by T. Durden, Aug 8, 2022 in ZeroHedge
The resistance is growing as more than 75,000 irritated people in the UK have pledged not to pay their electricity bill this fall when prices jump again.
“75,000 people have pledged to strike on October 1st! If the government & energy companies refuse to act then ordinary people will! Together we can enforce a fair price and affordable energy for all,” tweeted “Don’t Pay UK,” an anonymous group spearheading the effort to have more than one million Brits boycott paying their power bill by Oct. 1.
Don’t Pay UK believes 6.3 million UK households will be pushed into power bill poverty this winter, with millions more feeling the stress of out-of-control inflation.
People on Twitter responded to the moment by saying, “the Revolution has begun” and “a bit of civil unrest on its way onto our streets & rightly so.”
Perhaps the movement’s involvement will be an excellent proxy for the growing discontent festering among Brits that could result in civil unrest this winter as millions will struggle with keeping the lights on, the furnace hot, and putting food on the table.
by R. Pielke Jr, Apr 27, 2022 in TheHonestBroker
This week, I’m grateful for the opportunity to participate in a conference in Brussels on “science advice under pressure,” organized by the European Commission’s Science Advisory Mechanism (it is streaming online if you’d like to join in today and tomorrow). I am on a panel today with Anne Glover (former science advisor to the European Commission), Matthew Flinders (University of Sheffield) and Lara Pivodic (Vrije Universiteit Brussels). Our moderator has asked us to begin today’s conversation by answering the following question:
What are your experiences (either personal or among colleagues) of coming under pressure and facing hostility a result of being a prominent science advisor giving advice in public?
As I have considered this question, my first response was: Have a seat, grab a cup of coffee, and how much time do you have?
by T. Doshi, Dec 31, 2020 in WUWT
At the virtual “Climate Ambition Summit” co-hosted by the UN and UK and attended by over 70 world leaders on December 12th, Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stark warning: the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 30 C by the end of the century “unless all countries declare climate emergency”. He expressed disappointment at the summit that the G-20 countries are “spending 50% more in their stimulus and rescue packages on sectors linked to fossil fuel production and consumption than on low carbon energy…This is unacceptable”.
The Secretary-General asked earnestly “Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency”? The question poses the vast gulf between the policy positions of key Western governments and the oil and gas producers in the Middle East. For the Middle East hydrocarbon producers hit by the ‘double whammy’ of sharply reduced oil and gas price – the mainstay of government revenues — and the impact of Covid-19 lockdowns on domestic economic activity, the strategy for national survival is clear and could not be more opposed to the UN Secretary-General’s: sharply increasing the pace of monetizing the oil and gas reserves that their countries are blessed with.
Middle East To Supply More Oil And Gas
Within two weeks of the UN summit, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister announced on December 27th the discovery of four new oil and gas fields, including unconventional resources. The discoveries will boost the country’s plans to increase its maximum sustained crude production capacity from the current 12 million b/d to 13 million b/d as well as developing its gas resources to free up more oil for export instead of burning it for power generation.
by GWPF/Reuters, July 14, 2020
The European Union remains deeply divided over plans to increase its CO2 emissions targets, with East European ministers refusing to commit to bigger cuts.
The EU has agreed to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030. This target has been criticised by climate activists who claim that more radical cuts are needed to prevent ‘catastrophic’ climate change.
Responding to this campaign, the European Commission plans to publish an impact assessment of the additional cost of a revised CO2 target to 50% or 55% by 2030. The EU would then need to agree a new target with member states and lawmakers.
According to Reuters, a meeting of environment ministers from the EU’s 27 member states failed to find agree on whether the target should be raised at all.
“Some are sceptical,” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said after the meeting.
On Monday, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic and Hungary wrote to the European Commission, announcing that they will not support a new CO2 target until they have seen the Commission’s economic impact assessment.
by S. Gross, June 2020 in Brookings.Edu
We understand today that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is severely damaging our environment. Fossil fuels cause local pollution where they are produced and used, and their ongoing use is causing lasting harm to the climate of our entire planet. Nonetheless, meaningfully changing our ways has been very difficult.
But suddenly, the COVID-19 pandemic brought trade, travel, and consumer spending to a near-standstill. With billions of people recently under stay-at-home orders and economic activity plunging worldwide, the demand for and price of oil have fallen further and faster than ever before. Needless to say, oil markets have been in turmoil and producers around the world are suffering.
by Samuel Furfari, 11 février 2020 in L’Echo
On perçoit que cette résolution est la prémisse qui va permettre d’amplifier les politiques keynésiennes en vue de relancer une économie européenne poussive par les dépenses publiques, c’est-à-dire in fine par la levée de nouvelles taxes, qu’elles soient appelées ” carbone ” ou autrement.
La majorité du parlement européen (les partis social-chrétien, socialiste et écologiste) a adopté le 15 janvier 2020 le pacte vert pour l’Europe, une résolution en 120 points qui vise la neutralité carbone d’ici 2050. Ils auraient d’ailleurs pu appeler cette résolution “transition juste” puisque cette expression s’y retrouve 15 fois. Qui peut s’opposer à quelque chose de juste? On peut observer que d’après cette majorité parlementaire, il n’y aura pas de justice sans financement.
Ces députés européens sont en faveur d’un plan d’investissement durable ambitieux pour parvenir à la “transition juste”. On retrouve d’ailleurs 49 fois les mots ” financement ” et ses dérivés. Or les critères de Maastricht ne permettent pas aux États membres de dépenser de manière inconsidérée l’argent qu’ils n’ont pas. On perçoit que cette résolution est la prémisse qui va permettre d’amplifier les politiques keynésiennes en vue de relancer une économie européenne poussive par les dépenses publiques, c’est-à-dire in fine par la levée de nouvelles taxes, qu’elles soient appelées “carbone” ou autrement. Pour preuve, cette résolution “se félicite de la proposition prévue d’une révision de la directive sur la taxation de l’énergie”.
La Commission européenne propose un plan sur dix ans visant à accélérer la transition climatique de l’Europe, plan financé à hauteur de mille milliards, tout en reconnaissant que c’est insuffisant. “Mille milliards de mille sabords”, aurait sans doute juré le capitaine Haddock. Mille milliards c’est ce qu’on appelle un “trillion” : c’est 1 000.000.000.000 euros. Oui, un trillion c’est énormément d’argent.
by A. Berger & S. Furfari, 11 janvier 2020 in LeVIfL’Express
Messieurs les informateurs royaux,
L’année qui se termine a atteint des sommets de désinformation en matière de climat et de son corollaire, l’énergie, sommets qui frisent la manipulation. Les deux auteurs de cette carte blanche ne sont pas nécessairement d’accord sur toutes les questions à l’entour de ces débats, mais ils le sont sur un double triste constat. D’une part, l’hystérie actuelle n’est ni appropriée, ni constructive. D’autre part, les solutions proposées pour contrer le changement climatique ne sont pas adaptées.
Continuer la lecture de Lettre ouverte aux informateurs royaux Georges-Louis Bouchez et Joachim Coens.
by Frédéric Simon, December 5, 2019 in EurActiv
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has threatened to veto Europe’s goal of becoming the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050, adding his voice to a growing chorus of discontent as EU leaders prepare for heated climate discussions at a summit in Brussels next week.
In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Babiš said, however, he could still change his mind in exchange for higher financial support from the EU and better investment conditions for nuclear energy.
Private investors are reluctant to pour money into new nuclear power plants, which face escalating costs and growing competition from cheap renewables. New plants are dependent on state support, which require prior approval by the European Commission’s powerful competition department.
“Nuclear plants construction may require changes in the state aid rules,” Babiš wrote in the letter, according to Czech daily Hospodářské noviny, a media partner of EURACTIV.cz.
Funding for new nuclear plants is also an issue for Poland, one of the last remaining EU countries opposed to the bloc’s proposed climate neutrality objective for 2050. At the last EU summit in October, Warsaw called for “significantly larger” amounts of funding under the EU’s next long-term budget before signing up to the 2050 goal.
by Judith Curry , June 28, 2019 in WUWT
Some reflections, stimulated by yesterday’s Congressional Hearing, on the different strategies of presenting Congressional testimony.
Yesterday’s Hearing provided an ‘interesting’ contrast in approaches to presenting testimony, when comparing my testimony with Michael Mann’s.
What are the purposes of expert testimony?
There is an interesting document entitled A Guide to Expert Testimony for Climate Scientists, funded by the US National Science Foundation. Most of this is related to court room hearings, but some is relevant for Congressional Hearings. Excerpts:
Experts may do one or more of the following:
- Provide the decision-maker with factual information and background to provide the decision-maker with an adequate context for the decision.
- Apply expert knowledge to the facts of a case and render an opinion about the facts, such as whether certain conditions actually caused an effect.
- Explain scientific principles and theories to the decision-maker.
- Extrapolate from the actual facts or hypothetical facts and rendering an opinion regarding the likelihood of an event or occurrence. Experts may speculate on events or occurrences because of their special knowledge or training.
- Provide an opinion that contradicts or undermines the opinions or conclusions of an expert who testified for the opposing party.
If you are assigned to cross-examine an expert, you should prepare questions that test and challenge the witness on the following subjects :
Lack of thoroughness in investigating the facts or data;
Insufficient testing of the facts or data;
Lack of validity and reliability in testing of facts or data;
Existence of other causes or explanations for conclusions or outcomes;
Show differences of opinion among experts
by Prof. Samuele Furfari, June 7, 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie
In its Special Report n° 15 “Global warming of 1.5°C” (SR15) , IPCC proposes four scenarios to limit Earth temperature increase to 1.5°C. In all scenarios CO2 emissions are kept at virtually zero by 2050. These scenarios are based on the technology called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) that will remove CO2 to compensate CO2 anthropic emissions.
“All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 Gt CO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of Gt CO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred Gt CO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence)” (page 19).
IPCC defines “Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)” as follows : Anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage but excludes natural CO2 uptake not directly caused by human activities” (page 26).
The fourth scenario recognizes the logical and inevitable increase of CO2 emissions if the world continues its growth to remove poverty and allow Asia and Africa countries to develop. Therefore, this scenario is based on a massive use of the CDR techniques as the report says: “Emissions reductions are mainly achieved through technological means, making strong use of CDR“.
Indeed, CDR is just rebranding of the CCS concept that is a cul-de-sac technology for a lack of economy, a lack of available adapted geological sinks on the production sites and also a lack of population acceptance.
by European Scientist, May 21, 2009
In the context of the European elections, European Scientist is bringing you an series of views from experts from different countries on various topics around science and science policy in Europe, to provide an overview and analysis, which will be useful for the next commission.
ES: What is your assessment of energy policy in Europe? What have the major achievements of the outgoing commission been?
The greatest success of the outgoing commission is to have developed a policy to support gas interconnections by financing projects of common interest. The aim is that every single methane molecule that enters the territory of the Union can circulate to any other location. This will help to diversify gas supply sources, particularly from the south of the Union (thanks to more gas arriving as LNG and via the Southern Corridor).
ES: There is a wide disparity in energy policy between different countries (e.g. France and Germany). Do you think it is necessary to harmonise policy or on the contrary is it preferable to maintain diversity?
by GWPF from WallStreetJ, May 19, 2019
The right in Australia won on the sharp contrast with the left on taxes, growth and climate change.
If American Democrats want a warning about the consequences of embracing the Green New Deal, look no further than Saturday’s election shocker in Australia. The opposition center-left Labor Party had led in the polls for months but lost as voters rejected its move left on taxes, spending and above all on climate change.
The ruling Liberal-National Coalition had been divided and tossed out two prime ministers during its nearly six years in power. Scott Morrison, the compromise choice as Prime Minister last year, managed to unite conservatives around a platform that stressed economic growth, tax cuts and support for the country’s energy producers.
Labor leader Bill Shorten promised to raise taxes on the “wealthy,” but his main theme was curbing climate change. Labor promised to cut carbon emissions nearly in half by 2030 compared to 2005 levels while subsidizing wind and solar. Mr. Shorten and Labor refused to support a job-producing coal mine in Queensland, and their candidates were routed in the resource-rich province.
Bill Shorten, leader of the Labor Party of Australia, reacts as he concedes defeat during the Labor party election night event in Melbourne, Australia, on Saturday, May 18, 2019. PHOTO: CARLA GOTTGENS/BLOOMBERG NEWS
by Frédéric Simon, May 7, 2019 in Euractiv
The governments of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg have launched an appeal to boost EU climate action ahead of a major summit on the future of Europe taking place in Romania next Thursday (9 May).
A leaked “non-paper” by the eight countries calls on the European Union to step up the fight against climate change and sign up to a European Commission plan to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “by 2050 at the latest”.
Germany, Italy and Poland were notably absent from the list of signatories of the leaked document, obtained by EURACTIV, echoing divisions at a recent EU summit.
by Jamie Spry, May 7, 2018 in Climatism
by Anthony Watts, March 22, 2019 in WUWT/BjornLomborg
Bjorn Lomborg writes on Twitter:
“Wishful thinking: This graph starkly shows what power the 1.5°C target The black line is CO₂ emission increase last 118 years (last year was highest ever) The blue lines indicate the emissions necessary to ensure the widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit”.
by Frédéric Simon, March 21, 2019 in Euractiv
Confidential documents prepared in advance of a two-day EU summit in Brussels have exposed an East-West divide in Europe on climate change, with Germany siding with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in their refusal to commit to climate neutrality by 2050.
The leaked documents, seen by EURACTIV, show the amendments proposed by each country in preparation for the final statement of the leaders summit that opens in Brussels on Thursday (21 March).
And when it comes to climate action, the papers reveal a growing rift between two distinct groups of countries.
On the one hand, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Denmark have all backed a European Commission plan to decarbonise the EU by 2050, linking it specifically to the Paris Agreement objective of keeping global warming below 1.5°C.
A French proposal, for instance, underlines that Europe should strive for climate neutrality “by 2050, in line with the 1.5 degree objective of the Paris Agreement”.
It then calls on EU member states “to prepare a discussion in the European Council in June to define the announcements of the EU at the September Climate Summit in New York”. Both amendments were rejected in the final draft.
On the other hand, Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have refused to specifically link EU climate action with the 1.5°C objective. They also oppose any time-bound commitment to the EU’s climate neutrality objective, deleting any reference to 2050 for reaching that goal.
by Prof. Samuel Furfari, 6 mars 2019 in L’Echo
En Belgique francophone, l’intérêt pour la question climatique ne cesse de croître. A la faveur du succès remporté par les écolos aux élections communales d’octobre dernier, les partis francophones se sont lancés dans une surenchère de promesses. A cela viennent se greffer les marches pro-environnement enthousiastes mais néanmoins naïves de lycéens qui, en matière d’énergie et de climat, connaissent très peu de choses. Avec un peu plus de connaissances, ils demanderaient des fenêtres hermétiques et à double vitrage dans leurs classes, au lieu de panneaux photovoltaïques, on y reviendra. En quelques jours on est passé d’un gouvernement critiqué pour être timide à une proposition de loi climat qui n’a pas d’équivalent dans le reste du monde. Car ne nous y trompons pas, la frénésie climatique est belge. Même si on ne devrait pas être étonné que Trump n’ait pas prononcé le mot climat dans son récent discours de l’Union, ce que j’observe professionnellement dans le monde ne correspond en rien à ce que vit la Belgique. Il y a lieu de s’interroger sur les motifs réels de ce déferlement ; ce n’est pas audible pour l’instant mais on devra y répondre un jour.
by Benny Peiser, February 23, 2019 in GWPF
You know we have overcome the dictatorship of the proletariat here in East Germany, and now we are facing a dictatorship of the climate law. I do not consider this law to be compatible with a market economy. –Andreas Lämmel, CDU member of the German Bundestag, Deutschlandfunk, 23 February 2019
Climate policy is increasingly splitting German’s coalition government of Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD). The coal exit was supposed to be part of a comprehensive climate law. But if and when that comes no one knows. That’s because the coalition committee has actually stopped the far advanced legislative project of Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD), according to the government. —Andreas Mihm, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 February 2019
by Patrick T. Brown, January 12, 2019 in WUWT
In late 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts associated with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels (as of 2019 we are at about 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels) as well as the technical feasibility of limiting global warming to such a level. The media coverage of the report immediately produced a meme that continues to persist. The meme is some kind of variation of the following:
The IPCC concluded that we have until 2030 (or 12 years) to avoid catastrophic global warming
However, these headlines are essentially purveying a myth. I think it is necessary to push back against this meme for two main reasons:
1) It is false.
2) I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.
Taking these two points in turn:
1) The IPCC did not conclude that society has until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming.
by Bjorn Lomborg, December 6, 2018 in CAPX
The climate summit in Poland has been given a boost in recent weeks by well-timed climate change reports shaping the news agenda. But if we dig deeper than most of the media did, these reports demonstrate what is wrong with global warming policy discussion.
by P. Homewood, December 18, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
The Department for Transport publishes a long-awaited aviation strategy today that pledges to deliver “greater capacity at UK airports”.
It raises the prospect of airports other than Heathrow growing and accepting more flights if tough environmental and noise restrictions are met.
The strategy also outlines plans for the biggest overhaul of Britain’s airspace in more than 50 years to create new flight paths into the biggest airports. GPS-style technology will allow aircraft to fly along more accurate paths below 30,000ft instead of being led by ground beacons, which space planes out over a wide arc several miles across.
It will mean a considerable increase to the 600 or so dedicated flight paths that are in operation today
by P. Gosselin, December 19, 2018 in NoTricksZone
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Jochem Marotzke, director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM), wondered whether CO2 savings could really have a direct influence on the temperature in the near future. In a new paper (Marotzke 2018), the Hamburg-based climate researcher simulates the temperature profile of the 2030s predicted by climate models and uses once again a conventional emission profile (Scenario RCP 4.5), and once a politically reduced emission scenario.
Conclusion: Most likely, there would probably be no difference as natural climate variability prevails over these time scales. The paper was published in WIRE’s Climate Change and can be downloaded free of charge as a pdf:
by Dominique Dewitte, 31 octobre 2018 in ExpressBusiness
Pas un seul État membre de l’UE ne figure parmi les 16 pays sur 197 qui, selon une étude réalisée par un centre de recherche américain et deux centres de recherche britanniques, ont pris les mesures politiques appropriées promises dans le cadre de l’accord de Paris sur le climat.
La Norvège, le Monténégro et la Macédoine sont les seuls pays européens à avoir pris les mesures politiques appropriées pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre correspondant aux promesses faites lors de la signature de l’accord de Paris sur le climat.
L’étude du think tank américain World Ressources Institute et de deux centres de recherche britanniques (le Grantham Research Institute et le Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy), qui font partie de la London School of Economics, en apporte la preuve .
À Paris, plus de 197 pays se sont portés volontaires pour réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre lors de la conférence COP21 en décembre 2015.
by Oliver Milman, November 1, 2018 in TheGuardian
More than a year after the US Environmental Protection Agency took down information on climate change from its website for an “update”, it now seems uncertain whether it will ever reappear.
In April last year, the EPA replaced its online climate change section with a holding page that said the content was being updated to “reflect the agency’s new direction under President Donald Trump”.
by Robert P. Murphy, October 22, 2018 in The IndependantInstitute/FEE
First, Nordhaus shows that aggressive mitigation policies can be a cure worse than the disease, and he specifically includes the United Nation’s latest goal in his examples of such misguided goals. Second, Nordhaus’s estimate of the optimal carbon tax (for the year 2025, for example) has almost tripled in less than a decade. Third, far from being tied to specific analyses of particular threats, Nordhaus’s global damage estimate was largely driven by a simple survey of experts, and this figure was furthermore manipulated arbitrarily by Nordhaus in light of new developments. The public would be very surprised to learn just how crude the “settled science” underlying various proposals to limit climate change really is.