and $ 1 billion after it was first proposed , it might finally receive government approval .
Think about that for a minute .
A Swedish teenager .
An American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ganging up on Canada .
Second-guessing the democratically elected Canadian government .
Insisting their own judgment should supersede Canada ’ s system of environmental regulation .
Working in concert to marginalize the voices and views of ordinary Canadians .
( According to a public opinion poll , the project was supported by 49 % of Canadians , and opposed by 40 % . )
Last week , Thunberg signed a letter which argues , in essence , that Canada doesn ’ t deserve a seat on the United Nations Security Council because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas production .
The billions of dollars that that industry contributes to government coffers every year and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it provides may mean nothing to a 17-year-old who lives in a foreign country .
But that money is real .
Those jobs are real .
If they disappear , Canadians will suffer .
Two days ago , journalists treated Thunberg ’ s reaction to the arrest of Alberta First Nation Chief Allan Adam as newsworthy .
As if the opinions of a teenager who resides a continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the world in stark terms – right versus wrong .
Grownups recognize that every choice we make involves trade-offs .
There ’ s rarely a perfect solution .
In the real world , we need to pay the rent , put food on the table , and fund the healthcare system .
If we could do all those things entirely with ‘ renewable energy , ’ many of us would be happy to do so .
But that isn ’ t possible right now , despite what 17-year-olds believe .
Canadians have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have a right to make our own decisions and our own choices .
We deserve leaders who represent our views and our values .
There isn ’ t much point to elections if government policy is determined by Swedish teenagers .

Written by Donna Laframboise on Jun 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Unlike 13-year-old Jack Rico, Greta Thunberg has not earned multiple college degrees.
Rather, she is the child of Swedish celebrities, an opera singer, and an actor.
Having turned 17 in January, she is a media mirage. A publicist’s creation.
Thunberg is too young to vote in Sweden. She is too young to vote here, in Canada. Yet she keeps trying to tell our Prime Minister what to do.
Last September, she was granted a private audience with Justin Trudeau in a Montreal hotel. Afterward, she told journalists: “He’s, of course, obviously not doing enough.”
In February, via Twitter, Thunberg promoted a newspaper article written by US climate activist Bill McKibben, headlined When it comes to climate hypocrisy, Canada’s leaders have reached a new low.
Published in the UK Guardian, that article attacked an oil project amid fears that, nine years and $1 billion after it was first proposed, it might finally receive government approval.
Think about that for a minute. A Swedish teenager. An American activist. A UK newspaper. All ganging up on Canada. Second-guessing the democratically elected Canadian government.
Insisting their own judgment should supersede Canada’s system of environmental regulation.
Working in concert to marginalize the voices and views of ordinary Canadians. (According to a public opinion poll, the project was supported by 49% of Canadians, and opposed by 40%.)
Last week, Thunberg signed a letter which argues, in essence, that Canada doesn’t deserve a seat on the United Nations Security Council because it hasn’t yet killed off all oil and gas production.
The billions of dollars that that industry contributes to government coffers every year and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it provides may mean nothing to a 17-year-old who lives in a foreign country.
But that money is real. Those jobs are real. If they disappear, Canadians will suffer.
Two days ago, journalists treated Thunberg’s reaction to the arrest of Alberta First Nation Chief Allan Adam as newsworthy. As if the opinions of a teenager who resides a continent away are remotely relevant.
Youthful idealists see the world in stark terms – right versus wrong. Grownups recognize that every choice we make involves trade-offs.
There’s rarely a perfect solution. In the real world, we need to pay the rent, put food on the table, and fund the healthcare system.
If we could do all those things entirely with ‘renewable energy,’ many of us would be happy to do so. But that isn’t possible right now, despite what 17-year-olds believe.
Canadians have a right to chart our own destiny. We have a right to make our own decisions and our own choices. We deserve leaders who represent our views and our values.
There isn’t much point to elections if government policy is determined by Swedish teenagers.
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--2020-06-16--Climate Crisis? China Adding Slew Of New Coal Plants As Curbs Lifted

Written by Bloomberg News on .
Posted in Latest news A wave of new coal power plants is under construction or in development after the country lifted curbs on new builds , according to a study published Tuesday by Greenpeace .
About 46 gigawatts worth of new plants were under construction as of May , the study said .
Another 48 gigawatts were under various stages of development , Greenpeace estimated .
About 29.9 gigawatts of new coal power capacity was added last year , making a total of about 1,040 gigawatts , according to China Electricity Council data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as consumption of the dirtiest fossil fuel wanes elsewhere in the world .
The nation mines and burns about half the world ’ s coal and views it as an important source of cheap power and mass employment .
A spate of coal plant constructions in the early part of the decade led to overcapacity , and by 2016 the National Energy Administration ordered 28 of the country ’ s 33 regional governments to suspend or delay new plants .
Those restrictions have been lifted in recent years , with only six regions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2023 .

Written by Bloomberg News on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A wave of new coal power plants is under construction or in development after the country lifted curbs on new builds, according to a study published Tuesday by Greenpeace.
About 46 gigawatts worth of new plants were under construction as of May, the study said. Another 48 gigawatts were under various stages of development, Greenpeace estimated.
About 29.9 gigawatts of new coal power capacity was added last year, making a total of about 1,040 gigawatts, according to China Electricity Council data.
China remains coal’s stronghold even as consumption of the dirtiest fossil fuel wanes elsewhere in the world.
The nation mines and burns about half the world’s coal and views it as an important source of cheap power and mass employment.
A spate of coal plant constructions in the early part of the decade led to overcapacity, and by 2016 the National Energy Administration ordered 28 of the country’s 33 regional governments to suspend or delay new plants.
Those restrictions have been lifted in recent years, with only six regions expected to have the excess capacity by 2023.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Bloomberg
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-16--Germany To Convert Coal Plant Into Tree-Burning Monstrosity

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news On May 2 , 2020 , we reported on the movie Burned .
In the USA , the focus is on biomass .
However , they do not ferment fast-growing plants into gas as is the case in Europe , rather they cut down trees and burn them in power plants – often together with other things like car tires or soaked railway ties .
The issue is controversial because it is about pure ideology .
Climate organizations such as 350.org , which in the USA is like Fridays For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have given their blessing to this type of power generation .
The film Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore also denounces this .
And so the USA is losing valuable carbon sinks and biotopes , destroying its environment , and lying to itself about sustainability and the climate .
A tree that takes 50-100 years to become big and stately , but then is burned up in a few minutes , can never have a favorable climate balance , no matter how you calculate it .
Trees are the new coal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is only done in the USA , where huge forests and thus carbon sinks are destroyed , is mistaken .
“ Madness ” : German coal plant to be converted to burn trees The online daily Weserkurier reports on a coal-fired power station in Wilhelmshaven ( North Germany ) that is to be converted to burn wood .
This made Germany ’ s most famous forester , Peter Wohlleben ( book “ The Secret Life of Trees “ ) flash with anger on Twitter .
What Wohlleben means by madness could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of parliament Siemtje Möller .
Her slogan on her own website : “ Think about the climate too !
” Siemtje Möller is already thinking ahead .
After all , the Wilhelmshaven site could eventually also produce hydrogen with the green coal .
The stimulus for the technology , worth billions of euros , which has just been ratified , should also come to Wilhelmshaven .
“ I ’ d like a fair share here , ” says the Siemtje Möller about the budget .
In general , she sees the hydrogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the structural transformation law as “ a huge opportunity for the Northwest to enter the future ” .
She calls trees “ green coal ” in all seriousness and then wants to use the energy from burnt trees to produce hydrogen .
Does the federal hydrogen initiative mean something like that ?
Probably not .
Destroying carbon sinks can not possibly be a huge opportunity for the future .
Why does Ms. Möller take her own slogan so unseriously ?
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
By Die kalte Sonne (Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
On May 2, 2020, we reported on the movie Burned. In the USA, the focus is on biomass.
However, they do not ferment fast-growing plants into gas as is the case in Europe, rather they cut down trees and burn them in power plants – often together with other things like car tires or soaked railway ties.
The issue is controversial because it is about pure ideology. Climate organizations such as 350.org, which in the USA is like Fridays For Future (FFF) in Europe, have given their blessing to this type of power generation.
The film Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore also denounces this.
Converting CO2 sinks instantly into atmospheric CO2
And so the USA is losing valuable carbon sinks and biotopes, destroying its environment, and lying to itself about sustainability and the climate.
A tree that takes 50-100 years to become big and stately, but then is burned up in a few minutes, can never have a favorable climate balance, no matter how you calculate it.
Trees are the new coal, it seems.
But anyone who thinks that this is only done in the USA, where huge forests and thus carbon sinks are destroyed, is mistaken.
“Madness”: German coal plant to be converted to burn trees
The online daily Weserkurier reports on a coal-fired power station in Wilhelmshaven (North Germany) that is to be converted to burn wood.
This made Germany’s most famous forester, Peter Wohlleben (book “The Secret Life of Trees“) flash with anger on Twitter.
Wohlleben’s tweet in English:
The madness continues: although hundreds of scientists are warning against burning wood as a climate killer, politics and industry in Germany are backing forest destruction and want to convert coal-fired power plants.”
What Wohlleben means by madness could be the statements of Social Democrat Party member of parliament Siemtje Möller. Her slogan on her own website: “Think about the climate too!”
“Green coal”
Siemtje Möller is already thinking ahead. After all, the Wilhelmshaven site could eventually also produce hydrogen with the green coal.
The stimulus for the technology, worth billions of euros, which has just been ratified, should also come to Wilhelmshaven.
“I’d like a fair share here,” says the Siemtje Möller about the budget. In general, she sees the hydrogen initiative, the coal phase-out law, and the structural transformation law as “a huge opportunity for the Northwest to enter the future”.
She calls trees “green coal” in all seriousness and then wants to use the energy from burnt trees to produce hydrogen.
Does the federal hydrogen initiative mean something like that? Probably not. Destroying carbon sinks cannot possibly be a huge opportunity for the future.
Why does Ms. Möller take her own slogan so unseriously?
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--2020-06-16--Aussie School Kids Told To Study, Spread Greta Thunberg’s Climate Propaganda

Written by Alison Bevege on .
Posted in Latest news Lesson plans telling primary school students to study climate activist Greta Thunberg and spread her message have been found on the NSW Education Department website .
The unapproved material on the official website was aimed at children between years 3 and 5 .
The material , in a lesson plan since taken down , asked students to watch and study a Thunberg speech .
‘ Read about Greta and the transcript of her speech … What is the key message ?
’ the lesson plan prompted .
What techniques does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what needs to change and why ?
’ the plan asked .
The lesson plan asked students to conduct an ‘ energy audit ’ of their school to find areas where change is needed .
The revelation prompted swift criticism from education researcher Kevin Donnelly who called the material ‘ indoctrination ’ .
‘ The great shame is education is no longer about being impartial or objective … it is about indoctrinating students , ’ he told The Daily Telegraph .
The lesson plan had a guidebook to go with it telling students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greenhouse gases every year .
The NSW school system was heavily criticized last year during the so-called Climate Strike for allowing climate activists to indoctrinate impressionable young children .
Thousands of school children truanted school to take part in the Climate Strike street protests .
One father pulled his son out of a state primary school in Bilambil , northern NSW , at the time after he was asked to ‘ dress like a hippy ’ by his teacher .
Matt Karlos , 38 , took his 10-year-old son Max out , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the future and scaring them with climate change .
‘ The ideologies were in his face all the time , ’ Mr. Karlos said .
The former 2GB radio host pointed to a report which claimed children under the age of 10 were experiencing anxiety from the climate change debate .
‘ Young people are going to be concerned , they believe their teachers , they actually think that they ’ re at school and what they ’ re being told is true , ’ he said .
‘ The notion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandalous and the politics of climate change has become poisonous.
’ In February last year , former NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes warned students and teachers they would be punished if they skipped school to join the climate strike rallies .
‘ School children , on school days , should be at school , ’ he said at the time .
‘ Ok .
We hear you .
And we don ’ t care .
Your statement belongs in a museum , ’ Ms. Thunberg ’ s Twitter account tweeted .
A spokesman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would investigate how the Thunberg lesson plans made it onto the official website .
‘ This web page was published without approval .
We will have the web page taken down and reviewed , ’ he said .

Written by Alison Bevege on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Lesson plans telling primary school students to study climate activist Greta Thunberg and spread her message have been found on the NSW Education Department website.
The unapproved material on the official website was aimed at children between years 3 and 5.
The material, in a lesson plan since taken down, asked students to watch and study a Thunberg speech.
‘Read about Greta and the transcript of her speech … What is the key message?’ the lesson plan prompted.
What techniques does Greta use … Can you now state what needs to change and why?’ the plan asked.
The lesson plan asked students to conduct an ‘energy audit’ of their school to find areas where change is needed.
The revelation prompted swift criticism from education researcher Kevin Donnelly who called the material ‘indoctrination’.
‘The great shame is education is no longer about being impartial or objective … it is about indoctrinating students,’ he told The Daily Telegraph.
The lesson plan had a guidebook to go with it telling students that school air-conditioning adds 20,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases every year.
The NSW school system was heavily criticized last year during the so-called Climate Strike for allowing climate activists to indoctrinate impressionable young children.
Thousands of school children truanted school to take part in the Climate Strike street protests.
One father pulled his son out of a state primary school in Bilambil, northern NSW, at the time after he was asked to ‘dress like a hippy’ by his teacher.
Matt Karlos, 38, took his 10-year-old son Max out, saying the teachers were making the kids terrified for the future and scaring them with climate change.
‘The ideologies were in his face all the time,’ Mr. Karlos said.
In September, Alan Jones accused teachers of brainwashing vulnerable children.
The former 2GB radio host pointed to a report which claimed children under the age of 10 were experiencing anxiety from the climate change debate.
‘Young people are going to be concerned, they believe their teachers, they actually think that they’re at school and what they’re being told is true,’ he said.
‘The notion of using children in all of this is scandalous and the politics of climate change has become poisonous.’
In February last year, former NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes warned students and teachers they would be punished if they skipped school to join the climate strike rallies.
‘School children, on school days, should be at school,’ he said at the time.
Greta Thunberg’s Twitter account responded, saying her followers didn’t care.
‘Ok. We hear you. And we don’t care. Your statement belongs in a museum,’ Ms. Thunberg’s Twitter account tweeted.
A spokesman from the NSW Education Department said they would investigate how the Thunberg lesson plans made it onto the official website.
‘This web page was published without approval. We will have the web page taken down and reviewed,’ he said.
Read more at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-16--Supreme Court Green-Lights Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Written by Bonner Cohen , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news In a closely watched decision that will move one of the nation ’ s largest energy infrastructure projects a few steps nearer to realization , the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service ( USFS ) acted lawfully when it granted a permit for the proposed $ 8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline ( ACP ) to cross under the Appalachian Trail .
The 7-2 ruling , handed down June 15 , removes the biggest legal obstacle to the 600-mile pipeline , which would carry up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas from the Marcellus Shale basin in West Virginia to customers in Virginia and North Carolina .
Questions over which federal agency has the authority to issue a permit , known as a right-of-way , in the Appalachian Trail sector of the pipeline have kept the project tied up in courts .
In issuing its decision , the Supreme Court overturned a 2018 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals , which said the Forest Service lacked the authority to approve the right-of-way because the Appalachian Trail is under the jurisdiction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pipeline wouldn ’ t actually “ cross ” the Appalachian Trail ; it would be constructed and installed hundreds of feet beneath it .
Speaking for the majority , Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the vexing question of whether the Interior Department ’ s decision to make the NPS responsible for the Appalachian Trail also meant the NPS has authority over land underneath the trail .
Thomas determined that the administrative arrangement did not remove the USFS ’ s power to approve construction under the trail .
“ Accordingly , the Forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit here , ” he wrote .
The Southern Environmental Law Center ( SELC ) , one of the green groups suing to stop the pipeline , remained defiant after the ruling was handed down .
“ While today ’ s decision was not what we hoped for , it addresses only one of the many problems faced by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline .
This is not a viable project .
It is still missing many required authorizations , including the Forest Service permit at issue in today ’ s case , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will soon consider the mounting evidence that we never need this pipeline to supply power , ” SELC ’ s DJ Gerken said in a statement .
As expected , the court ’ s ruling was welcomed by the project ’ s two leading developers , Dominion Resources and Duke Energy .
Dominion expects to begin construction later this year and is looking at having the pipeline in operation by early 2022 .
“ Today ’ s decision is an affirmation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and communities across our region that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth , and clean energy , ” Duke Energy said in a statement .
“ We look forward to resolving the remaining project permits.
” The project ’ s developers should be able to obtain the missing USFS permit later this summer .
Other permits shouldn ’ t pose a problem unless there is a change of administrations in January .
Then , all bets are off .

Written by Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a closely watched decision that will move one of the nation’s largest energy infrastructure projects a few steps nearer to realization, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) acted lawfully when it granted a permit for the proposed $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to cross under the Appalachian Trail.
The 7-2 ruling, handed down June 15, removes the biggest legal obstacle to the 600-mile pipeline, which would carry up to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale basin in West Virginia to customers in Virginia and North Carolina.
Questions over which federal agency has the authority to issue a permit, known as a right-of-way, in the Appalachian Trail sector of the pipeline have kept the project tied up in courts.
In issuing its decision, the Supreme Court overturned a 2018 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the Forest Service lacked the authority to approve the right-of-way because the Appalachian Trail is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service (NPS).
The pipeline wouldn’t actually “cross” the Appalachian Trail; it would be constructed and installed hundreds of feet beneath it.
Untangling Jurisdictional Questions
Speaking for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the vexing question of whether the Interior Department’s decision to make the NPS responsible for the Appalachian Trail also meant the NPS has authority over land underneath the trail.
Thomas determined that the administrative arrangement did not remove the USFS’s power to approve construction under the trail.
“Accordingly, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here,” he wrote.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), one of the green groups suing to stop the pipeline, remained defiant after the ruling was handed down.
“While today’s decision was not what we hoped for, it addresses only one of the many problems faced by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. This is not a viable project. It is still missing many required authorizations, including the Forest Service permit at issue in today’s case, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider the mounting evidence that we never need this pipeline to supply power,” SELC’s DJ Gerken said in a statement.
In Operation by 2022?
As expected, the court’s ruling was welcomed by the project’s two leading developers, Dominion Resources and Duke Energy. Dominion expects to begin construction later this year and is looking at having the pipeline in operation by early 2022.
“Today’s decision is an affirmation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and communities across our region that are depending on it for jobs, economic growth, and clean energy,” Duke Energy said in a statement. “We look forward to resolving the remaining project permits.”
The project’s developers should be able to obtain the missing USFS permit later this summer. Other permits shouldn’t pose a problem unless there is a change of administrations in January. Then, all bets are off.
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--2020-06-16--The Green-Energy Threat To Your Pension Pot

Written by Andrew Montford on .
Posted in Latest news ‘ AMAZON , Facebook , and Microsoft have all been criticized for expanding their data centers without securing additional supply of clean energy .
Investors in these technology companies will , therefore , need to encourage a faster move to cleaner energy sources in order to avoid adverse environmental impacts.
’ The words , surprisingly , are not the work of the fevered mind of some environmental activist but come from a blog post by two senior figures from the investment giant Aberdeen Standard Investments ( ASI ) : Jeremy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amanda Young , its head of ‘ responsible investment ’ .
To see the problem with what they are saying , you need to understand that ‘ cleaner energy sources ’ , which in this country mostly means offshore wind power , is much more expensive than electricity generated from gas-fired power stations .
There has been more than a decade of disinformation from Greens and their supporters about the cost of wind power .
First , we were assured that wind power costs were falling rapidly , and then that it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for these charlatans , however , you can ’ t fool all of the people all of the time , and we now have hard data from audited financial accounts for the majority of the UK ’ s offshore wind farms .
A paper in the journal Energy Policy reported that costs remain about 2-3 times those of gas and are falling only slowly , if at all .
Add the cost of dealing with the intermittent supply from wind farms , and the ratio may well be 4 to 1 .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the much lower wind-energy prices that are on the horizon – as ( allegedly ) revealed by recent bids into the government ’ s Contracts for Difference auctions – please note that these are not what they seem .
It is far more likely that they are an attempt to ward off competition and keep the subsidies flowing than a reflection of a fundamental change in costs .
So returning to the blog post with which we began , Mr. Lawson and Ms. Young appear to be calling on these tech giants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are much more expensive than the alternatives .
Assuming that ASI does in fact have investments in the companies it is pressuring , it ’ s hard to see how this will help their bottom lines .
If Microsoft , say , gets power directly from a wind farm , it can only reduce returns .
If it buys it from the grid , the direct effect will be less , since it will be a mixture of power from many sources , but the tendency will still be to push electricity prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myriad UK companies in which ASI invests , and ultimately consumers too .
It ’ s fair to say that this is going to be hugely damaging to an economy already on its knees in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic .
I am surprised that ASI ( and to be fair , dozens of other investment firms too ) are able to do this .
Millions of ordinary people entrust the firm with their pension funds , and it has a fiduciary duty to maximize returns .
One would have thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find that ASI was beavering away trying to reduce the size of their retirement pots .
It ’ s startling that one of our largest financial institutions should be seeking to damage the economy in this way .
Worryingly , though , it seems keen to expand its efforts .
In the same blog post , Mr. Lawson and Ms. Young say that the recession ‘ represents an enormous opportunity to accelerate policy change ’ and , extraordinarily , worry about the government prioritizing ‘ short-term growth over long-term sustainability ’ .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bust all around us , heaven preserve us from short-term growth !

Written by Andrew Montford on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
‘AMAZON, Facebook, and Microsoft have all been criticized for expanding their data centers without securing additional supply of clean energy. Investors in these technology companies will, therefore, need to encourage a faster move to cleaner energy sources in order to avoid adverse environmental impacts.’
The words, surprisingly, are not the work of the fevered mind of some environmental activist but come from a blog post by two senior figures from the investment giant Aberdeen Standard Investments (ASI): Jeremy Lawson, its chief economist, and Amanda Young, its head of ‘responsible investment’.
To see the problem with what they are saying, you need to understand that ‘cleaner energy sources’, which in this country mostly means offshore wind power, is much more expensive than electricity generated from gas-fired power stations.
There has been more than a decade of disinformation from Greens and their supporters about the cost of wind power.
First, we were assured that wind power costs were falling rapidly, and then that it had achieved ‘grid parity’.
Unfortunately for these charlatans, however, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and we now have hard data from audited financial accounts for the majority of the UK’s offshore wind farms.
A paper in the journal Energy Policy reported that costs remain about 2-3 times those of gas and are falling only slowly, if at all.
Add the cost of dealing with the intermittent supply from wind farms, and the ratio may well be 4 to 1.
And before you start trying to tell me about the much lower wind-energy prices that are on the horizon – as (allegedly) revealed by recent bids into the government’s Contracts for Difference auctions – please note that these are not what they seem.
It is far more likely that they are an attempt to ward off competition and keep the subsidies flowing than a reflection of a fundamental change in costs.
So returning to the blog post with which we began, Mr. Lawson and Ms. Young appear to be calling on these tech giants to move to sources of electricity that are much more expensive than the alternatives.
Assuming that ASI does in fact have investments in the companies it is pressuring, it’s hard to see how this will help their bottom lines. If Microsoft, say, gets power directly from a wind farm, it can only reduce returns.
If it buys it from the grid, the direct effect will be less, since it will be a mixture of power from many sources, but the tendency will still be to push electricity prices up for everyone, including all the myriad UK companies in which ASI invests, and ultimately consumers too.
It’s fair to say that this is going to be hugely damaging to an economy already on its knees in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic.
I am surprised that ASI (and to be fair, dozens of other investment firms too) are able to do this. Millions of ordinary people entrust the firm with their pension funds, and it has a fiduciary duty to maximize returns.
One would have thought that pensioners would be less than amused to find that ASI was beavering away trying to reduce the size of their retirement pots.
It’s startling that one of our largest financial institutions should be seeking to damage the economy in this way.
Worryingly, though, it seems keen to expand its efforts. In the same blog post, Mr. Lawson and Ms. Young say that the recession ‘represents an enormous opportunity to accelerate policy change’ and, extraordinarily, worry about the government prioritizing ‘short-term growth over long-term sustainability’.
They really say that. As businesses go bust all around us, heaven preserve us from short-term growth!
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print