climatechangedispatch--2020-05-27--Greta Thunberg Vs. Naomi Seibt: How Climate Orthodoxy Is Enforced

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news Almost certainly , you have heard of Greta Thunberg .
Indeed , you undoubtedly know a lot about her .
She is the Swedish teenager who for more than a decade has suffered from various mental illnesses , including depression , Asperger ’ s syndrome , obsessive-compulsive disorder , and even something called “ selective mutism.
” Apparently , in between bouts of mental illness , at some point , she became interested in the issue of climate change .
In late December 2018 , at the age of 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage , when she got invited to speak at a UN climate conference in New York .
That ’ s when we first got to see her trademark anger — fury , even — about what she perceived to be the crisis of the climate .
In 2019 she spent the year playing hooky from school and leading climate “ strikes ” and demonstrations wherever she could get an audience .
On September 23 , 2019 , she was back at the UN in New York giving a barn-burning speech letting everyone know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enjoying their life .
Here is some text from that speech : Here is a picture of Greta delivering that speech : And what exactly was it that anyone had done to her to “ steal [ her ] dreams and [ her ] childhood ” ?
I ’ m still trying to figure that one out .
My own inclination is to feel very sorry for this young lady .
As a high-school-age girl who hasn ’ t even attended school much of the time and hasn ’ t yet studied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no real idea about whether “ entire ecosystems are collapsing ” or whether we are “ in the beginning of a mass extinction.
” Clearly , before her unhinged anger takes over everything and destroys her life , she needs to get some professional help with her mental issues .
But that ’ s just my view .
Then there ’ s Naomi Seibt .
You may not even have heard of her .
She ’ s a little older than Greta — 19 to Greta ’ s 17 — and hails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Naomi graduated from high school in 2017 at the age of 16 , winning first prize for research in physics .
After high school , Naomi started on her own to develop a presence on YouTube as a climate skeptic and attracted the notice of the Heartland Institute .
On December 4 , 2019 , she appeared at the behest of Heartland in Madrid , Spain , at the time of a UN climate conference in that city , and delivered what looks to me like a very reasonable and appropriate speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By contrast to Ms. Thunberg ’ s rant on subjects like ecosystem collapse and mass extinctions about which she obviously knew nothing , Ms. Seibt ’ s talk was about the basics of scientific inquiry , like humility and skepticism — things that high school students can and should have studied thoroughly .
Certainly , you might think , there could be nothing objectionable about a young woman making such obvious points in the context of what goes under the name of “ climate science.
” If you think that , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game works .
Try googling “ Naomi Seibt ” and see what comes up .
It ’ s one completely vicious takedown after another .
Here ’ s one from Greenpeace ; one from DeSmog Blog , one from the Guardian .
At Greenpeace , the headline is “ ‘ Anti-Greta ’ Climate Denier Naomi Seibt Marched with Neo-Nazis and Promotes White Nationalism.
” Wow !
But if you read the piece with a critical eye , the charges quickly disintegrate like a castle of sand .
The “ marched with neo-Nazis ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life rally in 2018 where a photographer got a picture of at least one person attending who has been identified as a neo-Nazi .
The “ white nationalism ” charge , per Greenpeace , stems from a remark she made praising Canadian podcaster Stefan Molyneux , and from a charge that she has been associated in at least some way with the AfD political party ( which she has denied ) .
I don ’ t know much about Molyneux , but taking a quick look at his website , it seems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the likes of Walter Williams , Jordan Peterson , and Michelle Malkin .
That sounds rather respectable .
Greenpeace quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center ( which I have identified as a hate group ) as calling Molyneux an “ alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism , eugenics , and white supremacism.
” Greenpeace doesn ’ t have any objectionable quote from Molyneux but apparently relies on the SPLC to smear him .
The DeSmog and Guardian pieces basically repeat the same smears .
And did I mention that Seibt is facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media Authority in her home state of North-Rhine Westphalia ?
It ’ s almost beyond ridiculous , but apparently there ’ s a new law in that state making it a minor crime to put a “ product placement ” in an online video without some kind of required disclosure .
Seibt is being prosecuted for three videos where the alleged “ product placement ” involves mention of the Heartland Institute .
Here is a write-up on the subject from Christopher Monckton at Watts Up With That .
Monckton points out that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one of the three videos mentions Heartland and that one is only a brief announcement of Seibt ’ s association with the Institute , thereby meeting the supposed disclosure requirement .
And then there is the protection of free speech contained in the German constitution .
Nevertheless , Seibt is facing prospective fines of several thousand euros and up to 28 days in jail .
Well , that ’ s how you are treated if you dare to violate the official party line , and you get even a little bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Watts Up With That , you will find directions for how to contribute to Ms. Seibt ’ s defense , should you be so inclined .
And Thunberg ?
Go to this Wikipedia biography for a list of the honors and awards that she has won over the past couple of years — some dozens of them .
Time ’ s 25 Most Influential Teens of 2018 ; Swedish Woman of the Year ; 2019 Rachel Carson Prize ; the “ Laudato Si ” Prize from Pope Francis ; the Ambassador of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the City of Montreal from its Mayor ; Time ’ s Person of the Year ; Glamour ’ s Woman of the Year ; and on and on and on and on .
These are the methods by which the official orthodoxy is enforced .

Written by Francis Menton on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Almost certainly, you have heard of Greta Thunberg. Indeed, you undoubtedly know a lot about her.
She is the Swedish teenager who for more than a decade has suffered from various mental illnesses, including depression, Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and even something called “selective mutism.”
Apparently, in between bouts of mental illness, at some point, she became interested in the issue of climate change.
In late December 2018, at the age of 15, Greta suddenly sprang on the world stage, when she got invited to speak at a UN climate conference in New York.
That’s when we first got to see her trademark anger — fury, even — about what she perceived to be the crisis of the climate.
In 2019 she spent the year playing hooky from school and leading climate “strikes” and demonstrations wherever she could get an audience.
On September 23, 2019, she was back at the UN in New York giving a barn-burning speech letting everyone know how deeply furious she is that anyone is enjoying their life. Here is some text from that speech:
[Y]ou all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
Here is a picture of Greta delivering that speech:
And what exactly was it that anyone had done to her to “steal [her] dreams and [her] childhood”? I’m still trying to figure that one out. My own inclination is to feel very sorry for this young lady.
As a high-school-age girl who hasn’t even attended school much of the time and hasn’t yet studied these things at all, she obviously has no real idea about whether “entire ecosystems are collapsing” or whether we are “in the beginning of a mass extinction.”
Clearly, before her unhinged anger takes over everything and destroys her life, she needs to get some professional help with her mental issues. But that’s just my view.
Then there’s Naomi Seibt. You may not even have heard of her. She’s a little older than Greta — 19 to Greta’s 17 — and hails from the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia.
Naomi graduated from high school in 2017 at the age of 16, winning first prize for research in physics.
After high school, Naomi started on her own to develop a presence on YouTube as a climate skeptic and attracted the notice of the Heartland Institute.
On December 4, 2019, she appeared at the behest of Heartland in Madrid, Spain, at the time of a UN climate conference in that city, and delivered what looks to me like a very reasonable and appropriate speech for an intelligent young lady to give.
Excerpt:
Science is based on intellectual humility and it is important that we keep questioning the narrative that is out there instead of promoting it. And these days ‘climate change science’ really isn’t science at all. We’ve heard it today. They draw their conclusions before testing their hypothesis and base their assumptions on incoherent models. It’s an insult to science itself.
Here’s a picture of Naomi delivering that speech:
By contrast to Ms. Thunberg’s rant on subjects like ecosystem collapse and mass extinctions about which she obviously knew nothing, Ms. Seibt’s talk was about the basics of scientific inquiry, like humility and skepticism — things that high school students can and should have studied thoroughly.
Certainly, you might think, there could be nothing objectionable about a young woman making such obvious points in the context of what goes under the name of “climate science.”
If you think that, then you don’t understand how this game works. Try googling “Naomi Seibt” and see what comes up.
It’s one completely vicious takedown after another. Here’s one from Greenpeace; one from DeSmog Blog, one from the Guardian.
At Greenpeace, the headline is “‘Anti-Greta’ Climate Denier Naomi Seibt Marched with Neo-Nazis and Promotes White Nationalism.”
Wow! But if you read the piece with a critical eye, the charges quickly disintegrate like a castle of sand.
The “marched with neo-Nazis” charge stems from Seibt having attended a pro-life rally in 2018 where a photographer got a picture of at least one person attending who has been identified as a neo-Nazi.
OK then.
The “white nationalism” charge, per Greenpeace, stems from a remark she made praising Canadian podcaster Stefan Molyneux, and from a charge that she has been associated in at least some way with the AfD political party (which she has denied).
I don’t know much about Molyneux, but taking a quick look at his website, it seems that recent guests on his shows have included the likes of Walter Williams, Jordan Peterson, and Michelle Malkin.
That sounds rather respectable. Greenpeace quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center (which I have identified as a hate group) as calling Molyneux an “alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacism.”
Greenpeace doesn’t have any objectionable quote from Molyneux but apparently relies on the SPLC to smear him. The DeSmog and Guardian pieces basically repeat the same smears.
And did I mention that Seibt is facing criminal prosecution from something called the State Media Authority in her home state of North-Rhine Westphalia?
It’s almost beyond ridiculous, but apparently there’s a new law in that state making it a minor crime to put a “product placement” in an online video without some kind of required disclosure.
Seibt is being prosecuted for three videos where the alleged “product placement” involves mention of the Heartland Institute. Here is a write-up on the subject from Christopher Monckton at Watts Up With That.
Monckton points out that the supposed case falls on its face because only one of the three videos mentions Heartland and that one is only a brief announcement of Seibt’s association with the Institute, thereby meeting the supposed disclosure requirement.
And then there is the protection of free speech contained in the German constitution. Nevertheless, Seibt is facing prospective fines of several thousand euros and up to 28 days in jail.
Well, that’s how you are treated if you dare to violate the official party line, and you get even a little bit of traction.
If you follow the link to Watts Up With That, you will find directions for how to contribute to Ms. Seibt’s defense, should you be so inclined.
And Thunberg? Go to this Wikipedia biography for a list of the honors and awards that she has won over the past couple of years — some dozens of them.
Time’s 25 Most Influential Teens of 2018; Swedish Woman of the Year; 2019 Rachel Carson Prize; the “Laudato Si” Prize from Pope Francis; the Ambassador of Conscience Award from Amnesty International; Keys to the City of Montreal from its Mayor; Time’s Person of the Year; Glamour’s Woman of the Year; and on and on and on and on.
These are the methods by which the official orthodoxy is enforced.
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--2020-05-27--Greta Calls Out Alberta’s Energy Minister’s Pro-Pipeline Remarks

Written by Bob Weber on .
Posted in Latest news Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has called out Alberta ’ s energy minister on social media for her remarks on pipeline construction .
In a podcast on Friday , Sonya Savage stated that it ’ s time to get the pipeline built .
“ Now is a great time to be building a pipeline , because you can ’ t have protests of more than 15 people , ” she said .
“ Let ’ s get it built.
” Thunberg posted Savage ’ s remarks on her Twitter feed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least we ’ re seeing some honesty for once , ” she captioned the post .
“ Unfortunately this [ is ] how large parts of the world is [ sic ] run.
” The energy minister ’ s remarks made worldwide headlines — published in the United Kingdom by The Independent and the BBC , as well as by Fox News in the United States — and on Tuesday , Savage said she stood by them .
“ I don ’ t think anyone should be surprised that Alberta is pro-pipeline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the podcast , Savage goes on to say that economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic will trump other concerns .
She echoed those remarks Tuesday in reference to rail blockades earlier this year held to protest the Coastal GasLink pipeline expansion .
“ Coming out of this situation we need jobs , ” she said .
“ Albertans want to get back to work and they ’ re not going to have a lot of tolerance for illegal blockades and civil insurrection .
Civil insurrection is not going to be tolerated.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government house leader and Environment Minister Jason Nixon .
“ She was quite rightly just pointing out the obvious that at this moment , because of COVID , there is probably less people taking the opportunity to go out and protest pipelines , ” Nixon said Tuesday .
The Alberta energy industry ’ s reputation faces increasing pressure .
Some of the world ’ s largest investment funds have restricted their activity in the province because of environmental concerns .
[ … ] Alberta has introduced legislation imposing stiff fines and possible jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the operation of a wide range of energy infrastructure , although such acts are already illegal .
The bill remains before the legislature .
A similar bill carrying increased trespassing punishments for animal rights protesters at agricultural facilities came into force in December .

Written by Bob Weber on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has called out Alberta’s energy minister on social media for her remarks on pipeline construction.
In a podcast on Friday, Sonya Savage stated that it’s time to get the pipeline built. “Now is a great time to be building a pipeline, because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people,” she said. “Let’s get it built.”
Thunberg posted Savage’s remarks on her Twitter feed, early Monday morning. “At least we’re seeing some honesty for once,” she captioned the post. “Unfortunately this [is] how large parts of the world is [sic] run.”
The energy minister’s remarks made worldwide headlines — published in the United Kingdom by The Independent and the BBC, as well as by Fox News in the United States — and on Tuesday, Savage said she stood by them. “I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Alberta is pro-pipeline,” she said in an interview.
In the podcast, Savage goes on to say that economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic will trump other concerns.
She echoed those remarks Tuesday in reference to rail blockades earlier this year held to protest the Coastal GasLink pipeline expansion.
“Coming out of this situation we need jobs,” she said.
“Albertans want to get back to work and they’re not going to have a lot of tolerance for illegal blockades and civil insurrection. Civil insurrection is not going to be tolerated.”
Savage was backed by Alberta’s government house leader and Environment Minister Jason Nixon.
“She was quite rightly just pointing out the obvious that at this moment, because of COVID, there is probably less people taking the opportunity to go out and protest pipelines,” Nixon said Tuesday.
Premier Jason Kenney declined to comment.
The Alberta energy industry’s reputation faces increasing pressure. Some of the world’s largest investment funds have restricted their activity in the province because of environmental concerns. […]
Alberta has introduced legislation imposing stiff fines and possible jail terms for protesters who damage or interfere with the operation of a wide range of energy infrastructure, although such acts are already illegal. The bill remains before the legislature.
A similar bill carrying increased trespassing punishments for animal rights protesters at agricultural facilities came into force in December.
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--2020-05-27--U.S. Climatologist James Hansen Pushes For Canadian CO2 Tax

Written by Friends Of Science on .
Posted in Latest news The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers ( CTF ) has issued a new report on global carbon taxes , showing most countries have frozen or rolled back carbon taxes , but US climate scientist James Hansen is pushing for a $ 210/t carbon tax in Canada by 2030 .
Hansen ’ s argument is that the tax has to be high enough that people will buy into the carbon dividend ( rebate to lower-income households ) – effectively making Canadians into carbon serfs and a carbon welfare society .
Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures on the books , which have never been audited for effectiveness .
This begs the question of “ what is a climate scientist doing dabbling in Canada ’ s domestic affairs on carbon taxes , pushing a carbon tax that is 21 times that of the world , ” says Friends of Science Society .
As revealed by Lawrence Solomon in the 2009 article “ Enron ’ s Other Secret ” : Enron had profited from cap and trade , but the company collapsed into a pile of ashes in 2001 due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None-the-less , a group of green billionaires took up the global cap-and-trade challenge , apparently working from the Enron carbon/cap-and-trade scheme model , as reported by Nisbet in 2018 .
Like Enron , they have funded local and global environmental groups to agitate for policies in countries around the world , favorable to their proposed global cap and trade plan .
The plans require a price on carbon with the intention of funding their trillions into vested interests in renewables .
Many of these groups are associated with the Tar Sands Campaign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of the Alberta oil sands and driven a downturn in the economy .
Michael Moore ’ s recent movie “ Planet of the Humans ” revealed how this green crony capitalism is destroying the planet for no climate benefit .
Canadians now face an onslaught of Carbonbaggers – the number one being Mark Carney , now UN Climate Czar and former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor .
Carney threatens firms with bankruptcy if they do not comply with his demands to report on climate risk and abandon fossil fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new report shows : “ Broken Promises : Why Renewables Offer No Resilient Recovery ” , Carney is misleading the public and investors on global oil consumption and demand .
Both oil production and consumption have risen by more than one million barrels per day per year since 2012 .
• Oil demand is at its highest level in history .
• In absolute terms , oil demand is growing twice as fast as renewables .
• Global oil reserves have risen throughout the period , from 1141 billion barrels in 1998 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil is nowhere in sight .
That is a 10 million barrel per day increase over the nine years .
• In absolute terms , natural gas is experiencing the fastest rate of growth of all energy sources , almost three times as fast as renewables .
• Natural gas demand is at its highest level in history .
Friends of Science Society says carbon dioxide from human industry is a nominal influence on climate change , known since the 2013 IPCC AR5 report .
The fact that financial ‘ experts ’ like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dioxide catastrophe theme constitutes a violation of securities regulations related to ‘ material change ’ .
Furthermore , as Roger Pielke , Jr. reports , climate catastrophe scenarios are the product of green billionaires pushing the ‘ climate hysteria ’ scenario , which is far from reality or business-as-usual .
“ Green ” groups in Canada are demanding that the new Canadian Infrastructure Bank be used to finance their green crony-capitalist schemes .
Friends of Science Society issued a request for an ethics investigation into the development of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns expressed there are still valid in their opinion .
Evidence from Norway to Zimbabwe shows that carbon taxes have no discernible impact on emissions reduction and are simply oppressive to taxpayers and industry .
Friends of Science Society says Carbonbaggers should not be using carbon taxes as a means of creating a Canadian climate welfare state , especially not driven by foreign influences , street theatre , and deception .

Written by Friends Of Science on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers (CTF) has issued a new report on global carbon taxes, showing most countries have frozen or rolled back carbon taxes, but US climate scientist James Hansen is pushing for a $210/t carbon tax in Canada by 2030.
Hansen’s argument is that the tax has to be high enough that people will buy into the carbon dividend (rebate to lower-income households) – effectively making Canadians into carbon serfs and a carbon welfare society.
CTF reports:
“About half of the emissions covered by carbon taxes are priced below US$10/tCO2e, according to the World Bank’s most recent State and Trends of Carbon Pricing (2019).”
Canada has more than 600 greenhouse gas reduction/incentive measures on the books, which have never been audited for effectiveness.
This begs the question of “what is a climate scientist doing dabbling in Canada’s domestic affairs on carbon taxes, pushing a carbon tax that is 21 times that of the world,” says Friends of Science Society.
As revealed by Lawrence Solomon in the 2009 article “Enron’s Other Secret”:
“James Hansen, the scientist who more than any other is responsible for bringing the possibility of climate-change catastrophe to the public, was among the scientists Enron commissioned.”
Enron had profited from cap and trade, but the company collapsed into a pile of ashes in 2001 due to off-book accounting and financial fraud.
None-the-less, a group of green billionaires took up the global cap-and-trade challenge, apparently working from the Enron carbon/cap-and-trade scheme model, as reported by Nisbet in 2018.
Like Enron, they have funded local and global environmental groups to agitate for policies in countries around the world, favorable to their proposed global cap and trade plan.
The plans require a price on carbon with the intention of funding their trillions into vested interests in renewables.
Many of these groups are associated with the Tar Sands Campaign that has falsely created “Fear and Loathing” of the Alberta oil sands and driven a downturn in the economy.
Michael Moore’s recent movie “Planet of the Humans” revealed how this green crony capitalism is destroying the planet for no climate benefit.
Canadians now face an onslaught of Carbonbaggers – the number one being Mark Carney, now UN Climate Czar and former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor.
Carney threatens firms with bankruptcy if they do not comply with his demands to report on climate risk and abandon fossil fuel investments.
As Robert Lyman’s new report shows: “Broken Promises: Why Renewables Offer No Resilient Recovery”, Carney is misleading the public and investors on global oil consumption and demand.
Both oil production and consumption have risen by more than one million barrels per day per year since 2012.
• Oil demand is at its highest level in history.
• In absolute terms, oil demand is growing twice as fast as renewables.
• Global oil reserves have risen throughout the period, from 1141 billion barrels in 1998 to 1730 billion barrels in 2018; peak oil is nowhere in sight. That is a 10 million barrel per day increase over the nine years.
• In absolute terms, natural gas is experiencing the fastest rate of growth of all energy sources, almost three times as fast as renewables.
• Natural gas demand is at its highest level in history.
Friends of Science Society says carbon dioxide from human industry is a nominal influence on climate change, known since the 2013 IPCC AR5 report.
The fact that financial ‘experts’ like Mark Carney are still pushing the climate-carbon dioxide catastrophe theme constitutes a violation of securities regulations related to ‘material change’.
Furthermore, as Roger Pielke, Jr. reports, climate catastrophe scenarios are the product of green billionaires pushing the ‘climate hysteria’ scenario, which is far from reality or business-as-usual.
“Green” groups in Canada are demanding that the new Canadian Infrastructure Bank be used to finance their green crony-capitalist schemes.
Friends of Science Society issued a request for an ethics investigation into the development of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank in Nov. 2017. The Conflict of Interest concerns expressed there are still valid in their opinion.
Evidence from Norway to Zimbabwe shows that carbon taxes have no discernible impact on emissions reduction and are simply oppressive to taxpayers and industry.
Friends of Science Society says Carbonbaggers should not be using carbon taxes as a means of creating a Canadian climate welfare state, especially not driven by foreign influences, street theatre, and deception.
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--2020-05-28--Study Shows Climate Change Expands Migratory Bird Ranges; Media Freaks

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news A newly published study shows North American birds are taking advantage of global warming to expanding their ranges northward , without any shrinkage in the southern edge of their North American ranges .
Rather than celebrate this good news for birds , climate alarmists and their media puppets are crying “ Crisis !
” A Google News search this morning for the term “ climate change ” shows articles about the new bird-range study are among the top search results .
Incredibly , the titles for media articles about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Failing to Adapt to Climate Change , ” “ Migratory birds in the Eastern US are struggling to adapt to climate change , ” and “ National Audubon Society Says Climate Change Is Pushing Bird Boundaries , Community Scientists Confirm.
” Saying birds are “ struggling ” and “ failing ” to adapt to climate change , or that climate change is “ pushing ” bird boundaries , are grossly misleading ways to describe the good news of expanding bird ranges .
In the study , wildlife researchers working for the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
They published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
• Annual resident bird species ( birds that do not migrate ) have , as a whole , increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges .
That is wonderful news .
• Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges .
That is also wonderful news .
• Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranges , though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking .
That is not good news .
So , most North American birds have larger ranges today , thanks to global warming .
Annual resident bird species and migratory birds within North America have not experienced shrinking southern ranges .
The only concerning part of the survey is the subset of birds that winter outside the United States in Third World countries .
They appear to have shrinking ranges within those Third World countries .
Overall , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be reported as such .
Even the one subset of the study that might raise concern , declining ranges in Third World nations , is quite a stretch to blame on global warming .
If all other bird species , with southern ranges not in Third World nations , see no decline in their southern ranges , why would there be shrinkage of southern ranges only in Third World countries ?
The answer can likely be found in what the authors of the study explicitly acknowledge – “ [ T ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are thought to include habitat loss , invasive species , and direct and indirect anthropogenic mortality.
” Also , “ these threats are likely the primary drivers of declines in North America ’ s ” birds , the authors reported .
Habitat loss and other threats to bird species are much greater in tropical Third World countries than in eco-conscious North America .
The North American bird range is growing .
Birds that spend some of their time in North America and some of their time in Third World nations experience no range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some shrinkage in their Third World ranges .
The driving cause for the shrinkage of southern ranges for birds wintering in Third World countries clearly appears to be non-climate pressures on birds and other species in Third World countries .
Indeed , the authors themselves note “ deforestation and other factors in tropical nations ” may be pressuring that subset of birds migrating from tropical nations .
In summary , the new study on climate change and bird ranges is good news .
As a general rule , global warming is causing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent a subset of bird species defies the overall trend , the reason appears to be non-climate pressures in Third World countries .
When the media describe the overall good news from the study as birds “ struggling , ” “ failing , ” or having their boundaries “ pushed ” by global warming , it reveals their biased and dishonest agenda .

Written by James Taylor on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A newly published study shows North American birds are taking advantage of global warming to expanding their ranges northward, without any shrinkage in the southern edge of their North American ranges.
Rather than celebrate this good news for birds, climate alarmists and their media puppets are crying “Crisis!”
A Google News search this morning for the term “climate change” shows articles about the new bird-range study are among the top search results.
Incredibly, the titles for media articles about the study include, “Migratory Birds Are Failing to Adapt to Climate Change,” “Migratory birds in the Eastern US are struggling to adapt to climate change,” and “National Audubon Society Says Climate Change Is Pushing Bird Boundaries, Community Scientists Confirm.”
Saying birds are “struggling” and “failing” to adapt to climate change, or that climate change is “pushing” bird boundaries, are grossly misleading ways to describe the good news of expanding bird ranges.
In the study, wildlife researchers working for the federal government tracked bird ranges during the past 50 years. They published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers found:
Annual resident bird species (birds that do not migrate) have, as a whole, increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is wonderful news.
Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is also wonderful news.
Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics have had no change in their northern ranges, though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking. That is not good news.
So, most North American birds have larger ranges today, thanks to global warming. Annual resident bird species and migratory birds within North America have not experienced shrinking southern ranges.
The only concerning part of the survey is the subset of birds that winter outside the United States in Third World countries.
They appear to have shrinking ranges within those Third World countries. Overall, the findings are quite good news for birds and should be reported as such.
Even the one subset of the study that might raise concern, declining ranges in Third World nations, is quite a stretch to blame on global warming.
If all other bird species, with southern ranges not in Third World nations, see no decline in their southern ranges, why would there be shrinkage of southern ranges only in Third World countries?
The answer can likely be found in what the authors of the study explicitly acknowledge – “[T]he primary threats to North American birds are thought to include habitat loss, invasive species, and direct and indirect anthropogenic mortality.”
Also, “these threats are likely the primary drivers of declines in North America’s” birds, the authors reported.
Habitat loss and other threats to bird species are much greater in tropical Third World countries than in eco-conscious North America.
The North American bird range is growing. Birds that spend some of their time in North America and some of their time in Third World nations experience no range shrinkage in their North American ranges but some shrinkage in their Third World ranges.
The driving cause for the shrinkage of southern ranges for birds wintering in Third World countries clearly appears to be non-climate pressures on birds and other species in Third World countries.
Indeed, the authors themselves note “deforestation and other factors in tropical nations” may be pressuring that subset of birds migrating from tropical nations.
In summary, the new study on climate change and bird ranges is good news. As a general rule, global warming is causing an expansion of bird ranges.
To the extent a subset of bird species defies the overall trend, the reason appears to be non-climate pressures in Third World countries.
When the media describe the overall good news from the study as birds “struggling,” “failing,” or having their boundaries “pushed” by global warming, it reveals their biased and dishonest agenda.
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--2020-05-28--Ninth Circuit Revives Climate Litigation In California

Written by Spencer Walrath on .
Posted in Latest news The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two rulings in favor of California municipalities that are suing energy companies for alleged costs of combating climate change , allowing one case to proceed in state court while reversing the dismissal of another .
While this is being cast as a procedural victory for the cities , the panel clearly agreed with the companies that the courts are not the appropriate venue to craft climate policy .
A three-judge panel reaffirmed that San Mateo , County of Marin , City and County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beach , and City of Richmond – legally consolidated under San Mateo County – could pursue their lawsuits in state court , as U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled in 2018 .
In its other opinion , the Circuit court judges reversed a decision from U.S. District Judge William Alsup , who dismissed San Francisco and Oakland ’ s lawsuit in 2018 after ruling that climate change “ deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments that the cases belonged in federal court , she also recognized the important policy factors in play : Though the panel acknowledges the issue at hand is a policy question , not a legal one , the judges ’ narrow ruling states that they don ’ t have jurisdiction to rule on the underlying issues .
Instead , they remanded the San Mateo case back to state court and sent the Oakland case back to Judge Alsup for him to determine if there ’ s an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat climate change via the courts are misguided .
In absence of a domestic climate law , states and municipalities are using the legal system to villainize companies for energy production , even though state and federal laws have instructed , even encouraged , these companies to do exactly that .
In one filing early in the Oakland case , for example , lead defendant Chevron noted that there are federal and California state laws on the books that explicitly promote the production of fossil fuels : More recently , during oral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy companies explained to the Ninth Circuit that mitigating mankind ’ s impact on the climate is a complex matter of public policy that should be handled by Congress and federal agencies .
In the same court , a month prior , Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz recognized that fact in a ruling that shot down claims brought forth by Our Children ’ s Trust in Juliana v. the United States : Although the energy companies removed San Mateo County ’ s complaints to federal court on eight separate grounds , the Ninth Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one – whether the district court erred in holding that the companies ’ were not “ acting under ” the direction of a federal officer in some of their extraction activities .
Justifying that rationale , Judge Ikuta cited the Fourth Circuit ’ s March ruling that remanded Baltimore ’ s public nuisance suit to state court after ignoring all grounds for removal except for the question of the federal officer removal statute .
Last month , the energy companies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of their arguments for removal .
The circuit courts are divided over the issue .
In similar circumstances , for example , the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have reviewed entire orders , not just the federal officer removal statute .
Though the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on climate litigation , a ruling from the nation ’ s highest court may be necessary to avoid what Judge Alsup called a “ patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue .
”

Written by Spencer Walrath on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two rulings in favor of California municipalities that are suing energy companies for alleged costs of combating climate change, allowing one case to proceed in state court while reversing the dismissal of another.
While this is being cast as a procedural victory for the cities, the panel clearly agreed with the companies that the courts are not the appropriate venue to craft climate policy.
A three-judge panel reaffirmed that San Mateo, County of Marin, City and County of Santa Cruz, City of Imperial Beach, and City of Richmond – legally consolidated under San Mateo County – could pursue their lawsuits in state court, as U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled in 2018.
In its other opinion, the Circuit court judges reversed a decision from U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who dismissed San Francisco and Oakland’s lawsuit in 2018 after ruling that climate change “deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”
Although U.S. District Judge Sandra Ikuta rejected arguments that the cases belonged in federal court, she also recognized the important policy factors in play:
“The question whether the Energy Companies can be held liable for public nuisance based on production and promotion of the use of fossil fuels and be required to spend billions of dollars on abatement is no doubt an important policy question, but it does not raise a substantial question of federal law for the purpose of determining whether there is jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)
Though the panel acknowledges the issue at hand is a policy question, not a legal one, the judges’ narrow ruling states that they don’t have jurisdiction to rule on the underlying issues.
Instead, they remanded the San Mateo case back to state court and sent the Oakland case back to Judge Alsup for him to determine if there’s an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction.
Policy Questions Shouldn’t Be Decided In Courts
The energy companies have argued that efforts to combat climate change via the courts are misguided.
In absence of a domestic climate law, states and municipalities are using the legal system to villainize companies for energy production, even though state and federal laws have instructed, even encouraged, these companies to do exactly that.
In one filing early in the Oakland case, for example, lead defendant Chevron noted that there are federal and California state laws on the books that explicitly promote the production of fossil fuels:
“The California Public Utilities Code, for example, mandates that the Public Utilities Commission ‘shall . . . encourage, as a first priority, the increased production of gas in this state[.]’ Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 785 (emphasis added). And the California Public Resource Code permits ‘the owners or operators of [] wells to utilize all methods and practices known to the oil industry for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of underground hydrocarbons,’ declaring it the ‘policy of this state’ to maximize fossil-fuel production. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3106(b) (emphasis added) …”
More recently, during oral arguments in February, counsel for the energy companies explained to the Ninth Circuit that mitigating mankind’s impact on the climate is a complex matter of public policy that should be handled by Congress and federal agencies.
In the same court, a month prior, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz recognized that fact in a ruling that shot down claims brought forth by Our Children’s Trust in Juliana v. the United States:
“The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.’ Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.” (emphasis added)
A Limited Scope of Review
Although the energy companies removed San Mateo County’s complaints to federal court on eight separate grounds, the Ninth Circuit judges said they had jurisdiction to review only one – whether the district court erred in holding that the companies’ were not “acting under” the direction of a federal officer in some of their extraction activities.
Justifying that rationale, Judge Ikuta cited the Fourth Circuit’s March ruling that remanded Baltimore’s public nuisance suit to state court after ignoring all grounds for removal except for the question of the federal officer removal statute.
Last month, the energy companies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by not considering the rest of their arguments for removal.
The circuit courts are divided over the issue. In similar circumstances, for example, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have reviewed entire orders, not just the federal officer removal statute.
Though the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on climate litigation, a ruling from the nation’s highest court may be necessary to avoid what Judge Alsup called a “patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue.”
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-28--Andrew Dessler: A Climate Alarmist Posing As An Energy Expert

Written by Robert Bradley Jr. on .
Posted in Latest news The Houston Chronicle ‘ s favorite climate scientist , Andrew Dessler of Texas A & M ’ s Department of Atmospheric Sciences , fancies himself an energy and public policy expert .
And so the Chronicle takes Dessler at face value well , even when he is outside his area of expertise .
[ … ] The question “ can you trust him ” inevitably arises given his anger toward dissent , his emotional public pronouncements , and his aggressive association with the Progressive Left .
I have criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at MasterResource .
Here are some of his problems , personal and intellectual .
1 .
He is the alarmist ’ s alarmist .
Dessler ’ s pessimism , not unlike that of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren of yesteryear , is blatant .
Consider his statement : Other examples from “ an angry scientist letting off steam via stormy tweets “ : 2 .
He is certain he is correct , and the rest of us , being dumb or having bad motives , are not .
“ Dessler knows he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written : 3 .
He goes low , notoriously low , against his expert critics .
Consider this hit to the esteemed , level-headed climate scientist Roy Spencer .
Insults are heaved at Judith Curry , Richard Lindzen , and just about every other skeptic of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation .
He refers to yours truly as a “ free-market jihadist ” for recommending adaptation to climate change , such as warmer weather , with such conveniences as air conditioning .
He keeps bad company with Michael “ Hide the Decline ” Mann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and joining him in popular print .
Bad weather ?
Heatwaves ?
It ’ s human-related from our CO2 emissions .
Good or normal weather ?
Just wait until the next bad thing .
And don ’ t look at the statistics of human well being and adaptation .
Can ’ t do that as a deep ecologist .
4 .
Dessler can not take what he gives .
His opponents are “ deniers , ” but he is not an “ alarmist.
” Consider this email exchange between us ( February 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange with this : I have invited Dessler to debate me in print or in person .
He will not do so .
He knows ( and I know ) that while I will argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but a greening agent , and the statistics of human well-being contradict a ‘ worsening ’ climate , he will have to argue that climate physics are known and properly incorporated into models ( no and no ) .
With climate feedback effects in open dispute and a variety of other variables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage that will come out in a debate .
Regarding the solution of the Green New Deal ( Dessler is all-in ) , who really wants to promote that tub of political lard against an able adversary ?
But there will be no debate on this either , states Andrew Dessler et al .
5 .
Dessler does not seriously entertain arguments threatening his pristine worldview .
In long strings of emails , I have tried to get Dessler to fairly present opposite arguments in his textbooks and lectures .
He bobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptic ” points .
He knows ( and I know ) that any concessions create leaks in a fragile dike .
( Per usual , he dismissed Planet of the Humans one hundred percent without comment . )
The idea of presenting both sides of the debate in the name of scholarship is a nonstarter with him because the science is “ settled , ” climate models have the correct physics , and he knows all he needs to in regard to climate economics , political economy , and public policy .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate models . )
The energy density ( for fossil fuels ) , and the environmental problems of dilute , intermittent renewable energies , particularly at scale , are brushed aside .
Contrary arguments outside of his field of specialization ( Vaclav Smil on energy density ; Robert Mendelsohn on climate benefits and free-market adaptation ) are not seriously considered in Dessler ’ s own textbooks that he pitches as science and not advocacy .
6 .
A deep ecologist , he fears human change in the ‘ optimal ’ natural world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ science text : His argument is that we have adjusted to the present climate , so any incremental change is costly and disruptive .
A fixation on global averages and “ stable ” climate naively abstracts from natural , localized , seasonal , even extreme , change that has always marked weather .
Lacking a theory of entrepreneurship , he can not envision how wealth-is-health capitalism and dense mineral energies tame nature , not unleash it .
( The work of Alex Epstein , who Dessler dismisses along with a bevy of statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dessler ’ s policy agenda is thoroughly statist ( coercive ) to correct humankind ’ s ‘ market failure.
’ Yet he maintains he is not pushing politics but speaking only as a scientist .
But as I complained to him ( without avail ) : With this background , Part II tomorrow will critically review Dessler ’ s Houston Chronicle editorial , A Just Transition from Fracking to Renewable Energy is Possible [ February 28 , 2020 ] .
An energy expert/realist this Malthusian is not .
Appendix : Opening the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will give an inch or two–but no more .
Here he goes : Some thoughts on models in thread form : Climate models are based on physics .
Their code describes the fundamental processes that we know drive atmospheric processes : radiative transfer , thermodynamics , the idea [ sic ] gas law , etc .
Despite what you might hear , these models have been thoroughly tested .
In fact , I ’ ve spent much of my career looking at model output and comparing to observations and I am constantly amazed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this doesn ’ t mean models do everything well .
Some process are not simulated from first-principles — e.g.
, cloud microphysics , which occurs on too small a spatial scale for models to resolve .
Climate models handle this by parameterization : they assume these results of these processes can be described as a simple function of the quantities that the model does simulate , such as grid-average temperature and water vapor .
This is probably the weak point in climate models , and a lot of effort has gone into improving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are good enough that the model performance is quite impressive .
Not perfect , mind you .
And a determined denier can always find something that the model does not simulate well .
However , for the big things that we care about , the models do well .
Wait !
So models are imperfect ?
Models can be tested ?
Ahem … .
Want to debate Roy Spencer or John Christy or Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen on this ?
Remember what your distinguished Texas A & M colleague Gerald North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the physical science of climate change is verboten to the leading alarmists .
Trust us : CO2 is a pollutant and the future climate is grim .
Such is life as a deep ecologist qua scientist .
It has been the Malthusian way from at least Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s .

Written by Robert Bradley Jr. on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
(This is Part I. For Part II, go here.)
The Houston Chronicle‘s favorite climate scientist, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, fancies himself an energy and public policy expert.
And so the Chronicle takes Dessler at face value well, even when he is outside his area of expertise. […]
The question “can you trust him” inevitably arises given his anger toward dissent, his emotional public pronouncements, and his aggressive association with the Progressive Left.
I have criticized Dessler in more than a dozen posts at MasterResource. Here are some of his problems, personal and intellectual.
1. He is the alarmist’s alarmist.
Dessler’s pessimism, not unlike that of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren of yesteryear, is blatant. Consider his statement:
If “some humans survive” is the only thing we care about, then climate change is a non-issue. I think it’s certain that *some* humans will survive almost any climate change. They may be living short, hard lives of poverty, but they’ll be alive. 2/ — Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler) November 20, 2018
Other examples from “an angry scientist letting off steam via stormy tweets“:
Future humans, as they live in a climate dystopia: ‘I thought he cared about the environment.’ I find the path we’re on now — the rich world survives (if lucky), but abandons everyone else — to be morally problematic. [November 20, 2018]
2. He is certain he is correct, and the rest of us, being dumb or having bad motives, are not.
“Dessler knows he is right,” as I have previously written:
And I do not doubt that he believes himself, being a nature-is-optimal-and-fragile ecologist at heart and not acknowledging important contrary arguments outside of his field of specialization…. Professor Dessler is certain that man-made climate change will be steep and wreck the ecosphere and economy. He attributes bad motives to those who disagree with him. And he downplays contrary argument and evidence. Sum it up and you get … an angry scientist.
3. He goes low, notoriously low, against his expert critics.
Consider this hit to the esteemed, level-headed climate scientist Roy Spencer.
… let’s not forget Roy Spencer’s window into the denial machine. You can be a scientist that no one takes seriously and national TV will come to you so you can mislead the audience. Pretty nice gig — and pretty easy. (December 18, 2018)
Insults are heaved at Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and just about every other skeptic of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation.
He refers to yours truly as a “free-market jihadist” for recommending adaptation to climate change, such as warmer weather, with such conveniences as air conditioning.
He keeps bad company with Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann by constantly retweeting Mann’s extremism and joining him in popular print.
Bad weather? Heatwaves? It’s human-related from our CO2 emissions. Good or normal weather? Just wait until the next bad thing.
And don’t look at the statistics of human well being and adaptation. Can’t do that as a deep ecologist.
4. Dessler cannot take what he gives.
His opponents are “deniers,” but he is not an “alarmist.” Consider this email exchange between us (February 16, 2020):
I don’t feel like talking to someone who insults me on their widely read blog. When you publicly apologize for calling me an “alarmist”, then I’ll consider answering….
I answered:
I did not understand your offense with being called an alarmist. What would you describe yourself as in the sense of seeing a dire future of climate and the need for short-term forced energy transformation? Can one buy into “the existential threat” and not be labeled an alarmist? I assume you would call me a “denier” (those who view the future of climate optimistically under BAU).
He ended the exchange with this:
You’re absolutely a denier, Rob. The difference between us is that I don’t call you out about it. If you want a civil discussion with someone, don’t begin it with an insult — you apparently never learned the golden rule. So a public apology on your blog is absolutely in order. If not, then I won’t be continuing any discussion with you. Completely up to you.
I have invited Dessler to debate me in print or in person. He will not do so.
He knows (and I know) that while I will argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but a greening agent, and the statistics of human well-being contradict a ‘worsening’ climate, he will have to argue that climate physics are known and properly incorporated into models (no and no).
With climate feedback effects in open dispute and a variety of other variables subject to investigation, I have the advantage that will come out in a debate.
Regarding the solution of the Green New Deal (Dessler is all-in), who really wants to promote that tub of political lard against an able adversary? But there will be no debate on this either, states Andrew Dessler et al.
5. Dessler does not seriously entertain arguments threatening his pristine worldview.
In long strings of emails, I have tried to get Dessler to fairly present opposite arguments in his textbooks and lectures.
He bobs, weaves, and dodges the basic “skeptic” points. He knows (and I know) that any concessions create leaks in a fragile dike. (Per usual, he dismissed Planet of the Humans one hundred percent without comment.)
The idea of presenting both sides of the debate in the name of scholarship is a nonstarter with him because the science is “settled,” climate models have the correct physics, and he knows all he needs to in regard to climate economics, political economy, and public policy. (Hardly: see the Appendix below on climate models.)
The energy density (for fossil fuels), and the environmental problems of dilute, intermittent renewable energies, particularly at scale, are brushed aside.
Contrary arguments outside of his field of specialization (Vaclav Smil on energy density; Robert Mendelsohn on climate benefits and free-market adaptation) are not seriously considered in Dessler’s own textbooks that he pitches as science and not advocacy.
6. A deep ecologist, he fears human change in the ‘optimal’ natural world.
As noted in my review of his science text:
Dessler states, “when it comes to climate, change is bad” (p. 146). Man-made CO2 emissions are “perturbing” (p. 87) the climate. He adds, “any changes in the climate, either warming or cooling, will result in overall negative outcomes for human society” (p. 146).
His argument is that we have adjusted to the present climate, so any incremental change is costly and disruptive.
A fixation on global averages and “stable” climate naively abstracts from natural, localized, seasonal, even extreme, change that has always marked weather.
Lacking a theory of entrepreneurship, he cannot envision how wealth-is-health capitalism and dense mineral energies tame nature, not unleash it. (The work of Alex Epstein, who Dessler dismisses along with a bevy of statistics, make this point.)
7. Dessler’s policy agenda is thoroughly statist (coercive) to correct humankind’s ‘market failure.’ Yet he maintains he is not pushing politics but speaking only as a scientist.
Dessler states:
… individual actions are not going to lead to the emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate. Those will require collective, coordinated action at both the national and international levels. That is why the single most important thing you can do is become politically active … and vote for politicians who support action on climate. (p. 245)
But as I complained to him (without avail):
With the very unique situation of CO2 (a global externality of positives and negatives), government mitigation is doomed to fail. Sooner or later, you will have to admit that politics failed, that fossil fuels were just too good given the alternatives of non-use, renewables, nuclear.
We have not only market failure but also analytical failure (imperfect you, me, others) and government failure, which is magnified by 190 or so governments.
With this background, Part II tomorrow will critically review Dessler’s Houston Chronicle editorial, A Just Transition from Fracking to Renewable Energy is Possible [February 28, 2020]. An energy expert/realist this Malthusian is not.
Appendix: Opening the Door to Dissent on Models
Sometimes Dessler will give an inch or two–but no more. Here he goes:
Some thoughts on models in thread form: Climate models are based on physics. Their code describes the fundamental processes that we know drive atmospheric processes: radiative transfer, thermodynamics, the idea [sic] gas law, etc. Despite what you might hear, these models have been thoroughly tested. In fact, I’ve spent much of my career looking at model output and comparing to observations and I am constantly amazed how well climate models do. Now this doesn’t mean models do everything well. Some process are not simulated from first-principles — e.g., cloud microphysics, which occurs on too small a spatial scale for models to resolve. Climate models handle this by parameterization: they assume these results of these processes can be described as a simple function of the quantities that the model does simulate, such as grid-average temperature and water vapor. This is probably the weak point in climate models, and a lot of effort has gone into improving the parameterizations. While not perfect, they are good enough that the model performance is quite impressive. Not perfect, mind you. And a determined denier can always find something that the model does not simulate well. However, for the big things that we care about, the models do well.
Wait! So models are imperfect? Models can be tested? Ahem …. Want to debate Roy Spencer or John Christy or Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen on this? Remember what your distinguished Texas A&M colleague Gerald North said about models?
Nope. Dissecting the physical science of climate change is verboten to the leading alarmists. Trust us: CO2 is a pollutant and the future climate is grim.
Such is life as a deep ecologist qua scientist. It has been the Malthusian way from at least Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s.
Read more at MasterResource
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-28--EU Recovery Fund Has Costly Green Strings Attached

Written by Frédéric Simon on .
Posted in Latest news The European Union ’ s proposed €750 billion ( $ 829B ) fund to help the bloc recover from the coronavirus crisis will have green strings attached , with 25 % of all funding set aside for climate action , the European Commission has said .
It ’ s now official : the EU ’ s updated seven-year €1 trillion ( $ 1.1T ) budget proposal and €750 billion recovery plan will both be geared towards the green and digital transitions .
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen ( pictured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 May ) in a speech before the European Parliament .
“ 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 , ” von der Leyen said in a statement .
Earlier plans to reserve 25 % of EU spending for climate-friendly expenditure “ will apply throughout ” the EU ’ s updated budget proposal and recovery program from the COVID-19 crisis , EU officials explained .
Spending will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxonomy , which aims to channel private investments into technologies that contribute to at least one of six pre-defined environmental objectives , such as climate change mitigation .
And a “ do no harm ” test embedded in the taxonomy will in principle exclude fossil fuels and nuclear power , which are seen to be undermining other environmental objectives such as pollution prevention and control .
“ The ‘ do no harm ’ principle is very much also applying to this recovery instrument , ” said a senior EU official who briefed journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s publication .
[ … ] Loans and grants distributed to EU member states under the recovery fund will need to support “ investments and reforms ” in the applicant country , an EU official explained , saying green aspects will be part of the criteria .
In addition , green criteria will also apply to the so-called solvency instrument aimed at shoring up companies in need of liquidity .
“ The philosophy is very much helping the economy to recover .
But we want the economy to recover in a certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more resilient , ” the official explained .
By adding green conditions to its recovery fund , the European Commission is also trying to restore a level playing field between rich and poor EU member states .
During the corona crisis , national governments have spent nearly €2 trillion in state aid for ailing companies and small businesses , without any green conditions attached .
And 52 % of that aid was spent by Germany alone , raising fears that the crisis will deepen economic disparities within the 27-member EU bloc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game , ” said Teresa Ribera , the Spanish ecology minister .
“ Allowing countries to get an unfair advantage may create more problems ” related to economic and social cohesion , she told a recent EURACTIV online event , calling for “ a level playing field ” where “ everybody sets the same targets ” .
[ … ] Crucially , there will be tight political oversight on how EU recovery funds will be spent .
Any request to tap into the fund “ must be signed off by the Commission and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , referring to the EU Council of Ministers which brings together the 27 member states .
The close political scrutiny is partly aimed at ensuring EU funds are spent on “ investments and reforms ” in the regions and sectors most affected by the crisis , EU officials said .
But it is first and foremost aimed at placating the “ Frugal Four ” group of countries – Austria , Denmark , Sweden , and The Netherlands – who fear southern and eastern EU states lack the discipline to spend wisely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ formally apply to the fund and submit a national plan to “ explain ” how it will support economic reforms agreed at the EU level during the so-called European “ semester ” of economic policy coordination .
The Commission will then assess national programs against the country-specific recommendations adopted under the European semester as well as broader EU objectives such as the European Green Deal and the digital agenda .

Written by Frédéric Simon on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The European Union’s proposed €750 billion ($829B) fund to help the bloc recover from the coronavirus crisis will have green strings attached, with 25% of all funding set aside for climate action, the European Commission has said.
It’s now official: the EU’s updated seven-year €1 trillion ($1.1T) budget proposal and €750 billion recovery plan will both be geared towards the green and digital transitions.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (pictured) made the announcement on Wednesday (27 May) in a speech before the European Parliament.
“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,” von der Leyen said in a statement.
Earlier plans to reserve 25% of EU spending for climate-friendly expenditure “will apply throughout” the EU’s updated budget proposal and recovery program from the COVID-19 crisis, EU officials explained.
Spending will also be guided by a sustainable finance taxonomy, which aims to channel private investments into technologies that contribute to at least one of six pre-defined environmental objectives, such as climate change mitigation.
And a “do no harm” test embedded in the taxonomy will in principle exclude fossil fuels and nuclear power, which are seen to be undermining other environmental objectives such as pollution prevention and control.
“The ‘do no harm’ principle is very much also applying to this recovery instrument,” said a senior EU official who briefed journalists on Tuesday, ahead of the plan’s publication. […]
Fund will support “investments and reforms”
Loans and grants distributed to EU member states under the recovery fund will need to support “investments and reforms” in the applicant country, an EU official explained, saying green aspects will be part of the criteria.
In addition, green criteria will also apply to the so-called solvency instrument aimed at shoring up companies in need of liquidity.
“The philosophy is very much helping the economy to recover. But we want the economy to recover in a certain direction, which is green, digital, and more resilient,” the official explained.
By adding green conditions to its recovery fund, the European Commission is also trying to restore a level playing field between rich and poor EU member states.
During the corona crisis, national governments have spent nearly €2 trillion in state aid for ailing companies and small businesses, without any green conditions attached. And 52% of that aid was spent by Germany alone, raising fears that the crisis will deepen economic disparities within the 27-member EU bloc.
“This is not an even game,” said Teresa Ribera, the Spanish ecology minister.
“Allowing countries to get an unfair advantage may create more problems” related to economic and social cohesion, she told a recent EURACTIV online event, calling for “a level playing field” where “everybody sets the same targets”. […]
Tight political oversight
Crucially, there will be tight political oversight on how EU recovery funds will be spent.
Any request to tap into the fund “must be signed off by the Commission and the Council,” an EU official said, referring to the EU Council of Ministers which brings together the 27 member states.
The close political scrutiny is partly aimed at ensuring EU funds are spent on “investments and reforms” in the regions and sectors most affected by the crisis, EU officials said.
But it is first and foremost aimed at placating the “Frugal Four” group of countries – Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands – who fear southern and eastern EU states lack the discipline to spend wisely.
First, EU countries will have to formally apply to the fund and submit a national plan to “explain” how it will support economic reforms agreed at the EU level during the so-called European “semester” of economic policy coordination.
The Commission will then assess national programs against the country-specific recommendations adopted under the European semester as well as broader EU objectives such as the European Green Deal and the digital agenda.
Read rest at EurActiv
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-28--Coal Is Still King Worldwide Thanks To Asia, India

Written by Mary Hutzler on .
Posted in Latest news Despite the U.S. and Europe shuttering coal-fired power plants , coal remains a major fuel in global energy systems .
In 2018 , global coal demand rebounded and grew by 1.4 % due to increased consumption in Asia , where coal consumption increased by 2.5 % .
This increased consumption was mainly from power generation , which reached an all-time high , increasing 3 % in 2018 and accounting for almost 40 % of global electricity generation .
China remains the world ’ s largest coal consumer , using more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumed in the world .
According to China ’ s National Bureau of Statistics , China relies on coal for 57.7 % of its primary energy , and for 67 % of its electricity .
And China isn ’ t the only major coal user in Asia .
India led all countries in coal consumption growth , increasing its consumption in 2018 by 36 million metric tons of oil equivalent—8.7 % higher than in 2017 .
India generated 75 % of its electricity from coal in 2018 .
Both countries have sizable coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tons .
But , both countries also import coal , together accounting for more than one-third of the world ’ s coal imports in 2018 .
According to the International Energy Agency ( IEA ) , global coal demand is expected to decline in 2019 but remain broadly stable over the following five years , supported by robust growth in major Asian markets .
Despite that growth , coal ’ s share of electricity generation is expected to decline—from 38 % in 2018 to 35 % in 2024 .
Regardless , coal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single largest source of power supply worldwide .
China is the world ’ s biggest producer and consumer of coal .
IEA expects China ’ s coal consumption will plateau around 2022 due to a decline in coal use in the residential , small industrial , and heavy industrial sectors , driven by structural changes in the economy and the need to reduce local pollution .
Residential use of coal is a major contributor to localized pollution because it is largely burned in an uncontrolled environment , without the technologies and modern pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coal power generation , however , is expected to continue to grow , just at a slower rate , dropping its share of the power generation market from 67 % in 2018 to 59 % in 2024 .
It is believed that coal is needed to sustain China ’ s economic growth and guarantee energy security in the future .
China ’ s reliance on coal helped it become the world ’ s second-largest economy , pulling nearly a billion people out of poverty .
Based on recently released official economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the annual growth in energy consumption in 2019 came from fossil fuels , with coal accounting for 57.7 % of China ’ s energy use .
Coal plants , which burn approximately 54 % of all coal used in the country , provide 52 % of generating capacity and 67 % of electricity output .
Despite China ’ s generation sector being at overcapacity , China added about 40 GW of coal-fired power capacity in 2019—a 4 % increase .
As a result , the coal fleet ’ s average utilization rate fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , China is still building new supercritical coal-fired generators with 100 GW under construction , which would raise current coal capacity by nearly 10 % .

Written by Mary Hutzler on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Despite the U.S. and Europe shuttering coal-fired power plants, coal remains a major fuel in global energy systems.
In 2018, global coal demand rebounded and grew by 1.4% due to increased consumption in Asia, where coal consumption increased by 2.5%.
This increased consumption was mainly from power generation, which reached an all-time high, increasing 3% in 2018 and accounting for almost 40% of global electricity generation.
China remains the world’s largest coal consumer, using more than 50% of all the coal consumed in the world. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, China relies on coal for 57.7% of its primary energy, and for 67% of its electricity.
And China isn’t the only major coal user in Asia. India led all countries in coal consumption growth, increasing its consumption in 2018 by 36 million metric tons of oil equivalent—8.7% higher than in 2017. India generated 75% of its electricity from coal in 2018.
Both countries have sizable coal reserves of more than 100 billion metric tons. But, both countries also import coal, together accounting for more than one-third of the world’s coal imports in 2018.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global coal demand is expected to decline in 2019 but remain broadly stable over the following five years, supported by robust growth in major Asian markets.
Despite that growth, coal’s share of electricity generation is expected to decline—from 38% in 2018 to 35% in 2024.
Regardless, coal is expected to retain its status as the single largest source of power supply worldwide.
China
China is the world’s biggest producer and consumer of coal. IEA expects China’s coal consumption will plateau around 2022 due to a decline in coal use in the residential, small industrial, and heavy industrial sectors, driven by structural changes in the economy and the need to reduce local pollution.
Residential use of coal is a major contributor to localized pollution because it is largely burned in an uncontrolled environment, without the technologies and modern pollution reduction capabilities of larger users.
China’s coal power generation, however, is expected to continue to grow, just at a slower rate, dropping its share of the power generation market from 67% in 2018 to 59% in 2024.
It is believed that coal is needed to sustain China’s economic growth and guarantee energy security in the future.
China’s reliance on coal helped it become the world’s second-largest economy, pulling nearly a billion people out of poverty.
Based on recently released official economic data, and found 65% of the annual growth in energy consumption in 2019 came from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for 57.7% of China’s energy use.
Coal plants, which burn approximately 54% of all coal used in the country, provide 52% of generating capacity and 67% of electricity output.
Despite China’s generation sector being at overcapacity, China added about 40 GW of coal-fired power capacity in 2019—a 4% increase. As a result, the coal fleet’s average utilization rate fell below 50% on average.
Even so, China is still building new supercritical coal-fired generators with 100 GW under construction, which would raise current coal capacity by nearly 10%.
Read rest at Power Mag
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-28--Climate Summit Boondoggle Postponed To Nov 2021

Written by STV News on .
Posted in Latest news The UK is proposing that key UN climate talks postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic will be held in November 2021 , it has emerged .
In a letter to UN member states , the UK has proposed the Cop26 talks , which were originally due to be held in Glasgow in November 2020 , could be moved to November 1-12 2021 .
At the beginning of April , an announcement from the UN ’ s climate body , the UNFCCC , and the UK Government said the summit would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the global pandemic , with dates to be decided .
According to the PA news agency , the proposed dates , which come after wide-ranging consultation , will be decided on by the UNFCCC ’ s Cop bureau , with discussions on the topic at the bureau ’ s next meeting on May 28 .
Cop26 is the most important round of talks since the global Paris Agreement to tackle climate change was secured in 2015 .
This year marks the date by which countries are expected to come forward with stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal .
Plans submitted so far put the world on a pathway towards more than 3C of warming , though the Paris Agreement commits countries to curb temperatures to 1.5C or 2C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change .
But with countries around the world grappling with coronavirus , and many putting citizens in lockdown , governments have prioritized the immediate global health crisis .

Written by STV News on May 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The UK is proposing that key UN climate talks postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic will be held in November 2021, it has emerged.
In a letter to UN member states, the UK has proposed the Cop26 talks, which were originally due to be held in Glasgow in November 2020, could be moved to November 1-12 2021.
At the beginning of April, an announcement from the UN’s climate body, the UNFCCC, and the UK Government said the summit would be pushed back to 2021 in light of the global pandemic, with dates to be decided.
According to the PA news agency, the proposed dates, which come after wide-ranging consultation, will be decided on by the UNFCCC’s Cop bureau, with discussions on the topic at the bureau’s next meeting on May 28.
Cop26 is the most important round of talks since the global Paris Agreement to tackle climate change was secured in 2015.
This year marks the date by which countries are expected to come forward with stronger emissions cuts to meet the goals of the deal.
Plans submitted so far put the world on a pathway towards more than 3C of warming, though the Paris Agreement commits countries to curb temperatures to 1.5C or 2C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
But with countries around the world grappling with coronavirus, and many putting citizens in lockdown, governments have prioritized the immediate global health crisis.
Read rest at STV News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-27--Policymakers Reluctant To Wreck Economies For Climate Schemes

Written by Mark Lawson on .
Posted in Latest news With the Covid-19 pandemic starting to recede , activists are again moaning that industrial emissions are destroying the climate .
But having wrecked national economies once to fend off the virus , policymakers are proving reluctant to wreck them again for the climate cause .
In mid-May , governor of California Gavin Newsom proposed canceling much of the $ US12 billion worth of climate initiatives originally announced only in January , which included feel-good programs for encouraging companies to buy electric cars and more useful spending on projects to prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This caused a major outcry in a state that has proved a haven for green activists and with the vocal US green industry sore over President Trump leading America out of the Paris Agreement .
However , faced with an estimated budget deficit of $ 54.3 billion thanks to the virus lockdown , Governor Newsom has little choice but to throw green policies under a bus .
In late April , leader of Germany ’ s Christian Democratic CDU/CSU grouping in the European parliament , Markus Pieper , declared to the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the much-trumpeted green deal promoted by EU Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen was not financially viable .
As the CDU remains the ruling party in Germany , headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel until late 2018 ( Ms. Merkel plans to remain as chancellor until 2021 ) , and Germany remains Europe ’ s banker , Pieper ’ s comments threaten to derail the EU deal which the European parliament has agreed to in principle .
Pieper has been careful to say he wants a watered-down version of the carbon-neutral plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the problem of the updated climate goals announced to date by major emitters .
Under the Paris Agreement , each country sets its own climate goals which are to be updated regularly , with the first updates expected before yet another conference in November , the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference , to be held in Glasgow .
The updates posted to date by major emitters Russia and Japan have proved disappointing to activists .
Russia ’ s original pledge amounted to little and the updated pledge with promises on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and boosting renewable energy is little improvement .
Japan , with double the CO2 emissions of Australia , released new goals that are virtually unchanged from those of Paris .
Japan is also one of the few developed countries still building coal-fired power plants .
Back in Europe the EU green deal and a similar vague promise from Boris Johnson ’ s Britain is about all that ’ s left of all the strong action to reduce emissions promised in Paris .
Although the EU deal is largely uncosted and , like almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real detail – public statements mention two €100 billion funds – the deal aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050 .
The aim seems to be to muddle through to that goal .
( Poland , which is happy selling its coal-fired power , wants to be left out . )
In normal times the response to all this climate policy sabotage would be a rush to podiums to give speeches .
The problem is that the usual climate jamborees and talkfests have been canceled due to the virus .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christiana Figueres , expressed disappointment to the German press that she was unable to speak at the big event planned for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in Washington in April – one of a number of rallies that had to cancel .
She had to make do with an online conference .
A host of other lesser-known talkfests to be attended by delegates arriving on emission-intensive international flights , such as Africa Climate Week due to be held in Uganda in April , have been canceled or postponed .
Those cancellations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held in Madrid in December fizzled out with little apparent progress in countries agreeing to wreck their economies for the sake of the climate .
However , it did not help much that the conference had to be relocated twice .
Originally due to the held in Brazil , newly elected right-wing Brazilian President Jay Bolsonaro ( also no fan of the Paris Agreement although Brazil is a top carbon emitter ) moved it on , saying that it was too costly to host the event .
He gave the conference organizers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A highly inconvenient alternative of Chile was arranged but the event had to be moved again , with just four weeks ’ notice and with many delegates sailing ( as opposed to taking emissions-intensive flights ) over the Atlantic to attend .
Another problem for the now vast green political-industrial complex is the carbon price , the centerpiece of the EU Emissions Trading System .
After nearly a decade of carbon prices below €15 ( $ A25 ) , and mostly well below €10 a tonne – prices that aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after reforms limiting the ability of participating governments to hand out free certificates to their own industries , the main carbon price came within a whisker of €30 in July .
Then the pandemic caused prices to crash to almost €15 before a recovery pushed it back to €20 a tonne , which is borderline effective .
To add to the climate industry ’ s troubles , iconoclastic documentary maker Michael Moore , known for a string of anti-capitalist documentaries , has produced one targeting the green energy industry .
The documentary Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar energy are unreliable and require fossil fuels to function .
This theme is hardly surprising to those who know anything about electric cars and solar energy , but Moore had previously been one of the green industry ’ s own and the documentary attacks individuals , notably former US vice president Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technology .
The green industry has reacted with fury calling for the documentary to be withdrawn .
All this adds up to intractable problems for the climate industry .
It is increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 months ’ worth of protesting by school children , most of the major carbon emitters are simply going through the motions required by the Paris Agreement with little interest in making major changes .
Thanks to the immense cost of fighting Covid-19 , the nations that might take Paris seriously do not have the financial capacity for strong action .
The climate goals for emissions and temperatures that activists continue to scream about are receding into the distance .

Written by Mark Lawson on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
With the Covid-19 pandemic starting to recede, activists are again moaning that industrial emissions are destroying the climate.
But having wrecked national economies once to fend off the virus, policymakers are proving reluctant to wreck them again for the climate cause.
In mid-May, governor of California Gavin Newsom proposed canceling much of the $US12 billion worth of climate initiatives originally announced only in January, which included feel-good programs for encouraging companies to buy electric cars and more useful spending on projects to prepare for floods, droughts, and bushfires.
This caused a major outcry in a state that has proved a haven for green activists and with the vocal US green industry sore over President Trump leading America out of the Paris Agreement.
However, faced with an estimated budget deficit of $54.3 billion thanks to the virus lockdown, Governor Newsom has little choice but to throw green policies under a bus.
In late April, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic CDU/CSU grouping in the European parliament, Markus Pieper, declared to the German media that after the coronavirus economic bloodletting the much-trumpeted green deal promoted by EU Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen was not financially viable.
As the CDU remains the ruling party in Germany, headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel until late 2018 (Ms. Merkel plans to remain as chancellor until 2021), and Germany remains Europe’s banker, Pieper’s comments threaten to derail the EU deal which the European parliament has agreed to in principle.
Pieper has been careful to say he wants a watered-down version of the carbon-neutral plan, rather than its abandonment.
Then there is the problem of the updated climate goals announced to date by major emitters.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country sets its own climate goals which are to be updated regularly, with the first updates expected before yet another conference in November, the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference, to be held in Glasgow.
The updates posted to date by major emitters Russia and Japan have proved disappointing to activists.
Russia’s original pledge amounted to little and the updated pledge with promises on such matters as promoting increased insulation in buildings and boosting renewable energy is little improvement.
Japan, with double the CO2 emissions of Australia, released new goals that are virtually unchanged from those of Paris. Japan is also one of the few developed countries still building coal-fired power plants.
Back in Europe the EU green deal and a similar vague promise from Boris Johnson’s Britain is about all that’s left of all the strong action to reduce emissions promised in Paris.
Although the EU deal is largely uncosted and, like almost all net-zero declarations, lacking in any real detail – public statements mention two €100 billion funds – the deal aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050.
The aim seems to be to muddle through to that goal. (Poland, which is happy selling its coal-fired power, wants to be left out.)
In normal times the response to all this climate policy sabotage would be a rush to podiums to give speeches. The problem is that the usual climate jamborees and talkfests have been canceled due to the virus.
One of the architects of the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres, expressed disappointment to the German press that she was unable to speak at the big event planned for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in Washington in April – one of a number of rallies that had to cancel. She had to make do with an online conference.
A host of other lesser-known talkfests to be attended by delegates arriving on emission-intensive international flights, such as Africa Climate Week due to be held in Uganda in April, have been canceled or postponed.
Those cancellations have come after the annual post-Paris Agreement conference held in Madrid in December fizzled out with little apparent progress in countries agreeing to wreck their economies for the sake of the climate.
However, it did not help much that the conference had to be relocated twice.
Originally due to the held in Brazil, newly elected right-wing Brazilian President Jay Bolsonaro (also no fan of the Paris Agreement although Brazil is a top carbon emitter) moved it on, saying that it was too costly to host the event.
He gave the conference organizers a year’s notice to go elsewhere. A highly inconvenient alternative of Chile was arranged but the event had to be moved again, with just four weeks’ notice and with many delegates sailing (as opposed to taking emissions-intensive flights) over the Atlantic to attend.
Another problem for the now vast green political-industrial complex is the carbon price, the centerpiece of the EU Emissions Trading System.
After nearly a decade of carbon prices below €15 ($A25), and mostly well below €10 a tonne – prices that aren’t going to affect company behavior – and after reforms limiting the ability of participating governments to hand out free certificates to their own industries, the main carbon price came within a whisker of €30 in July.
Then the pandemic caused prices to crash to almost €15 before a recovery pushed it back to €20 a tonne, which is borderline effective.
To add to the climate industry’s troubles, iconoclastic documentary maker Michael Moore, known for a string of anti-capitalist documentaries, has produced one targeting the green energy industry.
The documentary Planet of the Humans argues that electric cars and solar energy are unreliable and require fossil fuels to function.
This theme is hardly surprising to those who know anything about electric cars and solar energy, but Moore had previously been one of the green industry’s own and the documentary attacks individuals, notably former US vice president Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technology.
The green industry has reacted with fury calling for the documentary to be withdrawn.
All this adds up to intractable problems for the climate industry.
It is increasingly apparent that despite the endless activism and 18 months’ worth of protesting by school children, most of the major carbon emitters are simply going through the motions required by the Paris Agreement with little interest in making major changes.
Thanks to the immense cost of fighting Covid-19, the nations that might take Paris seriously do not have the financial capacity for strong action.
The climate goals for emissions and temperatures that activists continue to scream about are receding into the distance.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print