Off Target: The Economics Literature Does Not Support the 1.5°C Climate Ceiling - "It is widely but mistakenly believed that the SR1.5 recommended the 1.5°C target on the basis that it was needed to avoid large net economic and social losses. But in fact the report specifically eschewed cost-benefit analysis, and made no assertions about what such an analysis would conclude. For the most part, the IPCC simply tried to compare the model-projected impacts of a 2.0°C warming to that of 1.5°C, and not surprisingly concluded that the former would be larger. In this report, we argue that pursuit of the 1.5°C ceiling on global warming is incompatible with mainstream economic analysis. Indeed the 1.5°C goal did not arise from the economics literature or from formal cost-benefit analysis. The SR1.5 simply took the goal as given externally. Our report provides several lines of argument to show that the economics literature as a whole does not support the 1.5°C target. For example, on the same weekend that the UN released its Special Report, William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. Major media treated the two events as complementary, assuming Nordhaus’ work supported the 1.5°C goal. Yet, on the contrary, his then most recent (2016) modeling work projected that the “optimal” global warming by the year 2100 would be 3.5°C, a full two degrees higher than the popular target. In fact, Nordhaus’ model estimated that a 1.5°C ceiling would be so harmful to the economy that it would be better for humanity if governments did nothing at all about climate change rather than pursue such a draconian policy. Or, consider the “social cost of carbon,” which economists define as the present value in dollar terms of future damages caused by the emission of an additional metric tonne of carbon dioxide. The Biden Administration’s EPA in February 2021 estimated the social cost of carbon for the year 2030 at US$62. Yet, the SR1.5 admitted that the policies it detailed for achieving the 1.5°C goal would only be justified for a social cost of carbon in 2030 ranging from $135 to $5,500 per ton, costs that are 2 to 89 times the EPA’s estimate. The SR1.5 in many respects represented a departure from views the IPCC had expressed in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report about the economic effects of climate change. We show that the UN chose a very different team of authors for the SR1.5... the UN Special Report based its reversal of the earlier consensus largely on the basis of two new studies that asserted a much larger drag on economic growth from climate change compared to that found in many previous studies. In doing so, the SR1.5 overlooked other new studies that had upheld the earlier consensus. The two new studies have, in the years since the Special Report, been criticized on methodological grounds, and other authors have not confirmed their findings. Although advocacy of aggressive climate-change policies is often draped with the mantle of science, mainstream economists who follow the scientific literature have shown that the popular 1.5°C policy target will pose costs that far exceed the benefits, and that the emission reductions flowing from strict adherence to the 1.5°C target would be worse for the world than doing nothing at all."
In other words, it's more costly to do too much to fight climate change than do nothing at all
Starmer to ban gas boilers and force developers to install heat pumps - "The National Audit Office warned efforts to encourage homes to install the pumps have been slow with people reluctant to spend four times more than on a gas boiler... The plans form part of a mission to cut carbon emissions across all new homes by up to 80 per cent - but there have been concerns over whether enough new heat pumps can be supplied to meet targets. Sir Keir's government has also pledged to build 300,000 new homes per year... He also raised fears over the capacity of the National Grid if put under extra pressure to serve heat pumps... A study published last month found that British homeowners are being put off installing environmentally-friendly heat pumps by the high cost which has not reduced over the past decade... Advocates of heat pumps say they offer energy security and efficiency benefits and can also lower energy bills. But homeowners who have installed the systems have complained that their monthly bills skyrocketed during the energy crisis."
Clearly, developers need to suck it up and install heat pumps and not pass on the costs to customers, or they are greedy
Oil and gas a 'gift from God', Azerbaijan tells Starmer at COP29 - "The COP29 summit was at risk of descending into shambles today as the host hailed oil and gas as a 'gift from God'. In his opening address, Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev insisted countries should not be embarrassed about selling fossil fuels. The extraordinary comments came as Keir Starmer used the gathering to commit the UK to a massive cut in carbon emissions. The PM confirmed the eye-watering target of slashing 81 per cent off emissions by 2035, compared to 1990 levels. He used a press conference at the Baku summit - snubbed by many world leaders but attended by the Taliban - to deny he will need to tell Brits 'how to live' in order to meet the ambitious goal... Sir Keir is one of the only premiers from the wealthiest nations in Azerbaijan for the annual gathering... Senior figures from the EU and China are also absent from what is feared will be yet another talking shop that achieves little or nothing in the way of concrete action. French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Olaf Scholz, and EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen are all staying at home. The only other G7 leader taking part in the summit is Italy's Giorgia Meloni... Sir Keir said earlier that achieving Net Zero power by 2030 would 'lower bills for people, for their energy it'll give them independence, so that tyrants like (Vladimir) Putin can't put his boot on our throat, causing all sorts of difficulties for our energy bills'."
Left wing logic - banning gas boilers is not telling people how to live
They can still fall back on blaming greedy companies when power bills rise
COP29 carbon credit debate sparks backlash from activists - "At COP29 summit in Baku, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was criticised by climate justice groups. They are sounding the alarm, warning that this approach lets the world’s biggest polluters off the hook. Instead of cutting emissions at the source, they can simply buy credits, allowing them to continue polluting without making meaningful changes, they say. Outside the venue, campaigners used visual displays to amplify their messages, including a ‘Pay Up’ banner in a nearby stadium calling for the richest countries to shoulder their responsibilities and contribute their fair share to funding the fight against climate change"
Climate change hysteria is not about preventing climate change, but self-flagellation and virtue signalling. This is also why they hate nuclear power - disrupting society and inflicting misery is a feature, not a bug. Not to mention all the free money
We're at a climate-policy turning point - "Climate alarmism is facing daunting scientific, economic and political challenges to its credibility with the public and its influence on government policy in Europe, the United States and Canada. It may finally have reached an historic turning point. The public is constantly warned about a dangerous surge in warming since the late 1970s due to increased man-made GHG emissions. But a recent peer-reviewed article by five academicians with expertise in oceanography, mathematics and statistics contradicts that conventional wisdom. They find no statistically significant change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s — even though emissions have risen 121 per cent since then, from 24 billion metric tonnes in 1970 to 53 billion in 2023. They are not alone. John F. Clauser, 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize for physics, is one of 1,960 scientists and professionals from around the world, including 146 Canadians, who have signed the Clintel World Climate Declaration, whose central message is that there is no climate emergency. These results pose two basic challenges to the core beliefs of climate alarmists. If warming has not accelerated in the past half century, where is the crisis? And if a doubling of GHG emissions is supposed to directly impact temperatures, why have temperatures not shot up? The latter question also applies to the 1970’s, when go-to experts and the mainstream media were hyperventilating about a return to an Ice Age, though GHG emissions had doubled in the previous 30 years. Meanwhile, European economic growth has stalled, in large part due to the high cost of energy, which makes industry uncompetitive and drives energy-dependent companies to the United States. Germany, now the sick man of Europe, is de-industrializing, a direct result of former chancellor Angela Merkel’s reckless abandonment of nuclear energy and her country’s consequent reliance on Russian gas. The German automotive sector is also in crisis, the loser in a failed bet on EVs. Tellingly, the issue of climate change has been virtually absent from the American presidential campaign, even though the two candidates have opposing views on the subject. Donald Trump has made some headway condemning Kamala Harris for senseless green policies that damage the economy and hurt American workers. The one climate issue that has been high-profile is fracking. In a dramatic reversal from her position in 2019, Harris now supports it, which is important in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to her election chances. If she wins, she will back subsidies for renewables and discourage fossil fuel development. If Trump wins, it will be “Drill, baby, drill,” a rejection of climate alarmism and a retreat from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, all of which would reverberate globally. Although most Canadians claim to be concerned about global warming, it is no longer high on their priority list and they were never prepared to pay much to deal with it, in any case. Axing Ottawa’s key climate policy, the carbon tax, has become a powerful vote-winner for Conservatives across the country. Ontario Minister of Energy and Electrification Stephen Lecce has come out in favour of every source of energy to produce electricity, including nuclear for base load and natural gas to back up wind and solar. Without gas, the province would suffer from brownouts and blackouts, ballooning costs and an uncompetitive industrial sector. Despite all this, Canadian politicians are not yet ready to acknowledge publicly three increasingly evident realities that contradict climate orthodoxy: Net zero is unattainable without devastating economic and social costs — and may be unattainable, period. Canada cannot on its own make a discernible difference to the global climate. And, therefore, climate policies are mainly an extremely expensive form of virtue-signalling... A new Conservative government should focus on adaptation and research, which are effective and affordable ways to deal with extreme weather and moderately rising temperatures... the time is coming when common sense and rationality re-emerge — first gradually and then probably suddenly. One day we will look back with deep regret and wonder how collective madness captured the Western world and caused it to sacrifice hundreds of trillions of dollars to a false idol."
Opinion: Not zero — global fossil fuel use is still rising - "According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry spent US$12.3 trillion (in $2023) worldwide on clean energy. That’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023. Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023 global fossil fuels consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising 38 per cent, coal 66 per cent and natural gas 90 per cent. And despite the trillions spent on alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent. That’s not really a surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by eminent scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition — from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels — started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about seven per cent of the world’s energy supply as of 2020. Coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for it to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of development. Now consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so that all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is, to say the least, a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns. The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions of dollars in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly unlikely. As politicians have attended one high-profile conference after another and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has only increased. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 looks impossible."
Clearly, they aren't spending enough, and the cost needs to be absorbed by greedy companies, since everyone knows that renewables are the cheapest form of energy
Terry Newman: Trudeau to Canada — starve your kids for climate change - "Whatever your opinions are on climate change and the carbon tax, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the least convincing, worst imaginable representative for these (or any other) causes. Trudeau hopped on a plane to fly 8,280 km to take the stage at the Global Citizen Now Event at the G20 Leaders’ Summit Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to lecture the audience and Canadians about our country’s role in saving the entire planet. He opened by insisting it is morally selfish to put food and lodging concerns above contributions to the carbon tax. He told the audience: “It’s really, really easy when you’re in a short-term survive, I gotta be able to pay the rent this month, I’ve gotta be able to buy groceries for my kids, to say, OK, let’s put climate change as a slightly lower priority.” Then, as if he were a proud undergrad reciting textbook material, he mentions Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but then doesn’t address these very real practical concerns... This is smug and fresh coming from the son of a former prime minister, someone who has never had to worry about money a day in his life. More to the point, how does someone save the planet when they’re struggling to pay their mortgage and feed their kids? Trudeau also made the nonsensical claim that women are the most vulnerable to climate change, paying the heaviest price in terms of “economics, quality of life, and even their lives.” How could climate change affect a woman and not her father, husband, and sons? Are tidal waves and droughts targeting women, while parting like the Red Sea to avoid male family members? Is there an all female island out there, with ancient Amazonian women, particularly susceptible to climate change?... what does Trudeau think struggling Canadians worried about paying for rent and groceries will use carbon tax rebate cheques for? Why, “insulating their homes” and “taking their bike more often,” of course. Trudeau ends by suggesting that Canadians fears and anxieties are being played on in order to manipulate them into feeling powerless, suggesting he is the leader who treats Canadians like “thoughtful active agents of change” who are “not just blind consumers of politics and propaganda,” and that he is not the one pitting people against each other. No comment. Despite all of this, Trudeau said he was hopeful about the next election and his climate policies, suggesting it’s because he speaks with young people. If he does, he’s speaking with only select environmentalists and activists because young people have made it very clear that they are in survival mode. Ultimately, Justin Trudeau does not understand that a successful approach to climate change or a carbon tax would have to be affordable for all Canadians, without differential treatment. Canadians would have to believe it actually had an affect on climate change. They would have to trust whomever was promoting it and all information about its economic and environmental benefits would have to be transparent. While a noble thought, Canada and its taxpayers are not personally responsible for saving the planet. Its citizens know full well that many countries will never give up on fossil fuels. Trudeau knows this, too. Why is he trying to deceive Canadians, putting the responsibility on our wallets and at our doorsteps?"
The impending implosion of Trudeau's 'win-win-win' EV battery deal - "Whirl with me back in time all the way to September 2023, when the federal and Quebec governments announced that they would be partnering with Swedish battery maker Northvolt to plunge headlong into the bright green future. Canada and Quebec would be laying out about $2.7 billion in capital, and more in downstream subsidies, to facilitate the construction of a vast, hypermodern battery plant in the province’s hinterland to help meet the world’s unlimited appetite for electric vehicles, creating thousands of jobs and contributing to global environmental health. “It’s a win-win-win — for workers, for communities, and for the environment,” trumpeted the prime minister. What could go wrong? Ominous signs began to appear in September of this year, as the Financial Post remarked, while politicians offered reassurance. Northvolt’s balance sheet had turned out to be crawling with tulipomaniac investments and discouraged customers, and the political will behind Europe’s fast-forward transition away from internal combustion vehicles was beginning to sag. Soon, amid news of bailout talks among owners and creditors of Northvolt, the company slowed construction timelines on a heavily subsidized German factory like the one now being assembled in Quebec. This added to political problems for a German coalition government that has since gone kablooie. Bargaining over a private cash injection for Northvolt has now entered a murky phase... Northvolt is considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States and that one major investor has already written the value of the company down to zero. Reuters added insult to injury Monday with an exclusive on Northvolt’s chronic failures to meet internal production targets. The good news is that the federal government’s subsidies to the factory were contingent on the factory coming onstream, which was originally supposed to happen in late 2026, and Quebec has only paid out about a third or so of the $1.4 billion it promised. The bad news, as the Globe and Mail reported Tuesday morning, is that Ontario pension plans and Quebec’s Caisse de dépôt have a lot of capital tied up in Northvolt — nobody’s saying exactly how much — and there is little certainty about where those investors stand in the event of a bankruptcy filing. The Quebec factory is itself undergoing “strategic review” by Northvolt management, and of course might end up still being finished, on some timeline, by some owner or other. But Trudeau’s “win-win-win” is definitely looking shaky for all three of the enchanted victors from long-ago 2023, when nobody could possibly have seen any of this chaos coming."
Only capitalism could lead to electric vehicle companies going bankrupt though electric cars are the future! Greedy companies are more evil than they're greedy, which is why they're willing to go bankrupt to thwart the green transition
'Net zero’ greenhouse gas emission targets ‘wishful thinking’: report - "In reality, he says, the emission cuts called for by the UN by 2030 could only be achieved by “an unprecedented economic collapse … during the next seven years.”... the share of fossil fuels used to power the world’s primary energy supply has decreased by only 4%, from 86% in 1997 to 82% in 2022... promises of net zero emissions by 2050 — 26 years from now — are based on overly optimistic predictions of the time it will take for technological advancements to reduce emissions and the fact that even when peak emissions are finally achieved, the move away from fossil fuel energy will be slow and complex. As one example, he notes that, “estimates provided by the International Energy Agency indicate that, compared to 2020, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles by 2040 will require over 40 times more lithium and up to 25 times more cobalt, nickel, and graphite, with more of these materials needed for new wind turbines, PV cells, transmission lines, and large storage batteries. “Concerns arise due to the substantial time required to identify potential mining sites and develop the actual mines. The time required, assuming such scale is even possible, poses serious questions about the adequacies of potential mineral and metal production.” Smil estimates the economic costs of achieving net zero emissions in high-income countries such as Canada would be at least 20% of GDP, “posing significant economic challenges.” It would also require unprecedented international co-operation among global economic and geo-political competitors, including China, the world’s largest emitter which burns more than half of the world’s coal, the United States which is the world’s second-largest emitter, and Russia, the fourth-largest emitter, which depends on its fossil fuel exports for economic stability."
Cleaning after solar panels: applying a circular outlook to clean energy research - "In this paper, we study the link between renewable technology adoption and the resulting waste, drawing parallels from our experience with the WEEE Directive to suggest policy recommendations and highlight future research directions. Our ideas are driven by the observation that the sharp reduction in solar panel installation costs along with improvements in their energy conversion efficiency has driven a rapid growth in the adoption of this technology. We note a potential caveat to such rapid growth in adoption: existing installations being retired earlier than their projected 30-year lifetime. In this context, we build a model of the technology adoption and replacement behaviour of solar panel end-users. We conduct a numerical analysis to calculate the solar panel replacement incentives of US residential households, and project the resulting waste from residential panels. We find that annual new waste introduced into the market can exceed the volume of new installations within the next decade, which can more than double the levelized cost of energy for solar generation and jeopardise the cost competitiveness of this technology in the foreseeable future. These observations reflect the importance of a circular economy outlook in renewable energy system design and call for further research in this area."
Weird. Solar energy promoters tell us that solar cells have a super long lifespan, even longer than advertised. As usual they ignore systems costs in order to missell their agenda
Labour has just let slip the true cost of net zero - "Les jeux sont faits, Ed Miliband. The chips are down, the game is up. We knew Labour was no closer to solving the energy trilemma than scientists are to explaining dark matter. That, for now, we cannot have net-zero emissions, security of supply and affordability. We knew that using public money to import gas to manufacture CO2 was less a display of moral leadership on climate change than it was brazen hypocrisy. Perhaps most importantly, we knew that the pursuit of net-zero policies, regardless of cost, would impact our lives in ways the gentleman in Whitehall could not possibly foresee. It already is, as anyone who has driven into a clean air zone can attest. Yet the ruling class insisted on living in some alternate reality where there were no trade-offs; just cheap, abundant, secure renewables. So we should thank Bill Esterson, Labour chair of the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for letting the cat out of the bag. “We will all have to change our lives” if we are to decarbonise the grid by 2030, he has just admitted. Keir Starmer is offering no such candour; at Cop29, the climate jamboree many world leaders had the good sense to snub, the Prime Minister not only set us another target (an 81 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035), but peddled the line that he “won’t be telling people how to behave”. This will surely only be true in the most literal sense. Impose congestion charges in British cities, and people might be forced to travel by other means, or not at all. Foist mandates on car manufacturers to sell a certain number of EVs on penalty of hefty fines, and they may be forced to cut sales of petrol vehicles, pushing prices up and consumers out. Introduce green levies on energy bills – they now make up 16 per cent of electricity bills – and households will have to cut spending elsewhere. Did the Government “tell” us to change our behaviour? No, it just left us with no alternative. And we are only in the foothills of the transition. Yes, the UK last year became the first country to halve its emissions since 1990 – a milestone about which the eco-zealots remained surprisingly quiet. But this was achieved by accelerating existing trends, such as abandoning much domestic production, and we could rely on renewables because fossil fuels were there to provide baseload power. The next half will be far more painful – though the climate cult will likely dismiss such concerns, insisting that clean energy sources are low cost and jobs will be provided aplenty. Clearly, when wind turbines are running the marginal cost of energy produced is close to zero, whilst energy produced by gas has a positive marginal cost because we have to purchase the fuel. But gas-fired power stations are easy to build and link to the grid. Wind turbines, on the other hand, are costly to install and maintain, especially offshore. They don’t have a long life, are in places far from population centres, and are expensive to link to the grid. They also need backup when the wind doesn’t blow, or if it blows too hard. But these issues are hidden by government subsidy and delusional eco-hype... the country that birthed the industrial revolution, and created the oil refineries and steelworks that transformed people’s lives, now has the world’s highest electricity prices – and only the ghost of an industrial sector. Some 199 years ago, the first steam locomotive carried passengers in the North East. Why did this breakthrough happen on our small island? For the same reason we pioneered large factories, mass electrification and gas for cooking: because we had cheap energy. No country in the world has ever prospered without it. That Labour fails to accept this is as alarming as its belief you can grow an economy by lavishing money on the public sector. It is making us poorer by the day, telling us we’re imagining it – and then giving an exasperated sigh when we complain. “The clean energy transition is unstoppable,” said the fanatical Miliband yesterday, as Vauxhall announced the closure of its Luton factory. “Unstoppable because clean energy is the route to energy security. Unstoppable because it is the economic opportunity of our time.” A noble lie is still a lie."
Kerry suggests Africans without electricity must pick 'the right kinds of electricity'
He must think they are really naive
Council sparks fury after pledging $22,000 to coal protesters - "The City of Sydney pledged to donate $22,000 of taxpayers' funds to the Rising Tide group 'to use on whatever they choose' at a meeting on Monday night. It came just hours after the group disrupted the shipping channel into the world's largest coal port in Newcastle Harbour, north of Sydney, on Sunday... 'We have food relief centres and homeless shelters with lines out the door, and we give money to a fringe climate change action group because it 'feels good'... Labor councillors Zann Maxwell and Mitch Wilson backed the donation in response to the decision last week by the Minns government to increase penalties for protesters who disrupt law-abiding citizens by blocking railways and trains. Mr Maxwell said the laws increasing penalties were 'rushed through parliament without community consultation'. 'They infringe upon basic liberties and protections expected in our democratic society,' Mr Maxwell said."
Blackmail is great when it pushes the left wing agenda. Good luck if "far right" protesters block railways, trains and ports
'Tyre slasher' allegedly deflates tyres in Woodlands carparks, arrested for being public nuisance - "The police have arrested a 23-year-old man for allegedly committing mischief to vehicles. This came after a car owner found all four of her vehicle’s tyres deflated at a multi-storey carpark in Woodlands... the suspect is a 23-year-old NUS student named Benjamin Chia Yit Loong. Between 10am and 12pm on 19 Nov, he allegedly deflated tyres of five cars and placed flyers on the vehicles’ windscreens... The content of the flyer suggests that the tyre slashings were carried out by a climate activist group that is against the use of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). As per the flyer, the climate activist group responsible for the act is known as ‘The Tire Extinguishers’. Its page suggests that they are an international activist group that encourages people to deflate tyres on SUVs... For being a public nuisance, Chia faces a jail term of up to three months, a fine of up to S$2,000, or both"
When you pick the wrong country for climate change hysteria terrorism
bestsongs.com.ng 
