New hymn lyrics support efforts to counter climate change - "Ahead of Sunday’s opening of climate talks to be held in Glasgow, Scotland, the Rev. Carolyn Winfrey Gillette has written “The Climate is Changing,” new lyrics set to the hymn “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.”"
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "A new hymn from the Presbyterian Church USA on global warming. It’s the first church hymn I’ve ever heard that praises secular government leaders."
And they will scoff when others say climate change hysteria is a religion
What the heroin industry can teach us about solar power - ""It's just how opium poppy is farmed now," Mr Brittan tells me. "They drill down 100m (325ft) or so to the ground water, put in an electric pump and wire it up to a few panels and bingo, the water starts flowing.""
Moral of the story - solar is good if you are in a sunny area and you don't need reliable, on-demand electricity (you don't need to pump water 24/7)
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts - "The climate debate has been reduced to a Monty Python skit. It’s two sides yelling “yes it is” and “no it isn’t” to each other.Real climate debate disappeared years ago. Skeptics are no longer allowed on most media outlets. Activists proclaim (inaccurately) that 98% of scientists agree and that Armageddon is coming. The doubters respond with “it’s not”.Yesterday was the Global Climate Change Strike. Hundreds of thousands of people participated. Indicative of the level of debate, the lead advocate is a 16-year-old girl with no science background. She is a scold, nothing more.High school students ditched school and held signs that read such inanities as “The Earth is getting hotter than Leonardo DiCaprio”. The major news media interviewed approximately zero skeptics or counter protestors.With no debate, the argument for (and against) the global warming hypothesis has grown flabby. It’s nothing more than logical fallacies with a sprinkling of alarmism.It should be no surprise that politicians are pushing proposals with significant environmental costs and little effect on carbon emissions. The proposals that would supposedly halve carbon emissions in 10/11/12 years wouldn’t. These claims are going unexamined. Meanwhile carbon-free nuclear plants are scheduled to be shut down and replaced with gas powered power plants and proposed bans on fracking would keep higher carbon emitting coal power plants in service longer.The failure to fully engage in a debate on climate change and effective methods of reducing carbon emissions has doomed climate action to an expensive failure"
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts - " "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
* At this point there is little, if any, human suffering due to global warming. Major weather events have not increased and deaths from famine are down. Ecosystems are still doing fine with the notable exception of a major bleaching event in the Great Barrier Reef when the area had a sharp one year increase in heat. There is no mass extinction underway, at this time, due to global warming...
"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.
* This is not an accurate reading of the special report. There is no cliff the world falls off of at 1.5 degrees warming in 2030. The only way the activists’ desired carbon reduction happens is if there is a near total worldwide economic collapse with over a billion people thrown into deep poverty. Hitting the carbon reduction by 2050 might be possible and is a more realistic target.
"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.
* Equity and climate justice are the anti-capitalist/pro-socialist goals of her group. She rejects using technology to pull carbon out of the air, something the IPCC special report says is necessary...
"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
* There two constants when it comes to IPCC predictions — they severely over-estimate warming and they under-estimate increases in carbon dioxide emissions...
* Thunberg offers no tangible solutions and rejects technologies that the IPCC says are needed. This, like her other speeches, is filled with scolding and alarmism but is empty of solutions. This is the lowest of the low hanging fruit"
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts - "There is an active blacklist of the climate research academia. Many of the names on the blacklist are not global warming “deniers” but believers who express concerns about biased and flawed climate studies. Science works best when it checks itself for errors but activists believe any negative information will undermine their cause of fighting global warming. So the blacklist was invented. The effect has been to stifle the search for errors in existing research."
Against Environmental Pessimism - "I was marinated in gloom by almost everything I read about the environment. The human population explosion was unstoppable; billions were going to die of famine; malaria and other diseases were going to increase; oil, gas, and metals would soon run out, forcing us to return to burning wood; most forests would then be felled; deserts were expanding; half of all species were heading for extinction; the great whales would soon be gone from the oil-stained oceans; sprawling cities and modern farms were going to swallow up the last wild places; and pollution of the air, rivers, sea, and earth was beginning to threaten a planetary ecological breakdown. I don’t remember reading anything remotely optimistic about the future of the planet... [the] feeding of seven billion people has happened without taking much new land under the plow and the cow. Instead, in many places farmland has reverted to wilderness. In 2009, Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University calculated that thanks to more farmers getting access to better fertilizers, pesticides, and biotechnology, the area of land needed to produce a given quantity of food—averaged for all crops—was 65 percent less than in 1961. As a result, an area the size of India will be freed up by mid-century. That is an enormous boost for wildlife. National parks and other protected areas have expanded steadily as well. Nor have these agricultural improvements on the whole brought new problems of pollution in their wake. Quite the reverse. The replacement of pesticides like DDT with much less harmful ones that do not persist in the environment and accumulate up the food chain, in addition to advances in biotechnology, has allowed wildlife to begin to recover... Where genetically modified crops are grown—not in the European Union—there has been a 37 percent reduction in the use of insecticides... One of the extraordinary features of the past 40 years has been the reappearance of wildlife that was once seemingly headed for extinction. Bald eagles have bounced back so spectacularly that they have been taken off the endangered list. Deer and beavers have spread into the suburbs of cities, followed by coyotes, bears, and even wolves. The wolf has now recolonized much of Germany, France, and even parts of the heavily populated Netherlands. Estuaries have been cleaned up so that fish and birds have recolonized rivers like the Thames. Here’s a question I put to school children when I get the chance: Why is the wolf population increasing, the lion decreasing, and the tiger now holding its own? The answer is simple: Wolves live in rich countries, lions in poor countries, and tigers in middle-income countries. It turns out that we conservationists were wrong to fear economic development in the 1980s. Prosperity is the best thing that can happen to a country’s wildlife. As people get richer, they can afford to buy electricity rather than cut wood, buy chicken rather than hunt bushmeat, or get a job in a town rather than try to scratch a living from a patch of land. They can also stop worrying that their children will starve and start to care about the environment. In country after country, first in Asia, then in Latin America, and now increasingly in Africa, that process of development leading to environmental gains has swiftly delivered a turning point in the fortunes of wild ecosystems. One way of measuring such progress is to look at forests. Forests are still being cut down in poor countries, but they are expanding in rich ones. It turns out that when a country reaches a certain level of income, around $5,000 per person per year, it starts reforesting. This is because people become wealthy enough to stop relying on wood fires for cooking and to use electricity or gas instead... Overall, therefore, the number of trees in the world is steadily increasing... Global greening is occurring in all ecosystems, including rainforests, tundras, and croplands, and it is particularly strong in the arid areas of the planet... the greatest cause, responsible for 70 percent of the greening, was the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels... Global greening means that there is more food every year for caterpillars, antelopes, woodpeckers, and countless other species. It also means we need less land to feed ourselves than we would otherwise have needed by now. Of all the things that I did not expect in 1980, this is surely one of the most remarkable... Some worry that reporting good news about the environment makes people complacent. I disagree. It makes people realize that declines are not inevitable, that improvements are possible, and that it is worth trying... I therefore venture to predict that in 40 years we will have rid the world’s islands of many of the invasive species that have done such harm, using biotechnology. Indeed, we will have gone further and revived several extinct species... What else might we achieve by the year 2060, when I shall be 102? Even though there will then be more than nine billion people, it is almost certain there will be larger forests, more wildlife, cleaner rivers, and richer seas, because that is what is currently happening. Most people who deny this, and insist things are getting worse, are simply wrong. The latest example is the “insect apocalypse,” a scare that has been widely reported by the media but is based on inadequate data and ridiculous exaggerations from one or two small-scale studies of dubious value.There is, however, one thing that worries me, and it is this: Some environmentalists, as steeped in pessimism today as I was 40 years ago, are determined to push policies that actually harm the environment. They want us to farm organically, even though that uses more land and does more harm to the soil than farming with chemicals and biotechnology. They want us to get all of the energy we need from the sun or the wind, even if it means covering the landscape in industrial structures to try to extract energy from extremely low-density sources. They want us to turn crops into fuel, via ethanol from corn or diesel from palm oil, even though this means pinching land from wildlife. They want us to reject biotechnology and nuclear power, two practices that reduce humans’ environmental footprint. They want us to recycle plastic, rather than incinerate it, which has resulted in an industry of exporting plastic to Asia where much of it ends up dumped in the ocean. In short, their policies are in many cases actually worse for the environment. I will end with one further prediction. While climate change is real and man-made, it will not cause catastrophe by 2060. The current rate of warming over the past three decades is about half what scientists predicted in 1990: 0.17ºC per decade compared with 0.30ºC. And, as predicted, the warming is happening more at night, in cold areas, and in winter than in the daytime, in warm areas, and in summer. The effect on the frequency and intensity of storms, droughts, floods, blizzards, and other weather events is still so small that it is hard to detect... There has probably been a slight decline in droughts, but a slight increase in heat waves. There is less snow cover in the northern hemisphere in spring, more in fall, and no change in winter. Glaciers are retreating, as they have been since the mid-1800s. Most important, deaths from weather events continue to fall steeply as more countries get access to the technology, infrastructure, and information needed to prevent large-scale loss of life in a hurricane, drought, or flood. Moreover, if warming continues like this, by 2060 we will still not have reached the sort of temperatures that were standard in the early part of the current interglacial period, when the Arctic Ocean regularly lost all of its ice during the summer. So we are not heading into unprecedented territory. And I suspect that we will ultimately solve the problem by substituting nuclear fusion for fossil fuels long before its consequences turn catastrophic."
Strange how we are told that most climate models are very accurate
Meme - Greta: "I mean our job is to demand solution not to provide solutions."
Some children find spending time in nature 'distressing' over climate change triggers
The same people who call teaching children religion child abuse terrorise kids with their apocalyptic fantasies
United States Led Entire World In Reducing CO2 Emissions In 2019 - "“The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”"
It's all Trump's fault for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord
'Duped' ex-PR for Extinction Rebellion quit... to fight for the nuclear industry, writes GUY ADAMS - "Wearing a chunky necklace and an expression that alternated between abject terror and bemusement, Miss Lights (whose first name is pronounced 'Zee-on') was asked to provide evidence to support the protest group's headline claim that climate change will kill 'billions of people... in the next ten to 20 years.'After umming and ah-ing for a few seconds, it emerged that no such evidence exists.There is, she somewhat sheepishly confessed, no prospect of global warming contributing to the death of 'billions', or even millions, of people in that timescale. The group's principal claim had, in other words, been made up.Mr Neil then asked his guest how Extinction Rebellion proposed to achieve its main target: reducing Britain's carbon emissions to 'net zero' by 2025... Miss Lights responded with a shrug. 'I mean,' she declared, 'I'm not here to give you solutions!'... it should be stressed that Miss Lights had originally been part of the small cohort of Extinction Rebellion activists who at least try quite hard to practise what they preach.Unlike many of the middle-class trustafarians who attend its protests, while simultaneously indulging in exotic holidays, she and her charity worker then-husband Aaron Cleland have decided to forego all driving and flying, and follow a strict vegan diet... The BBC interview had made her realise that Extinction Rebellion was – and still is – unable to offer any workable solutions to climate change, beyond replacing Parliament with 'citizens' assemblies', that will, somehow, come up with policies to stop all carbon emissions.Yet an existing solution, she came to believe, is staring us in the face. It is nuclear power, which she describes as a 'reliable, low-carbon energy source that we can invest in now'."
The lie of the ‘green industrial revolution’ - "Following Boris Johnson’s 10-point plan to advance the UK’s ‘green industrial revolution’, the government is bringing forward its proposed ban on gas boilers in new homes from 2025 to 2023. The 10-point plan also requires replacement gas boilers to be phased out by 2035. This leaves a huge question hanging over each and every home in Britain: how will they be kept warm? The fact that this question has no answer reveals the lie at the heart of Johnson’s green industrial revolution. It is an anti-industrial revolution, and it is going to create great hardship. Some 84 per cent of Britain’s homes are connected to the gas network. It sounds obvious to say that they should just switch over to electricity. But the retail price of gas is less than a quarter the price of electricity per kWh. Heating a home with electricity is therefore currently four times more expensive than heating a home with gas. Moreover, switching simply defers the question of where Britain’s energy is going to come from. The abundance of gas, and the ease with which it can be stored, transported and used, makes it the cheaper and more convenient form of energy compared with electricity. Hence Britain’s gas network transports nearly three times as much energy as the electricity grid (876 TWh vs 324 TWh). Furthermore, nearly 40 per cent of electricity is produced by gas-fired power stations. To replace gas with electricity implies scaling up the grid and generating capacity by more than five times... Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has long been seen as the holy grail for Britain’s green technocrats... The only economically viable CCS plants in the world use CO2 to enhance the recovery of oil and gas from wells... Boris Johnson may claim to be unleashing an ‘industrial revolution’, but contrary to past industrial revolutions, his plans will make things more expensive, more scarce, more difficult to use, and imply not new opportunities, but far greater restrictions on many areas of life. To base a policy agenda, with such far-reaching consequences, on technology which does not yet exist, is beyond crazy. No doubt, advocates of a green utopia would want to quibble with my figures and judgement. But there remains to this day no democratic debate about Britain’s green agenda, and no estimates of its costs and benefits. Green technocrats run from debate and respond to criticism of their plans only with smears against their critics. At best, the ‘green industrial revolution’ is a lie."
The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need The Paris Climate Accord
Bjorn Lomborg on Twitter - "New York Times ran a sensational story on how many places will soon be underwater Unfortunately, it misuses data to conclude disaster, creating unreasonable fear...
So, how does NYTimes end up saying that "Southern Vietnam could all but disappear" because of sea-level rise from global warming, when actual additional land at risk is slight?
It is because they leave out that *today* almost as many are living 'at risk' and clearly still living there...
If anything, the NYTimes article and the background research underscores that we are eminently able to tackle sea-level rise, because today 19 million people live in Vietnam below the high-water line, and most thrive
Yes, more people will be below the tide-line in 2050 because of sea-level rise, but it is likely that the *actual* number of people flooded will decline, not the least because developing income will more than double
And in its excitement to create worry, the NYTimes seems to forget the most important outcome of the new study: Even the strongest climate policy will make little difference What matters to improve people's lives is adaptation"
A N.Z. chapter of Greta Thunberg's climate movement cancels itself for being white, racist - "In a Facebook post, School Strike 4 Climate’s Auckland chapter said it was shutting down because it “has been a racist, white-dominated space.” It directed people concerned about climate change to Indigenous-led groups and said it would not be organizing any more climate strikes... “There was a growing perception that SS4C was just an extracurricular activity for upper-class [White] kids”... “I really commend the School Strikers in Auckland for making this decision,” said Kera Sherwood-O’Regan of Sustained Ability, a group of disabled climate activists. “. . . There are many other youth- and non-youth-related organizations in the climate space that could benefit from similar conversations.”... Some within New Zealand’s environmental movement also questioned the decision. “It is sad, disappointing, and most especially divisive,” Mary Moeono-Kolio, the Wellington coordinator of 350 Pacific, told the Guardian. “The climate movement needs everyone’s involvement and commitment.” Her message was echoed by Sophie Handford, one of the founders of School Strike in New Zealand. “I’m a little concerned that this sends a message of division or that not everyone is needed”... Sherwood-O’Regan, who is Maori and began her climate activism at age 13, said people should see the group’s disbanding as a chance to improve the environmental movement."
Maybe the problem of climate hysteria will solve itself with enough intersectionality
'Video game planes emit real carbon': why gaming is not merely guilt-free escapism | Games | The Guardian - "Take the climate crisis. It might seem that, in the form of Flight Simulator amid a stay-at-home pandemic, we’ve finally discovered an eco-friendly way to escape. The virtual Airbus A320 even has “unbeatable fuel efficiency” written on its fuselage. But before you get too hopeful, consider that Flight Simulator’s virtual planet is around two petabytes worth of data, which players stream during play sessions (PC World reported around 2GB of streamed data for a few days of play)."
The Guardian also emits carbon. Time to shut it down?
Facebook - "German Federal Audit Office warns of Germany's going-green transition: If price hikes continue, Germany as business location is in danger. Costs are out of control. It could jeopardize the social acceptance of the energy transition)"
Bjørn Lomborg - Posts | Facebook - "Climate alarmism is having a real effect. A YouGov poll in 2019 found that almost half of the world's population believes climate change will likely end the human race. It makes school children ask why they should educate themselves, when they don't have a future anyway. If climate change really could end the world, then perhaps this alarmism might be warranted, but that is simply not the case. The UN's climate panel has estimated that the negative impact of climate change equates to incomes reducing by 0.2% to 2% by the 2070s. By then, each person worldwide will be 363% richer; however, climate change will mean people will only be 356% richer than today. That's a problem - but it isn't the end of the world. Currently, rich country leaders are trying to solve this problem by cutting local emissions. But even if all rich nations stopped all their CO2 emissions tomorrow, and for the rest of the century, temperature rise would only reduce from 4.1C to 3.7C by 2100."
Cities Try to Phase Out Gas Stoves—but Cooks Are Pushing Back - WSJ - "Gas-fired stoves are emerging as a burning issue as American cities consider phasing out natural-gas hookups to homes and businesses to reduce carbon emissions. Many restaurant and home chefs prefer cooking on gas-burning ranges, and persuading some to switch to electric stovetops is proving to be a hard sell—a sentiment the natural-gas industry has seized on to rally opposition to new local ordinances. Several cities, including San Francisco and Seattle, have given ground on the issue by exempting stoves from natural-gas bans, or providing pathways for restaurants to secure waivers in an attempt to minimize blowback. The pushback on stoves demonstrates one of the challenges of reducing the emissions linked to climate change: Consumers may have to make personal sacrifices by giving up things they use and enjoy in favor of less familiar technologies. George Chen, executive chef and founder of San Francisco restaurant China Live, said he was concerned about cities restricting a cooking technique that contributes to the texture and flavor of good Chinese cuisine that he said can’t be achieved on an electric stove... The local measures would require the installation of heat pumps and electric appliances instead of gas-powered furnaces, water heaters, ovens and stoves, which are currently the norm in most of the country."
Climate change hysteria - about making life worse for everyone
Maybe playing the racism card will work
Facebook - "In a surprisingly honest review, the UN recently revealed the past decade of climate policies was a 'lost' decade that had, to all intents and purposes, achieved nothing. The UN found that, despite all the summits and promises, when it came to emissions, it is impossible to tell the difference between the world we're in and a hypothetical world where nothing has been done about climate since 2005. Paradoxically, this failure has not made politicians more determined to find better solutions. If anything, they have doubled down on their sound-bite promises, even ones that have no chance of happening."
BONOKOSKI: News flash — Arctic ice is not melting, Santa’s safe | Toronto Sun - "So, it turns out Catherine McKenna was apparently crying wolf when she was the Liberals’ minister of the environment. “Our Arctic is literally melting,” she dramatically said in 2018. “A melting Arctic has consequences for the entire world... It turns out the reality of the Arctic sea ice is that it has increased by almost 28% year over year. It’s not “literally melting.”... sea ice coverage in 2020 was larger than in 1998 or 2008, information that was largely known when McKenna was addressing the Commons with doomsday tales. Seems she somehow got taken in by a famous Swedish kid who was unafraid of tough language and placing blame for a planet she said was just a few short years shy of annihilation “Let us listen to Greta (Thunberg), a 16-year-old girl from Sweden,” said McKenna. “What did she say? She said, ‘Our house is falling apart, and our leaders need to start acting accordingly.’”"
Germany portrays itself as a climate leader, but it's still razing villages for coal mines
Time to burn more wood instead to be 'green'
Climate change has been blamed for Madagascar's food crisis. These scientists say that's wrong - "The UN's World Food Programme and multiple media organizations have been warning that the African island nation of Madagascar is on the brink of the world's first climate-change-induced famine. But a new study says the human-made climate crisis has had little to do with the current food scarcity in the country. Consecutive years of low rainfall have led to a prolonged drought that has shaken Madagascar's food security and has already pushed tens of thousands of people into famine-like conditions. A study by scientists at the World Weather Attribution initiative, an international collaboration led by Imperial College London and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, found that a natural variation in the climate was most likely the main reason for the drought. The group said that poverty, poor infrastructure and a high level of dependence on rain for agriculture were also behind the country's food crisis."
"Fighting climate change" will keep them poor and with poor infrastructure, so future famines caused by fighting climate change can be blamed on climate change again. Brilliant!
Economic growth in Africa will not be achieved by a blanket ban on fossil fuels - "Special Envoy John Kerry said the administration wants “to develop a U.S. climate finance plan, as well as a plan for ending international financing of fossil fuel projects with public money.” This could be done thoughtfully to support a transition to a clean and energy abundant future for everyone — or it could result in a ban on all oil and gas projects which will stifle economic growth and make poor populations in Africa even more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Africa has many of the poorest people in the world. For most African countries, the priority is economic growth — first in agriculture, where much of the population still works, and then in industry and services. Worries of an increased carbon footprint generated from economic growth are second to worries that growth may not happen at all. The conversation about “energy poverty” has focused on just the most basic access for the very poorest. But people in poverty don’t just need to power a single lightbulb at home; they need abundant, affordable energy at work too. Energy is essential to creating productive agriculture systems, as well as to the expansion of economic opportunity in cities, factories, and modern industries. African countries need energy to grow, and to eliminate poverty — and they can’t do it with small-scale green power projects alone. Africa’s first priority is to grow more food. Composting and recycling can only go so far — farmers need synthetic fertilizer to raise yields, and natural gas is the most efficient energy source for fertilizer production. Poor farmers in Africa need much better access to irrigation. Efforts to use small-scale solar powered irrigation systems at the farm level have been successful but are nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of the entire continent. Large scale, energy-intensive water control projects that rely on fossil fuels must be in the mix — just as they are in wealthy countries. Domestic food supply chains provide the vast majority of food across Sub-Saharan Africa, but they’re hampered by poor roads and the unreliable fuel supplies. Construction of much-needed roads requires energy and the transportation sector as a whole remains almost entirely dependent on oil and gas. Beyond agriculture, a continuous supply of power from the grid is critical for expanding factory production. Countries like Ethiopia, which have ambitions to become manufacturing powerhouses, are increasingly looking to China for the construction and operation of large-scale power projects that will provide reliable electricity. Off-grid technologies are useful for extending basic energy services but cannot power the industrial activity needed to create millions of jobs and drive economic diversification. There is no world in which Africa can meet its energy needs with carbon-neutral power plants and off-grid solutions. African countries can’t afford to grow their economies and lift their people’s incomes without relying on at least some fossil fuels — and it’s unfair and ahistorical for the West to ask them to do so... The continent’s needs are too great to be met solely with current green energy technologies, and its finances too stretched to be able to afford the cost of carbon-neutral energy — costs that can be borne in wealthier countries, who are responsible for most of the world’s carbon, today and in the past. Furthermore, fully zero-carbon grids exist almost nowhere in the world (Iceland is the main exception) and non-intermittent forms of electricity generation are still needed to balance out wind and solar. And low-carbon alternatives to the production of fertilizer, cement and steel largely do not exist."
India cannot bind itself to net zero emission target: Chandrashekhar Dasgupta - "What would a national 2050 net zero target mean for India’s economy? First, it would require us to immediately scrap all existing coal-based power plants and factories, or alternatively, retrofit them with carbon capture and storage technology. This would entail astronomical costs at a time when the economy is already reeling from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, it would hit our Aatmanirbhar Bharat policy for a six. It would necessitate an immediate switch-over to imported, existing clean energy technologies at a huge cost, denying our own industry the time required for indigenisation or development of affordable indigenous technologies. Let us not forget that the US lodged a complaint against us at the WTO when we took some modest measures to promote domestic manufacture of solar cells and modules. Third, we need to examine the trade-related implications of surrendering our principled position on “common and differentiated responsibilities”. The European Union is set to impose levies on carbon-intensive imports, even from developing countries. It would be naive to think that the countries calling on India to adopt a 2050 net zero target are motivated purely by altruistic concerns unrelated to commercial interests."
Meme - "Planet earth watching leonardo dicaprio, UN climate change ambassador, speed up the earth's end by deciding to holiday on his million-super- yacht that produces 238kg of carbon dioxide per mile immediately after telling the public to and learn from "don't look up""
Ron Perlman Says 'F**k You' to Critics Who Trashed Netflix's Climate Satire 'Don't Look Up' - "Left-wing Hollywood star Ron Perlman has thrown a temper tantrum at movie critics who dared to give negative reviews to Netflix’s climate change satire Don’t Look Up, in which he co-stars alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, and Meryl Streep... Don’t Look Up received negative reviews from many mainstream critics who faulted the movie’s smug, self-satisified tone and facile approach to satire. Overall, the movie received a 55 percent “rotten” score on RottenTomatoes, suggesting a predominantly negative reaction to the movie among professional reviewers."
You are not allowed to dislike Moral Products
Given how woke movie reviewers are nowadays the rotten rating is notable
Meme - "OF ALL THE MEETINGS THAT COULD'VE BEEN ZOOM MEETINGS YOU'D THINK A CLIMATE CONFERENCE WOULD BE FIRST ON THE LIST"
Climate change should not be depoliticised – how to fight it is the biggest debate of our age - "That climate change is real, and is caused by human activity, is not disputed by anybody credible and does not need to be subject to political debate. But the same cannot be said for what we must do about it... Our response depends on fundamental judgments about human ingenuity and competing values and interests. And before we answer, we need calm, rational debate about what climate change entails. Some activists, for example, tell us it heralds a real risk of human extinction, yet many of those same activists also insist that we must not countenance solutions – such as the wider adoption of nuclear power – which would help to save us from the fate they fear. And we are told that the effects of climate change will be catastrophic. Actors and celebrities insist that we need to save the world itself. The Archbishop of Canterbury says that if world leaders fail to reach agreement at Cop26, they will be worse than the politicians who appeased Adolf Hitler. Terrified primary-school children are informed about the imminence of devastation and death, and the responsibility of their parents’ generation to stop it. In fact, we do not know exactly how climate change will change our world. To take one example, we do not know how so-called feedbacks will work. As ice melts, for instance, the world will heat up faster, further reducing the remaining ice, contributing to more global warming. Some suggest that other feedbacks might in fact limit the pace of climate change. But all we know at this stage is that the effects of feedbacks are a known unknown and that they present a serious risk. Many of the predictions made by politicians, public figures and the media come from a model produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “RCP 8.5”, which was based on a worst-case scenario in 2014 that assumed there would be no climate policies to reduce carbon emissions. The scenario was perceived to be unrealistic when the model was first produced, and is all the more unrealistic now, with technologies changing – from renewable energy to electric vehicles – and prices falling. To demonstrate the absurdity of believing that RCP 8.5 reflects “business as usual”, the science writer Tom Chivers explains that for emissions to reach the scenario envisaged in the model, global per capita coal use would have to increase by 700 per cent. Yet this is the model that leads the media and politicians to talk in the most catastrophic terms... We should be debating the speed of our actions, too. Do we have to rush into policies early – especially when other countries will not do so – and accept a lower quality of life and a higher cost of living? Or are we able to give new technologies – such as battery storage and green hydrogen – the time to reduce the cost of cutting our emissions? And whatever path we choose, who is going to take the pain? The earlier we move, the greater the cost of the changes and the less reliable the alternatives to the things we use and do now will be. Higher industrial energy costs will hurt communities more reliant on manufacturing jobs than others. Higher domestic energy bills, petrol prices, driving charges, aviation taxes and various other pricing signals will hit lower-income families less able to take the financial hit. The one-off cost of buying electric vehicles, replacing gas boilers or insulating houses will simply be too much for some people. Some taxpayers – already facing high taxes thanks to the pandemic and long-term demographic change – will be forced to pay up three times: to change their cars, their boilers and their way of life, and through the tax system to both subsidise changes for others and to fund a transition away from carbon in poorer countries. Few policy programmes are more expensive and far-reaching. Yet anybody who raises these questions risks being written off as a “climate change denier”. The more ideological green activists do not want climate change policy to be a political matter, because they want to force the most radical, dramatic and costly change onto the country. But politics is the means by which we reconcile competing values and interests, and give legitimacy to the big calls we make about our future."
