How to Create Impoverishment and Energy Insecurity - "Canada, with the world’s third-largest oil reserves and the potential to produce far more than its current approximately 4 million barrels per day, is sacrificing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenues and new capital investment, along with tens of thousands of well-paying jobs, on the Net Zero altar with policies that discourage new production and all-but rule out building new oil export pipelines. Even a proposed cross-country pipeline that would have delivered Canadian oil to eastern refineries was deliberately stymied by the Trudeau government, leaving tankers carrying Saudi Arabian and African oil up the fragile Gulf of St. Lawrence, while emitting immensely more greenhouse gases than domestic oil. It doesn’t have to be this way. Speaking in London in July 2006, before departing for a Vladimir Putin-hosted G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper called Canada “an emerging energy superpower.” Oil and natural gas industry capital investment rose sharply in the following years, doubling from $30 billion to $60 billion per year before the Harper government’s defeat in 2015. By 2019, Trudeau’s anti-oil and natural gas policies had contributed greatly to collapsing capital spending to less than half of 2006 levels – a decline of 75 percent from their Harper-era peak. While a dip in commodity prices early in the Trudeau years played a role, oil and natural gas industries around the world were soon booming once more. But not Canada’s. The situation we find ourselves in today is largely the result of deliberate policy choices. Most Canadians are unmindful of these issues. But if there’s one thing that gets their attention, it’s the price of gasoline (and diesel) at the pump. The current escalation of fuel prices must be sending anti-fossil-fuel ideologues worshipping at the Net Zero altar into celestial orgasm. But not real-world working Canadians... federal and provincial taxes make up about one-third of the price of fuel. As these prices continue to escalate, food and other necessities have also risen to record levels across the country. A recent Angus Reid survey found that 53 percent of Canadians already consider themselves unable to keep up with the rising cost of living. The 11 cents per litre in federal carbon tax don’t seem like much compared with current total pump prices. But that’s just the beginning. The Trudeau government plans to progressively increase the carbon tax to 38 cents per litre by 2030. Adding the 9-cent-per-litre B.C. carbon tax (just one of seven taxes levied on motor fuels in that province) means that drivers in that province will pay carbon taxes of 47 cents per litre. The theory behind carbon taxes is that higher prices will reduce consumption of the thing being taxed and its associated activities – in this case, driving, which emits carbon dioxide, the ostensible target of Net Zero ideology. But this theory only applies in practice if there’s a viable alternative. For millions of already cost-stressed real-world Canadians to whom their vehicle is a must-have for their small business, getting to work or maintaining their family lives in a busy world, imposing carbon taxes on fuel simply impoverishes them. They still need to drive. As they spend more on fuel, they are forced to spend less on everything else... (It is also generally inflationary as operating businesses, commercial buildings and public facilities becomes more expensive. So this is another source of impoverishment, one that hits people who don’t even own a vehicle.) At this time, when Russian President Putin threatens to cut oil exports, the importance of unleashing Canada’s enormous crude oil (as well as natural gas) resources has never been clearer. While visiting Latvia on March 8, a reporter asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if Canada could help make up the oil supply shortage. His answer illustrated the fanatical depth of his worship at the Net Zero altar: “We will be there to support, as the world moves beyond Russian oil and indeed, beyond fossil fuels, to have more renewables in our mix.” This incredible answer – an ungrammatical melange of ideology, non-sequitur and attempted misdirection from the moment’s acute urgency – comes at a time when innocent Ukrainians and their beautiful country are being ravaged by a megalomaniac who threatens the world with nuclear Armageddon. President Putin should be grateful to Trudeau for helping him control world oil markets by hamstringing Canada’s “energy superpower” potential. Let’s be crystal-clear: the Liberal government’s policies are driving us towards a horrific combination of impoverishment and energy insecurity. All of it entirely avoidable. Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian. I pray for new political leadership that will make me, and millions of other dispirited Canadians, proud of our country again."
Hypocrisy: Elites Enjoy Gourmet Meals At Climate Summit - "George Carlin said it years ago: “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club. And by the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head in their media telling you what to believe, what to think, and what to buy. The table is tilted folks. The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.”... “officials who land a spot at the conference’s exclusive VIP restaurant will be able to dine out on an array of pricey meat and fish dishes served up during the 12-day climate conference in Sharm el-Sheikh this week. Those with a taste for the luxurious can snap up an angus beef medallion with sautéed potatoes for a pricey $100 (£90) or a creamy salmon for $40 (£35), after scoffing back a $50 (£43) seafood platter for starter.” Hypocrisy? Off the charts. These are the same people, mind you, who want us to eat bugs. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declares: “Edible insects contain high quality protein, vitamins and amino acids for humans. Insects have a high food conversion rate, e.g. crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and twice less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein.”... despite all these alleged benefits and the supposed harm to the planet caused by human beings eating beef and chicken, there were no bugs on the menu at Sharm el-Sheikh. In this, the climate elites were simply being true to their socialist ideals. In the old Soviet Union, as well as in other hardline Communist states such as East Germany and Poland and the rest, the elites didn’t suffer the effects of their own socialist policies. Their people were crowded into filthy, stinking apartment buildings and made to eat swill and garbage while they reclined at oceanfront villas and dined on lobster and Kobe beef. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the “workers” who sacrificially keep the machinery of government going are exempt from the deprivation and misery that they enforce upon the populace... One Leftist group, the UK’s obnoxious and stupid Animal Rebellion, which pours out milk cartons onto supermarket floors to save the cows, has already noticed"
Environmentalism: modern sumptuary laws
Jason Hickel on Twitter - "Environmentalism without class struggle is using paper straws while the rich take 9 minute flights in their private jets."
Biden contradicts his own top hurricane expert to push climate agenda - "President Joe Biden used part of his remarks in Florida on Wednesday to blame Hurricane Ian, a recent Category 4 storm, on human-caused climate change despite recent pushback from experts... A recent NOAA study similarly concluded that it was "premature to conclude with high confidence" that human-caused increasing greenhouse gases have had any impact on hurricane activity in the Atlantic. And on Sunday, Michael Shellenberger, an energy policy expert and founder of the group Environmental Progress, tweeted a series of NOAA analyses showing there is no definitive long-term trend in hurricane frequency, there may be a negative trend in land-falling hurricanes since 1900, and there is no long-term trend on increasing hurricane intensity."
NZ radio star Heather du Plessis-Allan laughs at 16yo climate activist Izzy Cook over Fiji trip - "The mother of a 16-year-old New Zealand climate activist has lashed out at a radio host who mercilessly mocked the teen after she admitted to flying to Fiji for a holiday. Rose Cook, the mother of Wellington school climate strike organiser Izzy Cook, penned a furious reaction after hearing her daughter give the phone interview at the family home... Under the heading of 'Heather du Plessis-Allan should be ashamed of how she bullied my daughter', Ms Cook said the popular radio star who interviewed Izzy did not give 'a sh*t about climate change'. Ms Cook accused Du Plessis-Allan of staging a 'gotcha' moment 'to discredit her (Izzy) personally and derail the conversation about climate action'. During the interview, Izzy tells Du Plessis-Allan she thinks it would be a good idea if flights were only allowed for 'approved events'. 'Am I allowed to go to Fiji, is that necessary?' Du Plessis-Allan asks. 'In the current climate crisis I don't think that's necessary,' Izzy replies. 'When was the last time you were on a plane?' Du Plessis-Allan asks, seemingly innocently. Izzy gives a hesitant reply. 'Hmmm... I'm not sure... a few months ago to be honest,' she says. "Where'd you go?' Du Plessis-Allan presses. 'Fiji,' is the resigned reply... 'Are you embarrassed your parents did that to the planet and then forced you to do it as well?' Du Plessis-Allan asks. 'Of course I am not embarrassed,' an adamant Izzy replies."
Holding leftists to account is "bullying". Hypocrisy is only bad when the "right" is doing it
Suresh Syed 🇹🇿🇰🇪🇮🇳🇳🇿 on Twitter - "Precious. The girl was put forward to front an agenda, and now there is outrage because she failed and got mocked. Treating kids as the fount of all knowledge like Greta may not be correct. At 16 I am sure that we didnt know much about anything"
MJ on Twitter - "Nope. Buy the ticket, take the ride. If you want to take society to task you can expect some robust questioning. The author and her daughter are hypocrites."
Meme - Paul Litterick @fundypost: "She wasn't bullied. She was mocked for her hypocrisy."
NICK STONE @NICK_OFF_NOW: "It is a bit of a fine line when you're talking about kids, to be fair..."
Dept of Common Sense: "To be fair... kids shouldn't be used as props in propaganda campaigns."
NICK STONE @NICK_OFF_NOW: "I completely agree. Although I do wonder to what degree a politically aware (but naive) 16 year old can claim to be manipulated by a parent. In this case I agree the mother has done this, but not without some degree of responsibility from the child. We're on the same page."
Great Big Story - Posts | Facebook - "At 16 years old, Greta Thunberg has sparked a global climate movement, making world leaders answer for their actions, and inspiring a new generation to rise up on behalf of the planet. We stand with her, and we'll see you on the streets this Friday for #GlobalClimateStrike."
Comment: Igor Bronz: "I'm an engineer working on green infrastructure designs and build-outs. This child is a mascot for some dangerous and powerful groups who, I assure you, have ulterior motives besides "saving the planet"."
Meme - Igor Bronz: "I generally don't engage in protracted debates in the comments section but I need to clear a few things up, and I'll try to keep it brief.
1) Emissions reductions are nonsense. Because of climate lag, even if every nation on Earth stopped producing carbon tomorrow, you would still experience effects of climate change for the next 50 years.
2) Emissions reductions on a personal level, will have a minuscule effect on carbon due to an increasing world population, previously underdeveloped nations rapidly industrializing, and most of the world not attempting carbon emissions reduction. Greta's time would be better spent in China, India or Africa where carbon emissions are highest and quickly increasing.
3) Carbon sequestration technology utilized by every nation is really the only serious way to prevent this. If you aren't talking about it, you're either clueless about the subject or have ulterior motives, such as weakening a country's economy through insane regulations. Regulating emissions is like turning the faucet down slightly in an attempt to drain the tub.
4) Localized and supply chain related pollution is going to cause a lot more ecological problems than even unregulated carbon emissions ever will, yet it receives relatively little attention because certain powerful people have a vested interest in pushing a climate change agenda over one of dealing with issues like rampant pollution, such as the insane amount of plastic entering and degrading in the oceans.
There's actually a lot more to this. This is just the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun). Just dont feel like writing an entire thesis in the comments section."
Switzerland, Facing an Unprecedented Power Shortage, Contemplates a Partial Ban on the Use of Electric Vehicles - "The Swiss Confederation usually imports electricity from France and Germany to keep the lights on over the winter, but this year neither country has any power to spare. Many French nuclear power plants are down after years of postponed maintenance, while in Germany we suffer from a superfluity of idle wind turbines and a (self-imposed) shortage of natural gas. The Federal Council of Switzerland has therefore published draft legislation, which outlines four tiers of escalating measures to conserve electricity and avert potential blackouts. The first prescribes a lot of temperature restrictions for things like refrigerators and washing machines. The second includes more unusual rules, such as the demand that heating in clubs and discotheques “be set to the lowest level or switched off completely,” and that “streaming services … limit resolution of their content to standard definition.” The third foresees cutting business hours, banning the use of Blue Ray players and gaming computers, and also limiting the use of electric cars, which should be driven only when absolutely necessary. A fourth and final tier mandates closure of ski facilities, casinos, cinemas, theatre and the opera. A lot of these rules look unenforceable, but they said the same thing about contact restrictions during the pandemic. It turns out that the state really can prevent you from socialising with people in your own home if it wants to, especially when there’s no shortage of prying neighbours eager to snitch. Feasibility isn’t the point, though. It’s the optics here that are most astounding. Electric vehicles, which politicians have heavily subsidised as one of their primary policy responses to climate change, are just now crashing against that other great arm of the green agenda, namely renewable energy. You can’t drive everyone into ever greater dependence upon the electrical grid, while also orchestrating an energy transition to wind (which hardly blows in Germany, except in the north) and solar (which generates no meaningful power in the depths of the Central European winter). Gas from Russia was the magic ingredient that kept the whole renewables charade going, and we’re out of that now. There’s no way to cover up the failure; not even the green-friendly German media has any excuse or messaging angle here."
Alberta issues second grid alert in three days as wind power generation collapses, again - "And as much-touted “cheap” wind and solar fell off the grid, pool electricity prices were forecast to max-out at the highest available level, $1,000 per megawatt hour. This same thing occurred on Nov. 29, at supper time. By 4:05 it had already hit $861 per megawatt hour. As coal has largely been eliminated from the system, with only two coal-fired units and one dual-fuel left, natural gas was making up 82 per cent of power production. Also at supper time on Nov. 29, the AESO issued a “grid alert,” calling for lower consumption. All of this is occurring before widespread adoption of electric vehicles."
Huge EVs with massive batteries a 'severe injury and death' hazard - "Electric vehicle batteries are heavy and expensive, and automakers can charge more for larger cars. Homendy called out General Motors Co.’s GMC Hummer EV as a particularly egregious example of the trend toward bigger, heavier vehicles, noting it tips the scales at more than 4,082 kilograms. “The battery pack alone weighs over 2,900 pounds — about the weight of a Honda Civic,” she said. “That has a significant impact on safety for all road users.” The transport safety regulator also mentioned Ford Motor Co.’s F-150 Lightning pickup is as much as 1,360 kg heavier than a non-electric version of the same truck and said Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and Volvo’s XC40 EV weigh about 33 per cent more than gas-powered equivalents... Homendy commended government efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but cautioned that could have some unintended consequences, such as higher numbers of road fatalities."
Clearly, the liberal solution is to ban them
They are killing off cars and gas so you can't get to them - ">forced to buy an electric vehicle
>find out your mother is in the hospital
>wait 5 hours to charge car just so it can go 100 miles
>wait 10 hours just for it to go 200 miles
>finish charging
>has to update, it will take 40 mins depending on connection
>update failed, restarting update and car wont even start
>finally done, unplug EV and get ready to drive
>voice comes on "there is a special covid alert today, you can only drive to your local store and back"
>if you drive longer or over so many miles then your EV will shut off and a tow truck will be called at your own expense
>press the agree button or the EV wont start
>start to pull out of driveway
>EV stops before you even hit the street
>EV voice asks if you would like to turn on auto pilot to the store
>you push yes
>voice asks you sit sit and watch these new ads until the autopilot is finished loading and updating the route
>finally are able to drive a bit but autopilot wants you to still hold the wheel
>get to the store and get a phone call, mother is dying from the vax... i mean climate change
>try to drive to hospital but car notices you are not following the assigned route home
>EV shuts down
>tow truck called
>you are on the EV's phone watching your mother die
>your mother is about to tell you her dying last words when an ad interrupts the call
>it's a 'get a booster' ad by pfizer"
The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ - "The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature. There is a new paper published in Nature, entitled Discrepancies in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians... This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal... From the press release: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.”... Note that this list of climate science ‘contrarians’ is heavily populated by experts in climate dynamics, i.e. how the climate system actually works. The most comical categorization on this list is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly supports the IPCC Consensus, and gave a talk to this effect at an early Heartland Conference. Ironically, Scott Denning tweeted this article, apparently before he realized he was on the list of contrarians. The list also includes others (academic or not) with expertise on at at least one aspect of climate science (broadly defined), from whom I have learned something from either their publications or blog posts or other public presentations... Apart from the rank stupidity of this article and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does substantial harm to climate science. Climate science is a very broad and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields. Each of these subfields is associated with substantial uncertainties, and when you integrate all these fields and attempt to project into the future, there are massive uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of perspectives, especially at the knowledge frontiers. Trying to silence or delegitimize any of these voices is very bad for science. Scientists who are effective in the public communication of climate change can speak about topics beyond their own personal expertise. This requires a different set of skills from basic research: ability to synthesize and assess a broad body of research and communicate effectively. Scientists on the ‘contrarian’ list bring something further to the table: fact checking alarming statements; concerns about research integrity; thinking outside the box and pushing the knowledge frontier of climate science beyond AGW – issues that are important to the MSM and public communication of climate science. The harm that this paper does to climate science is an attempt to de-legitimize climate scientists (both academic and non academic), with the ancillary effects of making it more difficult to get their papers published in journals... and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by Forbes"
Here's the Latest Climate Change Projection That Was Totally Wrong - "The latest doomsday scenario to be proven incorrect is related to this past summer’s temperature, which was 1.5 degrees warmer than the 50-year average. Yet, it was way off the 5.4-degree projection cast by Professor James Hansen, one of the godfathers of the global warming hysteria. Hansen is known for his series of congressional testimonies in the 1980s that created public awareness. Steve Milloy used The Washington Post’s tool regarding temperature changes this past summer to expose the shoddy projection. It's a pattern that cannot be ignored. The climate change prognosticators said in 2007 that the Artic Ice Cap would melt by 2013. In 2013, the ice cap was intact and had grown by 538,000 square miles. That same year, it was the calmest hurricane season in almost 20 years. It was also the quietest tornado season that year in nearly 60 years. To flashforward to the present, the 2022 hurricane season is now the most undisturbed in almost three decades."
Facebook - "There's a counterargument that pointing out Greta Thunberg's mental conditions / disorders is akin to poisoning the well / ad hominem instead of considering the merits of her arguments... The argument against Greta Thunberg flows from 3 points:
1) By her own admission Greta has Asperger's Syndrome, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Selective Mutism. These are *undisputed* diagnoses by all sides, and her advocates have in fact championed and confirmed their existence.
2) All 3 conditions present issues that may inhibit rational evaluation of matters to the standard of a reasonable person, and which, critically, extend into cognitive (i.e. thinking) ability (rather than just motor abilities).
Aspergers's Syndrome - potential for narrow, inflexible interests that reject proper consideration of alternative explanations / reasoning / solutions.
OCD - rooted in unreasonable levels of anxiety that prevent rational evaluation of whether a symbolic action is actually effective in solving an issue
Selective mutism - strongly associated with unreasonable levels of anxiety that is disportionate to actual threat
3) Therefore it is very unlikely that her views on climate change have not been affected by her mental conditions, and it follows that she would not have made a fair and rational consideration of the matter, or at least has refused any rational counterpoints, before presenting it to the world."
Self-Harm Versus the Greater Good: Greta Thunberg and Child Activism - "“Is Greta the new Che Guevara?” asked the German TV-anchor Maybrit Ilner recently during a TV debate about the striking school children. In defense of the excellent Ms. Ilner, she probably meant to refer to Che Guevara as a global political symbol. But the question is telling: Greta is turning into a revolutionary icon. Given what we know about Greta’s problems and challenges, is this an appropriate adult response to Greta’s school strike?... adults have a moral obligation to remain adults in relation to children and not be carried away by emotions, icons, selfies, images of mass protests, or messianic or revolutionary dreams."
Greta Thunberg Is Nothing But A Pawn For The Left - "Thunberg, the 18-year-old climate activist who’d become a darling of the far-Left for her radical positions on climate change, was now facing an angry backlash, with thousands of users tweeting the “GretaThunbergExposed” hashtag. Perhaps more surprising than what was being said about Thunberg was who was saying it. It wasn’t right-wing voices perpetuating the digital barrage, but left-leaning publications and activists. After researching the origins of the hashtag, I quickly learned that Thunberg was being taken to task by citizens of India for a rather amusing blunder. She had accidentally tweeted out a “tool kit,” that was intended for her eyes only. The contents included a step-by-step guide instructing her to draw attention to farmer protests in India through various social media measures. This “tool kit,” which was not intended for public view and was quickly scrubbed from her feed, revealed specific dates that Greta was instructed to tweet and post to Instagram in an effort to inspire outrage in a country in which she does not live, regarding a cause she presumably knows little about. Soon, #IndiaAgainstPropaganda began trending, backed by prominent Indians who were sickened by what they perceived to be a globalist effort to destabilize their country."
Activism for hire? By ditching climate change for Sikh separatism, Greta Thunberg shows her naivety and erodes her credibility - "Straying wildly off-piste, teen activist Greta Thunberg has caused fury in India with her backing of a farmers’ protest with links to an independence campaign for Punjab. It’s clear she’s in serious need of some proper guidance. It was inevitable that as soon as Greta Thunberg grew up, her role as the global teenage icon of climate change would lose some of its allure. The international circuit for her spiel is only so big, and once she’d done a few laps the interest starts to wane with no one left to berate. For many who have spent time in the glare of international adulation, when that spotlight starts shifting away it’s then time to ask ‘what’s next?’."
Why Sky News’ climate show flopped - "The Daily Climate Show, Sky News’ much-hyped ‘first daily prime-time news show dedicated to climate change’, is to be axed from its prime-time slot and will be cut down from 30 minutes to just 10. Despite the insistence from the Great and Good that climate change is the single most pressing issue of our time, the show prompted tens of thousands of viewers to switch off at the sight of the opening titles. The demise of The Daily Climate Show should surprise no one. The public do not think climate is the most important issue. An exclusive poll commissioned by Sky News revealed as much last month. As The Daily Climate Show reported through gritted teeth, around a quarter of Brits are unwilling to change ‘a single key climate habit’. Two-thirds (quite correctly) don’t think that climate change affects them. ‘Not everyone is yet on board with the UK’s journey to Net Zero’, bemoaned correspondent Lisa Holland. This is a big problem for a TV show whose clear aim has been not just to report on climate change, but also to propagandise in favour of climate action – which is usually a demand for ordinary people to change their supposedly polluting behaviour... This is activism, not news. And it shows in the output. The need to find daily news stories about the so-called climate crisis has led to some truly bizarre editorial judgements. The first episode featured a segment on the General Election in Greenland and the victorious party’s pledge for a moratorium on the mining of rare-earth minerals. In other episodes, we learned of the fate of gas projects in Mozambique. However serious these issues might be for the countries affected, they are not exactly subjects worthy of prime-time treatment by a UK broadcaster. No wonder people switched off in droves. When there was not enough climate news to cover (ie, on most days), The Daily Climate Show simply framed a news issue around the climate. So the German elections became ‘the climate elections’, and NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the impending takeover by the Taliban became a prompt to ask: ‘Is Afghanistan vulnerable to climate change?’ On other occasions, as you might expect, the show strayed into outright alarmism and scaremongering to capture the viewers’ attention. To highlight the issue of rising sea levels, The Daily Climate Show produced a graphic showing Buckingham Palace underwater. No matter that many countries and cities are already below sea level and are doing just fine (Amsterdam is 6ft below sea level). Such doom-mongering is now so commonplace and so transparently nonsensical that most people have become inured to it. Initiatives like The Daily Climate Show are what happen when broadcasters and media institutions lose sight of their core mission – to inform or entertain the viewing public. Instead, broadcasters now see it as their role to agitate for climate action, seemingly at the expense of all other considerations – from journalistic integrity to that plain old-fashioned sense of what’s newsworthy... The demise of The Daily Climate Show is yet more evidence that climate change remains an elite concern. While green ideology has the support of many loud and shrill activists, and of major institutions across the public and private sectors, what it cannot count on is the support of the public"
Facebook - "It seems truth often matters little when pushing climate crisis Claims in media around world, e.g. CNN, claims that a new article shows that the ‘climate crisis’ makes more heat deaths But that's because the article shows that we're seeing both more heat and more cold deaths. This, it turns out, is because the population is growing and especially because we're becoming older. If you correct for population growth and aging (really by age standardizing, but the simple way is thinking of keeping the population constant at 1990-levels) — both heat deaths and especially cold deaths have been declining. We have to stop the constant everything-bad-is-because-of-climate-change."
Thread by @philippilk on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "FT report today that gas demand has fallen. But in reality this is just the beginning of Europe’s coming deindustrialisation... The paper notes that most of the decline in use is due to industry paring back. With prices so high, gas usage is disincentivised. This is reflected in the PMI which started to go negative (>50) in the summer months, at the same time as the FT chart shows gas usage falling below normal levels. With high gas prices, producing goods in Europe stopped making economic sense. And the paper notes what many of us have been saying for some time: this isn’t a single year crisis. If something doesn’t change, this will be ongoing for years and European industry will cease to exist. The continent will be impoverished. Recently Russia has confirmed it will not sell oil to countries engaged in the price cap. Russian oil makes up 20-30% of European supply. Unless something changes layer oil shortages on top of deindustrialisation. This will mean major supply chain breakdowns and shortages. British business groups are already warning of a ‘lost decade’. Unless something changes on the energy front what that really means is a sharp fall in living standards and possibly a depression. For those who think that Europe can rearm with its industry shut down, inflation and shortages, runaway inflation and falling living standards: please take an intro level economics course and figure out how armies etc are paid for."
Destroying their economy is the best way to fight climate change
CBS pushes study blaming climate change for rising childhood obesity rates - "Several Twitter users, however, attacked the segment for emphasizing "climate change" as a factor in childhood obesity without also recognizing coronavirus lockdowns... "[T]his seemed too insane even for left-wing climate scientists so I read the study summary. the authors don't blame climate change for children getting fatter, but that fat children may have a harder time dealing with climate change because fat people don't do as well in the heat""
Ed Miliband says UK has 'historical responsibility' to countries hit by extreme weather events - "Ed Miliband sparked outrage yesterday by calling on the UK to acknowledge its ‘historical responsibility’ and send cash to countries hit by climate change. The former Labour leader said it was ‘morally right’ to help places such as the Maldives and Pakistan cope with flood damage and rising sea levels. His comments were condemned last night by Tory MPs. ‘Labour have let the cat out of the bag here as to their plans to give untold billions to countries on the premise that there is climate damage being done,’ said Craig Mackinlay, founder of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group. ‘How on earth we could be held responsible for our past, which actually gave more technological advances to the world than any other country, I find somewhat laughable.’... Developing countries and China asked for a financial package at last year’s Cop26 event in Glasgow but were rebuffed. Any repeat would be resisted by the Government which has said it will stop giving China aid, having handed over £64million in 2020. Britain gave £200million in official development assistance to Pakistan in 2020 and provided £26million in humanitarian support following deadly floods this year. Some MPs have questioned why the UK gives so much money to a country that has a space programme and nuclear weapons... Former Downing Street chief of staff Nick Timothy said: ‘You can always trust Labour to put the interests of others before our own. ‘We’re facing a painful fiscal squeeze and these guys want to talk about giving away billions to other countries as compensation for our early industrial development.’"
A naked admission that it's not about stopping climate change (even assuming a link to climate change), but public self-flagellation and virtue signalling
