Wednesday 31 May 2017


This post gives the details. Surely the President will now follow through and make good his promise to pull out of the Paris agreement. This funding cut must leave a big whole in the climate change programmes of the UN. Maybe we will see it starting to die. 

Tuesday 30 May 2017


This article implies that they are. To me it seems more like they are leaving it in  the long grass, rather than killing it off. It appeals to energy companies for the reason that they will be able to do away with meter readers (I doubt if they are interested in emissions of CO2). Also I suspect that these meters will soon lead to prices being changed at different times of day. At first this will be presented as a means of customers saving money by offering cheaper prices at times of low demand, but later it will be used to jack up prices in high demand times. Beware the Trojan horse!

Monday 29 May 2017


This piece gives the details. How ironic that environmentalists are so fond of windfarms that they reject these findings. It is a trait of human nature to believe the things that fit your own deeply held views.

Sunday 28 May 2017


This story had an outing in yesterday's Daily Mail. Admittedly it was only a small paragraph on page 12, but it shows the hardcore warmists are still trying. But what they forget is that if we have affordable reliable electricity supplies then there is a very simple answer - air conditioning! Oh well it was a nice try.

Saturday 27 May 2017


Global Warming Policy Forum, 16 May 2012
 Methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond.

In a joint announcement two weeks ago, the United States and Japan (along with ConocoPhillips, the U.S.-based multinational oil company) announced the world’s first successful field trial (in Alaska) of a technology that uses carbon dioxide to free natural gas from methane hydrates – the globally abundant hunks of porous ice that trap huge amounts of natural gas in deposits, onshore and offshore, around the world. It’s a neat feat. You use CO2, which

Methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond. Who says so? Using the most conservative of assumptions, the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service says so.

The U.S. now produces 21 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas a year. But it possesses 330,000 tcf of natural gas in its methane hydrate resource – theoretically enough to supply the country for 3,000 years (give or take). Using less conservative numbers (for example, a methane hydrate resource of 670,000 tcf), the U.S. is good to go for 6,000 years (give or take).

Worldwide, methane hydrate reserves add 1,000,000 tcf to the global natural gas resource. We have a ways to go before commercial exploitation begins but the question must now be asked: Isn’t it time to relax a bit about peak oil – or, for that matter, peak primary energy? We are not apt to run out of carbon to burn for a very long time. It is true: Only a fraction of these resources can be deemed economic in the near term. But a fraction of them could still deliver plentiful energy for many centuries.

According to one conservative academic calculation, Earth’s conventional reserves of natural gas hold 96 billion tonnes of carbon. Earth’s reserves of oil contain 160 billion tonnes. Earth’s reserves of coal contain 675 billion tonnes: Taken together, 931 billion tonnes of fossil fuel. But Earth’s methane hydrates contain 3,000 billion tons of carbon.

Or more. Methane hydrates are found at larger and larger volumes the deeper you drill. ConocoPhillips drilled 830 metres for its field test at Prudhoe Bay. At this level, you calculate the reservoir of methane gas in the hundreds (100s) of trillions of cubic feet (tcf). Drill deeper and you calculate reserves in the thousands (1,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Drill deeper still and you calculate reserves in the hundred-thousands (100,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Earth’s reserves of this resource could theoretically reach millions (1,000,000s) of trillion cubic feet.

Friday 26 May 2017


China Claims Methane Hydrates Breakthrough May Lead To Global Energy RevolutionCNN Money, 20 May 2017
 China is talking up its achievement of mining flammable ice for the first time from underneath the South China Sea.
 Methane Hydrates: China’s Real South China Sea Goal?
 Estimates of the South China Sea’s methane hydrate potential now range as high as 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas equivalent. That’s sufficient to satisfy China’s entire equivalent oil consumption for 50 years.

The fuel-hungry country has been pursuing the energy source, located at the bottom of oceans and in polar regions, for nearly two decades. China’s minister of land and resources, Jiang Daming, said Thursday that the successful collection of the frozen fuel was “a major breakthrough that may lead to a global energy revolution,” according to state media.

Experts agree that flammable ice could be a game changer for the energy industry, similar to the U.S. shale boom. But they caution that big barriers — both technological and environmental — need to be cleared to build an industry around the frozen fuel, which is also known as gas hydrate.

China, the world’s largest energy consumer, isn’t the first country to make headway with flammable ice. Japan drilled into it in the Pacific and extracted gas in 2013 — and then did so again earlier this month. The U.S. government has its own long-running research program into the fuel.

The world’s resources of flammable ice — in which gas is stored in cages of water molecules — are vast. Gas hydrates are estimated to hold more carbon than all the world’s other fossil fuels combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

An image from Chinese state television shows gas extracted from flammable ice burning in the South China Sea.

And it’s densely packed: one cubic foot of flammable ice holds 164 cubic feet of regular natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chinese state news agency Xinhua says that makes the fuel a strong contender to replace regular oil and natural gas. But like any fossil fuel, flammable ice raises significant environmental concerns.

Experts worry about the release of methane, a superpotent greenhouse gas with 
25 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. And although burning natural gas is cleaner than coal, it still creates carbon emissions.

The fuel source has a lot of potential in China, analysts at Morgan Stanley said Thursday, citing the country’s successful trial and government support to develop the industry.

But commercial production is unlikely in the next three years due to high costs, potential environmental concerns and technological barriers, the analysts said in a research note.

“If there is a real breakthrough,” they wrote, “it could be as significant as the shale revolution in the United States. Under such a bull case scenario, we’d expect a significant increase in offshore exploration and production activities.”

Thursday 25 May 2017


The following is from the Committee For A constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and explains the latest disaster movie from Hollywood which is attempting to demonise coal.

When it comes to pushing radical environmentalism, no one does it with more vigour than Hollywood.

Such is the case with their latest gem, “From the Ashes,” which purports to showcase the evils of America’s use of coal to generate electricity.

As we’ve done in the past, CFACT sent in an undercover operative to a special sneak preview earlier this week to get the early scoop on how the filmmakers are trying to snooker the American public with yet another slick presentation of one-sided facts.

What our operative found was no surprise: A bunch of hype very short on substance.

The movie, produced by (appropriately named) “RadicalMedia,” is being distributed through National Geographic and makes no pretence of being even remotely unbiased.

During an “invite only” reception before the special movie screening, a prominent Sierra Club member was overheard saying there are roughly 350 U.S. Sierra Club members funded by the Bloomberg Foundation (the same Left-wing foundation that bankrolled this film) “who wake up every day with the sole purpose of shutting down coal mines.”

The film itself launched into a number of diatribes against coal use, all bordering on the preposterous:
Fortunately our operative informed us the film dragged on for about 75 minutes, which seemed to tax even this dedicated crowd of true believers’ attention spans. One suspects it will have even less success with general audiences during its upcoming limited release.

Wednesday 24 May 2017


Here is the evidence. Try telling that to the climate alarmists and they will simply not accept it. The fact is that to the nearest whole number it is correct. Here is another link to the article on Matt Ridley's own blog.

Tuesday 23 May 2017


This pledge may have gone un-noticed in a manifesto full of nationalisation pledges and tax increases, but for those who consider its implications it is actually the nuttiest of all.  It may be that they meant to say electricity instead of energy. If so then they are extremely careless. In either case they are unelectable, and thankfully the polls currently show that to be the case.

Monday 22 May 2017


John Constable: How Ed Miliband Neutered UK Energy RegulatorGWPF Energy Comment, 16 May 2017

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor
There is likely to be increasing pressure to reform the gas and electricity regulator, Ofgem, which is widely held to have failed in the protection of consumers. This accusation is to a large degree both misguided and unjust. Ofgem is constrained by its Statutory Duties, which were revised by Ed Milliband in 2010 to put climate policy costs beyond criticism. It is this, as much as institutional lassitude, that accounts for it being so ineffective a consumer champion.

In the wake of concern about rising electricity retail prices to domestic households, the Conservative Party has suggested a price cap on Standard Variable Tariffs. It is fair to say that this policy has not been well received by commentators and economists, who with very good reason believe it likely to be counterproductive. Whether the voting public will be persuaded that a price cap is in their long-term interest remains to be seen, but it could well prove popular. – With a maladroit sense of timing that is typical of the hapless energy industry my own electricity and gas supplier has just sent me a letter explaining that due to price rises next year’s annual dual fuel bill is likely to be about 8% higher.

Doubtless many other households are receiving similar news, and perhaps thinking positively about Mrs May’s offer to stamp on rip-off tariffs.

One, more sophisticated, reaction to this sort of news is to blame the regulator, Ofgem. If the government needs to wade in to protect consumers, surely the regulator must have failed in its job. This is an understandable conclusion, but to a very significant degree it is unjust to Ofgem, which is itself tightly regulated by the legal definition of its Statutory Duties and powers. These are defined in the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002, the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and, crucially, in amendments to these acts. Perhaps the most important of these amendments occurred in the Energy Act of 2010, which originated under Ed Miliband when he was Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Though a small change, it drew the regulator’s teeth.

The Utilities Act 2000 had described the overarching principal objective for energy regulation as 
the protection of the interests of existing and future consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting competition (for further details see this DECC analysis). This was a lucid and unconstricting brief. A determined regulator could range far and free in the pursuit of consumer welfare.

Energy Act of 2010 amended this principal objective by defining “interests” thus in two separate paragraphs (16 (3) 1A and 17 (3) 1A referring to gas and electricity:

Those interests of existing and future consumers are their interests taken as a whole, including—
(a) their interests in the reduction of gas-supply/electricity supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases; and

(b) their interests in the security of the supply of gas/electricity to them.

This change was of enormous importance, since an increasingly large part of the charges on the consumer were (and still are) the result of policy. In effect, the revision to Ofgem’s principal purpose made them unable to comment on the imposition of cost increases resulting from measures to mitigate climate change.

Since these coercive cost increases are invisible to the market and cannot be reduced by competition, there was no means other than the regulator, or the slow and uncertain cycles of electoral democracy, to expose them to criticism.

This is no trivial matter. Policies now account for about 17% of the price to domestic households, in other words about £26/MWh of a total price to household consumers of £154/MWh (see the Committee on Climate Change Energy Prices and Bills). Median annual domestic electricity consumption in the UK is approximately 3.5 MWhs per household, so this amounted to about £91 per household per year, or roughly £2.4 billion a year, assuming 26 million households, a sum that greatly exceeds the £1.5 billion a year rip-off that prompted Mrs May to suggest a price cap.

According to the government’s estimates, in the now discontinued Estimated Impacts, we can see that this problem is set to grow dramatically. In 2020 the domestic price impact will have in all probability doubled, to £52/MWh, or about £180 a year on the electricity bill, a nationwide cost of about £5 billion per year.
Constrained by its remit, as set out by Ed Milibands Energy Act of 2010, Ofgem is powerless to comment on these enormous impositions. In essence, by being compelled to have regard to the interests of future consumers in the light of climate change the regulator has been absorbed by government and, like the Committee on Climate Change, made a mere cog wheel in the policy delivery mechanism. Consequently, and with the sole exception of the National Audit Office, there is no statutory body that has any interest in holding the government to account on climate policy costs, and none that is exclusively focused on the energy sector.

Restoring Ofgem’s Statutory Duties to their earlier free-ranging state could yield enormous benefits for the consumer. Such a reform should also be supported by electricity retailers, who, for all their faults, are carrying the can for climate policy related price increases over which they have no control. By contrast, a ‘reform’ of Ofgem that further weakened an already crippled body would be a disaster for all concerned. 

Sunday 21 May 2017


Germany’s Grand Coalition Energy Experts Reject Greens’ Coal Exit PlansClean Energy Wire, 16 May 2017
 Energy experts of Germany’s grand coalition of conservatives (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) have rebuffed the Green Party’s plans for an accelerated coal exit.

“We cannot phase out both nuclear and coal-fired power production within 15 or 20 years,” conservative Thomas Bareiß said at a party debate hosted by utilities RWE and innogy. Bareiß argued that exiting coal “with a sledgehammer-approach” would “massively damage” Germany’s industrial capacity and undermine the “basis of our prosperity”.

The SPD’s Bernd Westphal said his party would put “no signature” under a hypothetical coalition treaty with the Greens that included an accelerated coal exit. Westphal said the energy transition affected “a very diverse array of interests” and limiting debate to climate protection was “wrong”.

The Green Party’s Julia Verlinden said accelerating Germany’s coal exit was “a red line” for her party as “there is simply no other way to meet our climate goals”. She rejected the other parties’ insistence on a market-based approach for exiting coal as “there is no market because carbon emission costs are not internalised”.

Verlinden added that a coal exit was inevitable and taking action now would “increase our flexibility and allow for better adaptation” by affected industries. In their draft election programme, the Greens envisage a coal exit by 2030.

Saturday 20 May 2017


Further to yesterday's post, see what is going on in Pakistan. We are supposed to be saving the planet from catastrophic climate change while our competitors seem to be quite oblivious to the predicament - or is it that they believe it is nonsense, but still claim to believe, so they can get their hands on some of the climate fund that we have promised them. Rather like a young child's belief in the tooth fairy.

Chinese Firms To Invest $15bn In Pakistani Coal-Fired PowerPower Engineering International, 3 May 2017

Diarmaid Williams
Officials at the Pakistani water and power ministry have said Chinese companies are expected to spend around $15bn over the next 15 years to build close to a dozen coal-fired power plants of varying sizes around the country.

Reuters reports that Mohammed Younus Dagha, the former federal secretary for water and power, who became commerce secretary at the end of March, is emphasising that the coal plants are part of a larger plan.

That is the $54bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which includes spending of about $33bn on a total of 19 energy projects, including coal-fired and renewable power plants, transmission lines, and other infrastructure.

“Hefty investment under the CPEC project has held out hopes of significantly spiking domestic power generation (by) around 6,000 MW by the end of 2018,” Dagha said.

Combined, the projects will eventually generate 16,000 MW of electricity, which the government says is urgently needed.

Coal power will, according to these projections, account for 75 per cent of the newly generated power, which the government says will be installed with the latest in pollution-minimizing equipment.

The same is true for India.

Coal To Remain India's Energy Mainstay for Next 30 Years: Policy PaperReuters, 16 May 2017

Coal will remain India's main energy source for the next three decades although its share will gradually fall as the country pushes renewable power generation, according to a government report seen by Reuters.

The country is the world's third-largest coal producer and the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter. It depends on coal for about three-fifths of its energy needs and aims to double its output to 1.5 billion tonnes by 2020.

By 2047, however, coal's share of India's energy mix would shrink to 42-48 percent, from about 58 percent in 2015, the report, which has yet to be made public, showed.

"India would like to use its abundant coal reserves as it provides a cheap source of energy and ensures energy security as well," the report said.

It was written by Indian think tank NITI Aayog, which advises the government on policy issues and is chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the Institute for Energy Economics Japan (IEEJ).

Friday 19 May 2017


Read the following piece and see how we in the west are handing over control of coal and its use in power plants to China. This is a massive financial loss, all in a futile attempt to control the climate.

China’s Energy Silk Road Based On Building Coal Power Far And WideChina Dialogue, 12 May 2017

Feng Hao
China was involved in 240 coal power projects in 65 of the Belt and Road countries between 2001 and 2016.

Officials and leaders from over 110 countries gathered in Beijing on May 14-15 for the first ever 
Belt and Road Forum. China’s ambitious attempt to boost economic growth across a vast area stretching from its southeast coast all the way to Africa is known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Its two parts – a 
Silk Road Economic Belt and a Maritime Silk Road – are focused on channelling enormous investment in infrastructure to connect the region and to open new markets for Chinese products, services and capital.

But the BRI is also causing concern within China and internationally because Chinese companies are investing heavily in coal power in BRI countries. The fear is that China will help lock developing countries into coal-power assets that will last decades, damage people’s health, and contribute to climate change.


Investments on the up
Global Environment Institute (GEI) has recently carried out a long term review of China’s involvement in coal power projects in 65 countries that are now participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.

GEI’s figures show that between 2001 and 2016 China was involved in 240 coal power projects in BRI countries, with a total generating capacity of 251 gigawatts. The top five countries for Chinese involvement were India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Turkey.

The GEI research also found that China’s involvement in coal power projects in BRI countries, which often takes the form of contracting and equipment supply, has been increasing overall, despite large year-to-year fluctuations…

Thursday 18 May 2017


This article looks at a piece in the Telegraph which attempts to put a positive spin on the change from centrally produced electricity from power stations to small, locally produced energy. The writer has gone beyond using the correct facts, which do not support the case and instead produced incorrect information in order to hoodwink the readers, who inevitably are unable to challenge what is presented. They get away with it time and time again.

Wednesday 17 May 2017


This article by Christopher Booker explains how the free market could be used to reduce our bills rather than a cap controlled by the government.

Tuesday 16 May 2017


This article explains the latest way of extracting more money from the hapless businessman. How long before a similar scheme comes into play to hoodwink you and me? All in the name of "saving the planet". Maybe then we will see some people out in protest (with some greens among them).

Monday 15 May 2017


This post serves to remind us just how dangerous some climate change extremists can be. I thank those courageous scientists who speak out with a message of common sense. If they were silenced we would soon find the extremists would push a lot more of their doctrinal beliefs on to us. 

Sunday 14 May 2017


This article looks at an agreement that has been signed by Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, which appears to support the Paris climate agreement. This suggests that the President may be softening on his pledge to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement. This would be a great pity and a lost opportunity to return to common sense on this issue.

Saturday 13 May 2017


Yes, contrary to all the scare stories, methane gas escaping from the floor of the ocean may turn out to be beneficial according to this report. This is extraordinary and very encouraging news (which you will certainly not hear on the TV news).

Friday 12 May 2017

Thursday 11 May 2017


This article draws attention to the dangerous policies on energy being rolled out in Australia. If they carry on increasing renewables (or "unreliables" as some people call them) then the economy is at risk. Over here in the UK we should be watching closely and learning the lessons. 

Wednesday 10 May 2017


This article gives the details. There has been a lot of speculation on whether President Trump will pull the USA out of the Paris climate agreement. We will have to keep guessing.

Tuesday 9 May 2017


Here is an excellent letter to the Telegraph from Paul Homewood. So good that it would be worth adapting it to send in to other papers to inform the public of the reality of the situation.

Monday 8 May 2017


This report looks at the reason as well as the impact of falling oil prices. This is the complete opposite of the prediction of the UK government and makes nonsense of their energy policy though they certainly won't admit it.  Time for our politicians to hold the government to account.

Sunday 7 May 2017


This article focuses on what should be the government's response to the never-ending calls by environmental campaigners for removing all forms of "pollution" however small. In a rational world they should be looking at real risks and their management rather than hypothetical hazards.  Balancing risks and benefits would be even better. 

Saturday 6 May 2017


This piece looks at the latest study which confirms the reality of the global warming pause. It is the climate alarmists who are in denial now as they try desperately to find ways of making this pause disappear.

Friday 5 May 2017


This article looks at the hysterical reaction to a mainstream USA newspaper publishing something even mildly critical of the alarmist theory of man made climate change. If you read some of the critical letters you cannot fail to see the horror of those who appear to regard climate change as a sort of religious text that simply is beyond criticism, or even mild questioning.  This is what makes the ordinary person take a closer look at what lies behind the alarmist headlines. As Shakespeare once wrote - they protest too much!

Thursday 4 May 2017


This article refers to a lecture given in a local science café attended by the writer. He describes how the professor seemed to have a blinkered approach and refused to discuss the many awkward questions from his audience. What a disaster.

Tuesday 2 May 2017


Competitive Enterprise Institute, 25 April 2017

Marlo Lewis Jr
April 29th will mark the end of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. He has taken several significant actions in energy and climate policy, and seems to be on a roll. What really matters, of course, is how much he accomplishes during the next two to four years, and how much of his energy agenda endures after that.

Image result for Trump 100 days

E&E Daily reporter Arianna Skibell reminds us that the 100-day benchmark originated with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who pushed Congress to enact 15 major pieces of legislation—the foundation of what became the New Deal—within 100 days of taking office. The conditions for that achievement—a highly visible domestic crisis and large congressional majorities favoring the president’s agenda—have no analogue today. Journalists and pundits persist in comparing presidents based on their first hundred days partly because of the influence of pro-New Deal historians, who popularized that metric to ensure that F.D.R.’s early legislative accomplishments would always seem especially impressive.

That said, President Trump has shown himself to be a high achiever in politics no less than in business. According to the White House press office, Trump has: 

  • Worked with Congress to enact more legislation and signed more executive orders in his first hundred days than any president in a half century;
  • Worked with Congress to enact 28 pieces of legislation, more than any other president since Truman;
  • Signed 25 executive orders, the most of any first 100 days in over 50 years (will be over 30 by day 100); and
  • Removed more job-killing regulations through legislation than any president in U.S. history.

On energy and climate policy, Trump has taken big steps to change the direction of the country. His March 28th Energy Independence Executive Order

  • Directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan and related rulemakings;
  • Disbands the Obama administration’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon;
  • Lifts the Obama administration’s coal leasing moratorium on federal lands;
  • Directs the Department of Interior to review, and if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind Obama administration regulations restricting oil and gas exploration on federal lands;
  • Overturns Obama’s climate policy executive orders; and,
  • Directs executive agencies to “review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions ... that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.” 
In addition, Trump approved permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline, ending the Obama policy of inviting anti-growth activists to block and delay investment in critical energy infrastructure. He eliminated the Stream Protection Rule, which threatened the viability of Appalachian coal mining. He directed the EPA to reexamine its de-facto fuel economy standards for model years 2022-2025 motor vehicles, which auto companies warn would price low-income households out of the market for new cars. Trump also directed the EPA to review the Waters of the United States rule, which endangers property rights by expansively redefining “navigable waters of the United States” to include seasonal ponds unconnected by streams to navigable waters.

The one critical energy and climate issue on which Trump has not yet taken action is the Paris Climate Agreement. As my colleague Chris Horner and I discussed previously:

Withdrawing the United States from this treaty would put a stop to Obama’s attempted end-run around the constitutional treaty process, and ensure that elections, not U.N.-organized, political pressure campaigns, determine the direction of U.S. domestic economic and energy policy. If President Trump fails to do this, domestic and foreign opponents of Trump’s energy policies and possibly activist courts can continue to invoke this “international commitment,” and any future U.S. administration will have free rein to pick up where Obama left off.  

President Trump’s energy and climate record is one of solid achievement so far. However, until Trump cancels America’s participation, the Paris Agreement will provide the framework for global political pressure campaigns directed against Trump’s pro-growth energy agenda and legal pretexts for rebooting the EPA as the nation’s unlawful climate legislator.


Press Trust of India, 30 April 2017

President Donald Trump has promised to make a “big decision” on the “one-sided” Paris climate deal soon as he alleged that the US is being unfairly targeted by asking to pay money while major polluting nations like Russia, China and India are contributing nothing.

President Donald Trump marked his 100th day in office in a speech in Pennsylvania by  promising to make a “big decision” on the “one-sided” Paris climate deal in the next two weeks – full speech here

In a campaign-style rally in Pennsylvania, a state that helped tip the election in his favor, Trump said the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is “one sided.”

“I will be making a big decision on the Paris accord over the next two weeks and we will see what happens,” he said in his speech to mark the first 100 days of his presidency.

“…like the one-sided Paris climate accord. Where the US pays billions of dollars (for the Paris Climate Accord) while China, Russia, and India have contributed (to pollution) and will contribute nothing,” Trump alleged as the audience booed to the Paris Agreement.

The Paris climate deal within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 2015 by 194 countries and ratified by 143. It aims to hold the increase in average global temperature to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial level by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Trump claimed that it is estimated that for compliance with the agreement could ultimately shrink Americas GDP by USD 2.5 trillion over a 10-year period.

“That means factories and plants closing all over our country,” he said and alleged that the Washington’s ‘dishonest media’ would not report because it is is part of the problem.

“Their priorities are not my priorities, and they are not your priorities, believe me,” he said.

“They are all part of a broken system that has profited from this global theft and plunder of American wealth at the expense of the American worker. We are not going to let other countries take advantage of us anymore because, from now on, it is going to be America first,” Trump said.

Monday 1 May 2017


This article explains how all the smart meters issued so far may turn out to be too dumb to be of any use. You really could not make this up, but read the link to see what is happening.