The writer of this piece explains why he thinks so.
The green agenda’s role in global inflation - The Conservative Woman
The author, Ben Pile, has a video at the link where he goes into more detail. There is no doubt that a number of very rich people seem to have funded much of the pressure groups working to get fossil fuels banned. Their activities have resulted in the price of fossil fuels to rise, quite apart from the Ukraine war. On top of that the Bank of England has printed money to deal with the Covid crisis causing inflation.
Ben Pile asserts that there is a deliberate attempt by government to raise the price of fossil fuels. If so, I doubt that they would have wanted to go this far, but the trouble with tinkering with the economy is that things can get out of control and now that seems to have happened.
If the government does not get the price of fuel and energy to an affordable level they will be in deep trouble. Renewable energy is certainly not the answer, as it is both expensive and unreliable, so they must face the fact that unless they can build nuclear power stations fast (which they can't), they will have to make fossil fuels affordable, or face defeat in the next election.
Blame? In the States Biden is the supposed blame. Not really the case. It is supply and demand. Demand has increased dramatically with fossil fuels taking their time to match the supply to demand. I'm driving electric and am able to stay out of the fray personally. My wife is paying twice the price from 2 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis is fossil fuel influence in the United States on the Republican Party. This slowing down increases future damage of the climate. The faster we go, the better, Obviously we are going to have more harm due to purposeful stalling on this necessary transition.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/climate/republicans-blackrock-climate.html
How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Action
Legislators and their allies are running an aggressive campaign that uses public money and the law to pressure businesses they say are pushing “woke” causes.
In West Virginia, the state treasurer has pulled money from BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, because the Wall Street firm has flagged climate change as an economic risk.
Its the speed of getting off of fossil fuels that is most important. Fossil fuels are quite successful at slowing this down stacking up future damage all the more.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nrdc.org/experts/lauren-kubiak/us-needs-clean-energy-not-more-offshore-oil-and-gas
EXPERT BLOG › LAUREN KUBIAK
The U.S. Needs Clean Energy, Not More Oil and Gas Leasing
May 26, 2022 Lauren Kubiak
Amid a worsening climate crisis, senseless war in Ukraine, and soaring energy prices, some are calling for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct new offshore oil and gas leasing in the next five-year program. But opening up more of our ocean to polluting drilling would have no impact on current prices or production
There is a real immediate crisis, which is the high cost of energy. This requires an immediate response which has to be more cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy. There is nothing else which can do the job. Renewables do not give us cheap, reliable energy. It has to be backed up by fossil fuel energy for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
ReplyDeleteThen there is a fake crisis - the climate crisis. This has been exaggerated by those with a vested interest and those who are misguided. Despite all the propaganda, a majority of the public remain unconvinced, because they can see with their own eyes that the climate is just as it always has been, a varied mix of weather. The public are not stupid, just keeping on saying "the sky is falling" does not work. And when the actual statistics of weather events are published they can see that they are broadly the same as they have been for the past century, just one degree warmer, and they know that we can quite comfortably cope with such a minor change.
This requires an immediate response which has to be more cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy.
DeleteWe are all stuck with the world market. All fossil fuel energy is priced according to this standard.
Then there is a fake crisis - the climate crisis. This has been exaggerated by those with a vested interest and those who are misguided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Findings
The report quantifies climate sensitivity as between 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) and 4.0 °C (7.2 °F) for each doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,[6] while the best estimate is 3 °C.[24]: SPM-14 In all the represented Shared Socioeconomic Pathways the temperature reaches the 1.5 °C warming limit, at least for some period of time in the middle of the 21st century. However, Joeri Rogelj [de], director of the Grantham Institute and a lead IPCC author, said that it is possible to completely avoid warming of 1.5 °C, but to achieve that the world would need to cut emissions by 50% by the year 2030 and by 100% by the year 2050. If the world does not begin to drastically cut emissions by the time of the next report of the IPCC, then it will no longer be possible to prevent 1.5 °C of warming.[25]
I can't even cover everything in this report. But it is bad if we continue on our present course and don't change for less co2 emissions. Out of 3000 people only 10 are paid. This is not a cheating lying group of people. This is based on conservative interpretation of scientific evidence.
"The report quantifies climate sensitivity as between 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) and 4.0 °C (7.2 °F) for each doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" - On what basis is that estimate made? There are other estimates which give a much lower estimate, but all estimates are simply that. From the range given you can see that they are not accurate. Also CO2 is only one of many things which affect the temperature of the Earth's surface. Remember too that a lack of widely available affordable, reliable energy will have serious adverse consequences for millions of people.
ReplyDeleteI am sure there are many genuine honest people who sincerely believe that increasing CO2 levels will cause serious damage to our climate, but that does not mean they are right. I would point out that there are many genuine honest people who disagree. Many of these are highly regarded scientists in the field of climate and related sciences.
We also need to consider how likely it is that we will achieve world-wide reduction of CO2 emissions on the scale being demanded. Looking around the world at Russia, China, India and many other places, I would say there is no chance. But despite this many Western governments are still claiming that they will do it. My prediction is that they will fall way short of net zero by 2050. I expect it will become apparent long before 2050 that the climate is not getting worse, as predicted, also the target is unachievable without causing severe hardship to the population.
Yes there is uncertainty in science. The risk is put into numbers for us to try and interpet into future reality. I suggest to you that scientists are conservative. Hopefully the scientists are estimating high and things won't be so bad. But something like the IPPC have a tendency to estimate low and then zero in better as their methods improve. There is a stronger chance they are low rather than high.
DeleteGambliing with our futures of ignorning this advice invites more pain in our futures by not acting on this information. IPPC has always recemended less co2 is better. To not do so has stronger negative consequences. On that they have not waivered.
I notice that you have declined to comment on my point about whether a global net zero is possible, given the actual behaviour of many of the big CO2 emitters. It is rather like unilateral nuclear disarmament. It sounds good in theory, but is unachievable in practice.
DeleteActually it is achievable. Solutions Project out of Stanford Universtiy shows it can be done along with many other studies in the same vein.
Deletehttps://www.whichev.net/2022/05/30/east-midlands-ambulance-service-derbyshire-replaces-entire-non-emergency-fleet-with-kia-e-niro/
ReplyDeleteSince you live in GB, I think of you as these come across my laptop. These electric cars save money and perform well for the emergency services.
I notice that they are only using EVs for NON EMERGENCY work. I wonder why?
ReplyDeleteIt may be that ambulances in EV aren't available yet. THis does take time.
ReplyDelete