climatechangedispatch--2020-06-16--Can Bug Eating End U.S. And African Protein Shortages?

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Nearly two centuries ago , amid a fungal infestation that destroyed Irish potato crops and brought famine , starvation , death , and the emigration of countless men , women , and children , Gulliver ’ s Travels author Dr. Jonathon Swift offered “ A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country , and for making them beneficial to the publick [ sic ] .
” Dr .
Swift suggested that children too young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of potatoes .
As he explained , “ a young healthy child well nursed , is , at a year old , a most delicious , nourishing and wholesome food , whether stewed , roasted , baked , or boiled ; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
” Surely , he said , this is preferable to aborting unborn or murdering newly born children .
Of course , his proposal was only in jest , a sly response to the callous disregard many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragedy and the plight of poor families throughout the United Kingdom .
Today , despite enormous advances in seeds , fertilizers , irrigation , mechanized equipment , pest control , and agricultural practices , famine still stalks dozens of countries , especially in Africa .
Millions still live on the edge of starvation , all too often kept there by despicable government agencies , pressure groups , and financiers that despise modern agriculture , promote “ agro-ecology ” and even oppose Golden Rice .
Africa ’ s poverty , malnutrition , despair , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse this year by one of the worst plagues of desert locusts in memory .
Swarms numbering in the billions descended on East Africa , which was completely unprepared to cope with them .
The first swarms unleashed even larger second and third waves , with swarms larger than Manhattan .
The insatiable insects are devouring millions of square miles of crops , pasture lands , gardens , and forests , creating massive food shortages that could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation .
Meanwhile , coronavirus outbreaks among workers forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s took burgers off the menu at many locations , and the fast-food chain ’ s customers are again asking “ where ’ s the beef ?
” – echoing the iconic television commercials from 35 years ago .
Pork is also in short supply , even as American pork shipments to China quadrupled in recent months .
Chicken too is scarce .
But now we may have a fortuitous alignment of the stars , a happy confluence of events , wherein a modest proposal for abundant food in the form of locusts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two continents .
Up to now , we have had an unhappy confluence of sick ideologies : the belief that too many people are a cancer on the Earth , depleting fossil fuels that are destroying our climate and planet , and ignoring what former Obama science advisor John Holdren insisted was a vital need for modern societies to de-develop , de-industrialize , and dictate to still-poor countries how much they will be permitted to develop .
The ideologies have forced too many Africans to continue living primitive subsistence lifestyles or pack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , water , roadway , communication , refrigeration , hospital , sanitation , and employment opportunities .
The locust plagues could turn this awful situation around .
Enormous nets strung between two trucks or airplanes could harvest millions of locusts at a time .
Thousands could be employed constructing and operating food processing facilities , hauling insects to them , running them through roasting ovens and freeze-drying machines , packing and shipping the finished delicacies to hungry families around Africa , and North America , and teaching people to savor them .
Thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing the new export and import businesses .
Commercial airliners sidelined by COVID would be rejuvenated .
Millions of people could go almost overnight from hunger to enjoying what Popular Science magazine has described as delicious , nutritious food , rich in protein and all nine amino acids essential for human development .
The new meat substitutes would give entirely new meanings to “ in-flight meals.
” There is yet another benefit .
These activities and facilities would require reliable , affordable electricity , on a far larger scale than can possibly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They will require coal , gas , nuclear , and hydroelectric power plants .
However , environmentalist pressure groups , UN agencies , the World Bank , and multilateral ( anti ) development banks have been telling Africans that wind and solar power must be their energy future .
They and the EU clearly won ’ t finance those power plants .
But perhaps Chinese agencies and companies will finance and build them , as they have in many other countries – often under exploitative , extortionist loan arrangements , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentivized by a desire to resurrect China ’ s tarnished reputation for having unleashed the Wuhan virus on unsuspecting nations .
They might also secure special prices on locust products that would be right at home in China ’ s wet markets and on its television equivalent to “ Bizarre Food ” with Andrew Zimmern .
Popular Science expresses deep concern that “ raising cattle requires a lot of space and water , and more room for cattle means less [ sic ] trees , which in turn means a diminished natural capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Its writers clearly have no clue that modern non-organic farming with biotech crops enables fewer farmers to raise more crops , from less land , with less water and fewer pesticides , than any other farming methods in history – or that cattle typically graze on lands that have limited value for growing crops .
They obviously have not read any of my reports and articles about the monumental impacts that wind , solar , battery , and biofuel technologies have on farms , scenic , and wildlife habitat lands .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ever-helpful UN Food and Agriculture Organization , which has worked for years with radical environmentalist groups to oppose modern farming , biotech , and even hybrid seeds , synthetic insecticides and fertilizers , and even mechanized equipment like tractors .
PopSci and the FAO extol the virtues of “ entomophagy , ” a fancy progressive term for eating bugs , not beef .
Indeed , they say , this could be “ the answer humanity is looking for.
” ( If that ’ s the answer , it must have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report offers techniques for processing “ edible insects ” into tasty consumable products that can improve people ’ s diets and livelihoods , create thriving local businesses , and even promote the “ inclusion of women.
” It has sections on overcoming the yuck factor and setting up industrial-scale processing operations .
( I should have known the FAO would be ahead of me on that . )
The FAO study says bugs can have twice as much protein as beef and 1.5 times as much as fish and poultry .
PopSci sings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crickets , ants , and mealworms – whole or powdered – like snacks , desserts , guacamole , or entire meals .
Mealworms have “ an earthy flavor , similar to mushrooms or beets , ” says Joseph Yoon , chef and founder of Brooklyn Bugs , a “ catering company and education platform ” in New York that serves an entire menu featuring insects .
You can add them to brownies – or toss some salt on sautéed mealworms to get “ protein-boosted potato chips.
” Since they are committed to saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , big corporations , and modern technologies , people attending the next UN climate confab in November 2021 in Glasgow should expect to dine on an entire smorgasbord of tasty locusts and other bugs .
Perhaps they can be paired with haggis , Scotland ’ s savory traditional pudding of bone broth , sheep heart , liver and lungs , onion , oatmeal , suet , and spices , cooked together in the animal ’ s stomach .
Back here in the States , for the same reason , those delectable African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National convention in Wisconsin ’ s Brew City this August .
They would pair very nicely with those pilsner beers that made Milwaukee famous .
Personally , though , I ’ ll stick with hearty beef , lamb , chicken , ribs – and really big bugs : shrimp , lobster , crabs , and crawfish – served up at the Republican National Convention , accompanied by a good IPA .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of Eco-Imperialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jun 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Nearly two centuries ago, amid a fungal infestation that destroyed Irish potato crops and brought famine, starvation, death, and the emigration of countless men, women, and children, Gulliver’s Travels author Dr. Jonathon Swift offered “A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick [sic].”
Dr. Swift suggested that children too young to work could be eaten in place of potatoes. As he explained, “a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.”
Surely, he said, this is preferable to aborting unborn or murdering newly born children.
Of course, his proposal was only in jest, a sly response to the callous disregard many of his countrymen displayed toward the Irish tragedy and the plight of poor families throughout the United Kingdom.
Today, despite enormous advances in seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, mechanized equipment, pest control, and agricultural practices, famine still stalks dozens of countries, especially in Africa.
Millions still live on the edge of starvation, all too often kept there by despicable government agencies, pressure groups, and financiers that despise modern agriculture, promote “agro-ecology” and even oppose Golden Rice.
Africa’s poverty, malnutrition, despair, and premature death have been made even worse this year by one of the worst plagues of desert locusts in memory. Swarms numbering in the billions descended on East Africa, which was completely unprepared to cope with them.
The first swarms unleashed even larger second and third waves, with swarms larger than Manhattan.
The insatiable insects are devouring millions of square miles of crops, pasture lands, gardens, and forests, creating massive food shortages that could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation.
Meanwhile, coronavirus outbreaks among workers forced meatpacking plants to close.
Wendy’s took burgers off the menu at many locations, and the fast-food chain’s customers are again asking “where’s the beef?” – echoing the iconic television commercials from 35 years ago.
Pork is also in short supply, even as American pork shipments to China quadrupled in recent months. Chicken too is scarce.
But now we may have a fortuitous alignment of the stars, a happy confluence of events, wherein a modest proposal for abundant food in the form of locusts could benefit the hungry “publicks” of two continents.
Up to now, we have had an unhappy confluence of sick ideologies: the belief that too many people are a cancer on the Earth, depleting fossil fuels that are destroying our climate and planet, and ignoring what former Obama science advisor John Holdren insisted was a vital need for modern societies to de-develop, de-industrialize, and dictate to still-poor countries how much they will be permitted to develop.
The ideologies have forced too many Africans to continue living primitive subsistence lifestyles or pack into impoverished cities that lack basic energy, water, roadway, communication, refrigeration, hospital, sanitation, and employment opportunities. The locust plagues could turn this awful situation around.
Enormous nets strung between two trucks or airplanes could harvest millions of locusts at a time.
Thousands could be employed constructing and operating food processing facilities, hauling insects to them, running them through roasting ovens and freeze-drying machines, packing and shipping the finished delicacies to hungry families around Africa, and North America, and teaching people to savor them.
Thousands of more jobs could be created by managing the new export and import businesses. Commercial airliners sidelined by COVID would be rejuvenated.
Millions of people could go almost overnight from hunger to enjoying what Popular Science magazine has described as delicious, nutritious food, rich in protein and all nine amino acids essential for human development.
The new meat substitutes would give entirely new meanings to “in-flight meals.”
There is yet another benefit. These activities and facilities would require reliable, affordable electricity, on a far larger scale than can possibly be provided by wind turbines and solar panels.
They will require coal, gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants.
However, environmentalist pressure groups, UN agencies, the World Bank, and multilateral (anti)development banks have been telling Africans that wind and solar power must be their energy future. They and the EU clearly won’t finance those power plants.
But perhaps Chinese agencies and companies will finance and build them, as they have in many other countries – often under exploitative, extortionist loan arrangements, to be sure.
The projects could also be incentivized by a desire to resurrect China’s tarnished reputation for having unleashed the Wuhan virus on unsuspecting nations.
They might also secure special prices on locust products that would be right at home in China’s wet markets and on its television equivalent to “Bizarre Food” with Andrew Zimmern.
Popular Science expresses deep concern that “raising cattle requires a lot of space and water, and more room for cattle means less [sic] trees, which in turn means a diminished natural capacity of the planet to process carbon dioxide.”
Its writers clearly have no clue that modern non-organic farming with biotech crops enables fewer farmers to raise more crops, from less land, with less water and fewer pesticides, than any other farming methods in history – or that cattle typically graze on lands that have limited value for growing crops.
They obviously have not read any of my reports and articles about the monumental impacts that wind, solar, battery, and biofuel technologies have on farms, scenic, and wildlife habitat lands.
Instead, PopSci cites a 2013 report by the ever-helpful UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which has worked for years with radical environmentalist groups to oppose modern farming, biotech, and even hybrid seeds, synthetic insecticides and fertilizers, and even mechanized equipment like tractors.
PopSci and the FAO extol the virtues of “entomophagy,” a fancy progressive term for eating bugs, not beef.
Indeed, they say, this could be “the answer humanity is looking for.” (If that’s the answer, it must have been a very foolish question.)
The FAO report offers techniques for processing “edible insects” into tasty consumable products that can improve people’s diets and livelihoods, create thriving local businesses, and even promote the “inclusion of women.”
It has sections on overcoming the yuck factor and setting up industrial-scale processing operations. (I should have known the FAO would be ahead of me on that.)
The FAO study says bugs can have twice as much protein as beef and 1.5 times as much as fish and poultry. PopSci sings the praises of grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, ants, and mealworms – whole or powdered – like snacks, desserts, guacamole, or entire meals.
Mealworms have “an earthy flavor, similar to mushrooms or beets,” says Joseph Yoon, chef and founder of Brooklyn Bugs, a “catering company and education platform” in New York that serves an entire menu featuring insects.
You can add them to brownies – or toss some salt on sautéed mealworms to get “protein-boosted potato chips.”
Since they are committed to saving the planet from fossil fuels, climate change, big corporations, and modern technologies, people attending the next UN climate confab in November 2021 in Glasgow should expect to dine on an entire smorgasbord of tasty locusts and other bugs.
Perhaps they can be paired with haggis, Scotland’s savory traditional pudding of bone broth, sheep heart, liver and lungs, onion, oatmeal, suet, and spices, cooked together in the animal’s stomach.
Back here in the States, for the same reason, those delectable African locusts could figure prominently at the upcoming Democratic National convention in Wisconsin’s Brew City this August.
They would pair very nicely with those pilsner beers that made Milwaukee famous.
Personally, though, I’ll stick with hearty beef, lamb, chicken, ribs – and really big bugs: shrimp, lobster, crabs, and crawfish – served up at the Republican National Convention, accompanied by a good IPA.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black Death, and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-17--California’s Climate Policies Hurt Low-Income People The Most

Written by Ronald Stein on .
Posted in Latest news To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy , California climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be among the highest in the country .
The cost burdens of those policies may be fueling ( no pun intended ) the basis of a rebellion as the state ’ s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers .
Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw the construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity to every corner of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1932 proclaimed that “ electricity is no longer a luxury ; it is a definite necessity.
” In California , stringent and deceptive climate policies , and intermittent electricity from low power density renewables , are expensive to consumers .
The report from the Energy Information Agency ( EIA ) shows that both have contributed to household users paying 50 % more , and industrial users paying more than 100 % more than the national average for electricity .
It gets bleaker in the coming years for the minority and low-income consumers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its last nuclear reactor and Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti recently announced that Los Angeles will shut down three gas-powered electricity-generating power plants .
The Mayor , Governor , and every other elected and appointed official are deliberately ignoring the fact that Natural Gas generating plants currently provide about 47 percent of the state ’ s electricity .
Those four power plants that have been generating zero or low emission electricity for decades .
Shockingly , the state has NO plans to replace the upcoming closure of four power plants with intermittent renewables !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( EIA ) reported that California was unable to generate enough electricity in-state and imported up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands .
The good news is that we have had no brownouts .
The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and are being borne by residents and businesses alike .
Without the huge land requirements for industrial wind and industrial solar renewable electricity , the need to import more will escalate every year , as well as the cost of that electricity .
California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , electricity prices , and transportation will continue to rise , while ‘ gateway ’ jobs to the middle class for those without college degrees , such as manufacturing and logistics , will continue to locate in other states .
It is unconscionable that time after time , California continually imposes new costs and restrictions on home-building which make housing even more expensive .
This , which harms working families and minority communities the most .
Following the “ live lynching ” of George Floyd , one would think the same folks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the police department ( protesting both nationally and worldwide ) would be the same folks being racially biased with more costs for energy they can not afford .
By culminating that pain into protests of “ enough is enough ” and seek changes to lower the costs of energy for the poor .
Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people .
If you try to increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel , you hurt low-income people .
Of whom are already forced to pay almost $ 1.00 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the country .
Some of the taxes and climate policy costs hidden in the all-in posted price of fuel at the pump are federal tax , excise tax , state tax , local sales tax , cap and trade program compliance costs , low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs , renewable fuels standard program compliance costs , and the refinery winter and summer reformatting costs .
Many of the state ’ s poor and people of color tend to live in the state ’ s inland areas that need more heating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive farthest to jobs due to the acute housing crisis .
Misguided Sacramento policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries .
That dependence has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption .
The imported crude oil costs California more than $ 60 million dollars a day , yes , every day , being paid to oil-rich foreign countries , depriving Californians of jobs , careers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve yet to receive any thank you cards from foreign suppliers for the states ’ policies that are making wealthy countries , wealthier !
The Governor perpetuates the continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production even more .
He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology ’ s use which would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California .
All to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production , further crippling the State , forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spate of rioting to improve racial biasing reflects how little the urban renaissance has done for its poorer citizens .
In fact , the number of high-poverty urban areas has grown steadily over the past few decades and doubled in population between 1980 and 2018 .
The biggest drops in hiring have been concentrated in recreation and travel , largely “ personal contact ” jobs that employ many low-wage workers .
To be sure , COVID-19 , like earlier pandemics throughout history , further devastated these poorer communities .
People who live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transit , and work in the most exposed “ essential ” jobs ( most of them low-paying ) are bound to be disproportionately affected by a public health crisis .
These inner-city residents deserve something more than cheap expressions of sympathy and solidarity from the affluent while they impose unbearable costs for the energy to survive .
Only by reducing rather than increasing the cost of energy , can we restore broad upward mobility potential for the underclass and hope to maintain a healthy democratic society .
Racial biasing from police may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This resulting from the public protests occurring on city streets about the deep tradition of racial prejudice and violence against African Americans by law enforcement .
Yet the financial racial biasing of climate policies against the poorest residents , particularly Latinos and African Americans will continue into perpetuity under the current leadership .

Written by Ronald Stein on Jun 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy, California climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be among the highest in the country.
The cost burdens of those policies may be fueling (no pun intended) the basis of a rebellion as the state’s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers.
Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw the construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity to every corner of America.
It was FDR, who in 1932 proclaimed that “electricity is no longer a luxury; it is a definite necessity.”
In California, stringent and deceptive climate policies, and intermittent electricity from low power density renewables, are expensive to consumers.
The report from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that both have contributed to household users paying 50% more, and industrial users paying more than 100% more than the national average for electricity.
It gets bleaker in the coming years for the minority and low-income consumers, as the state will be phasing out its last nuclear reactor and Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti recently announced that Los Angeles will shut down three gas-powered electricity-generating power plants.
The Mayor, Governor, and every other elected and appointed official are deliberately ignoring the fact that Natural Gas generating plants currently provide about 47 percent of the state’s electricity.
Those four power plants that have been generating zero or low emission electricity for decades.
Shockingly, the state has NO plans to replace the upcoming closure of four power plants with intermittent renewables!
Last year alone the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reported that California was unable to generate enough electricity in-state and imported up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands. The good news is that we have had no brownouts.
The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and are being borne by residents and businesses alike.
Without the huge land requirements for industrial wind and industrial solar renewable electricity, the need to import more will escalate every year, as well as the cost of that electricity.
California’s climate policies guarantee that housing, electricity prices, and transportation will continue to rise, while ‘gateway’ jobs to the middle class for those without college degrees, such as manufacturing and logistics, will continue to locate in other states.
It is unconscionable that time after time, California continually imposes new costs and restrictions on home-building which make housing even more expensive. This, which harms working families and minority communities the most.
Following the “live lynching” of George Floyd, one would think the same folks that are demonstrating their rebellion about racial injustices within the police department (protesting both nationally and worldwide) would be the same folks being racially biased with more costs for energy they cannot afford.
By culminating that pain into protests of “enough is enough” and seek changes to lower the costs of energy for the poor.
Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people. If you try to increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel, you hurt low-income people.
Of whom are already forced to pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country.
Some of the taxes and climate policy costs hidden in the all-in posted price of fuel at the pump are federal tax, excise tax, state tax, local sales tax, cap and trade program compliance costs, low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs, renewable fuels standard program compliance costs, and the refinery winter and summer reformatting costs.
Many of the state’s poor and people of color tend to live in the state’s inland areas that need more heating and cooling than the temperate coast and drive farthest to jobs due to the acute housing crisis.
Misguided Sacramento policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries.
That dependence has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption.
The imported crude oil costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs, careers, and business opportunities.
We’ve yet to receive any thank you cards from foreign suppliers for the states’ policies that are making wealthy countries, wealthier!
The Governor perpetuates the continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production even more.
He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology’s use which would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California.
All to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production, further crippling the State, forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA.
The recent spate of rioting to improve racial biasing reflects how little the urban renaissance has done for its poorer citizens.
In fact, the number of high-poverty urban areas has grown steadily over the past few decades and doubled in population between 1980 and 2018.
The biggest drops in hiring have been concentrated in recreation and travel, largely “personal contact” jobs that employ many low-wage workers.
To be sure, COVID-19, like earlier pandemics throughout history, further devastated these poorer communities.
People who live in crowded housing, are forced to ride transit, and work in the most exposed “essential” jobs (most of them low-paying) are bound to be disproportionately affected by a public health crisis.
These inner-city residents deserve something more than cheap expressions of sympathy and solidarity from the affluent while they impose unbearable costs for the energy to survive.
Only by reducing rather than increasing the cost of energy, can we restore broad upward mobility potential for the underclass and hope to maintain a healthy democratic society.
Racial biasing from police may be seeing major reforms in the future. This resulting from the public protests occurring on city streets about the deep tradition of racial prejudice and violence against African Americans by law enforcement.
Yet the financial racial biasing of climate policies against the poorest residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans will continue into perpetuity under the current leadership.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-17--Activist Firm Driving Climate Lawsuits Covers Its Tracks On Wikipedia

Written by William Allison on .
Posted in Latest news A consulting firm with dark money ties to the climate litigation campaign has taken the unusual and blatant step of editing its Wikipedia page in order to scrub away criticism and block transparency of its finances .
Arabella Advisors bills itself as a consulting firm that helps clients “ increase their philanthropic impact ” but has come under some scrutiny in recent years for setting up “ dark money ” non-profits that go beyond the realm of charitable giving and into political activism that benefits Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover its tracks on the internet , as The Daily Beast reports : “ A network of progressive groups that ’ s seeded some of the most influential Democratic activist groups in the country is turning its attention and considerable resources to another task : sanitizing its Wikipedia page .
“ Arabella Advisors , a philanthropic consulting firm , has enlisted a digital consultant to push for the deletion of portions of its Wikipedia page that the group deems biased or unreliable .
It ’ s targeted excerpts on the page sourced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watchdog group , according to Wikipedia edit logs.
” Arabella Advisors has a set up a number of affiliated 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) organizations , also known as “ dark money ” groups , which in turn have worked to seed dozens of left-leaning political groups .
This type of set-up comes with distinct advantages , including not having to disclose donors , as The Daily Beast notes : “ For Arabella ’ s page , Gaulke ’ s proposed changes included the deletion of information about how the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 4 ) ‘ dark money ’ group , the Sixteen Thirty Fund , effectively hid financial information about groups they support .
“ Sixteen Thirty acts as a ‘ fiscal sponsor ’ for those groups , meaning , in effect , that they are not independent entities , but are , for legal and tax purposes , part of the Sixteen Thirty Fund itself .
That means that they don ’ t have to independently disclose financial information to the Internal Revenue Service .
“ Instead , Sixteen Thirty discloses its overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and expenditures for its scores of fiscal sponsorees into a single financial filing .
That makes it all but impossible to divine the sums that those sponsorees themselves are bringing in or spending.
” Last week , Energy In Depth reviewed Arabella Advisors and Sixteen Thirty Fund ’ s role in the climate litigation campaign after cybersecurity group Citizen Lab released a report that attempted to dubiously link ExxonMobil to a hacking scandal through a group they call “ Dark Basin.
” Citizen Lab is funded by many of the same groups supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Dark Basin report acknowledged the financial contributions of Mountain Philanthropies , which is a project of Arabella Advisors and the group ’ s CEO is a former treasurer of the Sixteen Thirty Fund .
Another group managed by Arabella is the Windward Fund , whose website states that it : One board member for the Windward Fund is Chuck Savitt , who serves as Director of Strategic Client Relationships for Sher Edling – the plaintiff ’ s law firm that is at the center of public nuisance lawsuits against ExxonMobil .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund contribute to Arabella-managed funds .
Arabella Advisors is also involved in the divestment campaign , where it has published reports with wildly overexaggerated financial numbers to make the campaign look far more successful than it is .
Last year , Politico reported on the “ gusher of secret money ” coordinated by the Sixteen Thirty Fund in the 2018 midterm elections supporting Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes and noted that “ megadonor Michael Bloomberg gave $ 250,000 to a super PAC linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center and the New York University Law School that that has placed Special Assistant Attorneys General in state attorney general offices to carry out Bloomberg ’ s agenda , including legal support for lawsuits against fossil fuel companies .
OpenSecrets.org reported that the Sixteen Thirty Fund has sponsored “ pseudo local news outlets ” that are made to appear as if they are actual news organizations but are instead pushing a partisan agenda :

Written by William Allison on Jun 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A consulting firm with dark money ties to the climate litigation campaign has taken the unusual and blatant step of editing its Wikipedia page in order to scrub away criticism and block transparency of its finances.
Arabella Advisors bills itself as a consulting firm that helps clients “increase their philanthropic impact” but has come under some scrutiny in recent years for setting up “dark money” non-profits that go beyond the realm of charitable giving and into political activism that benefits Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes.
Now it’s attempting to cover its tracks on the internet, as The Daily Beast reports:
“A network of progressive groups that’s seeded some of the most influential Democratic activist groups in the country is turning its attention and considerable resources to another task: sanitizing its Wikipedia page. “Arabella Advisors, a philanthropic consulting firm, has enlisted a digital consultant to push for the deletion of portions of its Wikipedia page that the group deems biased or unreliable. It’s targeted excerpts on the page sourced to conservative news organizations and a leading good-government watchdog group, according to Wikipedia edit logs.”
Arabella Advisors has a set up a number of affiliated 501(c)(4) organizations, also known as “dark money” groups, which in turn have worked to seed dozens of left-leaning political groups.
This type of set-up comes with distinct advantages, including not having to disclose donors, as The Daily Beast notes:
“For Arabella’s page, Gaulke’s proposed changes included the deletion of information about how the organization and its affiliated 501(c)(4) ‘dark money’ group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, effectively hid financial information about groups they support. “Sixteen Thirty acts as a ‘fiscal sponsor’ for those groups, meaning, in effect, that they are not independent entities, but are, for legal and tax purposes, part of the Sixteen Thirty Fund itself. That means that they don’t have to independently disclose financial information to the Internal Revenue Service. “Instead, Sixteen Thirty discloses its overall finances, lumping together all the income and expenditures for its scores of fiscal sponsorees into a single financial filing. That makes it all but impossible to divine the sums that those sponsorees themselves are bringing in or spending.”
Last week, Energy In Depth reviewed Arabella Advisors and Sixteen Thirty Fund’s role in the climate litigation campaign after cybersecurity group Citizen Lab released a report that attempted to dubiously link ExxonMobil to a hacking scandal through a group they call “Dark Basin.”
Citizen Lab is funded by many of the same groups supporting the “Exxon Knew” campaign and the Dark Basin report acknowledged the financial contributions of Mountain Philanthropies, which is a project of Arabella Advisors and the group’s CEO is a former treasurer of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
Another group managed by Arabella is the Windward Fund, whose website states that it:
“Seeks to build a more impactful environmental movement by connecting people across diverse geographies, sectors, and communities, enabling them to share expertise and resources, and providing a vehicle for effective, community-based, grassroots grant making that elevates the voices of those most impacted by environmental degradation.”
One board member for the Windward Fund is Chuck Savitt, who serves as Director of Strategic Client Relationships for Sher Edling – the plaintiff’s law firm that is at the center of public nuisance lawsuits against ExxonMobil.
The major funders of the climate litigation campaign like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund contribute to Arabella-managed funds.
Arabella Advisors is also involved in the divestment campaign, where it has published reports with wildly overexaggerated financial numbers to make the campaign look far more successful than it is.
Last year, Politico reported on the “gusher of secret money” coordinated by the Sixteen Thirty Fund in the 2018 midterm elections supporting Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes and noted that “megadonor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000 to a super PAC linked to Sixteen Thirty Fund.”
Bloomberg created and funded the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center and the New York University Law School that that has placed Special Assistant Attorneys General in state attorney general offices to carry out Bloomberg’s agenda, including legal support for lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.
OpenSecrets.org reported that the Sixteen Thirty Fund has sponsored “pseudo local news outlets” that are made to appear as if they are actual news organizations but are instead pushing a partisan agenda:
“Facebook pages operating under the auspices of the Colorado Chronicle, Daily CO, Nevada News Now, Silver State Sentinel and Verified Virginia gave the impression of multiple free-standing local news outlets with unique names and disclaimers. “But the sponsors of those ads are merely fictitious names used by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, according to digital ad data and incorporation records from the D.C. government.”
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--2020-06-17--Calls To Replace Sweden’s King Charles XII Statue With Greta Thunberg

Written by Peter Imanuelsen on .
Posted in Latest news There are now calls in Sweden to replace historic statues , with a former Mayor suggesting that the famous Swedish King Charles XII , also known as Carolus Rex , be replaced with a statue of the climate activist Greta Thunberg .
After statues having been vandalized across the world by far-left extremists , there are now calls for statues to be removed in Sweden as well .
Statues of Thomas Jefferson , Winston Churchill , and Christopher Columbus have all been vandalized in recent protests around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Mayor of Umeå municipality Jan Björinge says that we shouldn ’ t have memorials for “ oppressors ” .
He goes on to suggest that we should use technology to create interactive experiences where removed statues once stood .
For example , using QR codes to give visitors information about a statue that previously stood there .
The former Mayor says that this is not a revision of history , saying that statues are symbols of ideologies , not objective history .
“ Remove the autocrat Karl XII and replace him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he writes .
King Charles XII ( or Carolus Rex ) is one of Sweden ’ s most famous Kings .
He is known for being a warrior King , leading the Swedish Empire to victory in defensive wars in the Great Northern War in the 1700s .
In 1700 , a triple alliance of Denmark-Norway , Saxony-Poland-Lithuania , and Russia launched a threefold attack on the Swedish Empire .
However , King Charles XII , only 18 years old , led the Swedish army through multiple victories despite the Swedish army usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at only 24 years old had forced his enemies into submission .
But by 1709 , Charles XII was defeated at the Battle of Poltava .
Later on in the war , Great Britain , Hanover , and Brandenburg-Prussia joined the alliance against the Swedish Empire .
The Great Northern War eventually ended in 1721 with the defeat of the Swedish Empire .
The Swedish King is not the only statue that the far-left wants to remove .
Now a petition has been started to remove a statue of the Swedish botanist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of racism .
He is known as the father of modern taxonomy , inventing the modern system of naming organisms .
He wrote the famous Systema Naturae .
Read more at Times Of Sweden

Written by Peter Imanuelsen on Jun 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There are now calls in Sweden to replace historic statues, with a former Mayor suggesting that the famous Swedish King Charles XII, also known as Carolus Rex, be replaced with a statue of the climate activist Greta Thunberg.
After statues having been vandalized across the world by far-left extremists, there are now calls for statues to be removed in Sweden as well.
Statues of Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill, and Christopher Columbus have all been vandalized in recent protests around the world.
In an opinion piece for Aftonbladet, former Mayor of Umeå municipality Jan Björinge says that we shouldn’t have memorials for “oppressors”.
He goes on to suggest that we should use technology to create interactive experiences where removed statues once stood. For example, using QR codes to give visitors information about a statue that previously stood there.
The former Mayor says that this is not a revision of history, saying that statues are symbols of ideologies, not objective history.
“Remove the autocrat Karl XII and replace him with the climate activist Greta Thunberg,” he writes.
King Charles XII (or Carolus Rex) is one of Sweden’s most famous Kings. He is known for being a warrior King, leading the Swedish Empire to victory in defensive wars in the Great Northern War in the 1700s.
In 1700, a triple alliance of Denmark-Norway, Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and Russia launched a threefold attack on the Swedish Empire.
However, King Charles XII, only 18 years old, led the Swedish army through multiple victories despite the Swedish army usually being outnumbered.
By 1706, Charles at only 24 years old had forced his enemies into submission. But by 1709, Charles XII was defeated at the Battle of Poltava.
Later on in the war, Great Britain, Hanover, and Brandenburg-Prussia joined the alliance against the Swedish Empire.
The Great Northern War eventually ended in 1721 with the defeat of the Swedish Empire.
The Swedish King is not the only statue that the far-left wants to remove. Now a petition has been started to remove a statue of the Swedish botanist, zoologist, and physician Carl Von Linné because of racism.
He is known as the father of modern taxonomy, inventing the modern system of naming organisms. He wrote the famous Systema Naturae.
Read more at Times Of Sweden
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-17--Flashback: What Michael Crichton Taught Us About Scientific Fraud

Written by Alan Stewart , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news He invented the genre we now call the techno-thriller whereby it is hard to discern whether it is fact or fiction you were reading .
The reason for that was because he wove his plots around well-researched facts .
One of the best examples is State of Fear .
If you are a student of the climate change furor , it is a must-read , chock full of intelligent insight into the twisted pseudoscience driving the environmental movement .
Below is a key short extract in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and man through the character , Kenner .
( emphasis added ) Let ’ s remember where we live , Kenner was saying .
We live on the third planet from a medium sized sun .
Our planet is five billion years old , and it has been changing constantly all during that time .
The Earth is now on its third atmosphere .
The first atmosphere was helium and hydrogen .
It dissipated early on because the planet was so hot .
Then as the planet cooled , volcanic eruptions produced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Later the water vapor condensed , forming the oceans that cover most of the planet .
Then , around three billion years ago , some bacteria evolved to consume carbon dioxide and excrete a highly toxic gas , oxygen .
Other bacteria released nitrogen .
The atmospheric concentration of these gases slowly increased .
Organisms that could not adapt died out .
Meanwhile , the planet ’ s land masses , floating on huge tectonic plates , eventually came together in a configuration that interfered with the circulation of ocean currents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time .
The first ice appeared two billion years ago .
And for the last seven hundred thousand years the planet has been in a geological ice age , characterized by advancing and retreating glacial ice .
No one is entirely sure why , but ice now covers the planet every hundred thousand years , with smaller advances every twenty thousand or so .
The last advance was twenty thousand years ago , so we ’ re due for the next one .
And even today , after five billion years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have five hundred volcanoes , and an eruption every two weeks .
Earthquakes are continuous : a million and a half a year , a moderate Richter 5 quake every six hours , a big earthquake every ten days .
Tsunamis race across the Pacific Ocean every three months .
Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it .
At any moment there are one thousand five hundred electrical storms across the planet .
Eleven lighting bolts strike the earth every second .
A tornado tears across the surface every six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant cyclonic storm , hundreds of miles in diameter , spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land .
The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide .
For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief .
They can ’ t control the climate .
The reality is , they run from the storms .
What may we interpret from this ?
The world is not going to end and neither is civilization going to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be feared .
Life has survived both extremes of climates .
What is termed as extreme weather events have always existed .
The graph above demonstrates we are getting better every day in understanding our environment , working with it , and adapting to its harsher realities .
State of Fear is still in print and is an important guide for future decisions in life .
Another gem from this insightful writer I found apropos to the above .
It ought to make us all think about the debacle that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2006 novel , ‘ Next.
‘ The Price We Pay for Scientific Fraud Fraud in science is not rare and not limited to fringe players .
The most respected researchers and institutions have been caught with fake data .
So , keep in mind this brilliant author ’ s warning :

Written by Alan Stewart, guest post on Jun 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Michael Crichton’s books earned global plaudits.
He invented the genre we now call the techno-thriller whereby it is hard to discern whether it is fact or fiction you were reading.
The reason for that was because he wove his plots around well-researched facts.
One of the best examples is State of Fear.
If you are a student of the climate change furor, it is a must-read, chock full of intelligent insight into the twisted pseudoscience driving the environmental movement.
Below is a key short extract in which Crichton deftly summarizes the reality of nature and man through the character, Kenner. (emphasis added)
Let’s remember where we live, Kenner was saying. We live on the third planet from a medium sized sun. Our planet is five billion years old, and it has been changing constantly all during that time. The Earth is now on its third atmosphere. The first atmosphere was helium and hydrogen. It dissipated early on because the planet was so hot. Then as the planet cooled, volcanic eruptions produced a second atmosphere of steam and carbon dioxide. Later the water vapor condensed, forming the oceans that cover most of the planet. Then, around three billion years ago, some bacteria evolved to consume carbon dioxide and excrete a highly toxic gas, oxygen. Other bacteria released nitrogen. The atmospheric concentration of these gases slowly increased. Organisms that could not adapt died out. Meanwhile, the planet’s land masses, floating on huge tectonic plates, eventually came together in a configuration that interfered with the circulation of ocean currents. It began to get cold for the first time. The first ice appeared two billion years ago. And for the last seven hundred thousand years the planet has been in a geological ice age, characterized by advancing and retreating glacial ice. No one is entirely sure why, but ice now covers the planet every hundred thousand years, with smaller advances every twenty thousand or so. The last advance was twenty thousand years ago, so we’re due for the next one. And even today, after five billion years, our planet remains amazingly active. We have five hundred volcanoes, and an eruption every two weeks. Earthquakes are continuous: a million and a half a year, a moderate Richter 5 quake every six hours, a big earthquake every ten days. Tsunamis race across the Pacific Ocean every three months. Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it. At any moment there are one thousand five hundred electrical storms across the planet. Eleven lighting bolts strike the earth every second. A tornado tears across the surface every six hours. And every four days a giant cyclonic storm, hundreds of miles in diameter, spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land. The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. They can’t control the climate. The reality is, they run from the storms.
What may we interpret from this?
The world is not going to end and neither is civilization going to end. Cold, not heat, is to be feared. Life has survived both extremes of climates. What is termed as extreme weather events have always existed.
The graph above demonstrates we are getting better every day in understanding our environment, working with it, and adapting to its harsher realities.
State of Fear is still in print and is an important guide for future decisions in life.
A Postscript
Another gem from this insightful writer I found apropos to the above. It ought to make us all think about the debacle that has been the pandemic ‘lockdown.’ From Crichton’s 2006 novel, ‘Next.‘
The Price We Pay for Scientific Fraud
“The cost of such fraud is enormous,” McKeown said, “estimated at thirty billion dollars annually, probably three times that.”
Fraud in science is not rare and not limited to fringe players. The most respected researchers and institutions have been caught with fake data. So, keep in mind this brilliant author’s warning:
“The ultimate lesson is that science isn’t special—at least not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It’s no longer a calling, it’s a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do—lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide date, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change.”
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-17--Google Pushes False ‘Climate Change Is Killing Americans’ Trope

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news At the top of Google News searches this morning for “ climate change ” is an article titled , “ Climate Change Is Killing Americans .
Health Departments Aren ’ t Equipped to Respond.
” The article , published by Columbia Journalism Investigations and the far-left British tabloid The Guardian , claims “ a rise in dangerous heat in the United States ” is causing a dramatic rise in climate-related deaths .
However , just the opposite is the case , as objective evidence proves warmer temperatures are reducing deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Columbia article claims , “ In contrast to a viral pandemic , like the one caused by the novel coronavirus , this [ the asserted rise in heatwaves ] is a quiet , insidious threat with no endpoint.
” The article provides , as an illustrative example , the story of an Arizona man who lived alone , in isolation , in his rural desert home .
When people hadn ’ t heard from him for three weeks , police checked on his home and found his dead body .
His air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 99 degrees .
An autopsy ruled “ heat exposure ” as his cause of death .
The premise of the Columbia article is that global warming caused the high summer temperatures in the Arizona desert that caused the man to die .
As if Arizona was a cool , temperate , refreshing summer oasis prior to global warming causing the Arizona desert to begin getting hot in the summer just 50 years ago .
People with common sense know better .
If you don ’ t trust your common sense , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Climate at a Glance : U.S .
Temperatures , there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005 , which is when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented its most precise-ever temperature network throughout the United States .
It seems rather odd that Columbia would publish an article claiming “ Climate Change Is Killing Americans ” by virtue of higher temperatures when there has been no increase in American temperatures for at least the past 15 years .
Also , scientists report that cold temperatures cause more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet , researchers found that colder-than-ideal temperatures kill 20 times more people globally than warmer-than-ideal temperatures .
That includes the United States , where the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that far more Americans die each day during the cold winter months than during the warm summer months .
Therefore , even if temperatures were warming in the United States , any such climate change would save the lives of far more people than would die because of the warmer temperatures .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fact check ” itself to avoid promoting clearly deceitful alarmist articles as top results for climate change “ news .
”

Written by James Taylor on Jun 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the top of Google News searches this morning for “climate change” is an article titled, “Climate Change Is Killing Americans. Health Departments Aren’t Equipped to Respond.”
The article, published by Columbia Journalism Investigations and the far-left British tabloid The Guardian, claims “a rise in dangerous heat in the United States” is causing a dramatic rise in climate-related deaths.
However, just the opposite is the case, as objective evidence proves warmer temperatures are reducing deaths in America and around the world.
The Columbia article claims, “In contrast to a viral pandemic, like the one caused by the novel coronavirus, this [the asserted rise in heatwaves] is a quiet, insidious threat with no endpoint.”
The article provides, as an illustrative example, the story of an Arizona man who lived alone, in isolation, in his rural desert home.
When people hadn’t heard from him for three weeks, police checked on his home and found his dead body. His air conditioner had broken down and it was 99 degrees. An autopsy ruled “heat exposure” as his cause of death.
The premise of the Columbia article is that global warming caused the high summer temperatures in the Arizona desert that caused the man to die.
As if Arizona was a cool, temperate, refreshing summer oasis prior to global warming causing the Arizona desert to begin getting hot in the summer just 50 years ago. People with common sense know better.
If you don’t trust your common sense, we can look at objective evidence. As shown in Climate at a Glance: U.S. Temperatures, there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, which is when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented its most precise-ever temperature network throughout the United States.
It seems rather odd that Columbia would publish an article claiming “Climate Change Is Killing Americans” by virtue of higher temperatures when there has been no increase in American temperatures for at least the past 15 years.
Also, scientists report that cold temperatures cause more deaths than warm temperatures.
In a peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet, researchers found that colder-than-ideal temperatures kill 20 times more people globally than warmer-than-ideal temperatures.
That includes the United States, where the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that far more Americans die each day during the cold winter months than during the warm summer months.
Therefore, even if temperatures were warming in the United States, any such climate change would save the lives of far more people than would die because of the warmer temperatures.
It is a shame that Google doesn’t “fact check” itself to avoid promoting clearly deceitful alarmist articles as top results for climate change “news.”
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--2020-06-18--Virginia’s Latest Pricey Boondoggle: Offshore Wind Power

Written by David Wojick , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news As reported in an earlier article , Virginia ’ s green electric power plan calls for 5,000 MW of offshore wind generating capacity to be built in the next decade or so .
This is a huge amount given that the worldwide total is just around 15,000 MW .
We are talking about something like 800 giant windmills , embedded in the ocean floor and sticking hundreds of feet into the air above the water .
They will be on the order of one and a half times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really tall .
Two features make this offshore wind plan a folly — too little wind and too much wind .
Let ’ s look at too little wind first .
The proposed site is around 30 miles offshore of the giant Norfolk naval complex .
Sites are usually much closer in than this , but maybe the Navy told them to keep their distance .
Or perhaps they are out beyond the very busy shipping lanes .
Every ship from Central and South America , or the southeast U.S. , headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , passes through this area .
This in itself is a concern but not one we are looking at now .
The problem is that this area frequently gets periods of a week or more when the wind is too low to generate any power .
These are winds of 10 mph or less .
Normal wind turbines require sustained wind of 33 mph or more to generate full power .
Some new models with giant blades can do full power at just 23 mph .
But neither generates much of anything at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of no wind ; low wind is enough .
Weather records for Norfolk show just such an event last year , with the low wind period being August 17-23 .
The wind never measured over 10 mph for the entire 7 days .
To make matters worse , when these low wind periods occur in summer they often include very high temperatures .
In the event cited above the high temperatures were in the upper 80s and low 90s .
Away from the ocean , temperatures were even higher .
Both Richmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mid to upper 90 ’ s for most of this week-long period .
These high temperatures create the greatest need for electricity , called peak demand .
Combining peak demand with no wind power means this huge , expensive wind facility does nothing when electricity is most needed .
Some other forms of power generation will have to be standing by to do what the 5,000 MW of useless offshore wind power can not do .
There is no provision for this duplication of generating capacity in the Virginia plan .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then a prolonged blackout is the only option .
Week-long periods of no generation low wind occur fairly often in the Norfolk area , perhaps once every few years .
During a hot summer , they may occur more than once .
But there are also many shorter periods of low wind , with a high need for electricity , that occur more frequently .
Then too there are no doubt longer periods of low wind that occur less frequently .
At the one in fifty-year frequency , we might get a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see no evidence that these possibilities have been addressed in the Virginia plan .
On the high wind side , we have hurricanes .
This area could be called hurricane alley because many storms turn north in the Caribbean and run up the American coast .
Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina actually stick out into this flow .
That is where these tall towers will be .
Category five hurricanes have sustained winds over 156 mph with gusts that can exceed 200 mph .
To date , no offshore wind towers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winds .
Most have been built in Europe where hurricanes do not occur .
The force of the wind is a function of the square of the wind speed , so a 160 mph wind is four times as destructive as an 80 mph wind .
In fact , the US Energy Department recently announced a new research program to look into whether a hurricane-proof design is even possible .
Here ’ s how DOE puts it : DOE puts a positive spin on it but it seems clear that we are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind facilities today .
DOE says “ eventually ” and even that may be wishful thinking .
One thing certain is that if Virginia goes ahead , in effect playing chicken with cat 5 storms , these hundreds of towers will have to be far stronger than standard European designs .
Stronger means more expensive .
The standard cost is around $ 1.5 million per MW , which would be $ 7.5 billion in Virginia ’ s case .
If hurricane proofing doubles the cost that puts a monstrous $ 15 billion at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia plan is calling for a massive and incredibly expensive offshore wind generating facility , at high risk of failure , that will produce no power whatever when it is needed most .

Written by David Wojick, Ph.D. on Jun 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As reported in an earlier article, Virginia’s green electric power plan calls for 5,000 MW of offshore wind generating capacity to be built in the next decade or so.
This is a huge amount given that the worldwide total is just around 15,000 MW. We are talking about something like 800 giant windmills, embedded in the ocean floor and sticking hundreds of feet into the air above the water.
They will be on the order of one and a half times taller than the Washington Monument, which is really tall.
Two features make this offshore wind plan a folly — too little wind and too much wind. Let’s look at too little wind first.
The proposed site is around 30 miles offshore of the giant Norfolk naval complex. Sites are usually much closer in than this, but maybe the Navy told them to keep their distance.
Or perhaps they are out beyond the very busy shipping lanes. Every ship from Central and South America, or the southeast U.S., headed for ports from Baltimore north to Canada, passes through this area.
This in itself is a concern but not one we are looking at now.
The problem is that this area frequently gets periods of a week or more when the wind is too low to generate any power. These are winds of 10 mph or less.
Normal wind turbines require sustained wind of 33 mph or more to generate full power. Some new models with giant blades can do full power at just 23 mph.
But neither generates much of anything at 10 mph. It is not a matter of no wind; low wind is enough.
Weather records for Norfolk show just such an event last year, with the low wind period being August 17-23. The wind never measured over 10 mph for the entire 7 days.
To make matters worse, when these low wind periods occur in summer they often include very high temperatures. In the event cited above the high temperatures were in the upper 80s and low 90s.
Away from the ocean, temperatures were even higher. Both Richmond and Washington DC saw high temperatures in the mid to upper 90’s for most of this week-long period.
These high temperatures create the greatest need for electricity, called peak demand. Combining peak demand with no wind power means this huge, expensive wind facility does nothing when electricity is most needed.
Some other forms of power generation will have to be standing by to do what the 5,000 MW of useless offshore wind power cannot do.
There is no provision for this duplication of generating capacity in the Virginia plan. If it is not there when needed, then a prolonged blackout is the only option.
Week-long periods of no generation low wind occur fairly often in the Norfolk area, perhaps once every few years.
During a hot summer, they may occur more than once. But there are also many shorter periods of low wind, with a high need for electricity, that occur more frequently.
Then too there are no doubt longer periods of low wind that occur less frequently. At the one in fifty-year frequency, we might get a month or more of low wind. I see no evidence that these possibilities have been addressed in the Virginia plan.
On the high wind side, we have hurricanes.
This area could be called hurricane alley because many storms turn north in the Caribbean and run up the American coast. Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina actually stick out into this flow. That is where these tall towers will be.
Category five hurricanes have sustained winds over 156 mph with gusts that can exceed 200 mph. To date, no offshore wind towers have been designed to withstand these sorts of winds.
Most have been built in Europe where hurricanes do not occur. The force of the wind is a function of the square of the wind speed, so a 160 mph wind is four times as destructive as an 80 mph wind.
In fact, the US Energy Department recently announced a new research program to look into whether a hurricane-proof design is even possible. Here’s how DOE puts it:
“Although hurricanes and the damage they can cause remain difficult to predict, with current R&D, the Energy Department is taking steps to alleviate potential risks to offshore wind systems that will eventually be deployed in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.”
DOE puts a positive spin on it but it seems clear that we are in no position to build massive hurricane-proof offshore wind facilities today. DOE says “eventually” and even that may be wishful thinking.
One thing certain is that if Virginia goes ahead, in effect playing chicken with cat 5 storms, these hundreds of towers will have to be far stronger than standard European designs. Stronger means more expensive.
The standard cost is around $1.5 million per MW, which would be $7.5 billion in Virginia’s case. If hurricane proofing doubles the cost that puts a monstrous $15 billion at risk of destruction.
Conclusion: The Virginia plan is calling for a massive and incredibly expensive offshore wind generating facility, at high risk of failure, that will produce no power whatever when it is needed most.
Surely this is folly.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-18--With US Election Looming, Fracking’s Future In Question

Written by Michael Walsh on .
Posted in Latest news Fracking has become a hot-button issue on the Left , and for a number of reasons .
For one thing , it ’ s good for the American economy , so right off the bat , it ’ s bad .
For another , it has something to do with icky fossil fuel extraction — a messy business involving melted dinosaur juice that no right-thinking Harvard grad would want to get involved with .
For another , it ’ s the brutal rape of almost virginal Mother Gaia ; if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embraces wholeheartedly it ’ s the pathetic fallacy that attributes human emotions to inanimate or insentient objects .
The Democrats , naturally , object to fracking because of all of the above , and reasons .
As with everything they despise , they want to ban it , outlaw it , forbid it , demolish it , and destroy it .
For your own good , of course .
The senile cardboard cutout once known as former vice president Joe Biden says he doesn ’ t want to ban fracking — a sure-loser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a state he must win in November to have a chance of unseating Trump .
Especially , as the coronavirus lockdown hoax passes , with the economy bouncing back sharply .
But the ideological , sentimental crazies in his party ( e.g .
everybody else ) don ’ t want to hear talk like that .
Over at Real Clear Markets , Steve Milloy has the story : Fracking is a key issue in battleground states like Pennsylvania , Ohio and Michigan where hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs depend the largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rock formations .
During the primary campaign , Biden flip-flopped back and forth on banning fracking , finally alighting on an intermediary position where he wouldn ’ t ban fracking outright but would act to limit it on federally-owned lands .
After Biden had cemented the nomination , the firebrand [ Alexandria ] Ocasio-Cortez was named as a climate advisor and installed on the Democratic National Committee ’ s climate advisory panel .
In early June , the DNC Environment and Climate Crisis Council issued a report that called for “ legislation permanently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiate a managed phaseout of existing operations.
” The purpose of the report is to “ recommend a sweeping set of policies for inclusion in the new four-year 2020 Democratic Party platform , which will be approved at the August convention.
” While it is not uncommon for presidential candidates and their party platforms to often diverge , is the fracking fracture between Biden and the Democratic Council more significant ?
Of course it is .
Read Milloy ’ s piece in its entirety , which goes on to argue that the feeble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the radicals .
But that gives Trump an opening , not only in places like Pennsylvania ( the keystone to winning the election ; if Trump loses Penn.
, it ’ s over ) , but also Ohio , Michigan , Indiana — all of which Trump won in 2016 .
The big prize of New York State , even in its declining dotage , could also be put into play .
Thug governor Andrew Cuomo has banned it in his state , but long-suffering western New York and the Southern Tier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s got NYS in the bag , but even a strong feint by the Trump campaign in the direction of Rochester , Buffalo , and Elmira could force Biden to play defense .
Biden may deny he would ban fracking .
But the question for voters should be , would it really be up to him ?
Panicked Democrats are now trying to back away from the DNC report calling for the fracking ban .
A “ senior Democrat familiar with the DNC ’ s workings ” said to Reuters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a nonstarter.
” About the Ocasio-Cortez-led DNC climate panel , the understandably anonymous source said , “ Nobody takes them seriously.
” That will be disconcerting news to the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and all the Bernie Sanders supporters who , as it is , already have to hold their noses and vote for Biden .
If he cares about his country at all , Biden has a chance to put down the AOC rebellion and do the right thing .
But of course , he won ’ t .
Read more @ @ @

Written by Michael Walsh on Jun 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Fracking has become a hot-button issue on the Left, and for a number of reasons. For one thing, it’s good for the American economy, so right off the bat, it’s bad.
For another, it has something to do with icky fossil fuel extraction — a messy business involving melted dinosaur juice that no right-thinking Harvard grad would want to get involved with.
For another, it’s the brutal rape of almost virginal Mother Gaia; if there’s one thing the Left embraces wholeheartedly it’s the pathetic fallacy that attributes human emotions to inanimate or insentient objects.
The Democrats, naturally, object to fracking because of all of the above, and reasons. As with everything they despise, they want to ban it, outlaw it, forbid it, demolish it, and destroy it. For your own good, of course.
The senile cardboard cutout once known as former vice president Joe Biden says he doesn’t want to ban fracking — a sure-loser proposition in his birth state of Pennsylvania and a state he must win in November to have a chance of unseating Trump.
Especially, as the coronavirus lockdown hoax passes, with the economy bouncing back sharply. But the ideological, sentimental crazies in his party (e.g. everybody else) don’t want to hear talk like that.
Over at Real Clear Markets, Steve Milloy has the story:
Fracking is a key issue in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan where hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs depend the largely state-governed process of producing oil from shale rock formations. During the primary campaign, Biden flip-flopped back and forth on banning fracking, finally alighting on an intermediary position where he wouldn’t ban fracking outright but would act to limit it on federally-owned lands. After Biden had cemented the nomination, the firebrand [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez was named as a climate advisor and installed on the Democratic National Committee’s climate advisory panel. In early June, the DNC Environment and Climate Crisis Council issued a report that called for “legislation permanently banning fracking and enhanced oil recovery and initiate a managed phaseout of existing operations.” The purpose of the report is to “recommend a sweeping set of policies for inclusion in the new four-year 2020 Democratic Party platform, which will be approved at the August convention.” While it is not uncommon for presidential candidates and their party platforms to often diverge, is the fracking fracture between Biden and the Democratic Council more significant? Of course it is.
Read Milloy’s piece in its entirety, which goes on to argue that the feeble, demented Biden will be a pushover for the radicals.
But that gives Trump an opening, not only in places like Pennsylvania (the keystone to winning the election; if Trump loses Penn., it’s over), but also Ohio, Michigan, Indiana — all of which Trump won in 2016.
The big prize of New York State, even in its declining dotage, could also be put into play. Thug governor Andrew Cuomo has banned it in his state, but long-suffering western New York and the Southern Tier would welcome it.
Biden may think he’s got NYS in the bag, but even a strong feint by the Trump campaign in the direction of Rochester, Buffalo, and Elmira could force Biden to play defense.
Biden may deny he would ban fracking. But the question for voters should be, would it really be up to him? Panicked Democrats are now trying to back away from the DNC report calling for the fracking ban. A “senior Democrat familiar with the DNC’s workings” said to Reuters of the recommended fracking ban, “It’s a nonstarter.” About the Ocasio-Cortez-led DNC climate panel, the understandably anonymous source said, “Nobody takes them seriously.” That will be disconcerting news to the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and all the Bernie Sanders supporters who, as it is, already have to hold their noses and vote for Biden.
If he cares about his country at all, Biden has a chance to put down the AOC rebellion and do the right thing. But of course, he won’t.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-18--Forget Paris: India’s Fossil-Fuel-First Policy Is Here To Stay

Written by Vijay Raj on .
Posted in Latest news The Paris Agreement is the United Nation ’ s flagship climate treaty aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions .
India ’ s Nationally Determined Contribution ( NDC ) , the country ’ s official commitment to Paris agreement , states that the total preliminary estimated cost for India ’ s climate change actions ( between 2016 and 2030 ) is $ 2.5 trillion ( at 2014-15 prices ) .
However , the proposed actions include no significant measures to curb India ’ s fossil fuel use or production .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserves the right to overturn its commitments if the proposed climate mitigatory actions cause any impedance to the growth of individual economic sectors .
Earlier this year , the country ’ s Prime Minister Narendra Modi , responding to Michael R. Bloomberg ’ s question on reducing coal , remarked , This is right that the world ’ s third-largest coal reserves is in India .
In a poor country like India , we can not ignore it but there is a solution to it… We can not deny the resources and assets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see how can we make use of these assets in an environment-friendly way .
That is what we are focusing on.
” He reiterated on India ’ s renewable energy installations and said India is on track to achieve its 175 gigawatts capacity target from solar , wind , and biomass ( by 2022 ) and that he hopes India will increase the renewable target to 450 gigawatts in the near future .
India is also the key member of the International Solar Alliance ( ISA ) which aims to reduce the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ISA has pledged a trillion US dollars towards the cause .
In August , during his speech at UNESCO headquarters in Paris , PM Modi mentioned that India is looking forward to “ create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent , through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
” Though India has increased its renewable installations and desires to create carbon sinks , its dependency on fossil fuels remains unaffected and unaltered .
The scope for any reduction in fossil fuel consumption is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluded the fossil fuel sector from its Nationally Determined Contribution ( NDC ) submitted to the Consortium of Parties ( COP ) of the Paris agreement .
Currently , coal contributes about 72 % of the total electricity generated in the country .
India ’ s coal reserves are the third-largest in the world .
According to the country ’ s long-term energy plan , coal is expected to contribute around 50 % of total electricity demand in 2047 , as renewables are expected to increase in India ’ s energy mix .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian government is also investing heavily in domestic coal infrastructure .
Most of the current coal mining and handling systems at the state-run Coal India Limited ( CIL ) are non-mechanized and the government is injecting 2.1 billion GBP to mechanize 35 projects .
The coal mining target is set at around 880 million tonnes for 2024 .
But the government is pushing to achieve 1 billion tonnes as soon as possible .
News reports indicate that the government is set to announce key measures , including a relaxation of norms and issuance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international miners to operate in the country .
Both the coal secretary and the coal minister have stressed the need to “ urgently expand coal production ” and “ achieve the 1 billion tonnes target at the earliest.
” In order to boost domestic production , the Modi government is keen on liberalizing the coal sector and pushing for the maximum possible foreign direct investment .
Under PM Modi ’ s rule , the country has added around 82 Gigawatts of coal power plants .
India ’ s thermal coal import grew by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , amounting to a total import of 172 million tonnes .
In November 2019 , Indian energy executives met Russian counterparts and the Russian ambassador to India in order to expedite the coal import from Russia .
The Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan , said : “ Long-term cooperation with Russian Far East in the coal sector will help India bridge the demand gap of coking coal in the country.
” He also mentioned that the country is looking to “ secure more coking coal for the domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of India ’ s fossil aspirations .
Oil import is also on a constant increase .
The import from the U.S. especially is at an all-time high and has skyrocketed in recent years owing to geopolitical tensions in the middle east .
Energy trade was an important agenda of PM Modi ’ s visit to the U.S. in 2019 and India ’ s trade with them is likely to increase by 40 percent in 2019-20 , amounting to USD 10 billion .
Just days before the New York climate summit this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ update to their climate and finance policy in a document titled “ Climate Summit for Enhanced Action : A Financial Perspective from India.
” It outlaid India ’ s course of climate action and its reservations about the lack of climate funding from the developed nations ( around 40 percent short of the USD 100 billion ) .
The report explicitly states “ Despite the various climate finance decisions , there are attempts by some developed country Parties to shrug off even their modest past responsibilities.
” While the document reiterates the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including mitigate climate change and promoting renewable energy ) , it clearly communicates that its efforts are on a “ best-effort ” basis .
The document also emphasized that no major new climate actions will be announced until 2023 and that the country won ’ t reassess its climate targets : “ For the present , India may only be in a position to elaborate or clarify its post-2020 climate actions already pledged in its NDC.
” The document is a clear signal that the Indian government will not compromise on its developmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian government was also reflected in the cabinet decisions made in the run-up to the current UN Conference of Parties ( COP 25 ) meeting in Madrid .
The cabinet approved the Indian government ’ s policy of not yielding to the pressure from developed countries on the implementation of climate actions , especially when the developed countries themselves have not addressed the gaps in the pre-2020 commitments and pledges made by them to developing countries .
PM Modi , a man known for his keen aspirations for economic development , will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuels to appease those at the UN .
As explicitly stated by him , the country can not afford to put the brakes on fossil fuels and will continue to explore alternative ways to reduce its carbon footprint and improve the use of emission-free technologies .
Fossil fuels are here to stay in India .

Written by Vijay Raj on Jun 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Paris Agreement is the United Nation’s flagship climate treaty aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.
India’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the country’s official commitment to Paris agreement, states that the total preliminary estimated cost for India’s climate change actions (between 2016 and 2030) is $2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices).
However, the proposed actions include no significant measures to curb India’s fossil fuel use or production.
Moreover, the NDC states that the country reserves the right to overturn its commitments if the proposed climate mitigatory actions cause any impedance to the growth of individual economic sectors.
Earlier this year, the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, responding to Michael R. Bloomberg’s question on reducing coal, remarked,
This is right that the world’s third-largest coal reserves is in India. In a poor country like India, we cannot ignore it but there is a solution to it… We cannot deny the resources and assets that India has but we want to see how can we make use of these assets in an environment-friendly way. That is what we are focusing on.”
He reiterated on India’s renewable energy installations and said India is on track to achieve its 175 gigawatts capacity target from solar, wind, and biomass (by 2022) and that he hopes India will increase the renewable target to 450 gigawatts in the near future.
India is also the key member of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) which aims to reduce the cost of solar power installations across the globe. ISA has pledged a trillion US dollars towards the cause.
In August, during his speech at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, PM Modi mentioned that India is looking forward to “create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.”
Though India has increased its renewable installations and desires to create carbon sinks, its dependency on fossil fuels remains unaffected and unaltered.
The scope for any reduction in fossil fuel consumption is slim to none, as India has excluded the fossil fuel sector from its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted to the Consortium of Parties (COP) of the Paris agreement.
Currently, coal contributes about 72% of the total electricity generated in the country. India’s coal reserves are the third-largest in the world.
According to the country’s long-term energy plan, coal is expected to contribute around 50% of total electricity demand in 2047, as renewables are expected to increase in India’s energy mix.
It is to be noted that the Indian government is also investing heavily in domestic coal infrastructure. Most of the current coal mining and handling systems at the state-run Coal India Limited (CIL) are non-mechanized and the government is injecting 2.1 billion GBP to mechanize 35 projects.
The coal mining target is set at around 880 million tonnes for 2024. But the government is pushing to achieve 1 billion tonnes as soon as possible.
News reports indicate that the government is set to announce key measures, including a relaxation of norms and issuance of global tenders, to attract large international miners to operate in the country.
Both the coal secretary and the coal minister have stressed the need to “urgently expand coal production” and “achieve the 1 billion tonnes target at the earliest.”
In order to boost domestic production, the Modi government is keen on liberalizing the coal sector and pushing for the maximum possible foreign direct investment. Under PM Modi’s rule, the country has added around 82 Gigawatts of coal power plants.
India’s thermal coal import grew by 19 percent in 2018, the highest ever, amounting to a total import of 172 million tonnes.
In November 2019, Indian energy executives met Russian counterparts and the Russian ambassador to India in order to expedite the coal import from Russia.
The Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan, said: “Long-term cooperation with Russian Far East in the coal sector will help India bridge the demand gap of coking coal in the country.”
He also mentioned that the country is looking to “secure more coking coal for the domestic steel industry.”
Coal is just one aspect of India’s fossil aspirations. Oil import is also on a constant increase. The import from the U.S. especially is at an all-time high and has skyrocketed in recent years owing to geopolitical tensions in the middle east.
Energy trade was an important agenda of PM Modi’s visit to the U.S. in 2019 and India’s trade with them is likely to increase by 40 percent in 2019-20, amounting to USD 10 billion.
Just days before the New York climate summit this year, Modi’s government released an update to their climate and finance policy in a document titled “Climate Summit for Enhanced Action: A Financial Perspective from India.”
It outlaid India’s course of climate action and its reservations about the lack of climate funding from the developed nations (around 40 percent short of the USD 100 billion).
The report explicitly states “Despite the various climate finance decisions, there are attempts by some developed country Parties to shrug off even their modest past responsibilities.”
While the document reiterates the country’s commitment to climate action (including mitigate climate change and promoting renewable energy), it clearly communicates that its efforts are on a “best-effort” basis.
The document also emphasized that no major new climate actions will be announced until 2023 and that the country won’t reassess its climate targets: “For the present, India may only be in a position to elaborate or clarify its post-2020 climate actions already pledged in its NDC.”
The document is a clear signal that the Indian government will not compromise on its developmental goals.
This fossil-first attitude of the Indian government was also reflected in the cabinet decisions made in the run-up to the current UN Conference of Parties (COP 25) meeting in Madrid.
The cabinet approved the Indian government’s policy of not yielding to the pressure from developed countries on the implementation of climate actions, especially when the developed countries themselves have not addressed the gaps in the pre-2020 commitments and pledges made by them to developing countries.
PM Modi, a man known for his keen aspirations for economic development, will not compromise on India’s reliance on fossil fuels to appease those at the UN.
As explicitly stated by him, the country cannot afford to put the brakes on fossil fuels and will continue to explore alternative ways to reduce its carbon footprint and improve the use of emission-free technologies.
Fossil fuels are here to stay in India.
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print