THE REMAINING ROADBLOCK TO USA WORLD ENERGY DOMINANCE

This article explains how the climate activists in the USA are using the law to delay and frustrate the use of and exploration for fossil fuels. The "roadblock" is the Endangerment Finding (EF) for Carbon Dioxide. As long as the EF remains in place, the administration foolishly concedes to environmental activists and random district judges the ability to delay, obstruct, and potentially stop the march to U.S. energy dominance.  With the "science" backing up the EF now thoroughly discredited, there is no reason to make an such concession.

THE BATTLE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY IN ARIZONA HOTS UP

All over the USA and other Western nations there is a battle going on to increase the amount of renewable energy, such as solar and wind (or unreliables as many call them). Wherever this is happening prices are increasing and the grid becomes more difficult to control. This article looks at what is going on in Arizona.

ONE SPELL OF HOT WEATHER IS NOT PROOF OF GW

Here is a good piece from Christopher Booker in the Daily Mail in which he says that claims that the recent hot weather across many parts of the northern hemisphere are proof of global warming are nonsense. It is not surprising that climate alarmist would want to make such claims as it is all they have got. Their problem is that this heat will soon be gone and be replaced by cold weather. They are treating us as fools.

BRITAIN'S PENSION FUND ASSOCIATION REJECTS CLIMATE CHANGE LAW FOR INVESTMENTS

The Actuary, 20 July 2018

The UK’s pension fund trade body has argued that new regulations governing how trustees invest £1.5trn in assets should exclude explicit reference to climate change.

Why should the government place restrictions on how trustees invest pension funds? The only criteria should be that they must act in good faith and within the law. Of course weather events are important, but climate change is on a time scale that makes it impossible to predict. As far as use of fossil fuels is concerned, it is absolutely clear that they are a very sound investment at the present time and for the foreseeable future.  



The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) said including climate change specifically in a new law could “confuse” trustees by unintentionally narrowing their focus.

This could cause them to disregard other environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations that may be more relevant to their portfolios, such as resource depletion or human rights.

This is despite the PLSA reiterating its belief that climate change poses a substantial risk to the business models of firms in almost every sector, threatening the stability of the financial system.

“It is important that pension schemes consider risks related to climate change as part of their investment strategies, however, this is clearly not the only ESG factor to consider,” the PLSA said.

“We believe that picking out any one factor as a specific example may lead trustees to assume that is the only, or most important, factor to consider, when others might be more relevant.”

This comes in response to a consultation by the Department for Work and Pensions into new sustainability regulations for workplace pension funds, which closed on 16 July.

The PLSA also rejected proposals that would see trustees prepare a statement outlining how they take account of scheme members’ views, saying they were “neither practical nor purposeful”.

It argued that members should not be expected to be investment experts, and that trustees should invest in the best interest of members even if it “runs counter to strongly-held beliefs”.

Lawyers at ClientEarth, which co-produced a climate risk report with the PLSA in 2017, said rowing back on the “crucial” government proposals would be “hugely irresponsible”.

CARBON TAX MAY BRING DOWN CANADIAN PM TRUDEAU

National Post, 21 July 2018

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a problem: the only way his government can keep a promise is to make millions of voters angry just as the next federal election rolls around. It’s a pickle, but it’s one of his own creation.

The promise (threat?) was to impose a federal carbon tax next year on any province that did not develop a version of its own that met federally dictated benchmarks. The tax would begin at $10 per emitted tonne of carbon dioxide before rapidly increasing to $50 per tonne by 2022 — estimated to be equivalent to more than 11 cents per litre of gasoline. This is all, of course, in the name of meeting Canada’s international pledges to reduce our CO2 emissions.

The problem is that Prime Minister Trudeau now faces a much different political environment than he apparently took for granted. A year ago, nine of 10 provinces were on board with the Liberal plan (though in some cases this meant agreeing to implement provincial versions). Today (as anti-carbon-tax campaigner Jim Karahalios happily pointed out this week in the Financial Post) Saskatchewan, the original renegade, has been joined in opposing Trudeau’s carbon-tax plan by Ontario and Prince Edward Island, with Newfoundland and New Brunswick signalling they too might bail. Alberta’s NDP government is four-square behind the plan, of course, but it’s very likely be toppled by the United Conservative Party next year, in part over this very issue.

The federal Liberals certainly can push ahead with their threat to “backstop” unco-operative provinces, which is a polite word for imposing a federal tax against the popular will. But doing so during an election year cannot be an appealing prospect.

Their softening poll numbers suggest the election will be competitive and that the Liberals will need to be strong in Ontario. Does Trudeau really want to spend an election campaign telling Ontarians he’s going to force a tax on them over the sustained (and, no doubt, loud) objections of Premier Doug Ford? Does he want to risk his Atlantic Canadian stronghold by going to war with P.E.I., New Brunswick and/or Newfoundland? And if Alberta defenestrates it’s pro-carbon-tax government, does Trudeau suppose he’ll stand a chance even holding what little he has now in Alberta in a federal election shortly afterward? And most importantly: Does any of those bode well for federal-provincial co-operation or national unity?

CALIFORNIA GOING BACK TO THE DARK AGE

This article gives the details of what is happening in California as a result of the increasing renewable element causing supply problems at peak demands. There was a reason that sailing ships gave way to the steam age. The wind is not reliable.

ARCTIC ICE STILL INCREASING

Here are the false prophesies alongside the facts. No amount of hype can overcome the simple truth in the end. Yes we may be having a hot summer across the northern hemisphere, but globally temperatures have been falling by over 0.6C over the past two years.

THIS IS REAL CLIMATE CHANGE - SAHARA GOES FROM GREEN TO DESERT IN 200 YEARS

This documentary explains how it occurs from a wobble in the Earth's orbit every 20,000 years and takes as little as 200 years to complete the change. 

BBC CAUGHT OUT YET AGAIN IN FAKE RECORD TEMPERATURE CLAIMS

This report explains what has been going on. Why do they do it when they must realise that Paul Homewood is going to catch them out. My guess is that they know that of the millions who see the BBC output only a few tens of thousands will read the blogs. But it still tarnishes their reputation.

CHILD ACTIVISTS - HOW MUCH "GROOMING" WENT ON?

This story from the Sheffield Star local newspaper shows school children protesting about traffic pollution, which sounds perfectly reasonable. However it leaves a number of questions unanswered, such as where did the idea to do this come from? I very much doubt it was spontaneously suggested by a pupil. I also wonder how much school time was spent making up the posters. Did they even protest in school time. It seems to have become quite acceptable for this kind of political activism to be encouraged, and I dare say originated by schools, which is contrary to the 1996 Education Act, Sections 406 and 407  which requires controversial political matters to be presented in a balanced way. I bet most of these children's parents use a petrol or diesel car regularly, as well as most of the teachers. There is more than a touch of hypocrisy in these sort of campaigns. I wonder how many of the children know the meaning of that word?

SEA LEVEL - HOW DO YOU GET FROM 10 INCHES PER CENTURY TO 11 FEET PER CENTURY?

How did a rise of 10 inches per century, with an error of about 10%, turn in to rise of 11 feet by the end of the century (280 mm per century to 3352 mm per century)? This increase in rate of rise of more than 10 times that being measured.  This piece gives us the answer - computer models. 

USA STILL FUNDING CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECTS AFTER PULLING OUT OF PARIS AGREEMENT

This article gives details of what is going on. Basically the U.S. is the World Bank’s largest supporter and shareholder owning 17 percent of organization’s shares. The next largest owner, Japan, owns just under 8 percent. Several bills moving through Congress would grant the World Bank, along with other Multilateral Development Banks, roughly $1.8 billion. It is via the World Bank that the USA continues to support the Paris Agreement. Dare they pull out?

SOUTHAMPTON CITIZENS BEING CONSULTED ABOUT A CLEAN AIR ZONE

This post should be read in conjunction with yesterday's.

Southampton (UK) is the city closest to my home and so what happens there is important to me. I am a councillor in the neighbouring district of the New Forest and we were told by the Government that the main road leading from the New Forest into Southampton would be above the limit for NO2 in 2020. This result was obtained by the use of pollution climate mapping (PCM) a form of computer modelling based on similar programmes to computer climate modelling, as opposed to taking actual readings at the roadside. When these results were re-run using local information on traffic and climate data it was found that the national PCM was wrong.

For those with a few hours to spare and an inside knowledge of the dark art of PCM the consultation can be accessed here. I doubt if more than a handful of the public at most will read through all the documents attached. I have attempted to grapple with them and discovered some interesting points.

First the favoured option to "clean" the air will only reduce NO2 emissions by an average of 6.5% which equates to a reduction from a current reading of 42 to a new reading of 39.3. I doubt if such a small change would have a measurable effect on health and yet the cost of setting up the scheme is stated as £1.6 million, not including the help being offered to businesses adversely affected by the proposed £100 per day charge for HGV's and coaches that are non-compliant and non compliant taxis £12.50 per day. All private cars to be exempt.

 My fear is that once these Clean Air Zones have been accepted by the public this will soon lead to their limits being tightened and other types of vehicles coming into the charging regime. As more and more cities bring in these schemes it will be just a small step to introduce road pricing and then vary the price to the time of day. This is bound to lead to resentment, but it will probably be necessary to "encourage" motorists to switch to electric vehicles. But, as I said, who will argue against a Clean Air Zone?

ANY OBJECTIONS TO CLEAN AIR?

No, I thought not! Everyone supports clean air, but exactly what is defined as clean and how much does it cost to get it cleaner? Here is a good article on the subject. The graph below from the article shows just how much cleaner our air is today compared with the 1970's . In particular nitrogen oxides down from 100 in 1990 to around 40 today and still falling slowly. The linked article looks at the oft quoted figure of 40,000 deaths a year caused by pollution of air and explains just how it was calculated. [figure 1 does not display properly below, to see the full graph look at it on the link]

Another comparison from the article is to say that breathing typical UK roadside air is the equivalent of spending an extra hour in front of the TV. Of course that may be very bad for you, depending on how active you are the rest of the time. None of us live perfect lives and breathing air containing micro particles and a few parts per billion of NO2 is one small risk among the many we face. The question is, how much is it worth paying to slightly reduce this small risk?

Trends in air-pollution in the UK — from DEFRA 2016

So, if pollution levels have decreased so much, why is there more clamour than ever to reduce them still further? Obviously we are much more aware of the potential harm from certain pollutants and we can now measure them down to levels where they were previously undetectable. There is also the point that measures to reduce things like NO2 and very small particles will also reduce CO2 emissions and the public are much more ready to accept a move to clean our air from pollution than to reduce CO2, a harmless gas that sustains nearly all plant life.

What are the measures to reduce pollution and what implications do they have for us? More tomorrow.

TRUMP'S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE COULD BE GOOD NEWS FOR CLIMATE SCEPTICS

This article explains the record of Brett Kavanaugh on climate issues in the past.  While he is certainly a believer in the hypothesis, he is not in favour of the law intervening where politicians have not legislated. 

IS THE PRESIDENT GIVING UP THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE ALARM?

Here's an interesting post from Alan Carlin. He appears to believe that President Trump is unwilling to take on the climate change establishment head on. I think he is probably right. The climate change mob is like a multi-headed hydra. As soon as you think you have defeated one branch you find it has morphed into something else. The President cannot afford to spend too much political capital on this area, even though it is costing his country a large sum of money.

WILL BREXIT PUSH US INTO THE DARK AGE?

Will the UK risk being plunged into the dark after Brexit as a result of the EU shutting down the electricity supply we have come to rely on from the interconnector cable across the Channel? According to this post it is a possibility. Here is an extract from the quite lengthy post "To keep our grid functioning, we also have to import 11 percent of our power from France and the Netherlands. And over the next 12 years, according to National Grid, we plan to more than quadruple the current 4 gigawatt (GW) capacity of our interconnectors (to 18.5GW) via new cables from France, Belgium, Norway and Iceland.

These new power supplies will be vitally necessary to keep the grid functioning when it is planned that 68 percent of our generating capacity will derive from weather-dependent wind and solar, which can plummet towards zero at any time. However, the ability to buy power from our neighbours relies on the fact that we are part of the "European Energy Market", which sets the complex rules that allow it to operate." 

THE ANTI-DEVELOPMENT BANKS THAT WON'T LEND ON COAL/OIL/GAS PROJECTS

Here is an account of the policy of a number of large Western banks. In recent years, these banks have embraced manmade climate change alarmism as a key foundation for their lending policies. In particular, they refuse to fund the development of electric power generation via fossil fuels – thereby starving impoverished nations and families of desperately needed electricity.

Thankfully for the sidelined nations, Chinese banks have begun helping to finance coal- and gas-fired power in Asia and Africa. In the process, they have gained tremendous political and strategic leverage, at the expense of the United States, Europe

NEW STUDY - ARCTIC WAS 6C WARMER 9000 YEARS AGO

This article explains the new discovery. What it shows is that we still have much to learn about our climate and very little is clearly understood. 

UK GOVERNMENT PLAN TO MOVE US TO EECTRIC VEHICLES

This post shows the mammoth task of the government if it is to convert motorists from internal combustion engines to electric. As the article demonstrates, there is little prospect of them succeeding. The plan looks more like wishful thinking, paying lip service in order to show that they are trying. But in reality this changeover would require a much greater effort. I suspect we will se a lot more of the stick than the carrot as it is cheaper for the government.

BUSINESS AS USUAL AT THE EPA

This article confirms it's business as usual at the USA's EPA changes its leader due to the resignation of Scott Pruitt. That is good news for those who want to see the roll back of state control of energy use and production.  

ENERGY-EFFICIENT BOILERS NOT AS EFFICIENT AS CLAIMED

Another scandal has been uncovered as in this article. Yet again we are being given exaggerated information about energy use of equipment. How are manufacturers allowed to get away with it? Does this mean our national CO2 emissions are also wrong? Almost certainly. 

IF YOU THINK IT'S HOT TODAY, JUST LOOK AT THIS

This post puts our recent hot weather into perspective by looking back to the 1930's. The statistics are impressive and speak for themselves. Many people have very short memories and so they are easily convinced that today is exceptional, but when the records are consulted the truth emerges.

SEA ICE GROWS, SURFACE TEMPS FALL, POLAR REGIONS STABLE

Here's the good news as per the headline.  In the first half of this year we have seen weak solar activity and La Nina conditions acting to cool the globe’s surface. Moreover Arctic and Antarctic ice mass have grown in comparison to the previous years. It sounds unreal when we are basking in a heat wave here in the UK, but there are many other places where colder conditions are occurring.

TIME FOR AUSTRALIA TO PULL OUT OF PARIS AGREEMENT

The Hon Tony Abbott MP, 3 July 2018

2018 Bob Carter Commemorative Lecture — Australian Environment Foundation, 3 July 2018



It takes character to do what’s right and it takes courage to disagree with your peers. On this score, Bob Carter was a good and brave man whose memory we should honour and whose example we should strive to emulate.

As Professor Carter found, and later his James Cook University colleague Peter Ridd also, this is an age that enthusiastically promotes social diversity but often demands intellectual conformity.

Both never let the desire for status impede the search for truth.

As Bob told MPs in 2015, “science does not operate by consensus….it is often best progressed by mavericks”. And as he pointed out in his book, Climate: The Counter Consensus, sometimes, we need to “trust authority less and our own brains more”.

….So….what could be a more fitting occasion for scepticism about green religion and its policy ramifications than an address in Professor Carter’s honour?

In Roman times, grapes were grown in northern England. In the middle ages, crops were grown in Greenland. And in the 17^th century, ice fairs were held in London on the frozen River Thames.

So climate change is real alright. For me, the issue has always been: what role does man play, is carbon dioxide the key climate factor, and what might best be done to deal with it?

In government, I thought that we should be prepared to pay up to a billion dollars a year to cut emissions, through the taxpayer-funded emissions reduction fund.

I never thought that we should have to pay the $10 billion or so that Labor collected through the carbon tax. That’s why my government abolished it and in so doing delivered an immediate cut in electricity bills of 10 per cent.

My government set a 2030 emissions reduction target on the basis that this was more-or-less what could be achieved without new government programmes and without new costs on the economy.

There was no advice then to the effect that it would take a Clean Energy Target or a National Energy Guarantee to get there.

Our intention, then, was to monitor developments; and, in the meantime, to rely on market forces to make energy use efficient, and on the emissions reduction fund to keep overall emissions heading down at the lowest possible cost.

My government never put emissions reduction ahead of the wellbeing of families and the prosperity of industries. As I’ve said all along, you don’t improve the environment by damaging the economy.

Full Lecture

CANADA ROLLS BACK THE CARBON TAX

Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford on Tuesday cancelled what amounts to a $2 billion a year tax on Ontarians by scrapping all of the government subsidy programs funded by former premier Kathleen Wynne’s cap-and-trade scheme.



Cap and trade, a carbon tax by another name, raises prices on goods and services rather than the taxes on them.

“Every cent from the cap-and-trade slush fund is money that has been taken out of the pockets of Ontario families and businesses,”  Ford said in a written statement, adding he was fulfilling his election promise to scrap the Liberals’ “cash grab” designed to fund “big government programs” that “do nothing for the environment.”

“We believe that this money belongs back in the pockets of people,” Ford said. “Cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax will result in lower prices at the gas pump, on your home heating bills and on virtually every other product you buy.”

Ford cited a 2016 report by Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk which concluded that despite its $8-billion price tag from 2017 to 2020, Wynne’s cap-and-trade scheme would not significantly lower Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Ford’s cancellation of Wynne’s Climate Action Plan that was to spend $8.3 billion over five years from cap-and-trade revenues, means the cancellation of everything from government subsidies of up to $14,000 for people who buy electric cars, to some public transit projects.

Ford said his government will honour arrangements, orders and contracts that have already been signed for things like energy efficient insulation and window retrofits, but all other initiatives will only be funded on a case-by-case basis from general tax revenues, after the PCs complete their value-for-money audit of Ontario’s finances.

Full story

 
2) Canada’s Carbon Tax Racket Is Coming To An End
Toronto Sun, 25 June 2018

Malcolm Candice

It looks like the game is up and the Liberal Party's carbon tax racket is coming apart at the seams.



As recently as early 2018, it seemed like a forgone conclusion that the Liberals would impose their carbon tax from coast to coast. The Trudeau government mandated the tax hike but ordered the provinces to impose and administer the tax.

It’s crafty politics, since the provincial governments, not Trudeau and his team of climate zealots, would carry the burden of imposing the largest tax increase in a generation.

The governments of both Ontario (out-going Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne) and Alberta (the NDP’s Rachel Notley) won election victories without mentioning the tax, only to quickly impose it after being elected.

The sole glimmer of hope for Canadian taxpayers came from Saskatchewan.

First, Premier Brad Wall firmly told the Trudeau government that he refused to impose the tax. If the feds wanted to force carbon taxes onto Saskatchewan, they’d have to do it in court.

Wall retired last year, and his successor Scott Moe has picked up right where Wall left off.

“The carbon tax plan is wrong for our province,” said Moe in a recent speech. “As an economic plan, it’s a total disaster. As an environmental plan, it’s not worth the paper that David Suzuki’s University of Alberta honorary degree is written on.”

Meanwhile in Ontario, former PC Leader Patrick Brown included carbon taxes in his platform, despite the tax being deeply unpopular. After the ousting of Brown as leader, he was replaced by the outspoken carbon tax critic Doug Ford.

On June 7, Ford was elected in a landslide, and will become Ontario Premier on June 29. He’s pledged to scrap the $2 billion carbon pricing scheme and pull Ontario out of the notoriously fraudulent cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California.

We’re also less than a year away from the provincial election in Alberta, where polls show that United Conservative leader Jason Kenney holds a commanding lead and is favoured to oust the NDP government.

Kenney is a fierce critic of carbon taxes, and has vowed to work with Ford and Moe to challenge the constitutionality of Trudeau’s tax mandate.

Just like that, the tables have turned in Canada.

Full post



 
 We're Finally Told What Trudeau's Carbon Tax Will Cost Us. Are You Sitting Down?
Financial Post, 27 June 2018  

Kenneth Green

Households in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year, while those in British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba will pay around $650

It took some poking and prodding and (finally) committee testimony, but now we know what the bill will be for a $50-per-tonne carbon tax, similar to one the federal Liberals plan to impose. In a report to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Calgary economics professor Jennifer Winter revealed the bottom line of a $50-per-tonne carbon price.

Using energy-consumption data from Statistics Canada, and imputing prices from average household expenditure on transportation fuels and provincial gasoline prices, Winter calculated the impact of a a $50-per-tonne model of a carbon tax on a typical Canadian household across different provinces. Far from being painless as advertised, the costs to households will be significant.

Three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia — will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year to comply with the $50-per-tonne carbon tax Ottawa has mandated for 2022. Nova Scotia ($1,120) and Alberta ($1,111) will have the highest bills, followed by Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859) and Prince Edward Island ($788). The average household in Ontario will pay $707 a year to comply with the carbon tax once its fully implemented.

Who gets the lowest bill? British Columbia ($603 per year), Quebec ($662) and Manitoba ($683). Simply put, households in provinces with the lowest bills will pay just a bit more than half compared to households in the hardest-hit provinces.

But it gets worse, since most experts say carbon prices must continue to increase sharply to effectively lower emissions. At $100 a tonne, for example, households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a tonne, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year.

Full post



 

BANKS REFUSE TO BACK COAL MINING VENTURE DOWN UNDER

This article looks at the Australian coal industry and the negative attitude of banks to lending money for new mines. How strange that commercial banks refuse to lend money for a project that involves the number one export. Greenpeace claim that coal is a "dying industry", but a look at the growth in coal-fired power stations all over the world soon puts an end to that bit of wishful thinking on their part. It's merely an illusion just like the idea that CO2 controls the climate. 

USA WILL NEVER REJOIN PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD

This article explains the reasons. To me this is, of course, good news. It sends out a strong message to other nations who have signed up that, they are impoverishing their people, while the mighty USA is not. As their standard of living increases faster than ours our people will resent this and our government will pay the price. Eventually all but the most indoctrinated green activist will realise that the climate is not changing drastically, in fact hardly at all, but by this time billion of dollars will have been wasted on the futile attempt to stop the mythical danger. 

THE BOTTOM LINE FOR CLIMATE ALARMISTS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT BACKERS

This article shows us the extraordinary aims that some are contemplating seriously, such as an end to shipping and air travel unless they can run on renewables, which they cannot.  Such scenarios are too far-fetched for most political leaders, but that is not to say they will not try to pacify the extremists.

USA JUDGE THROWS OUT CASE AGAINST OIL COMPANIES

The USA federal judge was right to throw out the recent case brought by Californian cities against oil companies asking for damages for the effects of climate change. See here. He was wise not to get into the science, though he did accept that Co2 would cause some warming. As the judge said, this is a matter for the government. If any court started to consider damages of this kind they would be opening a Pandora's box in which the scientific arguments would be impossible to consider between what was natural versus man made; let alone what proportion of a local weather event was due to the emissions of each individual oil company.

CLIMATE RESEARCHERS SHOULD NOT IGNORE THE SUN

This piece looks at the work of Henrik Svensmark and his co-workers. Svensmark says: “The climate is influenced more by changes in cosmic radiation than by carbon dioxide”. CO2 has an effect, of course, “but it is far less than most current climate models assume, and also less than the influence of cosmic radiation”. In his opinion, a doubling of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere would cause an increase in global temperature of at most one degree, and not two degrees, as is now generally accepted.