Tony Abbott: Climate action can't come at the expense of humanity - "Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, in refusing to allow the Conference of the Parties to endorse any prescriptive language about the “phase down” or “phase out” of fossil fuels, declared: “I assure you that not a single person — I’m talking about governments — believes in that.… I would like to put that challenge to all of those who … comes out publicly saying we have to (phase down.) Ask them how they are gonna do that. If they believe that this is the highest moral ground issue, fantastic. Let them do that themselves. And we will see how much they can deliver.” Earlier, in a pre-conference exchange, the COP28 president, Sultan Al Jaber, declared: “Show me the roadmap for a phase out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”... Leaving aside the bizarre contention that a commitment to ending coal, oil and gas power will somehow ease whatever hurts are being uniquely suffered by women and girls, and ignoring for a moment any issues with climate’s “settled science,” this exchange crystallized the tension between climate evangelism and climate realism. It’s fair enough wanting to reduce emissions, to rest as lightly as possible on the only planet we have, but to what extent should we burden economies, and change people’s lifestyles, in order to do so?... the new Labor government’s 82 per cent renewable energy mandate by 2030, have contributed to driving up power prices by 20 per cent in the past year alone. And the planned closure of the country’s biggest coal-fired power station in about 18 months time, producing almost 10 per cent of Australia’s electricity, is certain to lead to widespread blackouts or power rationing... The changed economics of part-time coal-fired power, plus green restrictions on new coal and gas fields, and also shareholder activist campaigns against any fossil fuel investment, mean that many countries are now on the threshold of an energy crisis. Especially since the green phobia for fossil fuels normally extends, for different reasons, to nuclear power, too. Across much of the developed world, there’s now enough renewable energy to badly damage the reliability and affordability of power supplies; but not enough to substantially dent the world’s reliance on fossil fuels — still about 80 per of total global energy. This is the dilemma we now face. We can have the abundant affordable energy on which almost every aspect of modern life depends. Think transport, housing, heating, cooling, transactions, mobile phones and even greenhouse farming. Or we can have lower emissions. Then there’s the quite literally astronomical cost. Even the current Australian government, that’s legislated for 82 per cent renewables by 2030, admits that this will require the installation of 20,000 new solar panels every single day, and 40 wind turbines every single month, for the next seven years, plus the construction of at least 10,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. Quite apart from the need for “firming.” This is simply not going to happen given genuine conservationist fears about the impact of onshore and offshore wind farms on bird life and whale migration, plus the desecration of farm land and national parks. In Australia, a tri-university study headed by our former chief scientist has estimated that the cost of reaching net zero will be AU$1.5 trillion (C$1.3 trillion) by 2030 (or about 60 per cent of annual GDP) and up to AU$9 trillion by 2060. As Bjorn Lomborg has just reported, a new study puts the annual global cost of achieving net zero at between four and 18 per cent of global GDP. A recent British study by Royal Society fellow Prof. Michael Kelly puts the cost of achieving net zero for the United Kingdom at over 3 trillion pounds (C$5 trillion), or 180,000 pounds per household, with, he said, a “command economy” on a “war footing.” And even if the physics and the economics of “green hydrogen” could be made to work, the aesthetics of much of the globe carpeted and forested with solar panels and wind turbines would be a modern version of William Blake’s “satanic mills.” Contrary to the climate zealots, the real “tipping point” is less likely to arrive when barely perceptible global warming becomes unstoppable but when fed-up electorates revolt against policies that don’t seem to be helping the climate but are badly hurting voters’ cost of living... Perhaps this has now started with at least some of the COP attendees pledging to triple nuclear power by 2050. The U.K. government has recently extended the time frame for compelling people to stop installing gas boilers and to stop buying petrol- and diesel-powered cars. And the European countries, like Germany, that had been green virtue-signalling with their shift to renewables, suddenly discovered their vulnerability when they had to do without the Russian gas needed to make their power grids work. When the German chancellor recently pleaded with the Canadian government to increase its supplies of gas, was it really a “lack of a business case” or more green fundamentalism that caused Canada to decline? While voters have been happy to support “more climate action” when it doesn’t cost them anything, it’s a different matter when they are given a clear choice between saving the planet, maybe, in a few decades time, and having their power bills skyrocket now. In Australia, three recent elections — 2010, 2013 and 2019 — have largely been fought over climate and energy policy. In every case, the party that made it a hip-pocket issue rather than a moral one did best... It’s all very well wanting to save a planet, that’s been considerably colder and warmer in the past without any human contribution, by limiting mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions. But what about the morality or otherwise of putting massive additional pressure on family budgets; and what about the morality of economically weakening the western democracies against Russia, China and Iran that urge “climate action” on us while doing nothing about it themselves? Of course China wants western countries to transition to renewables because nearly all the solar panels, wind turbines and EV batteries are made there. Far from being “the right thing to do,” the obsessive focus on emissions and the anti-fossil fuel fixation has become a Trojan horse dangerously sapping the West’s prosperity and security."
David Staples: The quality that makes Steven Guilbeault uniquely dangerous? Zero credibility on climate change - "Tom Flanagan, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary, said the first Trudeau government was far more ruthless and effective in its plan to seize profits from Alberta oil and gas. “But the goal wasn’t to destroy the industry. They regarded the industry as the goose that was laying the golden eggs. They wanted to grab more of those eggs for themselves but they didn’t want to kill the goose. In the long run, today’s Ottawa is far more dangerous because there are many people there who actually want to kill the goose. The goal is now to destroy the oil and gas industry.”... “He’s not the right person. Guilbeault is showing why you don’t put an activist in a ministerial job.” When it comes to Guilbeault, I can’t get past one fact — that it’s clear the issue he cares most about in life is climate change. But he nonetheless got it dead wrong on the top solution with his fierce opposition to nuclear power, the single best, proven way to lower emissions worldwide. Good reason to doubt Guilbeault was also evident at Dubai when he spoke at a major panel on eliminating coal. He and other speakers talked for 24 minutes on the need to axe coal burning. They mentioned the United Kingdom eight times, Canada seven, and the United States twice, but not once did they bring up China, by far the world’s biggest coal user, as a major culprit. This elephant in the room crushed Guilbeault’s legitimacy. If he got it dead wrong for so long on nuclear, and if he can’t bring himself to talk about China’s emissions, how is it anything but irresponsible to trust our energy future to his wobbly hands?"
Steve Milloy on X - "WaPo admits 2023 temperature spike is not emissions: "The climate pattern El Niño that has pushed the planet to record warmth over the past six months is nearing its peak, potentially as one of the strongest El Niño events observed over the past 75 years, new data show." I predicted this last January"
Steve Milloy on X - "The climate con is every molecule of CO2 warms the atmosphere. The NOAA data show that is false. Since 2015, we've added 17% more CO2 to the atmosphere. No warming. There are many such periods, including the last 14-year pause. What drives the observed warming is El Nino.
Climate dogma is more CO2 = more warming. So how does that explain these trends? It doesn't. Even alarmist @ClimateofGavin admits the CO2 explanation is "hopelessly unphysical." Alternative: El Ninos (not CO2-driven) work as step-drivers causing the general warming trend."
Damn climate change deniers!
Channelling the Malthusian Roots of Climate Extremism - "In a prank orchestrated by a fringe group called Lyndon LaRouche PAC, a woman stood up at a town hall event hosted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Thursday night, and declared that humankind needed to eat babies to prevent climate change... the substance of prank itself was a brilliant send-up of the apocalyptic and Malthusian character of today’s environmental extremism, and the hypocritical nature of those who advocate for it. Environmentalists insist that developing nations adopt renewable energy sources, enhance energy efficiency, and adopt a low-energy lifestyle—even though no poor nation can develop without high levels of energy consumption. So while the Norwegian government produces natural gas in Mozambique and Tanzania, it is simultaneously participating in a European push to prevent those same countries from building their own natural gas power plants. Climate extremists also have successfully pressured the World Bank and other financial institutions to reduce financing for poor countries seeking to expand their energy production. In 2014, for instance, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, sought to cut off U.S. development funding to poor nations seeking to build hydroelectric dams, on the basis that such dams have a “negative impact” on river ecosystems. “If Senator Leahy is so adamantly against hydropower,” wrote a development specialist, “let him show his commitment by first turning out the lights of Vermont.” Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report that rests heavily on the idea that poor nations can grow rich while using radically less energy. “Pathways compatible with 1.5°C that feature low energy demand,” IPCC officials said, “show the most pronounced synergies and the lowest number of trade-offs.” The IPCC also repeated a debunked claim that poor nations can “leap-frog” rich nations with solar panels, batteries and energy efficiency, and promoted “bio-energy”—the use of wood, dung and ethanol—fuels that are not only uneconomical, but also happen to come with their own hugely negative environmental impacts. In truth, energy consumption is as tightly coupled to per capita GDP today as it was when today’s rich nations were themselves poor. Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy is for people like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Swedish student climate activist Greta Thunberg to seek to shut down nuclear power plants while claiming the end is coming from climate change. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed the closure of Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, which will be replaced with natural gas, while Thunberg attacked nuclear energy on Facebook as “dangerous.” And yet nuclear energy provides the majority of carbon-free electricity in the United States and over 40% of total electricity in Sweden. The most doctrinaire and apocalyptic forms of modern “environmentalism” are simply a repackaging of the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the 19th-century British economist who thought that there were too many poor people out there—particularly poor Irish people—and that the ethical thing to do was let them die. “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits,” he wrote, “and court the return of the plague.” Unlike Swift, Malthus was no satirist. He was making a utilitarian argument: If we let the poor reproduce they would just end up creating more suffering in the future. (Indeed, the British government and media used Malthus’ ideas to justify the policies that led to mass starvation in Ireland from 1845 to 1849.) The LaRouchian protestor who spoke at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s thursday event channeled Malthus’ horrifying logic faithfully. And in a more polite form, environmentalists channel it themselves when they urge that poor countries shoot themselves in the foot economically so that the world might be a greener place. After World War II, prominent American progressives drew on Malthus’ ideas to oppose development aid and nuclear energy, and promote coerced sterilization. Cheap energy, prominent scientists feared, would lead to overpopulation, deplete scarce resources, and destroy the environment. Humankind “would not rest content until the earth is covered completely, and to a considerable depth, with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots,” the chemist Harrison Brown wrote in his 1954 book, The Challenge of Man’s Future. Anti-humanist ideas came full bloom in Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 1969 Sierra Club book, The Population Bomb, which depicted poor people in India as animals “screaming…begging…defecating and urinating.” Two decades later, the United Nations seemed to embrace elements of neo-Malthusianism in a report called Our Common Future. Rather than move to fossil fuels and nuclear, the UN experts opined, poor nations should instead use wood fuel more sustainably. And “wood-poor nations must organize their agricultural sectors to produce large amounts of wood and other plant fuels.” (Ironically, the lead author of Our Common Future was Gro Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, a nation which just a decade earlier had become fabulously wealthy thanks to its abundant oil and gas reserves.) Malthusian hysteria has become embedded in all sorts of extremist sects. Indeed, two recent mass shooters—one in El Paso, Texas, and the other in Christchurch, NZ—echoed some version of the apocalyptic rhetoric of Malthusian environmentalists. Yet Malthusian environmentalists are preaching a debunked creed, for their prophet wrongly predicted that famines and resource scarcity would become common features of a densely populated world. Instead, technology has outpaced increases in population and consumption—so that today we face the prospect of reducing the total amount of natural resources (including land) required to sustain us."
Scientist suggests eating human flesh to fight climate change - "A Swedish scientist speaking at Stockholm summit last week offered an unusual possible tactic in combating global climate change: eating human flesh. Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to “awaken the idea.”... A tribe in Papua New Guinea practiced eating their dead as an alternative to allowing them to be consumed by worms, according to the Standard. The cultural practice led to an epidemic of a disease called Kuru, also known as laughing death. According to the US National Library of Medicine, the disease is caused by an infectious protein found in contaminated human brain tissue. The practice of cannibalism among the people of New Guinea came to an end in 1960."
Right Now: Sean Speer – A bold strategy to boost the Conservatives' credibility on climate - "Carbon tax proponents have long argued that carbon taxes are the most efficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They’re superior to regulations (such as sector-wide emissions caps) or subsidies for new technologies (such as incentives to purchase energy-efficient vehicles) because they’re flexible, market-based, and don’t require centralized knowledge of different sectors, firms or technologies... This is especially persuasive when you think about the true costs of regulations. Their economic costs are bigger than the direct impact on economic activity. There are also the costs that come from the imposition of taxes to pay for the legions of public servants required to develop, administer and enforce regulations. It’s notable, for instance, that the number of officials working on the climate file inside the federal Department of Environment and Climate Change went up by 26 per cent between 2015-16 and 2017-18 alone. These new employees’ salaries, pensions and benefits are, of course, not free. The problem, though, is the other side hasn’t lived up to its end of the deal. Analysis by Simon Fraser University professor Mark Jaccard shows that we have an “all of the above” rather than an “either or” approach to climate policy. The carbon tax, for all of the attention paid to it, is, in fact, responsible for only 15 per cent of Canada’s projected emissions reductions. Regulations (such as the phase-out of coal-fired power) are doing the bulk of the work. The Trudeau government has not only layered a carbon tax on top of the pre-existing labyrinth of climate-related regulations and subsidies, it’s still planning to add more as Bill Morneau recently pre-positioned for the upcoming budget. This is far from what the Liberals and carbon-tax proponents promised."
Canada sets EV targets for next decade - "New rules for zero-emission vehicle sales in Canada will give big bonuses to foreign automakers at the expense of companies that make cars here, said one industry expert"
When you want to hollow out your economy
Years of reduced spending on tree clearing preceded major N.B. Power outage
Naturally, they blamed climate change
The out-of-touch globalist climate agenda - "COP agreements used to focus on one thing: targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The UAE Consensus is very different. Across its 196 paragraphs and 10 supplementary declarations it’s a manifesto for global central planning. In their own words, some 90,000 government functionaries aspire to oversee and micromanage agriculture, finance, energy, manufacturing, gender relations, health care, air conditioning, building design and countless other economic and social decisions. It’s all supposedly in the name of fighting climate change, but that’s just the pretext. Take climate away and they’d likely appeal to something else. Climate change doesn’t necessitate such plans. Economists have been studying climate change for many decades and have never considered it grounds to phase out fossil fuels, micromanage society, manage gender relations and so on. Mainstream scientific findings, coupled with mainstream economic analysis, prescribe moderate emission-pricing policies that rely much more on adaptation than mitigation. The fact that the UAE Consensus is currently non-binding is beside the point. What matters is what the COP28 delegates have said they want to achieve. Two facts stand out: the consensus document announced plans that would cause enormous economic harm if implemented, and it was approved unanimously — yes, by everyone in the room... Climate policy is supposed to be about optimally reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As technology gradually allows emissions to be de-coupled from fuel use, there may eventually be no need to cut back on fuels. But activist delegates insisted on abolitionist language anyway, making elimination of fossil fuels an end in itself. Such fuels are of course essential for our economic standard of living, and 30 years of economic analysis has consistently shown that, even taking account of emissions, phasing out fuels would do humanity far more harm than good. The Consensus statement ignores this, even while claiming to be guided by “the science.”... The UAE Consensus is the latest indication that the real fault line in contemporary society is not right versus left, it’s the people versus (for lack of a better word) the globalists. A decade ago this term was only heard on the conspiracy fringe. It has since migrated to the mainstream as the most apt descriptor of a permanent transnational bureaucracy that aspires to run everything, even to the public’s detriment, while insulating themselves from democratic limits. A hallmark of globalists is their credo of “rules for thee but nor for me.” Thousands of delegates fly to Davos or to the year’s COP, many on private jets, to be wined and dined as they advise the rest of us to learn to do without. On both COVID-19 and climate change, the same elite has invoked “the science,” not in support of good decision-making, but as a talisman to justify everything they do, including censoring public debate. Complex and uncertain matters are reduced to dogmatic slogans by technocrats who force-feed political leaders a one-sided information stream. Experts outside the process are accorded standing based solely on their obeisance to the preferred narrative, not their knowledge or qualifications. Critics are attacked as purveyors of “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Any opposition to government plans therefore proves the need to suppress free speech. Eventually, however, the people get the last word. And despite nonstop fear-mongering about an alleged climate crisis, the people tolerate climate policy only insofar as it costs almost nothing."
Varcoe: Enmax CEO concerned about federal net-zero rules by 2035, expects power prices to moderate - “To make an investment in a technology that isn’t as advanced, to meet a stringency requirement that has never been achieved in the world . . . I think it makes it uninvestable.”
Only Half of All Ford Dealers Agree to Sell EVs Next Year - "Ford said on Thursday that half of all 1,550 Ford dealers chose to sell electric vehicles in 2024—down from two-thirds that said this time last year that they would opt in to sell EVs for 2023... The slack buy-in from Ford dealerships comes even after Ford relaxed its requirements for dealers in the EV dealer program last January that mandated fewer L2 chargers and extended installation deadlines... Ford said earlier this month that it was reducing the planned number of F-150 Lightning EV trucks by half starting next year, kicking out 1,600 F-150 per week beginning in January, down from 3,200 per week, saying that it would match production with customer demand."
Are electric cars the new 'diesel scandal'? Expert looks at the future for road travel - "Do you remember Britain’s ‘dash for diesel’? It began more than 20 years ago when the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced a new car tax system favouring vehicles with lower emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming... What didn’t emerge until much later — although it was no secret in the motor industry or among government officials — was that diesel cars also emitted greater quantities of other pollutants, nitrogen oxides and particulates that damage air quality and human health... Britain wasn’t alone, of course. In their desire to be seen as ever greener, governments of richer countries were all pursuing the same policies on car tax, or cutting duty on diesel fuel. Today, diesel is a dirty word and many countries penalise drivers with extra congestion charges and vehicle duty. I was reminded of this by the recent warning from the Environment Secretary, George Eustice, on the ‘polluting particles’ produced by battery-powered vehicles. Not from exhaust emissions, but from brake linings, tyres and road surfaces, because such vehicles are much heavier owing to the presence of the battery. No doubt others experienced a similar sense of deja vu... electric cars are not the answer for many people, for a host of practical reasons. These include their upfront cost, limited range, the time it takes to charge batteries, the new infrastructure needed for charging points and the extra power required to supply them. Even more alarmingly, a report in the journal Nature suggests that because electric cars are heavier than other vehicles, they will likely kill more occupants of other vehicles in traffic accidents. As for climate change, electric cars will do little to arrest it. So for now, at least, they are one of the least effective and most expensive ways to cut carbon — and economically they are a bad bet. Just last week, a report by the Commons Transport Committee found that taxpayers face an eye-watering £35 billion bill to plug the gap created by the switch to electric cars. At present, owners of such cars pay neither fuel duty, which nets £28 billion every year, nor vehicle exercise duty, which brings in £7 billion. The revenue is spent on schools, hospitals and other priorities such as the police, as well as fixing roads. And not only do they reduce government revenue, they also demand costly subsidies. In Germany, the subsidy is above ¤10,000 (£8,460) for a fully electric car, but that still drives only one sale in eight. Norway leads the global race, with electric cars accounting for 65 per cent of new sales, but it takes a ludicrous amount of government cash to achieve this. It includes savings of $29,000 (£21,400) on average per car in sales and registration tax, and $11,000 (£8,100) on road tolls. Who is buying the cars is another concern. A study by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that almost all electric car subsidies go to the wealthiest 20 per cent, for whom the purchase of an extra car is no great sacrifice. In addition, 90 per cent of electric car owners also have a fossil-fuel vehicle they use for longer journeys. As for charging, for many owners this is simply a question of fitting a point in their driveway. But 40 per cent of UK households don’t have access to off-street parking. According to some estimates, the global cost of building the infrastructure needed is $6 trillion (£4.4 trillion). And what of the huge increase in power production needed to charge millions of electric cars? Climate policy is already adding more than £10 billion annually to Britain’s electricity costs, as inefficient renewables continue to need support. If the extra power required for charging the cars is generated from fossil fuels to keep electricity costs down, much of the environmental gain would be lost. In time, better technology will make batteries cheaper and electric cars will become more economical. But concerns over range and recharging will be much more difficult to rectify. The truth is that most people invest in cars because they give them mobility. They don’t want to be stuck with a flat battery or endure forced stops to top it up. All of the above is why many people are reluctant to embrace electric vehicles, even with huge bribes. According to one authoritative study, even by 2050 electric cars will make up just 20 per cent of global car travel. But perhaps none of that matters if electric cars will save the planet? And they will, won’t they? Er, no. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that if every nation achieves their ambitious targets on increasing electric car ownership, it will reduce CO2 emissions in this decade by 235 million tons. That, according to the UN Climate Panel’s standard model, will reduce global temperatures by about one ten-thousandth of a degree Celsius (0.0001c) by the end of the century. Such modest climate benefits don’t make up for the additional downsides of electric vehicles, which include the harsh environmental and social costs that come with mining rare metals needed for batteries. So what should politicians be doing? For a start, they could stop showering subsidies on electric cars and focus on smarter solutions. The IEA found that hybrid cars save about the same amount of CO2 as electric cars over their lifetime. Moreover, they are already competitive with petrol cars price-wise — even without subsidies — and, crucially, they don’t have most of the electric car downsides outlined above. It is also possible there will be a place for hydrogen-powered vehicles in a greener future, too. Finally, we need to realise that climate change doesn’t care about where the emissions come from. Personal cars account for just 7 per cent of global emissions. We should be targeting bigger emitters of CO2 such as industry, agriculture and electricity production, and specifically we should fund much greater investment into green energy innovation."
Clearly The Science is infallible and anyone who questions it is a Climate Change Denier
GUNTER: Another costly Liberal solution to a non-existent problem - "Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced that 20% of all new vehicles sold in Canada “must be” EVs by 2026. That’s at least double the share now. So, what is Guilbeault’s strategy for pulling off this radical transformation? He plans to reduce the time consumers must wait for delivery of electric cars. According to the brains trust in Ottawa, buyers are shying away from EVs because they have to wait too long for them to show up. That might have been the problem two or three years ago, but now the reverse is true. Now, dealers across the country have unsold EVs piling up on their lots because automakers overestimated consumer demand, made too many of them and ended up shipping the extras to dealerships whether the retailers wanted them or not. There are now too many EVs and not enough customers. Ford and General Motors have announced huge reductions in EV production because consumer demand just isn’t there. Trust the Liberal government to propose a costly solution to a problem that no longer exists... most of those EV sales were in two regions — the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle and greater Vancouver, i.e. places with higher-than-average incomes and milder winters. Electrics are still not practical in most of the country, nor for average Canadians. Is it possible even more and costlier taxpayer subsidies could double EV sales over the next two years? I suppose. But it’s also possible that, because much of the 63% jump in EV sales last quarter was due to the introduction of just one model — the Tesla Y — it will be difficult to match third-quarter sales going forward without similar superstar models being introduced three or four times a year. That has certainly been the case in the U.S. Because Americans have more warm-weather markets than Canada, they have been ahead of us on the EV curve... EVs remain too expensive for middle-class buyers. Once manufacturers satisfy the demand of wealthier customers for EVs as symbols of their upper-middle-class eco commitment, there is far less uptake among people earning under $100,000 or more. Last year, our federal Natural Resources department even admitted the push for all new vehicle sales to be EVs by 2035 would make cars and light trucks too expensive for 25% of Canadians. When it is no longer possible to buy internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, one-quarter of Canadians will just have to go without cars. That doesn’t seem to bother Guilbeault, Trudeau or their pals in the environmental movement. Also, contrary to Liberal hype, EVs not only cost more to buy, they cost more to maintain and repair. Their range between charges is poor in the winter and recharging times are long. Consumer Reports magazine recently found EVs are 73% less reliable than gasoline and diesel vehicles. Because they are so much heavier, they chew through tires 40% faster. When they are in collisions, they cause more damage and are more expensive to repair, so are costlier to insure... And don’t forget, we aren’t building new power plants fast enough to charge them all."
Meme - "Taylor Swift is concerned about climate change.
Fun fact: Her private jet emits more carbon in a single trip than your car in your entire lifetime. That private jet has flown over 200 times in the past year."
Taylor Swift is the world's most carbon polluting celebrity - "Chris Butterworth, Yard’s digital sustainability director, said celebrities are a massive part of the emissions problem in the aviation industry. “It’s easy to get lost in the dazzling lives of the rich and famous,” Butterworth said. “Research shows a vast divide between the super-rich and the rest of us regarding flights, travel, and even general emissions.”"
Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing: new study
Damn conspiracy theorists who warned about this!
Clive Best on X - "Limiting warming to 1.5C is all based on the assumption that we know what the baseline temperature was before 1900, but of course we don’t. There were very few station records and essentially none in Africa, S. America, Asia and polar regions."
Luis B. Aramburu on X - "The "climate emergency" we are supposed to be experiencing is not a meteorological condition, it is actually a mental condition. To fix it we don't need engineers, but rather psychologists."
Court orders wind farm to be torn down after golden eagle death - "A French wind farm that was found to have killed over 1,000 birds, including a golden eagle, will be torn down on court order. The Nîmes Court of Appeal ruled that the wind farm – based in the town of Lunas in the south of France – must be demolished and the land returned to its original state... The ruling is the latest chapter in a long-running battle fought between conservation groups and ERL over the farm, which has also attracted noise complaints from local residents... a study carried out by a local authority had found that the seven turbines had together killed 1,099 birds and bats. ERL had argued demolishing the entire wind farm was “disproportionate” and that it would be possible to rectify the “moral damage” caused by the death of the golden eagle earlier this year by tearing down only the turbine its corpse had been found under. It also argued that the wind farm would in any case be dismantled at the end of its operation and that it contributes to decarbonisation. The conservation groups that brought the case countered that the wind farm is likely to affect 75 species of animals, including nine subject to a high level of conservation concern. They said the farm also makes only a modest contribution to energy needs in the region of Hérault in which it is based – an output of 26,000MWh compared to annual demand of 2.9 million MWh."
Weird. I thought it was a climate change denier myth that wind farms kill birds
You can't run away from the physics - "green" energy takes up too much space for the power it generates
Southwest Permanent Drought Update - "Thirteen years ago President Clinton’s climate advisor announced the Southwest permanent drought based on a dust storm in Phoenix. Since he made that announcement, Arizona has gotten wetter and is about to flood."
