Biden's twisted logic: funding anti-Israel radicals to save the planet and fight inflation - "Somehow or other in the twisted logic of BidenWorld, fighting inflation requires “green” spending that also funds anti-Israel hate. That’s right: Under “environmental justice” grants funded in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency awarded $50 million to the Climate Justice Alliance, whose website proclaims, “The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine.” A video even lays out “an anti-colonial framework to show how Climate Justice and the liberation of Palestine are connected”: namely, the usual blather about “settler colonialism,” white supremacy, imperialism and militarism. Mind you, the EPA made the grant in December, months after Hamas’ Oct. 7 atrocities — which the CJA has never bothered to condemn, though by Oct. 20 it was already calling for a cease-fire... CJA’s 90-member network includes such groups as the NDN Collective, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance and DemilitaRISE — which oppose “imperialism” and aim to defund the police, the criminal justice system and the military... Team Biden aims to grab every buck it can for its allies on the flimsiest of pretexts and no matter how much debt it’s piling on to the next generation nor how much inflation it causes. Yet somehow, they claim the other team is the threat to democracy."
SHULMAN: A degree in nature? It's certainly better than anthropology - "The Hay Festival, one of the biggest literary events in the world, has just dropped finance firm Baillie Gifford, its main funder, after a fringe environmental group objected to the minuscule amount of the firm's investments in fossil fuels. Edinburgh Book Festival has now followed suit. If things continue along this path and every sponsor is jettisoned for any trace of investments that somebody doesn't agree with, there'll ultimately be no events where writers and artists can promote their work. It would be a world with far fewer exhibitions and diminished national galleries. And it would be even more difficult for up-and-coming creatives to gain any kind of visibility.Big-name signatories such as writers Sally Rooney and Naomi Klein are successful enough not to require the exposure that an artistic jamboree such as Hay affords, but there are countless small names who not only hope to sell some books there, but enjoy talking about the works that have taken them years to write and some people may ultimately buy."
Bjorn Lomborg: We need to research geoengineering alternatives to net-zero carbon reduction - "Harvard’s researchers weren’t attempting anything so grand. They simply wanted to launch a single high-altitude balloon that would release a tiny amount of particulates high above Earth. Their experiment would have gathered data showing how particles disperse and how much sunlight they reflect. It’s only prudent to investigate other policies that could address parts of the problem of climate change. Even the United Nations admitted in 2019 that “there has been no real change in the global emissions pathway in the last decade,” despite the 2015 Paris Agreement. Since then, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to reach new record highs with “no end in sight to the rising trend,” according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization . We’re simply not in a position where we can afford to ignore any pathway to solving climate change. Unfortunately, as The Harvard Crimson reported, pressure from climate activists made this impossible for the scientists. Even high-profile campaigner Greta Thunberg criticized the first planned tests in northern Sweden. Then the Indigenous Saami Council — whose land the tests would be above — suggested firing a single balloon into the sky bore “risks of catastrophic consequences.” Politicians jumped aboard the bandwagon, including Sweden’s former foreign minister, who declared geoengineering was “ crazy ,” while young activists pushed academic funders to cut off such research. In addition to the activists, the project’s lead researcher points a finger at a “vocal minority” of scientists who agree with campaigners that geoengineering could provide an excuse not to cut fossil fuels by highlighting another possible solution to climate change. The Saami Council opposed the Harvard experiment because the research “could compromise the world’s necessary efforts to achieve zero-carbon societies.” That isn’t science, it’s dogma. The idea that there is only one correct policy — cutting carbon emissions to zero in a short time frame — is absurd, and especially so when this sole policy is failing globally. Geoengineering could be a very useful innovation, even if it harbours risks. It is the only feasible way humanity has ever identified to cut temperatures quickly. If we were to see the West Antarctic ice sheet starting to slip into the ocean — which would be a global disaster — no standard fossil fuel policy could make any significant change. Even if all nations cut their emissions to zero in a matter of months, which is not actually possible, temperatures would not come down but would only stop going up. In contrast, geoengineering could, in principle, end the global temperature rise at a low cost. Its price tag over the 21st century is in the tens to low hundreds of billions of dollars, compared to standard policy costing tens of thousands of times more . Of course, the world shouldn’t start pumping particulates into the atmosphere anytime soon. But we need to know whether this technology works and what negative impacts might be. We need such research partly because some countries and maybe even the world community may eventually want to consider using this approach but also because its cost is so low there is a risk that a single nation, a rogue billionaire or even a highly energized nongovernmental organization could deploy the technology on its own . We need to make sure the world knows the ramifications. That requires research. Both the scientific journal Nature and the Obama administration have endorsed research into geoengineering. Even the Biden administration has offered measured support . Humanity needs to know what works and what problems might arise in future. Politicizing climate research for fear it might lead to politically unfavoured outcomes is bad for the world."
Climate change hysteria is not about preventing climate change. The left don't actually love science
Computer models show heat waves in north Pacific may be due to China reducing aerosols
Damn carbon emissions warming the planet!
Meme - "I WANT TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE"
"BE HONEST"
"I AM BEING HONEST"
"BE HONEST"
"I WANT COMMUNISM"
"THANK YOU"
How Jacinda Ardern left New Zealand on the brink of blackouts - "Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears. Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies... The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time. New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan. However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it. It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ. Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts. New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption. The threat to New Zealand’s energy security comes despite the fact that geologists have discovered billions of cubic metres of natural gas in the seabeds around the country. Sean Rush, a leading New Zealand barrister specialising in petroleum licensing law and climate litigation, called the oil and gas ban “economic vandalism at its worst in exchange for virtue signalling at its finest”. Rush warned Labour off a copycat policy, saying: “There will be no benefits to UK energy security by banning new exploration drilling. You will simply disown an industry in which the UK has been world-leading.” Jones said last week: “Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro.” Such warnings are echoed by energy experts in the UK, where over 75pc of total energy consumed still comes from oil and gas. Half comes from UK waters – but it too will drop off a cliff if Labour implements a ban on new drilling, warns the industry. Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), a trade body, says there are about 280 active oil and gas fields in UK waters – of which 180 are due to shut down by 2030. Without new ones to replace them, UK gas production is predicted to more than halve by the end of the decade. Jenny Stanning, director of external affairs at OEUK, says exploration is essential to simply slowing the decline in output. “The New Zealand experience shows how important it is for countries to carefully manage energy transition and energy security. We will need oil and gas for decades to come so it makes sense to back our own industry rather than ramping up imports from abroad.”"
Naturally, the green lobby blames blackouts on insufficient investment in renewable energy
Not like NZ wasn't warned in 2019 of the negative impacts in general, but more specifically they cannot import LNG so all their natural gas is domestic, and the government reports that "restricted local gas production" led to higher gas prices
Peter Dutton accused of 'extraordinary act of vandalism' - "Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he would dump Australia's 2030 target to cut emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels, should the coalition win the next federal election. 'Walking away from Australia's Paris commitments at a time when more action rather than less is needed would be an extraordinary act of vandalism against the future of the people and places we love,' Senator Pocock said... Climate groups warn going back on Australia's targets could hamper investment as the nation transitions to a cleaner economy... The coalition is proposing to introduce nuclear energy as the pathway to reducing emissions... Australia's ban on nuclear power would also have to be overturned in a lengthy process. Nuclear reactors in the country would contribute to worse climate outcomes, according to Solutions for Climate Australia. 'Nuclear is a worrying distraction from getting on with the urgent job at hand: replacing polluting coal and gas with the sun and wind technology we have right now,' the group's senior campaigner Elly Baxter said."
Of course, destroying the economy isn't "vandalism"
Investment based on government dirigisme, is "sustainable", apparently
When you ignore the science because of left wing neuroses and the left wing agenda
Adam Pankratz: Just Stop Oil's deranged Stonehenge attack goes beyond mere idiocy - "It’s not easy to pinpoint the very first instance of art vandalism, but one of the first notable acts was activists glueing themselves to a painting called My Heart’s In The Highlands in Glasgow at the end of June, 2022. Subsequently, in October, 2022, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers became one of the first to have tomato soup thrown on them . Numerous other instances followed, with even the Mona Lisa getting her dose of vitamin C from another rogue tomato soup can this past January . In the above instances the paintings ultimately survived behind protective glass. In March, however, the portrait of Lord Balfour at Cambridge University was seriously damaged when, not being behind glass, it was slashed and sprayed with red paint to protest his involvement in the creation of Israel. Cultural vandalism has moved on from just the environment to politics more generally. In so far as lasting damage goes, Stonehenge ultimately will fare much better than other, more fragile, works of art. It is mercifully quite difficult to seriously harm 25-ton blocks of rock. And yet, in their defacement of Stonehenge, the Just Stop Oil loons have managed to disgrace themselves even further than they had previously. For despite the demented nature of the soup protests, the sad reality is that in our current cultural moment, it is relatively easy for activists to justify vandalizing objects of European cultural value under the name of oppression or colonialism. To the protesters, the fact that the environment is now under threat is merely an extension of, what is to them, illegitimate ideas such as capitalism created by malicious white men of yore. And so, a little vandalism directed at European art is just par for the anti-capitalist course... In Stonehenge, Just Stop Oil is attacking an object of our shared humanity. It is vandalizing a sacred temple of the ancient and indigenous people of Britain. It should, in that regard boil the blood of every sane person that these activist-vandals feel empowered and justified in their actions. This is no longer a representation of “the other side of the debate” but a cult of eco-religious extremism that should be met with equal force the other way... The past years have been characterized by a majority of people being brow beaten, threatened, cancelled and cowed because a screaming band of activists demanded society conform to their extreme views. The evidence that these baying hordes must be repulsed and shut down is now beyond any doubt. In Stonehenge, the collective cultural legacy of the world was assaulted. It’s time to just stop, Just Stop Oil and their ilk."
Tolerating left wing lunacy means you invite escalation
New study suggests EVs are supercharging an impending environmental crisis - "Besides lithium and cobalt for the batteries driving electric vehicles, another valuable material is needed to make all the cars that need to hit the roads in order to fulfill the Biden administration's lofty EV transition goals. However, a newly published study by Cornell and University of Michigan professors suggest that there might not be enough to go around. As per a new study titled "Copper mining and vehicle electrification" by Cornell professor Lawrence M. Cathles and University of Michigan Earth & Environmental Sciences professor Adam Simon, copper cannot be mined quickly enough to make the wires and other components needed to fulfill the current goals toward renewable energy. In a statement, Simon argues that much more copper is going to be needed for all the wiring that goes into the newfangled electric cars that are at the center of the environmental policy, as well as the new wires that will deliver the electricity from the grid to juice them up. “A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper. Onshore wind turbines require about 10 tons of copper, and in offshore wind turbines, that amount can more than double,” said Simon. "[...] the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce.”... According to Simon, much of the problem lies in the bureaucracy that takes place in between when a new copper mineral deposit is discovered and a permit to mine and extract copper is actually issued; which can take a whopping 20 years — enough time for electric vehicle technology to evolve, or worse: disappear. Their study finds that in order to meet the needs of EV adoption on a global scale, up to six new copper mines need to be operational over the next few decades, with up to 40% of their output reserved for just EV-related materials. As per Simon and Cathles' data, the world's copper mines will need to produce 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 in order to meet demand. As a fan and an adopter of renewable energy and EVs, Simon is disappointed by this realization. "I’ve got solar panels, batteries and an electric vehicle," Simon said. "I’m fully on board with the energy transition. However, it needs to be done in a way that’s achievable." His suggestion falls in like with automakers like Volkswagen, Honda and even Lamborghini and Mercedes-Benz — whom are focused on producing gas-hybrid vehicles while in the midst of an EV sales downturn... “We know, for example, that a Toyota Prius actually has a slightly better impact on climate than a Tesla. Instead of producing 20 million electric vehicles in the United States and globally, 100 million battery electric vehicles each year, would it be more feasible to focus on building 20 million hybrid vehicles?”"
Clearly this is funded by the fossil fuel industry and must be dismissed
US Olympic and other teams will bring their own AC units to Paris - "The U.S. Olympic team is one of a handful that will supply air conditioners for their athletes at the Paris Games in a move that undercuts organizers' plans to cut carbon emissions... “As you can imagine, this is a period of time in which consistency and predictability is critical for Team USA’s performance,” Hirshland said. “In our conversations with athletes, this was a very high priority and something that the athletes felt was a critical component in their performance capability.” The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada and Britain were among the other countries with plans to bring air conditioners to France. Olympic organizers have touted plans to cool rooms in the Athletes Village, which will house more than 15,000 Olympians and sports officials over the course of the games, using a system of cooling pipes underneath the floors. The average high in Paris on Aug. 1 is 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit). The objective is to keep the rooms between 23-26 degrees (73-79 degrees Fahrenheit). The rooms will also be equipped with fans. “I want the Paris Games to be exemplary from an environmental point of view,” Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo has said about the plans for the Olympics. According to the International Energy Agency, fewer than 1 in 10 households in Europe has air conditioning, and the numbers in Paris are lower than that. The study said that of the 1.6 billion AC units in use across the globe in 2016, more than half were in China (570 million) and the United States (375 million). The entire European Union had around 100 million."
The French grid is mostly nuclear anyway, so this is a great metaphor for climate change hysteria
B.C. strata fines owner more than $11K for installing heat pump
‘Rolling spy vans’? Canada weighs possible security threat of Chinese EVs - "“A modern electric car is more software than anything else. And because of that, there are always going to be concerns that could we end up in a hostile situation, more than we already are with China. Could they just turn the cars off remotely?” he said. The former head of Britain's MI6 spy agency, Richard Dearlove, recently expressed similar worries, warning the world should be "very concerned" by Chinese EVs. "The car could be switched off by the manufacturer. How many cars would it take to block circulation of traffic in a major western city?" he said... A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said the review “overstretches the concept of national security” and is discriminatory. But Beijing has reportedly barred certain American EV brands like Tesla from Chinese government compounds over its own security concerns over what data the U.S. automaker can collect."
But of course, if you think Western countries might do the same thing, you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has fallen prey to misinformation
Junk Science Week — Ross McKitrick: EV mandates don't make economic sense - "According to “energy transition” and “net-zero” enthusiasts, the future looks bright for electric vehicles (EVs). Though not so bright, it seems, that the federal and some provincial governments haven’t had to offer at least $15 billion in subsidies to prompt carmakers to develop Canadian production facilities, as well as lavish subsidies to get people to buy EVs. And since even that isn’t enough to bring consumers around, a Trudeau government mandate now requires that all new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2035. In other words, the government is banning traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The fundamental problem is that EVs cost more to make and operate than most consumers are willing to pay. In a 2016 submission to the Quebec government, which was then considering an EV mandate of its own, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturing Association warned that its members were then losing between $12,000 and $20,000 per EV sold. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse, with Ford Motor Co. reporting first quarter 2024 losses of US$132,000 per EV. What will be the economic consequences of a national EV mandate in Canada? In a new paper forthcoming in the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Economics, I develop and run a detailed inter-provincial model of the Canadian economy, including the auto sector. I argue that during the phase-in period the sector will raise the price of ICEVs and earn above-market rents on them, but that won’t cover the losses on the EV side so the industry will go into overall losses by the late-2020s. The losses will be permanent unless and until EV production costs fall enough that a mandate is unnecessary. In short, the 2035 mandate is affordable only if it’s not needed. If it takes a mandate to force consumers to choose EVs over ICEVs, the mandate will destroy the Canadian auto industry. The mandate sets up a race between regulation and technology. Some aspects of EV production are getting cheaper — batteries, for instance. Others, such as specialty metals used in motors, are sole-sourced from China and are not getting cheaper. Other user costs are rising, especially electricity, for which we can thank two decades of green energy madness. Taking all aspects together, suppose EV technology improves so quickly that by 2035 consumers are absolutely indifferent between an EV and an ICEV, meaning the mandate is costless thereafter. Getting to that point would still impose Canadian auto industry losses that total $140 billion compared to the no-policy base case. As of 2031 the losses in real GDP and industrial output compared to the base case would average more than $1,000 per worker across Canada. As of 2035, greenhouse gas emissions would fall by just under three per cent relative to the base case, but the abatement costs reach about $2,800 per tonne as of 2030. And that’s the best-case scenario... Economic outcomes relative to the no-policy base case as of 2035 include a 4.8 per cent reduction in real GDP nationally (8.9 per cent in Ontario), 2.6 per cent lower real earnings per worker, 137,000 fewer jobs, 10.5 per cent lower auto demand and 16.8 per cent lower capital earnings. Greenhouse gas emissions would fall by just under six per cent against the base case as of 2035 but at a cost of more than $3,400 per tonne, 20 times the 2030 nominal carbon tax rate , which represents the government’s estimate of the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions. These are unprecedented costs, but then again we have never before proposed to ban the production and purchase of one of the most popular consumer products of all time. A large part of our economy is organized around making and using gasoline-powered cars. It should not be surprising that the government outlawing them would have harsh and far-reaching economic consequences... We could ban computers and make people read books instead — book publishing would boom. We could ban all forms of transportation and make people walk. Think of how much money they’d save, and the opportunities this would open up for shoemakers... No one had to force the public to abandon land lines for cellphones, or vinyl records for CDs and then online streaming. When superior products appear, people switch voluntarily. An EV mandate may be affordable by 2035 — but only if the product quality and user costs have progressed to the point that people want to switch anyway, in which case the mandate is not needed."
Capitalism has failed! Time for more regulation
United Nations the greatest organizational perpetrator of junk science - "History will record that the United Nations has established itself as the greatest organizational perpetrator of junk science in modern times, if not of all time, with current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres destined to be singled out for his personal contribution to the distorted UN climate alarmism. Since his appointment in 2019, Guterres and the UN have lived up to our standard formal definition of junk science. It occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated (or underplayed) and “the science” adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda. That definition encompasses a wide range of activities among scientists, NGOs, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science for political, environmental, economic and social purposes. It also nicely captures the entire United Nations’ climate crusade and the work of its institutional creation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But no single official can top Guterres as a purveyor of IPCC hype and doom, a living embodiment of Hans Christian Andersen’s fabled emperor who believes he is fully, stylishly dressed but in fact has no clothes. Guterres, a former Socialist Party prime minister of Portugal (1995-2002) and president of the Socialist International (1999-2005), was in typically ridiculous form on June 5th when he delivered a speech at the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, at an event billed as “A Moment of Truth” and a “special address on climate action.” Guterres talked about a planet on a “highway to climate hell,” rehashing a line he used in 2022 in Egypt at the COP27 climate conference: “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” Guterres also has no qualms about mixing and mangling metaphors. He simultaneously told the Manhattan audience that humans are “like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we’re having an outsized impact. In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.” The longer Guterres rambles on, the more confusing, contradictory and senseless the metaphors become: “We are playing Russian roulette with our planet. We need an exit ramp off the highway to climate hell. And the truth is … we have control of the wheel.” Other Guterres’ climate spins include: “Humanity has opened the gates of hell” and “become a weapon of mass extinction.” And: “We must go into emergency mode and put out this five-alarm fire.”... UNEP was cobbled together in 1972 as the brainchild of Maurice Strong, the late Canadian global environmental schemer, who famously mused about a fictional environmental crisis that leads a group of global insiders to decide the only hope for the planet is “that the industrialized civilizations collapse.” The current “de-growth” movement is a version of deindustrialization that reflects Guterres’ off-ramp from the highway to hell. In fact, the word “de-growth” appears 28 times in the IPCC’s sixth and latest Assessment Report... “Climate-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent, more deadly, more destructive with growing human and financial cost.” Not true. And: “The number of weather, climate and water-related disasters has increased by a factor of five over the past 50 years.” Also not true. When it comes to policies to deal with his fantastic vision of planetary destruction, Guterres aligns with Maurice Strong’s de-growth agenda"
