JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

A bit of a backdown? — G7 leaders to go slow on low carbon

World G7 leaders resolved to bravely free us from fossil fuels after most people alive today are long departed. Either this a back-down, admitting that the tipping point is not upon us, or possibly, they are reframing the Paris target. This modest announcement paves the way for a press release in December saying they will decarbonize by 2075. Imagine the headlines: “Shock historic agreement in Paris accelerates decarbonization deadline.” Forgive me being a cynic.

Greenpeace welcomed the “vision of a 100% renewable future”, saying “Elmau delivered”, as if world leaders have not been issuing motherhood statements about clean-green-energy-visions for twenty years. Avaaz got excited that Angela Merkel “‘Auf Wiedersehen’ (farewell) to fossil fuels.” They’ll get excited about anything. But at least Friends of the Earth said the delay would be “devastating”. Perhaps Friends of the Earth still thinks CO2 matters?

Every step is major step — even the announcement of a non-binding far distant wish list:

[Reuters] Leaders of the world’s major industrial democracies resolved on Monday to wean their energy-hungry economies off carbon fuels, marking a major step in the battle against global warming that raises the chances of a U.N. climate deal later this year.

On climate change, the G7 leaders pledged in a communique after their two-day meeting to develop long-term low-carbon strategies and abandon fossil fuels by the end of the century.

It doesn’t take much to earn climate credentials:

The Group of Seven’s energy pledge capped a successful summit for host Angela Merkel, who revived her credentials as a “climate chancellor” and strengthened Germany’s friendship with the United States at the meeting in a Bavarian resort.

 It is all about Paris now — what matters is legal force (and lots of money).

The G7 stopped short of agreeing any immediate collective targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the Europeans had pressed their partners in the club to embrace. But they said a U.N. climate conference later this year should reach a deal with legal force, including through binding rules, to combat climate change.

“We commit to doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term, including developing and deploying innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors by 2050,” the communique read.

It’s almost like the Western leaders want to keep Africa dependent and uncompetitive:

The leaders invited other countries to join them in their drive, saying they would accelerate access to renewable energy in Africa and intensify their support for vulnerable countries’ own efforts to manage climate change.

The full media release at Reuters

h/t to International news at GWPF

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (60 votes cast)
A bit of a backdown? -- G7 leaders to go slow on low carbon, 9.1 out of 10 based on 60 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/q2s8tv2

119 comments to A bit of a backdown? — G7 leaders to go slow on low carbon

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    In other words we commit other people to take action, after we’ve all left office, unless by some miracle we get an agreement in Paris.

    300

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      My take is ‘we all know this is a crock but we either all have constituencies who need massaging or just do not want to be dogged by lunatic protesters and the MSM hunting for a headline all the time, its just a damn distraction. What say we all wear a matching fig leaf.’

      381

      • #
        LeeHarvey

        I’d like to believe your take on the situation, but my inner cynic says otherwise.

        80

        • #
          Ursus Augustus

          I know how you feel LH. Just trying to cheer the troops. :) .

          But seriously, referring also to aussieguys post below, I think the leadership is well aware of the ‘skeptic’ view and the possibilities of it all turning to shite and of the realities of energy supply etc but the MSM would start such a witch hunt if they were seen to utter a hint of their true mind on the matter it is just not worth it to give the eco nutters a free kick. Obama would be lynched by his own side were he to utter such sentiments although he is probably the most committed to “The Cause”.

          120

      • #
        Iren

        The problem is that someone like Julie Bishop would happily turn up in Paris and big note herself by signing our sovereignty away. Remember her recent dispute with Abbott over the Peru conference, which he wanted to ignore? Abbott has to really lay down the law about this and, whatever his own view, needs to be reminded what his base thinks on this subject.

        180

        • #
          Matty

          Once these Mjnisters get a job at the Foreign Office do get absorbed in the double speak of Diplomacy, where nothing quite means how it sounds or says what it means.
          They forget the UN are Grand Masters of this and know exactly how to handle them.
          Tell the newbie foreign ministers that the agreement means the opposite of what it says. Their Leaders would never believe such nonsense from us but perhaps if they hear it from their own Foreign Ministers they will believe they are missing something and it can’t really be that bad after all or Hey, Kevin Harper wouldn’t be signing up to it.

          Tony needs to wake up & remember why he is Leader & not Julie.

          40

          • #
            tom0mason

            Matty,

            Forget not that there are the permanent and semi-permanent staff within the Foreign Office whose job it is within the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the numerous demands of highly complex onerous duties and deeply profound deliberations of delicate diplomacy which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted high position.

            ‘nuf said? :-)

            30

            • #
              Annie

              Tom0: is your alter ego called Sir Humphrey?

              30

              • #
                tom0mason

                As it would be inappropriate to answer such an inquiry with anything less than directness that is to say, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can say, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average population, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, the accumulation of probabilities does, in a way, actually indicate an answer to your inquiry, or maybe does not.
                And that is all I have to say on the matter, at this stage. But if the unforeseen were to precipitate circumstances whereby … etc., etc.,

                10

            • #
              Matty

              Putty in their hands.

              20

    • #
      Ron

      Where is the vision: Tesla is selling as many cars as it can make and are about to put on the market two other models that will also be full electric. Most of the other car companies also have electric cars. Bus companies over seas are introducing full electric buses and you can get full electric trains that float and travel 500km per hour. Sorry unless you are to travel over seas plane travel will be restricted to international.

      So now all we have to do is cover the whole of the Northern Territory in solar panels and tidal generators in the ocean currents around Australia.

      All this is affordable because we get the money from the IPCC and all the other idiots that are taxing their population for a carbon free economy.

      Don’t laugh, this could solve lots of problems for Australia. Employment, transport, investment and the deficit. And world leaders will have no choice but give us the money as we will be the world leaders in a green economy.

      Now I think I will wake up and get back to reality. Drive to work in my gas guzzler, run my machinery on power produced from coal and be happy that I am also feeding the planet with “Planet Food” Co2.

      161

    • #
      aussieguy

      The hypocrisy gets better…Check this out folks! (Its a bit of a side story.)

      Five G7 nations increased their coal use over a five-year period, research shows
      => http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/08/five-g7-nations-increased-their-coal-use-over-a-five-year-period-research-shows


      Five of the world’s seven richest countries have increased their coal use in the last five years despite demanding that poor countries slash their carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, new research shows.

      Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and France together burned 16% more coal in 2013 than 2009 and are planning to further increase construction of coal-fired power stations. Only the US and Canada of the G7 countries meeting on Monday in Berlin have reduced coal consumption since the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.

      The US has reduced its coal consumption by 8% largely because of fracking for shale gas. Overall, the G7 countries reduced coal consumption by less than 1% between 2009-2013, the Oxfam research shows.

      And this is where the article goes down hill as it reveals the report is really pushing the Climate Change agenda. ie: Cheap coal is the enemy. Developed nations must economically kill themselves to help developing nations. (Gee, it sounds like self-guilt with Socialist tones (“helping the poor” and “Equality”), under the cover of environmentalism!)

      The briefing paper comes as nearly 200 countries meet in Bonn ahead of crunch climate talks in Paris later this year, and shows that G7 coal plants emit twice as much CO2 as the entire African continent annually, and 10 times as much as the 48 least developed countries put together.

      The result, says Oxfam, will be that G7 coal emissions alone could cost African countries over £40bn a year in climate-related costs by the 2080s.

      “The G7’s addiction to coal is hiking up costs for developing countries and putting more and more people on the frontline of climate change at risk of hunger. If G7 coal plants were a country, it would be the fifth biggest emitter in the world. They are still burning huge amounts, despite efficient, affordable, renewable alternatives being available,” said the report.

      Globally, coal is responsible for almost three-quarters (72%) of all power-sector emissions, and while more than half of today’s coal consumption is in 140 developing countries, the scale of coal-burning by the rich few is considerable.

      At Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, all countries agreed to prevent warming of more than 2C to avoid runaway climate change, but the world is now on track to warm by at least 4C.

      The UK could feasibly stop burning coal for its energy supply by 2023, according to Oxfam’s report. To do this, it would have to investing in smarter energy storage, reduce energy demand and improve energy efficiency, the report says.

      Christoph Bals of the NGO Germanwatch said that as the G7’s host, the German chancellor needed to show the country was taking serious action on its coal use: “Angela Merkel has put the decarbonisation goal on the G7 agenda. But she can only be a credible champion of decarbonisation if Germany acts decisively at home to reach its own 2020 climate target. This will require a significant reduction in the use of coal in the German electricity mix before 2020.”

      One of the sticking points in the climate talks is over how far rich countries should cut emissions.

      The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) finds that emerging economies are on track to reduce emissions more than their industrialised counterparts. The emission reductions of China, India, South Africa and Brazil could be slightly greater than the combined efforts of the seven biggest developed countries – the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia by 2020.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has previously said that to meet the internationally agreed target to limit warming to below 2C, global emissions in the electricity sector would have to reach zero before 2050.


      The mentioned Oxfam report in question…

      Let Them Eat Coal: Why the G7 must stop burning coal to tackle climate change and fight hunger
      => http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/let-them-eat-coal-why-the-g7-must-stop-burning-coal-to-tackle-climate-change-an-556110

      I’ve always wondered what Oxfam really stood for. Interestingly enough, they tell you who they are on the last page of their report!

      Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty.


      Notice their vocabulary? Its an activist group. They believe poverty is an “injustice”. They like to talk about it. They even like to write reports about it. They even want to lobby govts stupid enough to believe them. But what they don’t want to do is show/teach the poor how to get out of the economic position they are in! Instead, they use Climate Change as an excuse to justify killing cheap and abundant energy source (from the Developed nations, of course!), in order to bring “justice” to developing nations! In a way, it follows the exact Leftist theory based on Robin Hood. ie: Steal from the rich, to give to the poor. What moral crusaders they are! Notice how they want the poor to remain poor! (If the poor become rich and climb upward, Oxfam would no longer be needed! And Oxfam can’t have that if they depend on the existence of the poor! Remember, poverty is their enemy! Its an “injustice” to them!)

      By the way, their “research” isn’t research. (Despite what The Guardian says). There is no real research here. What they’ve done is go on the web and their fellow environmental organisations, then collate together material to support their agenda.

      I then noted something interesting…They make lots of references to Sierra Club and E3G.
      (I know who Sierra Club are; they’re biggest and oldest environmental group in the USA.)

      …But who the hell is E3G?
      => http://e3g.org/about

      E3G is an independent, non-profit organisation operating in the public interest to accelerate the global transition to sustainable development.


      Note their words. They claim to be for the “public interest”. Did the public vote for them? Nope, they self-appointed themselves! “Sustainable Development” => Environmental organisation of some sort. Not sure, exactly. Let’s read on…

      The core of our capability lies with our diverse, experienced and creative staff. E3G’s founding directors have unique experience working on energy, environment, security policy and diplomacy challenges in the UK Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and as senior political advisors. See the section People for more information.


      They brag they can whisper sweet environmental nothings into the UK Govt’s ear. I’m sure the UK taxpayer is happy to hear that!

      E3G was founded in 2004 to address the challenge of how to deliver transformational policy change. Our experience has been that the main obstacles to sustainable development lie not in a lack of analysis or available resources, but in the silo-based nature of institutions and decision makers. We therefore work to align politics and policy to leverage strategic outcomes.


      Note the BS Bingo? Its another environmental activist “think tank”! …The Oxfam report openly admits they commissioned E3G for coal numbers on G7 countries!


      So let’s summarise how environmental groups, with the cooperation of the media (The Guardian); help push this political Climate Change agenda.

      (1) E3G, Sierra Club, etc produce material.
      (2) Oxfam summarises the info into a convenient “research” report.
      (3) A supportive Left-progressive media outlet (The Guardian) picks it up and publishes it.
      (4) The public haven’t a clue and accept it as face value…Unless they spent an hour digging to find its an agenda pushed by various environmental organisations and supported by media.


      They really are desperate to push this for that Paris Climate Conference thing, aren’t they?

      You know what’s interesting? Australia is irrelevant when it comes to emissions compared to the G7, India, and China.
      => http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-hermit/labor-and-greens-on-the-climate-policy-titanic-20150609-ghk9al.html

      601

      • #
        GMac

        Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a global movement ,for change to build a future free from the injustice of poverty

        Have you noticed that those who are well off are the ones who cry the loudest about the “injustice of poverty”and yet they will not give up their wealth for the poor,but they will take money from the lower and middle classes to supposedly help the poor but in reality all they are doing is feathering their own nests and creating more wealth to themselves..

        The pigs at the trough don’t like to share,they make all the right grunts about the poor and downtrodden but when you look close you will see that they are the cause of the poor being down trodden.
        (I’m having a cynic day today,a pox on all their houses)

        220

      • #
        Manfred

        Australia is irrelevant when it comes to emissions

        …and New Zealand is the true pimple on a gnat’s bottom, and yet…they peddle the UN – UNEP – IPCC – WHO Kollectiv mantra with inhumane enthusiasm.
        For example, NZ generates 60% of is base load power by hydro, yet they still impose the ETS taxes.

        170

        • #
          sophocles

          It’s so-o-o-o-o embarrassing.

          But then, the NZ Reserve Bank is an overseas branch office of the World Bank, so what can we expect?

          If we took the Tiwai Point Aluminium smelter off Rio Tinto and plugged Manapouri’s output into our grid, it woudl be 100% hydro with some headroom left. But that won’t happen.

          20

          • #
            sophocles

            There’s another 13% from geothermal generation, which makes about 73% from `renewable resources.’

            20

      • #
        Leigh

        Excellent read.
        I to would think Australia would be irelivant when it comes to it’s output of CO/2 when talking China’s and Indias outputs.
        But not according to our CSIRO or is he referring to those other nasty country’s who are just burning our coal?

        “CSIRO scientist Kevin Hennessy said if greenhouse gases increased at their current rate, Australia would experience warming of about 2.5 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.”

        http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australian-cities-at-increased-risk-of-flash-flooding-as-temperatures-warm-and-deluges-intensify-experts-say/308932

        40

        • #
          Matty

          The GGs in the atmosph. are increasing not from our emissions but from the out gassing of our ever so slowly warming oceans.
          The futility of going to such pains to reduce Emmisions as maddening

          71

        • #
          Andrew

          Yes, headline should read “Warm by 2.5 to 5C by 2100, or if we decarbonise entirely then (rounded) by 2.5 to 5C.”

          30

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Like most people, I had never heard of E3G, so I went to their website, which is very slick and thoroughly believable if you were not in possession of the facts.

        In fact, I found it to be quite scary.

        But what really scared me was how they were funded, ‘by a mix of foundations, government bodies and NGOs’. So here is an unknown pressure group, secretly funded by God knows who, designed to influence governments into taking economically damaging and destructive actions in order to solve a non-problem.

        I would love to know how much E3G’s leaders pay themselves and who exactly funds them.

        The scary thing is just how many of these secretive E3G type of alarmist propaganda organisations are out there, which we know nothing about.

        90

  • #
    rah

    Well is seems at the gathering of elites they don’t seem to think Climate Change or Global Warming is worth talking about.
    Global warming: so totally over that not even Bilderberg will touch it
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/09/global-warming-so-totally-over-that-not-even-bilderberg-will-touch-it/

    140

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Well of course it is over.

      The UN in 1982 predicted disaster by 2002
      by 1989 they realised that it would have occurred by 1999.
      Gordon Brown in Oct. 2009 said there were “only 50 days to save the Earth” (proving he was as good a prophet as he was a Treasurer).

      The WWF (in 2007) said the end would be in 2012.
      James Hansen set the end date originally for Jan 2013, then Nov. 2014.
      Prince Charles said the end would come before Nov. 2017.

      Last year the UN claimed that April 2029 would be the disaster time.

      You see … there has been A PAUSE in the disaster rate.

      350

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        It would seem Tim Flannery has been doing a lot of ‘ghost predicting’. That must be his day job. :)

        10

    • #
      GMac

      The Bilderbergs have the game sown up,they have all sides covered,if a UN co2 tax comes about then the limitations on fossil fuel derived power will cause the price of fuel to skyrocket.
      Those banks controlled by the Bilderbergs will make a motza,and all that lovely moolah the Bilderberg controlled UN has will be spent where it will do the most good,no not the poor but for the Bilderbergs.

      70

  • #

    The reaction of G7 leaders is highly predictable. Politically they have to be seen to be doing something to eradicate dangerous climate change. But to do anything concrete is political and economic suicide, along with being totally useless at eradicating global CO2 emissions. Even if CAGW was a real problem, this sort of policy outcome is inevitable. Read this short Monograph The Vote Motive, to find out why.

    191

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Votes are a currency, just like any other. As voters, we each exchange our vote for a bunch of promissory notes, during the election cycle. Should the politicians fraudulently refuse to honour them, then the sanction is to throw them out of office at the next election.

      Trouble is, that they promise everything to everybody, so the whole thing turns into a total charade.

      60

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Paris will fail. Obama cannot commit the US to a legally binding anything without ratification by Congress. Congress has already made plain they would not agree., and just struck Obama’s $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund from the US budget. India and China have already made clear they won’t play short term. There is gridlock in Bonn on the draft resolution for Paris. Annex 1 versus Annex 2 on GCF. Disagreement about whether Annex 2 have to commit to anything before 2020. Countries gaming any precommitments made (Russia). Most countries missing the precommitment deadline to commit to anything. Its a slow motion train wreck already.

    470

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Obama cannot commit the US to a legally binding anything without ratification by Congress. Congress has already made plain they would not agree., and just struck Obama’s $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund from the US budget.

      Legally and constitutionally that is correct, but Obama has already demonstrated that he will not honor the law and the constitution if they stand in his way. He has gotten away with it so far and has packed the high courts during the last six years. Right now he is demanding authority to negotiate a binding trade agreement without consultation with or the go ahead from Congress. If this happens he will use this to claim he has the authority to place the US in binding climate agreements come Paris. He will claim that it is not really a formal treaty (a matter of semantics) and that he can order the EPA to enforce compliance as a matter of administrative policy.

      300

      • #
        Rud Istvan

        Please read Larry Tribe’s brief on the constitutionality of the first of the two sets of EPA regs on coal generating stations. Several states have agreed and are already disobeying EPA. It will go to SCOTUS, and it will be held unconstitutional. tribe is THE leading comstitutional law scholar. He is at Harvard Law. He taught Roberts and Obama. Obama appears to have forgetten whatever he learned. Roberts hasn’t.
        And, Congress can defund the EPA. And it can rewrite the CCA’s awful definition of a pollutant. And we can make sure Congress has a veto proof majority in the next election. 60 in the Senate.

        390

        • #
          ianl8888


          It will go to SCOTUS, and it will be held unconstitutional

          As a non-US person, I can only hope you are right, but what bothers me is that SCOTUS initially agreed to the EPA’s control over pollution definitions to the point of allowing the current regulations to come into existence

          In short, I trust not in lawyers

          120

      • #
        average joe

        Yeah Dave, but you are forgetting that Obummer has only another year to order the EPA to enforce compliance. The next prez may then order the EPA to stand down. In fact, perhaps the next prez will clean house at the EPA and a few other “climate” bureaucracies. That’s the guy average joe is voting for.

        10

    • #

      Add to this another factor.
      The developed countries are no longer increasing emissions. In the US emissions are falling slightly due to shale gas. In China and India (with over 1/3rd of global population) emissions are rising, as are emissions in the rest of Asia and South America. So to reduce global emissions means slamming emissions growth in developing countries into sharp reverse. That means doing the same for economic growth. That ain’t going to happen.
      Those pursuing global emissions reductions targets do not realize that the world has shifted in the last 20-30 years. The distribution of global income and emissions has become much more equal as many of the poorer countries close in on the richer countries. The climate alarmists are not going to recognize this reality, as they just want to destroy the high living standards that we in the “First World” enjoy.

      180

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Just occasionally, you sense a glimmer of hope that our ‘political elite’ is ever so slowly beginning to realise that the type of energy policies, enthusiastically promoted by the Green Blob, can only result in one thing, namely economic ruin.

    301

    • #
      GMac

      Peter – economic ruin for whom?
      If you mean us ,to the controllers of wealth we are expendable there are plenty of us to utilise.
      Whenever there is a major change of the economic boundaries there will always be a set group who will come out ahead ,even if they do take a loss they will gain in the long run.
      This group will throw some of their number to the wolves to appear to be suffering as others are.

      50

  • #
    Alexander Carpenter

    The leaders invited other countries to join them in their drive, saying they would accelerate access to renewable energy in Africa and intensify their support for vulnerable countries’ own efforts to manage climate change.

    In other words, the IMF (and its ilk) will only pay for, or make loans for, “renewable” energy (and related) development in Africa; and they won’t let their captive oil companies expand there; and we know those payments and loans will stay in-faction.

    120

    • #
      ianl8888

      Yes, but the newly-formed Chinese infrastructure bank (of which Australia is a member) has no such limitations

      120

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    I can’t agree that ‘non-binding’ is important.
    Bureaucracy transmutes the most innocuous motherhood statements into irrevocable commitments.
    If you speak up for Mum’s apple pie, Mum will end up being required to have a hundred thousand dollars worth of commercial grade upgrades to her kitchen, and end up being prosecuted for using unapproved varieties of apples.
    Agreeing that you’re not opposed to Church on Sunday is transmuted into trading hours restrictions, closed bottle shops, overtime regulations,zoning regulations and noise ordinances.
    Look at how the original fairly innocuous ‘precautionary principle’ has been transmuted into a fatwa against ever doing anything new!
    We need to require that our Country’s agents represent us on this issue, not just saying ‘no’, but ‘Hell no!’, and not being suckered into ‘feel good polite nothings of agreement that turn out to be the tip of the spear that devastates our economies.

    340

    • #
      GMac

      Our “agents” are not where they are because of our votes,they are there because of backers who raised the wealth for them to first compete.
      It is plainly obvious who is the major backer of ALP members,but there will be others we don’t hear about.
      The Coalition is a bit more circumspect about who their backers are but over time and with some study this will be seen.
      But not whithstanding all this we still need govts and so we must choose those who will best represent us.

      50

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal in Oz

        G’day Gmac,
        I’m also feeling a bit cynical, so wonder if perhaps your last sentence should be rephrased to “…so we must try to choose those who will least badly rresent us.” ???
        Cheers
        Dave B

        30

  • #
    David S

    My understanding is that rather than admit that the whole thing is a hoax they would rather make binding agreements to do nothing and interpret this as action. With the Chinese having agreed to help climate change by doing nothing till 2030 the actions by everyone else becomes futile. That being the case everyone is starting to realise that the most important thing is to sound like something is being done even if nothing is being done.
    Hopefully the end of the scam is near.

    210

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Have you been reading my mail?

      For months now, I have been saying that Paris will produce a binding agreement to do nothing except have another meeting in ? number of years, but next time somewhere warm.

      I would not be surprised if Fiji puts their hand up for it … seriously.

      60

      • #
        tom0mason

        Rereke Whakaaro,

        I think Pine Gap, near Alice Springs would be an excellent place for a UN-IPCC meeting place after Paris.

        30

        • #
          James Bradley

          It’s easy enough for them to find just head south from from Darwin on the Stuart Highway and take the first turn to the right onto Hatt Road.

          10

      • #

        COP 23, the next major meeting after this one in Paris, looks likely to be held in Marrakech, Morocco in November 2016.

        Dave, Steve and Graham will be reviving their 1969 smash hit for the ‘big bash’. (Oh dear, was it really that long ago?)

        Tony.

        10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    For a darker viewpoint perhaps the idea of a low carbon economy is significantly fewer people existing on the planet by 2075?

    It’s easier to enact the green utopian world slower when the population are indoctrinated and compliant, we might hear “sorry global warming was a bit off but global cooling looks real so we have an idea called population change, give us all your money and power so we can save you from yourself, think of the never to exist children!”

    91

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … the idea of a low carbon economy is significantly fewer people existing on the planet …

      It doesn’t seem to work that way. People have less children when there is a reasonable chance of survival, and more children when times are tough. It is a genetics thing.

      40

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Agreed that’s the way it usually plays out I was suggesting the people didn’t have a choice in the matter, with weaker global economies, less wealth, less self sufficiency make s for very vulnerable people as are already existing in many developing or never to develop countries.

        The financial pressure on middle classes has been increasing in recent times and many of the next generation will never see a real job but be offered publically funded tokenistic positions that contribute nothing to growth but will generally keep them busy from not accumulating personal wealth.

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And that is where black markets get formed, at least in the Communist societies, where this experiment has been tried before.

          30

          • #
            Yonniestone

            It’s been suggested that Soviet Russia at it’s peak was financed purely from a thriving black market, when we finally got to see it westernized the rumors appeared true and then some!

            I guess your saying nature finds a way and we are a part of nature, persistent little buggers aren’t we?

            20

  • #
    Robert O

    Perhaps there is a realisation that carbon abatement will not work so lets defer it for a few years, and in the meantime lets talk some more about it to appease the folk and perhaps come up with some non-carbon alternative that actually works. Doesn’t seem to be much on the horizon that will replace Jet A fuel which they need to get to the next talkfest.

    160

  • #
    richard

    In the meantime here is the biggest machine on earth extracting coal in Germany.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRkNK82CxQ

    Average life span in Germany- 80.89 years.
    Average life span in Berlin 79 .8 years

    VS

    Average life span in Shanghai – 80 years
    Average life span in Beijing – 80 years

    Average life span in Rural China – a lot less.

    Going green sure makes a difference.

    90

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    The world will be “Decarboniz: by 2075??? Not if the sceptics are correct and we’ll coming out of a neo Maunder or Dalton Minimum! No body even knows if nuclear power will still be in the mix of providing energy, particulary if thorium has replaced uranium, or solar voltaic cells will be used by many homes and businesses as surely the efficiency of solar voltaic cells will climb. I predict carbon energy will still be around when the world turns colder in 2020!

    101

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    I view this as another chip in the fortress of the Green Blob. Too bad we don’t have Joshua to bring the walls down all at once, but it seems they are coming down one fracture and one brick at a time.

    152

    • #
      King Geo

      Quotating Leonard lane “but it seems they are coming down one fracture and one brick at a time”.

      Hopefully the Green Blob and the “the Great AGW Swindle” will collapse faster than that.

      “AGW is a Religion” which is at total odds with real scientific data and is constructed of lies.

      Will lying pay off in the long run?

      I think not.

      For example remember that Jim Carrey movie “Liar Liar (1997)”. It is packed full of great one liners.

      One in particular reminds me of the “the Great AGW Swindle”.

      Fletcher Reede (played by Carrey) in court states

      “And the truth shall set her free” …………..”and that your honour (referring to the judge) is the ball game”.

      Fletcher Reede wins the case because he can’t lie and can only tell the TRUTH (unlike the AGW Religious Zealots).

      The same applies to the “the Great AGW Swindle” – the “AGW Skeptics” will win in the end because they are telling the TRUTH.

      30

  • #
    Susan Fraser

    The Guardian says it better:

    G7 Leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by the end of the century

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century

    50

  • #

    Maybe Merkel is hoping the others will only notice the energiewende – acres of feeble solar panels at 50+ degrees N – and not the energiewendewende, which involves lots of brown coal. Or maybe in a room of six kidders and one dunce nobody will care.

    110

  • #
    ROM

    .
    Otherwise known amongst the less erudite rustics and campesinos as “Kicking the can down the road”!

    80

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Sixty year target mean nothing. Let’s see what the decarbonization target is for 5 and 10 years from now.

    The industrialized countries’ leaders hope temperatures will start going down in the next 5 years. As do I.

    The only way off this foolishness is another 5 years of either “the pause” or a decline. Only then will the greens and the IPCC followers admit the current narrative is excessive.

    The carbon tax is all about taxes. Let’s see how much of that doesn’t go into general revenue.

    110

    • #
      gnome

      Perhaps a few years of temperature reductions so people can have a reality check, but after that, accelerating warming please.

      80

  • #
    Matty

    German Chancellor Refuses To Answer Inconvenient Climate Questions From Fellow Scientist.
    Last March geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, co-author of the climate science skeptic book “The Neglected Sun“, wrote a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Sadly he never got a reply. –

    You can support Dr. Lüning’s request for answers by clicking “dafür stimmen” -
    See more at:
    http://t.co/kXSKbnzC8H

    50

    • #
      Matty

      Those “dafür stimmen” s are really climbing. From averaging about 1.5 a day since last March to about 60 in the last 12 hours. No doubt generated by despairing Germans suffering under the Energiewende, wondering has their Leader really abandoned common sense and gone mad with her latest calls to decarbonise, all over again.

      30

  • #
    handjive

    Q. How slow can you go to Slow Carbon(sic) to Low?

    > 2007, guardian.com: UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming

    · Scientists say eight years left to avoid worst effects
    · Panel urges governments to act immediately

    The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050.

    > 2010, guardian.com: One transatlantic flight can add as much to your carbon footprint as a typical year’s worth of driving.

    > 2015, guardian.com: Fossil fuel firms and big carbon emitters sponsoring the Paris climate summit in December are “a part of the problem” that delegates will address, but their patronage was unavoidable for financial reasons, senior French climate officials says.

    A: The speed of a glacier melting.

    > 2010, guardian.com:
    Senior members of the UN’s climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

    50

    • #
      ROM

      I figured that somewhere, somebody, some bookie outfit will be taking bets on some or many aspects of global warming / climate change claims so I went looking for n hour or so but so far to no avail.
      Looking at the betting odds for the likelihood of the certain course of events, in politics particularly, taking place in the future seems to be a far better indicator of the potential outcomes than any poll or survey.
      But on the liklihood of the numerous predictions or forecast outcomes during the current period, I can’t find a thing

      As handjive@ #19 is digging around in the archives I thought I would do a bit of that as well.

      Remember the glory days of Global Warming, the unchallengeable consensus of “climate experts” and their running dogs from the ethically and morally challenged Greenpeace, WWF’s, Sierra Clubs and UN’s and etc and etc, all so well versed and so committed to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause before Copenhagen where they were going to sweep all before them and change the seven billions and 190 plus nations of mankind into their own image and into their own version of a Green slavery.

      And then I came upon the following from April 13th 2007 on the Livescience site.
      ———————————

      Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream

      [ quoted variously ]

      Now, an online gambling service is giving the public a chance to do what scientists have been doing among themselves for years. The service, BetUS.com, announced it will give members a chance to wager on various global warming-related issues.

      But scientists warn the odds are designed to part suckers from their cash.

      Pop culture gaming

      BetUS.com spokesman Reed Richards said the company will personally back numerous bets, or “propositions,” posted on the website related to global warming. “It’s part of a campaign we’ve been doing for the past two and a half years called ‘pop culture gaming,’” Richards said. “You can wager on things in the headlines.”

      One bet gives members 1-to-5 odds that scientists will prove global warming exists beyond any scientific doubt by the end of this year. Another gives 100-to-1 odds that polar bears will be extinct by 2010. (A complete list of all the global-warming related bets is listed at the end of this article.)

      Richards said “thousands” of people have already placed money on the company’s global-warming bets, with $10 being the average wager.

      A dozen analysts combed through scientific studies on global warming to create the odds, Richards said.

      “This is where the advantage is to the player,” Richards said in a telephone interview. “Unlike sports, where there are set formulas and statistics and numbers, these are variables that we can’t anticipate.
      &

      For example, one of the bets the website offers is 150-to-1 odds that the oceans will rise six inches on average worldwide by the end of the year. “It’s more like a billion to one,” Schmidt told LiveScience. “Anyone who puts money on that would be an idiot.”

      Another bet for the taking has odds of 100-to-1 that Manhattan will be under water by 2012. “Do they have any idea how high the peak of Manhattan is?” Schmidt said. (The highest natural point in Manhattan is 265 feet above sea level)

      James Annan,[ ie; of Climate Gate infamy ] a climate scientist at the Frontier Research Center for Global Change in Japan, said many of the bets are “silly” and mostly of the “Elvis will be found alive and living on the Moon” type.

      However, there is one bet Annan said he might consider. BetUS.com is offering odds of 300-to-1 that humans will find a way to reverse global warming so efficiently that global freezing becomes a factor by 2020.

      “This is really more technological and political speculation than climate science,” Annan said. For example, scientists could achieve this chilling effect by injecting enough sun-blocking dust into the atmosphere or placing a large sunshade in space.

      “300-to-1 might make this worth considering, I suppose,” Annan said.
      &
      [ note that this is as of April 2007 ]

      Global Warming Related Bets Offered by BetUS.com (see notes below regarding * and #):

      It’s proven that global warming exists beyond any scientific doubt before Dec. 31, 2007 Yes – 1/5* #

      It’s proven that humans caused global warming beyond any scientific doubt before Dec. 31, 2007 Yes – 2/1*#

      The ocean will rise six inches by the end of the year (worldwide as an average) Yes – 150/1

      Polar Bears will become extinct by 2010 Yes – 100/1

      A car that runs solely on water will hit the market by 2008 (must be a stock car produced for mass consumption) Yes – 150/1

      Antarctica will become livable for humans by 2015 (must be able to sustain crops in order for wager to win) Yes – 500/1

      Humans will find a way to reverse global warming so efficiently that global freezing becomes a factor by 2020 Yes – 300/1

      Manhattan will be under water before 12/31/11 Yes – 100/1

      Florida will be under water before 12/31/11 Yes – 10/1

      Cape Cod is submerged by 2015 Yes – 150/1

      Cape Hatteras is submerged by 2015 Yes – 300/1

      Cape Canaveral is submerged by 2015 Yes – 100/1

      Cape Henry is submerged by 2015 Yes – 200/1

      Cape May is submerged by 2015 Yes – 200/1

      [ / ]
      —————–

      Ah! The good old days when CAGW was all so cut and dried and so definite that it didn’t even need any scientific evidence to back all those prophesies and predictions of imminent disaster and innumerable catastrophes about to overtake the planet unless “WE DID SOMETHING”
      Disasters and climate catastrophes that were predicted by those infallible and unbelievably prescient climate models.
      Disasters that were inevitable unless mankind made obeisance before the High Priests trained and self promoted as being very knowledgeable in the obscure crafts of Climate Science and who were the chief prognosticators for the various denominations of the Great Global Warming Cult such as HADCRU. GISS, NOAA and etc.

      Eight years on and another Final Climate Conference where the world will agree to “decarbonise”, another big argument over the adjustments to data to ensure that global warming is actually happening, another El Nino that will maybe get those global temperatures to rise a bit, another Arctic and Antarctic ice melt that isn’t , well not yet, more and more exposures of nefariously bad climate science.

      Ah for the glory days when it was all so sure, so cut and dried, so cut and dried in fact that one could bet on the veracity and accuracy of the climate scientists prophesies and predictions and make oneself some sure money on the side.

      FW’s all of them [ sarc/ ]

      50

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I nearly crashed my car, when the beebyanka told me, from the Oceania telescreen, that the G7 had ordained that a fossil-fuel-free-future (try saying that, after a few steins, Obama) was essential, based on “renewables” and nuclear. Presumably, Angela Merkel was standing nearby, trying to keep a straight face, after previously

    (a) having to acknowledge, if only implicitly, that Germany’s renewables campaign had been a fiasco;
    (b) having, in a blind panic, abolished Germany’s nuclear generation programme after Fukushima*, despite Germany’s being one of the most tectonically stable places on Earth and despite the fact that none of the loss of life at Fukushima was due to the presence of the nuclear power station there;
    (c) having, after Fukushima, suddenly given the green light to a strikingly large expansion of Germany’s coal-based generation (you’d almost think that the Germans had had a contingency plan for this, all along, and had been desperate for an excuse).

    Quite how Merkel thinks she can square that circle defeats me.

    *Atomkraft – Nein Danke became government policy within about fifteen minutes.

    140

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      Owen, How Merkel thinks is beyond everybody. First she embraces renewables then she waves good bye to much of her industry but instead of repairing the self inflicted damage she encourages others to join her in her march to destruction. We are led by idiots.

      90

      • #
        Dannz

        How Merkel thinks? Perhaps this will help.

        Although born in Hamburg she grew up and was educated in East Germany. Her actions fit the profile of a committed socialist following the agenda of weakening the West. She is also a fluent Russian speaker. Not exactly a champion of capitalism.

        90

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    Great news. G7, in an around about, and self deprecating way are promising to supply Africa with reliable, renewable nuclear energy. I think this is truly magnanimous offer from the magnificent seven. The only problem I see is that none of the leaders of this G7 will be alive by 2075 and the countries they represent may not even exist then if history is a reliable predictor of the future.

    It is obvious that our world leaders are impractical and delusional fools.

    100

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      impractical and delusional fools

      Which is a less succinct way of saying Socialists.

      70

  • #
    Dan

    Most plants need CO2 levels above 180 to 220 ppm to survive and somewhere over 1000 ppm to grow well. Lowering CO2 is not about climate, it is about eliminating our food supply. Food supply fails at 220 and stops at 180 ppm
    The survival of life on this plant is in the hands of our leaders so here they are agreeing to head blindly for extinction.
    In geological terms CO2 is not just low, but it is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It hasn’t neen so low for 300 million years. The planet had a massive extinction then and we are trying to cause another now.

    191

  • #
    William

    Hang about everyone, I am on board with this decision by the G7. In fact I will make it personal and vow to no longer be using fossil fuels by the end of this century.

    Right, now lets get on with life.

    180

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Me too William. By 2100, I pledge to not be using any sort of fossil fuels.

      60

      • #
        William

        Thanks for the solidarity Leonard, I of course speak also for my wife. I can’t speak for my daughter as she will only be 97 then and may still demand the use of carbon based fuels to keep warm in winter!

        20

  • #
    Dan

    Typo line 4 and 6. For “plant” read “planet”. For “neen” read “been”Sorry!

    Most plants need CO2 levels above 180 to 220 ppm to survive and somewhere over 1000 ppm to grow well. Lowering CO2 is not about climate, it is about eliminating our food supply. Food supply fails at 220 and stops at 180 ppm
    The survival of life on this planet is in the hands of our leaders so here they are agreeing to head blindly for extinction.
    In geological terms CO2 is not just low, but it is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It hasn’t been so low for 300 million years. The planet had a massive extinction then and we are trying to cause another now.

    61

  • #
    Ruairi

    In serving their U.N. master,
    Politicians agree to work faster,
    To do all that they can,
    With their climate-change plan.
    Which must fail as a total disaster.

    161

  • #
    TdeF

    You have to love that the world’s biggest emitter of CO2, China does nothing and is applauded for it.

    It is reported that the Chinese government have promised that their CO2 output will peak in 2030. Whoopee! So the Chinese government have pledged to do absolutely nothing until 2030 at which point their output will peak naturally? What a win for the UN and the Obama government. The world can breathe easily with this strong lead from China on Climate.

    China’s output growth each year exceeds Australia’s entire output, but it is our PM who is reluctant and openly criticized for not reducing CO2 by more?

    It is clear, as China’s GDP passed Japan and now chases the US GDP as world economic leader that at the UN, China is a ‘developing’ country and needs do nothing. Poor China receives carbon credits for building hydro it was building anyway.

    So ‘Decarbonization’ applies only to the US, EU, Australia and Canada. They alone will be taxed by the UN and surrender their sovereign right of taxation. No one else need do anything. Forget logic and science and any evidence of a problem with the climates of the world, this does not even make sense arithmetically. That Merkel and Hollande are party to this insanity is evidence of the importance of the Communist Green lobby.

    As an amazing aside, with great hubris they also criticize Russia’s alleged militancy with apparently no memory of 1812 or 1941. Politics is all about seeming, not reality. Climate Politics is the craziest in history since the Crimean war when the invasion of the Russian Crimea was apparently about a dodgy second key to the gates of Jerusalem.

    In the climate wars, only the cold and old die as Greens push up electricity prices in the West and kill manufacturing. Politicians pose on the world stage with their concerns about humanity and the climate, as if they actually cared. It was the extreme cold which stopped Napoleon and Hitler.

    141

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      “It was the extreme cold which stopped Napoleon and Hitler.”

      Yeah, but the French and the Germans went to the cold. In this case, the cold will be coming to all of us.

      100

    • #
      tom0mason

      TdeF

      Just a little quibble with your opening sentence –

      “You have to love that the world’s biggest emitter of CO2, China does nothing and is applauded for it.”

      As the largest emitter of anthropogenic or man-made CO2 I have no argument, but as the world’s biggest emitter I believe you’ll find any tropical rain forests vent more, as does all that ocean.

      Otherwise I’m 100% with you on what you said.

      20

  • #

    The conversation has an article about the G7 and the future of fossil fuels. Actually G7 had nothing much to do with this title except as a convenient scaffold for the essay.

    https://theconversation.com/good-luck-g7-leaders-we-wont-be-off-fossil-fuels-by-2100-43025

    31

  • #
    Neville

    But how would you even begin to calculate the cost of trying to abandon fossil fuels for clueless renewables like Solar and Wind? YUK.
    It’s probably incalculable, but it would probably be many hundreds of trillions of dollars by 2100 and just think of the cost to cancer research and other health problems, plus education or all types of infrastructure like roads, dams, housing etc, etc.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Also we must not forget that those 100s of trillions dollars would achieve exactly zero change to temp or co2 levels for thousands of years. That’s according to research from the extremist’s camp and scientists like Trenberth and Solomons and scientific institutes like the RS and NAS.

    80

  • #

    Does anyone else see anything incongruous in this statement from Joanne’s text where the G7 Leaders say this: (my bolding)

    The leaders invited other countries to join them in their drive, saying they would accelerate access to renewable energy in Africa and intensify their support for vulnerable countries’ own efforts to manage climate change.

    Pretend for a minute you are an African Dictator, sorry, a Leader of an African Country. For decades you struggled to rid your Country of the yoke of oppression from the European Colonialists.

    Now, those idiots are still telling you what they will do for your Country.

    As we all know, (I’ve told you often enough) the UN wants Developed Countries to stump up cash raised from the introduction of an ETS so the money can be sent to the the UNFCCC for distribution to these non developed Countries so they can mitigate Global Warming in their Countries as they seek to industrialise out of the dark ages where they currently reside.

    So, not only will they be subservient to the UN, but the Countries stumping up the money still want to tell them what to spend it on.

    How grossly unfair. How’s an African Dictator, sorry, a Leader of an African sovereign Country supposed to get rich if he can’t graft something any more. (do I really need to add /sarc for this last paragraph?)

    Tony.

    190

    • #
      toorightmate

      Tony,
      For some light relief, have a look at the Swansea Lagoon tidal power scheme on Bish’s blog.
      It’s a pearler and shows that the lunatics are still at large.

      70

  • #
    toorightmate

    In 2015 how can you have a G7 (or G6 or G8 or G9) without China and India being members?

    I wonder how long Russia will have to spend in the naughty corner. The big “gas tap” may have a bearing on that.

    60

  • #
    handjive

    What Do Psychologists Have to Say About Climate Change?

    “My problem with the G7’s new goal is the same as it is with any supranational organisation’s pronouncement: where is your mandate?

    A simple thought experiment suffices: would the UN or the EU, or for that matter, organisations like The World Economic Forum, World Bank and NGOs be any smaller, were climate change never to have presented itself?

    I think not. And yet this process of institution-building goes on, largely unchallenged, or even unquestioned. I find that odd.

    In fact, if a cabal of evil psychologists had gathered in a secret undersea base to concoct a crisis humanity would be hopelessly ill-equipped to address, they couldn’t have done better than climate change. ”

    via climate-resistance.org

    70

  • #
    michael hart

    I guess it’s aimed towards a headline “historic agreement” that amounts to the individual countries all agreeing to ‘do what is necessary in due course’. Those countries that can get away with this tripe politically will make the case for ever more foolish domestic regulations when they get home. And may yet make the situation worse before it gets better.

    The other nations, i.e. most of the world, will go home and do nothing or less. Quite right too.
    ————————
    O/T but

    The Group of Seven’s energy pledge capped a successful summit for host Angela Merkel, who revived her credentials as a “climate chancellor” and strengthened Germany’s friendship with the United States at the meeting in a Bavarian resort.

    lol. Presumably Obama also sent her a new NSA-approved cell phone. :)

    80

  • #
    Matty

    Most of these Leaders must know it is doomed to failure, and if it wasn’t would Harper ever have signed up ?
    Is it the UN that’s pulling their strings and wangling for an ‘agreement ‘ at all costs, however hollow it might be. Are they all happy to go along with this facade, to see how much money the UN can lever from all of us.
    Who invited these two unelected Freeloaders to Dinner ?
    http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2015/06/06/102738888-GettyImages-480336019.530×298.jpg?v=1433646495

    30

    • #
      Eddie

      More schnozzles in the trough than we thought we were paying for at that one.
      I suppose the two Eurocrats could share Putin’s in his absence.

      What concerns me most is that these two, Barroso & Babyface are quietly sitting in the background steering the whole show.

      30

  • #
    handjive

    Forget the G7 summit – Bilderberg is where the big guns go

    As one summit closes, another opens.

    Thursday sees the start of the influential Bilderberg policy conference, which this year is being held in Austria, just 16 miles south of the G7 summit, and in a similarly inaccessible luxury alpine resort.

    The participant list for the conference has just been released by the organisation, and some big names leap off the page.

    Apart from making holiday jets, Airbus is also one of the world’s biggest arms manufacturers, and the 2015 conference agenda has a distinct whiff of war.

    For now, the story is: Bilderberg 2015 has an extremely high-powered participant list, featuring a large number of senior politicians and public figures. With participants this powerful, and an agenda containing this many hot topics, the Telfs policy conference is sure to be covered in depth by the world’s press. And by “sure to be”, I mean probably won’t be. For reasons that, as ever, escape me.

    guardian.com

    70

  • #
    pat

    a laugh from G7 results today:

    G7 climate pledge: only 84 years, 364 days to go

    that was posted by journalist Kyle Bakx, who has an article on CBC today – “The G7 and its 85–year carbon pledge” – which begins:

    “The G7 gives itself a lifetime to fulfil its climate change promise…If you thought it was hard to keep up your New Year’s resolution, try keeping an 85-year pledge…”

    subscription required for following:

    9 June: Breaking Views: Olaf Storbeck: Coal Contradictions
    Prodded by the German chancellor, the big rich nations’ leaders have pledged to get rid of all fossil fuels by 2100. But at home, her party has joined the unions in fighting a crackdown on heavily polluting lignite. Merkel risks undermining her credibility – and the G7 deal…
    http://www.breakingviews.com/g7-carbon-coup-worsens-merkel%E2%80%99s-domestic-coal-woes/21202584.article

    note Butler’s “Green” finale***

    24 May: Financial Times Blog: Nick Butler: The burning issue of German coal
    Germany has led the EU in adopting “green” policies, including the promotion and subsidy of renewables. Energy consumers, including industry, have tolerated ever-rising energy costs. Electricity in Germany costs over 90 per cent more than in the US. The country has begun the process of closing its nuclear power stations — the last will be closed in 2022, although a vexed question remains over how the decommissioning will be paid for…
    Emissions have risen over the last three years. Renewables, led by solar and wind, have grown, but 44 per cent of German electricity is still produced from coal, and in particular from lignite or brown coal — one of the most carbon-intensive forms of primary energy. Coal-fired power plants account for a third of all emissions. The arbitrary decision to close the country’s nuclear sector after Japan’s Fukushima disaster opens the door to an increase in coal consumption. Between 2011 and 2015, Germany will have more than 10GW of new coal-fired capacity, much of it using local lignite…
    As if that were not enough, the country has led the way in blocking the testing of carbon capture and storage — the only known means of limiting emissions when coal (or other hydrocarbons) is burnt. German politicians have also noticeably failed to support the imposition of an effective carbon price…
    The government is applying US-style regulatory tactics to reduce emissions from coal-powered plants by setting ever higher standards…
    The question is whether the plan will go through or if Mr Gabriel, whose SPD party depends on trade union support, will back down. The opposition to the policies is being led by the utilities — which are finding it ever harder to justify continued investment in the sector — with strong support from the work force particularly in regions such as North Rhine Westphalia and Saxony, where the coal-fired plants are concentrated. Three weeks ago, 13,500 people marched through Berlin in defence of brown coal, claiming that 100,000 jobs were at risk — a figure Mr Gabriel denies. The opposition has some support within Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party, not least from those who emphasise the cost of the energy transition — the Energiewende — €134bn on some recent estimates.
    ***As yet, however, no serious politician has been bold enough to challenge the core green agenda…
    ***The argument confirms the view that one of the key fault lines of European politics is the green agenda…
    The green cause goes beyond any normal definition of rationality — these are issues of faith and you either believe or you don’t…
    ***On the other hand, if the trade unions and the utilities win we may be seeing the turning point — the moment at which the green agenda reaches the limits of the possible in terms of the sacrifices which electorates are prepared to make.
    http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/05/24/the-burning-issue-of-german-coal/

    if the public were well informed about the science & the real costs, they’d have told the Greens/NGOs where to go a long time ago.

    61

  • #
    pat

    don’t back down:

    9 June: RTCC: Megan Darby: China, India reject calls for tougher climate goal at UN talks
    BONN: Development needs cited by emerging superpowers as science and geopolitics clash at Bonn negotiations
    China, India and Saudi Arabia are calling for discussions on a tighter global warming goal to be shelved, to the dismay of countries vulnerable to future climate impacts…
    ***For Delhi, increased coal use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions is part of the plan to lift citizens out of poverty and connect millions to the national grid…
    “The concern of the developing nations is the rich nations will eat all the carbon cake and there will be none of it left for them,” said Yvo de Boer, head of the Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute.
    The G7 statement is at the more tentative end of a spectrum of possible long term emissions goals up for inclusion in a Paris deal…
    ***“I am always a bit sceptical when people formulate goals for when we are all dead,” said de Boer, who headed the UN climate talks from 2006-2010…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/10/china-india-reject-calls-for-tougher-climate-goal-at-un-talks/

    u mean it’s not just rhetoric, asks Japan!

    9 June: RTCC: Ed King: Japan’s G7 pledge at odds with domestic climate goals
    Despite signing up to raft of carbon cutting plans, Tokyo lacks a domestic strategy to address climate challenge, say analysts
    Japan is well off course to meeting the pledge it made with fellow G7 countries to target a low carbon energy system by 2050, according to an analysis of its climate goals…
    But based on current policies the country will only draw around 42-45% of its energy from low carbon sources by 2030, says the team at Climate Action Tracker…
    According to the AP news agency, around 40 coal power plants are planned or being built in Japan, often funded directly through the government.
    The country also stands accused of using funds marked as climate finance to retrofit and build new coal power plants.
    In the past year the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has been linked with coal plants in Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar.
    Research from the Oil Change International NGO suggests Japan spent US$20 billion from 2007-2014 on overseas coal plants and mines.
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/09/japans-g7-pledge-at-odds-with-climate-goals/

    61

  • #
    pat

    in the middle of Megan Darby’s RTCC piece –

    “China, India reject calls for tougher climate goal at UN talks”

    RTCC inserts a link to their earlier piece:

    “Report: France ready to step in if climate talks stall, says Tubiana”

    is that a threat, France?

    61

    • #
      Matty

      Remember the days of Mitterand & the Grand gesture ?
      ( I remember of them, but not any of them. Wasn’t one visiting (was it?) Iran).

      Well I’m sure Hollande sees it as his role, as host to have a Grand Gesture or two waiting up his sleeve or hiding in the wings.

      30

  • #
    pat

    LOL.

    9 June: RTCC: Ed King: Multinationals throw weight behind UN climate deal
    Economic prosperity could be placed at risk unless countries agree ambitious carbon cutting pact, say business leaders.
    BT, Coke, Mars and IKEA are among a coalition of businesses calling for governments to agree a strong global climate change pact in Paris later this year.In a letter addressed to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, the companies say ***the agreement must limit warming to 2C above pre industrial levels…
    Business leaders appear to be taking a heightened interest in a planned UN climate deal…
    In the past few weeks Axa Insurance announced it was ditching €500 million of coal assets before 2016, and IKEA released plans for $1 billion of green investments around the world.
    Leading oil majors Shell, BP and Total have also said they want a seat at the Paris talks, writing to the UN and offering help in developing a global price on carbon…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/10/multinationals-throw-weight-behind-un-climate-deal/

    note ***Sky listed below:

    10 June: Reuters: Nina Chestney: British companies call for government action on climate change
    Eighty British businesses urged the government on Wednesday to take decisive action to fight climate change and build a low-carbon economy in a letter to Prime Minster David Cameron.
    The companies called for a global climate deal this year which limits the world temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. On a domestic level, they urged the government to set an ambitious fifth carbon budget from 2028-2032 – to set targets for CO2 emissions cuts – and to bring in clearer long-term policies that encourage investment in low-carbon energy. They did not specify what policies they wanted to be introduced…
    Signatories include energy companies E.ON, SSE and Scottish Power; retailers John Lewis Partnership, Tesco and Marks & Spencer; telecoms company BT; media group ***Sky; drinks makers Diageo and Coca-Cola and construction firms Saint-Gobain and Willmott Dixon…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/09/uk-britain-climatechange-idUKKBN0OP2KS20150609

    51

  • #
    pat

    not found as yet on The Independent website. all “big six energy providers” signed! Unilever, of course.

    10 June: Press Reader: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Big business calls on Government to combat climate change
    Eighty of the UK’s biggest companies – including BT, Tesco, John Lewis and ***big six energy providers SSE and E.on – have called on David Cameron to take decisive action to combat climate change…
    Other signatories include Marks & Spencer, consumer products giant Unilever, B&Q owner Kingfisher and Mitsubishi…
    WWF- UK is leading the calls for the Prime Minister to become greener. “British business is ready to step up. From construction and energy to retail, the best British enterprises known that green growth is the future.
    “They take on board that it’s no longer credible to base a sustainable economy on fossil fuels, so the Government should put us on track for a low- carbon world,” said WWF-UK chief executive David Nussbaum…
    http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

    btw RTCC mentioned Coke is a signatory:

    Coca-Cola: Our partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
    The Coca Cola Company has expanded its global partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), nearly a decade on from when we first started working together…
    http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/packages/sustainability/our-partnership-with-the-world-wildlife-fund/

    51

  • #
    pat

    10 June: WWF UK: Top British firms to PM: Step up climate change fight and build green economy
    Establish a long-term framework for investment in the low-carbon economy, giving industry much-needed clarity over what is expected in terms of low-carbon development, and boost the confidence of green ***investors…
    Julia Groves, chief executive of Trillion Fund, a renewable energy crowdfunding platform, said:
    “Protecting the pound in people’s pockets is not at odds with supporting low carbon energy generation. Peer-to-peer lending and the maturity of energy generation technologies have come together to create an exciting opportunity for ordinary people looking for a decent return and potentially, to offer cheaper bills for locals too. Regular lenders and investors can sit alongside the Green Investment Bank, ***pension funds, private equity and banks as direct stakeholders in a clean future, and with the right support, this model can drive competition in energy and in ***finance, for people, planet and profit.”
    The signatories to the letter are:
    Abundance; ACE; ADBA; ADE; Akzo Nobel; Aldersgate Group; Alpro; Aquamarine Power; Arup; Aviva; Baxi; Ben & Jerry’s; Bouygues; British Land; BT;BuroHappold; CISCO; Coca Cola GB; Coca Cola Enterprises; Daikin; Delta Energy & Environment; Diageo; Dong Energy; Eama; Ecuity; Eon; First Utility; Good Energy; Hammerson; IKEA; Infinergy; Infinis; Innocent; Instagroup; Interface; John Lewis Partnership; Johnson and Starley; Johnson Matthey; KeepMoat; Kensa Group; Kingfisher; Kinnarps; KiwiPower; Knauf Insulation; Mainstream Renewable Power; Mark Group; Marks & Spencer; MARS; Mitsubishi Electric; National Grid; NIA; Ovo; REA; RELX Group; REG; Renewable UK; RES; Rockwool; Scotland’s 2020 Climate Group; Scottish Renewables; SEA; ***Sky; Sodexo; Solstice; SSE; Saint-Gobain; STA; Tesco; Thames Water; Trillion Fund; Triodos Bank; UK Power Reserve; UKGBC; Unilever; Vattenfall; Viridian Solar; Wessex Water; Willmott Dixon; Worcester Bosch; WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff.
    http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?unewsid=7605

    41

  • #
    pat

    because they care:

    Trillion Fund: Our Board
    JULIA GROVES: Chief Executive
    Julia is an experienced founder and director of early-stage digital and renewable energy businesses. She joined Trillion Fund from Engensa, a leading UK domestic solar installer. Prior to Engensa, Julia spent five years building a wind turbine business (www.quietrevolution.co.uk), which designed and built turbines for the Olympic Park…
    THERESA BURTON: Deputy CEO and Chief Information Officer
    Before co-founding and setting up Buzzbnk in 2009 with Michael Norton, Theresa spent 16 years as a senior manger in the private sector, delivering global e-business, internet and enterprise business solutions for two large international corporations, the most recent with Swiss Re…
    TOM HILL-NORTON: Non-executive Director
    Tom is CFO of Belltown Power, a UK renewable energy power company. He has been building and managing renewable energy projects in the UK and in emerging markets since the end of 2006. Most recently he has raised and invested a series of renewable energy EIS funds in the UK for Guinness Asset Management and worked with the energy investment team at Actis on renewable energy investments in emerging markets. Before focusing on renewable energy, Tom spent four years in corporate finance (with JP Morgan, Flemings and Fredericks Michael in New York, London and Lima) and two years in strategy consultancy with the Boston Consulting Group in London…
    DR MICHAEL STEIN: Non-executive Director
    A meeting with James Lovelock, the pioneering environmentalist, in 2009 inspired Michael to learn about climate change. Michael conceived of Trillion Fund as a way for everyone to invest in renewable energy projects…
    OUR ADVISERS: includes
    PHILIpP VON HABSBURG LOTHRINgen
    Philipp has worked in the finance industry for close to 30 years. He is founder and partner of Trinity Capital LLP, a capital raising firm focused on the alternative investment industry. Previously he was the CEO of EIM (United Kingdom) Ltd., part of the EIM Group, one of the oldest fund-of-hedge fund groups for almost 15 years…Before that he was working in investment banking for Swiss Bank Corporation and Carnegie. He acts as a special advisor for the Prince of Wales’s International Sustainability Unit…
    https://www.trillionfund.com/StaticPages/OurBoard.aspx

    Wikipedia: Trillion Fund
    It was founded in 2011 by Dr. Michael Stein and Phillip Riches. The platform was launched in response to warnings given by the United Nations that it will take US$1 trillion of investment annually to prevent the world from warming by more than 2 degrees.
    Trillion is privately owned. Vivienne Westwood became a majority stakeholder in March 2013, and Albion London took a stake in April 2014. Mark Stevenson has a role in the advisory board of Trillon Fund…
    With the merger of buzzbnk the site has 14,000 members…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_Fund

    41

  • #
    pat

    for the record:

    9 June: Eco-Business: India insists on draft agreement for pre-2020 climate actions at Bonn
    Speaking on behalf of the G77+China, Mali gave details of the sections which would be included in its draft pre-2020 proposal:
    A preambular section that reflects the principles of the convention and the urgency for enhancing pre-2020 ambition

    *The launch of a working group to accelerate pre-2020 action and a detailed work programme
    *Evaluation of the current Monitoring Review and *Verification process for actions being taken
    *Voluntary multilateral cooperation and support from other institutions
    *Concrete action to enhance mitigation ambition
    *Technical expert process on adaptation that will identify specific activities to be undertaken
    *Establishing a clear mandate for high-level engagement

    In a major blow to expectations of enhanced pre-2020 action from developed countries, the EU categorically stated that it will not revisit any targets for the pre-2020 period…
    India retorted and pushed for all submissions of parties on the pre-2020 work plan to be compiled into a draft “negotiating text”, similar to the Geneva text that focused on post-2020 commitments. India also pointed out that since there were only a few issues to focus on in the pre-2020 period, it would lead to only an eight-to-10-page draft text and, hence, would not necessarily be an “arduous and long-drawn-out” process.
    http://www.eco-business.com/news/india-insists-on-draft-agreement-for-pre-2020-climate-actions-at-bonn/

    51

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T but congratulations to Jo and co-authors

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/oh-mann-thats-gotta-hurt/

    101

    • #
      el gordo

      I’ll second that, congratulations Jo.

      While we are on the subject of books, the CSIRO comes to its senses.

      “…………Stefan Hajkowicz, the principal scientist working on strategy and foresight at the CSIRO, has written a book Global Megatrends: Seven Patterns of Change Shaping Our Future identifying trends that have the potential to disrupt society as we know it……….”

      “The world doesn’t have a problem of food scarcity. But it does have problem about food distribution.The good news is that the world does have vast energy resources. A recent study found the total non-renewable energy resources (coal, uranium, natural gas and oil combined) will last the world another 574 years.”

      http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/the-seven-global-megatrends-that-could-change-our-future/story-fnu2pycd-1227391726908

      70

  • #
    pat

    ***the CAGW-infested MSM and its faux concern for the poor is beyond sickening.
    that applies to ABC/Fairfax, as much as it does to The Guardian.
    i won’t even go into their complete lack of concern for sub-Saharan African countries – which are predicted to have a population of 1.5 billion people by 2050 – having expensive & useless renewables forced on them by the likes of Siemens, General Electric, etc. in the name of CAGW:

    9 June: Guardian: Dawn Foster: Too poor to die: how funeral poverty is surging in the UK
    Funeral costs have risen 80% in a decade, leaving the poorest and most vulnerable unable to bury their dead
    If you’re on a low income, the cost of a sudden death is far beyond your modest means, and life insurance can seem like an unnecessary luxury when you’re struggling to ***heat your home and feed your children…
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/poor-die-funeral-poverty-costs-uk

    reality:

    9 June: Town Hall: Oren Cass: The Carbon Tax Charade
    (Oren Cass is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, focusing on energy, the environment, and anti-poverty policy)
    How do companies that produce fossil fuels benefit from a tax on fossil fuels? First, they don’t end up paying it. Most economists expect nearly the entire cost increase to be passed directly on to consumers through higher prices…
    For the rest of society, perhaps the worst problem with a carbon tax is that it is extraordinarily regressive.
    Because poorer households spend a much greater share of their income on energy than do wealthier households, the price increases created by a tax eat up a greater share as well. Economists from the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute found that a $15-per-ton carbon tax would cost the bottom 10 percent of households more than 3.5 percent of their income, and most taxes under consideration are two to three times higher. That’s the equivalent of a new income tax of 10 percent for the lowest-income households and 2 percent for the highest-income ones…
    The entire exercise is supposed to be in service of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions and averting climate catastrophe. But the carbon-tax proposals under discussion cannot achieve their emissions-reduction targets, let alone make a noticeable dent in global emissions…
    http://townhall.com/columnists/orencass/2015/06/09/the-carbon-tax-charade-n2010184

    the CAGW-pushing MSM will, hopefully, die in shame.

    70

  • #
    Wally

    Gee it did not sound like this when announced on ABC News.

    40

  • #
    cedarhill

    Why not just end the entire issue be agreeing to limit CO2 to 50 ppm by the year 3016?
    Then we can all go back to using electricity, making fertilizers, driving SUV’s and breathe (easier) since we’ve solved the problem and targeted the date.
    We’ll even give the alarmist 0.001% of each government’s tax revenue each year to go do whatever.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    I do not know why people think appeasement is a good tactic. So many scientists say they agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So? What isn’t? H2O is a greenhouse gas. What they effectively concede is that man is increasing CO2, which is not true. It is in fact not possible, but that is physical chemistry. Then they concede that man is warming the planet, also not true. Like Lomborg, they then argue that the problem is not the most pressing and we all know how acceptable an opinion that is.

    Why not say
    The CO2 increase is natural and nothing to do with fossil fuel
    It can be proven that there is less than 2% fossil CO2 in the air (No C14)
    CO2 does not heat the planet anyway, as is now self evident.
    Even the alleged warming is trivial and far less than previously observed.
    Historically warming has been a great thing for everyone
    No one drowns from summer to winter, a change of 40C to 80C, so what is the problem?
    The reefs, polar bears, yellow bellied parrots are fine and if they are not, that is natural selection which never stops.
    It has all happened before, many times.
    Man is not in charge of the planet. That is a media ego trip.
    Taxes fix nothing but make merchant bankers rich along with their economic advisers.
    Windmills are useless.
    The UN has no business in the weather. It was about world peace, once upon a time. How on earth did the UN get into the weather?

    Close the IPCC. It is the problem, not the weather. Still world leaders parade around mouthing nonsense while looking after the most important people on the planet, themselves.

    80

  • #
    Bite Back

    It is all about Paris now — what matters is legal force (and lots of money).

    The G7 stopped short of agreeing any immediate collective targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the Europeans had pressed their partners in the club to embrace. But they said a U.N. climate conference later this year should reach a deal with legal force, including through binding rules, to combat climate change.

    “We commit to doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term, including developing and deploying innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors by 2050,” the communique read.

    And by their 2050 (or is it still 2100?) deadline it will be so blindingly obvious that the climate isn’t changing in accordance with predictions that those alive at that time will want to know how they ever got hooked up with a United Nations so dumb as to have been killing off civilization with heavy handed regulations. And lest we forget, as Jo pointed out, lots of money. It’s especially important to spend lots of money. If you pile enough money on top of a problem the sheer weight of the money will eventually crush the problem to death and suddenly as if by magic, it’s gone, dead and buried forever.

    Of course, no problem has ever been solved that way except in the record books of governments and their bureaucrats where bean counting is what’s important. In the real world it’s quite a different story. I mean, after all, down on side street USA, UK, Australia or anywhere else where the real movers of civilization work and toil away every day (you and me) to produce the wealth our civilization enjoys and depends on, it just looks like their hard earned wealth is going down the drain.

    G7 be hanged for the horse thieves they are and the UN along with them. We are mortgaging the future to buy the biggest pig in a poke ever conceived. I have never seen or heard a curse strong enough to fit what’s happening.

    BB

    60

    • #
      Eddie

      No, they’ll still be ‘adjusting’ the temperature record even then, by which time a new post modern measure of temperature will have been introduced which automatically decays from the time of reading, a bit like radio carbon.

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Can anyone tell me how the UN’s mandate got changed from preventing war between nations to ruling the world?

    Just thought this would be a good time to ask. :-(

    90

    • #
      Eddie

      Bog down war making in bureaucracy or at least if there’s going to be a war make sure it’s Civil.

      30

  • #
    andersm0

    This announcement is like popping a soother in a squalling baby’s mouth.

    50

  • #
    William Astley

    The idiotic cult of CAGW supporters/fanatics have not done a basic back of the envelope calculation of the costs to reach their idiotic CO2 emission promises and have not done an engineering feasibility test regardless of costs there are other limitations) to reduce anthropogenic CO2 by 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%.

    What is being discussed/promised is lunacy, ridiculous, not possible.

    It is pathetic (there is a lack of knowledge, honor, honesty, courage, vision, and so on forth of those who push CAGW and the green scams) that this madness has gone on this long, has proceeded to this point.

    Engineering End of the Road
    The idiotic CAGW politicians are promising CO2 emission reductions that are not possible (with green scams) due to engineering limitations. Energy storage is required to reduce CO2 emissions below around 20% using solar and wind. Germany has reach the engineering limit of wind and solar. Germany has installed wind and solar that is 100% of base German power load for the peak nameplate rating of the wind and solar installation. The problem is German wind and solar installation runs at less than 20% average efficiency, German wind and solar total power output varies from 100% to close to zero. Germany has 100% natural gas/coal back-up to supply the 80% of power when the wind does not blow and the sun is not shining. Germany needs nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions further.

    German CO2 ‘savings’ do not include the energy input required to build, install, maintain, and replace wind and solar systems and does not include the energy loss to use single cycle natural gas turbines that can be turned on/off/on/off/on/off as compared to 20% more efficient combined cycle (produce steam from the waste heat from the first pass turbines) natural gas power plants that take 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off multiple times per day in respond to changes in wind speed. Power output of a wind turbine is at the cube of wind speed.

    Deficit End of the Road
    Specific developed and developing countries have run out of deficit money to spend on everything and hence have no free money to spend on green scams.
    The US calls the weird deficit mania kicking the can down the road. More money is spent by the government and promised by the government and no money is saved for future obligations pensions, and huge trade deficits are run. The crazy party ends when foreigners all try to convert US dollars to any other currency.

    What happens at the end of the road is forced cuts on health care, military, education, government salaries, social security, and so on. (Japan, France, US, Spain, UK, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and so on are following the same path.)

    When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence
    http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Runs-Out-Affluence/dp/0300205236

    Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs

    The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
    Capacity without control The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).

    Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (William: Note that the Germans are receiving 25% of their electrical power from green scams, the actual carbon reduction is only 15% to 25% due to requirement to turn on/off/on/off single cycle natural gas power plants rather than to run combine cycle more efficient power plants that take 10 hours to start and that are hence left on for weeks), it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.

    I fully agree and will pass it on.

    The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both)

    We have reached a global warming paradox. “The science is weak (William: the scientific support for CAWG is nonexistent, not ‘weak’) but the idea is strong,” writes Darwall. “Global warming’s success in colonising the Western mind and in changing government policies has no precedent.

    10

  • #
    Random Comment

    I reckon Australia should take to Paris news that the Federal Government has reviewed its position on taking action to mitigate CAGW. We should say that given we are a relatively insignificant producer of CO2 emissions but that we are mindful that action needs to be taken we believe that we can make the most impact by assisting major global emitters. To that end we will now undertake to support China meet its commitments in its landmark climate change compact with the USA by supplying as much coal as China needs and can be dug up and shipped by 2030. By making such a substantive contribution to the success of such a once-in-a-generation climate agreement Australia will assume that it has met any and all of its global obligations regarding climate change or associated issues for the same period.

    20

  • #
    William Astley

    There is no CAWG problem to solve. There is a green scam mania problem to solve. There is, a CAGW list of promises that will destroy the economies of all developed countries if enacted problem to solve. There is an economic/fiscal problem which is ready to blow up that does not have a solution. i.e. Idiotic fiscal policies/actions applied for multiple years have unintentional unavoidable consequences.

    When reason, logic, honesty, public identification and discussion of real problems, engineering limitations, and fiscal limitations are removed from public policy the resulting manias ends very, very badly.

    It is absurd that the developed countries (public, media, politicians, and so on) do not even know what is and is not a crisis type problem. IPCC type of lying pushing of mad policies is a paradigm, part of the US/EU political Zeitgeist.

    P.S. The economic/fiscal problem is going to affect all countries. The US did not have sufficient money to fight two wars and to ‘stimulate’ their economy. They have borrowed the money for the wars and have borrowed money to avoid high unemployment, to avoid raising taxes, and to avoid the consequences of having the largest trade deficit in history for year after year after year after year. The US have printed $3 trillion dollars since 2007 to avoid high interest rates that occur when too much money is borrowed and when a country has a trade deficit year after year after year and so on. Printing money is like adding more explosive to a bomb to delay its unavoidable triggering.

    Printing money delays the fiscal bomb triggering and makes the unavoidable explosive blast much larger. We have been talking about the fiscal problem/bomb in the US for so long, that people believe based on the fact that there has been no bomb blast as of yet that there will be no bomb blast.

    Massive printing of money, massive trade deficits, and massive borrowing has always ended badly (stock market crash, bank failures, followed by riots and civil war and world war). This time is not different.

    It is surreal that people in other countries do not understand that they too will suffer blast damage.

    http://www.afr.com/markets/bill-gross-asks-what-happens-when-central-banks-end-quantitative-easing-20150610-ghl6jt

    Gross believes that “central banks don’t know their way home”. In other words, unwinding the unprecedented central bank stimulus over the coming years will be terribly tricky.

    For now, markets are probably thankful that the Fed has passed the baton to the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan. But as Gross asked on CNBC, what happens when that music finally stops?

    It is the multi-trillion dollar liquidity flood from central banks in the United States, Europe and Japan, combined with a further $US1 trillion in share buybacks from American companies.

    Investors will soon to get an early taste of edging away from this unprecedented situation towards something more akin to normality when the US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for the first time in almost a decade. Robust US employment growth, tentative signs wages may be picking up and renewed small business confidence reinforce the view in financial markets that September will be lift off for the Fed.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5

    What is quantitative easing?
    To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before (William: This absolutely the same as printing money. Quantitative easing/printing money enables a government to borrow more money every year without a rise in interest rates. The US has printed more than $3 trillion dollars since 2007 and is now trying to stop) and will down the road lead a currency collapse). The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence “quantitative” easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. The idea is that banks take the new money and buy assets to replace the ones they have sold to the central bank.

    That raises stock prices and lowers interest rates, which in turn boosts investment. Today, interest rates on everything from government bonds to mortgages to corporate debt are probably lower than they would have been without QE. If QE convinces markets that the central bank is serious about fighting deflation or high unemployment, then it can also boost economic activity by raising confidence. Several rounds of QE in America have increased the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet—the value of the assets it holds—from less than $1 trillion in 2007 to more than $4 trillion now.

    30