Tuesday 31 March 2020


Here is a good open letter by the Climate Intelligence Foundation to world leaders. It would be good if it had an effect, and post virus there will be an economic recession so climate change costs will simply not be there so maybe the public will stop their support for such costly measures. We can only hope.

Monday 30 March 2020


This article explains that a vast ozone hole — likely the biggest on record in the north — has opened in the skies above the Arctic. It rivals the better-known Antarctic ozone hole that forms in the southern hemisphere each year.

Record-low ozone levels currently stretch across much of the central Arctic, covering an area about three times the size of Greenland (see ‘Arctic opening’). The hole doesn’t threaten people’s health, and will probably break apart in the coming weeks.

Sunday 29 March 2020


This article refers to our former Labour PM calling for a world government. Of course he would, as he believes in big government solving all our problems. We must hope that this never happens as it would mean the end of freedom with more and more interference in every aspect of our lives.

Saturday 28 March 2020

Friday 27 March 2020


This article explains why an emergency like coronavirus requires emergency powers curtailing civil liberties. This is exactly what the climate activists should expect if the government really thought that global warming was an emergency. I suspect that the GW "emergency" will be put on hold as there will simply be no money left to fight it.

Thursday 26 March 2020


United States Warned About Internationally Mandated "Coronavirus Economy'
The Washington Times, 23 March 2020

By Chris Horner and Benny Peiser 

The United States should pay close attention to developments in Europe, beyond their governments’ response to the COVID-19 virus. Other contagions loom.
For example, we now see proof that the retrenchment embodied by the current “coronavirus economy” could become legally mandated, with no recovery permitted but only worsening, in the name of climate change. While extreme, this is actually unfolding, and the United States ignores the warnings at its peril.

In February, the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal blocked construction of a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport. While additional runways seem quaint amid travel lockdowns, the longer view reminds us that infrastructure expansion is vital to economic growth. Ask any candidate for president, vowing massive infrastructure programs that, this ruling confirms, are irreconcilable with their climate promises like the Green New Deal and rejoining the Paris climate treaty.

The Heathrow opinion has caused political and economic upheaval, and ecstasy among “green” campaigners. That is because the decision in Spurrier et al. v. Secretary of State for Transport requires any airport expansion, and apparently any major infrastructure project going forward, comply with the 2015 Paris agreement.

As only the most recent judicial intervention leveraging purportedly “non-binding” commitments into legal obligations, this is also a very timely reminder for the United States.

President Obama agreed to Paris and submitted a ratification instrument on behalf of the U.S in September 2016, claiming it was not a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent. “Non-binding!” was a key talking point in support.

This claim, deficient in too many ways to recount here, is now overtaken by events.

Although the U.K. court also cited the U.K.’s own Climate Change Act and European Union Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, the judges ruled that the failure to account for the U.K.’s promised emission reductions under Paris was “legally fatal.” Any expansion plan must satisfy both domestic law and the U.K.’s Paris agreement promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Get used to hearing this. The lesson for President Trump is clear: Just because an international agreement doesn’t purport to be “binding” doesn’t mean you don’t have to comply with it.

In 2018, in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, The Hague Court of Appeals also turned these ostensibly hortatory climate promises and declarations into enforceable obligations. That court ordered the Dutch emission-reduction laws match years of governmental rhetoric manifested in supposedly aspirational climate pacts, asserting that parties to these agreements have assumed a “duty of care.”

Cheap environmental virtue can be costly. Certainly, activist state attorneys general intend to sue. As The Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel wrote in 2017, one of us “unearthed a legal memo from the New York attorney general’s office that laid out a strategy to get courts to force C02 cuts under international treaties.”

Already, federal judges have lined up to block proposed and even permitted projects, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, citing to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a failure to consider a project’s contribution to cumulative climate impacts. Under Paris, the United States vowed massive emission reductions and promised deeper cuts, every five years, in perpetuity.

In a June 2017 Rose Garden speech, Mr. Trump announced his intention to withdraw from Paris, citing U.S. sovereignty and “serious legal and constitutional concerns,” among others. Critics pounced. Why bother, they keened, with seemingly disproportionate and self-contradicting fury, it’s not even binding! Well.

Editorialists harrumphed that, by leaving Paris, Mr. Trump would also leave the United States as the only nation not signed up. Why, even China and India agreed.

But, not really. Like most countries, China and India did not promise emission reductions under Paris. Between them, they plan to build 320 airports in the next decade. The Maldives, self-styled poster child for the horrors of man-made global warming, is opening four more airports this year alone.

That is four more than the U.K. likely will be able to build, under the Court of Appeals’ Heathrow opinion. It is also four more than the United States should expect, should it rejoin Paris, which it might.

To judge by its terms, level of detail and commitment, and U.S. custom and practice, Paris is a treaty. Nonetheless, rather than declare Paris to be a treaty and transmit it to the Senate for a ratification vote, Mr. Trump is withdrawing pursuant to Paris’ terms. His November 2019 withdrawal notice takes effect Nov. 4, 2020, by chance the day after the U.S. elections.

Unfortunately, dignifying this “pen and a phone” approach leaves the door wide open for the United States to rejoin Paris under a President Biden or Sanders, who both promise to do so immediately upon taking office.

It is unlikely the president will change course and pursue more durable withdrawal options, and the Senate showed repeatedly under President Obama it has no appetite to fight even to protect its own constitutional prerogatives. As such, the Heathrow opinion putting the lie to the “non-binding” talking point should serve as a clear warning to the United States about the Paris agreement.

With such a clear distinction between Mr. Trump and his Democratic challengers, and with proof now that a “coronavirus economy” could be legally mandated, it is critical the United States have an actual debate about the Paris climate agreement and the larger climate policy agenda.

Wednesday 25 March 2020


Below is the second question and then the lengthy response which fails to deal with any of the points raised, though it does raise some very worrying issues. You can see the question here.

 Julian Lewis Conservative, New Forest East

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), what estimate he has made of the cost of phasing out the use of natural gas in domestic dwellings; what the planned timescale is for this; whether such phasing out will be carried out by the UK (a) only on a multilateral basis or (b) irrespective of what the governments of other countries plan to do; and what funding he plans for implementing that policy.

This is the reply from Kwasi Kwarteng, the Minister for BEIS:

Meeting our net zero target by 2050 will require virtually all heat in buildings to be decarbonised and heat in industry to be reduced to close to zero carbon emissions. It will involve large-scale transformation and wide-ranging change to energy systems and markets. The way heating is supplied to over 28 million homes, businesses and industrial users will need to change. Given the diversity of heat demand in the UK, no one solution can provide the best option for everyone. We are currently exploring and testing the different approaches to heat decarbonisation, including heat networks, heat pumps, hydrogen and biogas and improving energy efficiency in new buildings. - a mix of technologies and customer options will need to be available to decarbonise heat at scale.

The Department is developing policies to deliver low carbon heating in the 2020s and meet our climate targets. We are planning to publish a Heat and Building Strategy later this year, which will set out the immediate actions we will take for reducing emissions from buildings. These include the deployment of energy efficiency measures and low carbon heating as part of an ambitious programme of work required to enable key strategic decisions on how we achieve the mass transition to low-carbon heat and set us on a path to decarbonising all homes and buildings.

Alongside the action we are taking at home, the UK remains committed to demonstrating global leadership in tackling climate change. The UK is already demonstrating practical leadership across all aspects of the fight to tackle climate change. We've decarbonised faster than any other G20 nation since 2000, and through our Clean Growth Strategy and annual reports have a comprehensive and publicly available strategy. The UK is among the largest contributors of climate finance, providing at least £5.8 billion between 2016 to 2020 to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, reduce deforestation and support cleaner economic growth. At the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will double our International Climate Finance to at least £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025 to drive clean and resilient growth in developing countries. 

That last part is unbelievable! While we are crippling the economy with debt to deal with the coronavirus emergency, he says wewill double the money we will give away to deal with global warming. We truly are in a mess when a Conservative government is so free with taxpayers money. Prudence has simply disappeared. 

Tuesday 24 March 2020


My local MP and friend Dr Julian Lewis has asked two questions in Parliament on my behalf.. Here is a link to the first one. It is reproduced below with the answer. 

Photo of Julian Lewis Julian Lewis Conservative, New Forest East

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish the Government's estimate of the cost to the UK economy of achieving the Government's target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050; whether the Government plans to maintain that target as Government policy (a) in the event that major greenhouse gas emitting countries also embark on large-scale carbon emission reductions and (b) irrespective of the steps to reduce carbon emissions other countries take; and what assessment he has made of the effect on climate change as a result of the UK achieving net zero carbon emissions under each of those two scenarios.

Photo of Kwasi Kwarteng Kwasi Kwarteng The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Holding answer received on 09 March 2020
The UK has led the world as the first major economy to set a net zero 2050 target in law. Given the need for international action to address climate change, it is imperative that other countries similarly increase their ambition, and we are working to deliver that including through our hosting of COP26 this year. The UK will conduct a further assessment within 5 years to confirm that other countries are taking similarly ambitious action, multiplying the effect of the UK’s lead and ensuring that our industries do not face unfair competition.
As part of our commitment to net zero, and in line with the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, HM Treasury is carrying out a review of the costs of net zero. The Government will also publish full impact assessments as we legislate for future carbon budgets.

So what does this answer tell us? Not much - there is no mention of the costs other than they are carrying out a "review" to be published at some unspecified date and vague talk of assessing the efforts of other nations "within five years"

Monday 23 March 2020


This article explains what is happening. In the two months of this year, £69 million was paid out in constraint payments, according to research by the Renewable Energy Foundation which described it as an “extreme spike”.  This is four times greater than the previous most expensive January-February period on record, which was in 2016.

Sunday 22 March 2020


Even Californians do not support tax increases to prevent climate change, according to this reportThis result should surprise no one. Just up the left coast from California, in Washington state, voters in one of the bluest states with among the most progressive voting bases, have in two separate elections rejected in initiatives to impose a tax on carbon dioxide emissions to fight climate change.

Saturday 21 March 2020


I thought we would soon hear this argument. The problem is that we would end up living with these extreme measures for ever. I suspect that would not go down very well with the voters.

Friday 20 March 2020


This article looks at the doom cults springing up based on an apocalypse due to climate change. you can understand why some very impressionable people might be upset by reading this, particularly now with the coronavirus epidemic gripping the world. 

There is nothing new about people predicting the end of the world and I hope that the majority of people will reject the message of doom. For the BBC to give this article an airing to a wider audience is wrong in my view. 

Although I don't believe in censorship we don't need to give prominence to this kind of scare story. The BBC are quick enough to sensor climate sceptics, even those who put forward sensible and logical arguments.

Thursday 19 March 2020


This piece looks at how some extreme climate change activists are suggesting the effort to deal with coronavirus should be replicated to deal with global warming. I knew it would not be long before someone brought this up. The reality is that the effort to deal with the virus will drain us of any cash to deal with the climate, which is a non-emergency.

Wednesday 18 March 2020


EurActiv, 17 March 2020

The Czech premier, whose country depends on nuclear energy and coal, said Monday (16 March) the European Union should ditch its landmark green law seeking carbon neutrality as it battles the novel coronavirus.

“Europe should forget about the Green Deal now and focus on the coronavirus instead,” Prime Minister Andrej Babi┼í told reporters, without explaining how the two are connected.
“Europe is now the biggest epicentre of the coronavirus in the world,” the billionaire populist added.
The EU unveiled a draft of the Green Deal earlier this month, mandating members to achieve net zero greenhouse emissions by 2050.
But ex-communist EU members like the Czech Republic have announced much less ambitious plans as their energy sectors are still largely dependent on coal.
The Czech Republic has registered 344 cases of COVID-19, including three recovered patients. No one has died of the disease in the country of around 11 million people. 

No doubt we shall hear more of the same as the enormous cost of tackling the virus emergency emerges.

Tuesday 17 March 2020


This article looks at the propaganda about rising sea levels due to melting ice caps increasing. 

"The claim that the Greenland icecap has been losing ice at a faster rate than in the 1990s is true, but it is also a red herring and has no bearing on future rates of loss. In 2003, scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001"
"Unsurprisingly during this period of cooling ice loss slowed markedly. Since 2001, temperatures have recovered to levels generally seen in the 1930s and 40s (Fig 2), with a resultant increase in ice loss." 

Monday 16 March 2020


This article looks at the similarities between the policies of the Green Party and what is currently happening to the economy. There is a clear similarity in the effect, though not the cause.

I would add that the response of Government to both has certain similarities. For instance they rely on computer models to predict the likely outcome. They introduce policies which are unlikely to work, but convince the public they know what they are doing.  Most people will claim they will follow government guidelines, yet most will not. The policies will be very costly. The difference, of course is that coronavirus is real and serious for some, whereas climate change is being greatly exaggerated.

Sunday 15 March 2020


This article gives details of appalling stunts including public suicides by the anarchist group. Surely no one would support this kind of thing? They must be very desperate to stoop so low.

Saturday 14 March 2020


I came across this answer on Quora which is an interesting Q&A website. The question was "Can we go carbon neutral just by using electric cars?" Below is the answer given:
"Don’t you realize that there is about one ton of steel in your electric car that contains about 400 pounds of special alloy steels. Those special alloy steels require about 40,000 pounds of coal to make them. That makes about 100,000 pounds of CO2. That isn’t going carbon neutral." 

Friday 13 March 2020


4) Oil Prices Crash 25% As Oil War Begins
OilPrice.com, 9 March 2020

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Sunday that present oil prices were sustainable for the Russian economy. Adding that Russia had the tools to react to any adverse results of the spread of the coronavirus on the global financial climate.

"I want to stress that for the Russian budget, for our economy, the current oil prices level is acceptable," Putin explained in a meeting with Russian energy officials.

Now some oil analysts are anticipating barrel prices as low as $20 within the year. Some experts have suggested that Russia's move is intended to counter U.S. shale producers and hit back against the U.S. for targeting the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany.

Saudi Arabia blasted back, in kind. Sunday morning, Saudi Arabia dropped its own oil weapon. Its latest plans will not only reduce its unrefined price to Chinese consumers by as much as $6 or $7 per barrel, but it is also reportedly looking to increase its daily unrefined output by as much of as 2 million barrels per day into an increasingly oversupplied international market.