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

Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win — it’s a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment.

Watch the pea. What does it mean to have a non-binding non-treaty, at the same time as a real “commitment”? It’s all semantics, and, as usual, word games are the weapons of big-bureaucrats. Don’t be fooled into thinking Paris was no threat to the free West.

As I keep saying, the climate conference in Paris was not trying to reduce CO2 or change the climate. The real aim is an endless free lunch for freeloaders. The Politicites didn’t get the legally binding agreement they dream of, but what they got may turn out to be almost as good.  Marlo Lewis explains it may yet be politically binding on the target rich Western nations, which is all that really matters.  It’s the  best strategic review I’ve seen of what happened in Paris.

It was no accident that it was “non-binding”. That was part of the plan.

They were never going to get a legal treaty through the US Congress, so the aim became a deal that was “non-binding” and not a “treaty” because things that are overtly legal have to go through Congress. Instead, the bureaucrat class want to go around the voters. By simply declaring that Obama’s promises mean something, with the help of a compliant patsy media they may become effectively binding — the promises enforced with political “name and shame” punishment and pressure instead of with legislation. This would be a new means of getting around Congress.

US State Department regulations describe “eight factors for distinguishing treaties from other types of international agreements. ” Lewis describes the analysis of Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves: they lay out eight reasons why Paris was a treaty, despite being described as not one. It has detailed requirements which affect every state of the US and would have costly implications if followed, and all similar agreements would have gone through Congress in the past. It was a “decision of the parties”, formal, and with intent and has a short timeframe to reach a conclusion. Ominously, it involves an automatic ongoing ratchet mechanism to increase the aims every five years from now to perpetuity. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Marlo Lewis on the implications of this deceptive grab for power:

Nor do we find “legally binding” among the State Department’s eight factors for distinguishing treaties from other agreements not subject to the Senate’s advice and consent (such as “sole executive agreements”).

More importantly, where is it written that the president gets to decide unilaterally whether or not a particular agreement is a treaty? The executive and legislative branches are co-equal, and treaty making is a shared power. If the President can by his sole voice declare a treaty not to be treaty because acknowledging it is a treaty would effectively kill it, then he can gut Article 2, neuter the Senate, and enact almost any policy he wants just by negotiating a sole executive agreement with foreign leaders.

The US may have the only political system strong enough to withstand the relentless assault from the army of selfish big-gov dependent enviro-pretenders (the “EnviroPo’s”). But it will take determination and effort. In Australia I’m not aware of any equivalent analysis like this, and given how different our political system is, we need one. Likewise, the UK, NZ,  Germany and Canada. Start strategizing…

Paris Agreement Is a Real Tiger: Lock and Load

Marlo Lewis

Summary: The Paris climate agreement is “non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable,” as one conservative commentator put it. However, Paris is a “paper tiger” only on paper. The treaty’s core purpose is not to impose legal obligations but to establish the multi-decade framework for a global political pressure campaign. The pressure will be directed chiefly at those who oppose EPA’s unlawful Clean Power Plan and other elements of the President’s climate agenda. Republicans will get rolled unless GOP leaders organize a political counter-offensive centered around a Byrd-Hagel 2.0 resolution. Key message point: Contrary to President Obama, the Paris agreement is a treaty, hence it is not a policy of the United States until the Senate ratifies it.

The Paris agreement is “politically” rather than “legally” binding in two ways. First, each country’s core commitments are self-chosen (“nationally determined”) rather than specified by the agreement itself. Second, commitments are to be enforced via political pressure (“naming and shaming”) rather than through international tribunals or economic sanctions.

Obama wanted a politically-binding agreement for two reasons. First, he gets to pretend the Paris agreement is not a treaty, hence does not have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent…

Second, an agreement in which each country promises to implement its own “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) to limiting global emissions allows Obama to pretend EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and other elements of his domestic climate agenda are “commitments” America has made to the world.

The solution — pass a Byrd-Hagel 2.0

….watershed event in that battle was the Senate’s passage of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in July 1997. Byrd-Hagel preemptively nixed any climate agreement, like Kyoto, that would either exempt developing countries from emission-reduction targets and timetables or harm the U.S. economy.

GOP leaders and their allies must mount their own campaign to undercut the global political pressure regime Obama plans to construct via the Paris treaty. The most important thing they can do is pass a Byrd-Hagel 2.0, such as the concurrent resolution introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.). For maximum effect, they should pass it before April 22, 2016, when the Paris treaty is officially open for “ratification, acceptance, accession, or approval.”

The resolution and accompanying outreach should resoundingly affirm the following basic points:

(1) The legislative and executive branches are co-equal and treaty making is a shared power. The President does not get to decide unilaterally what is and is not a treaty subject to Senate review.

(2) The Paris agreement, by virtue of its detail, the extent of its commitments, previous national practice, and other factors, is a treaty.

(3) The United States is not a party to a treaty until and unless the Senate ratifies it.

(4) The President cannot unilaterally adopt U.S. emission-reduction targets and timetables as part of an international climate agreement, without violating the terms on which the Senate ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

(5) Evading Senate review by falsely claiming Paris is not a treaty would make executive agencies less accountable to Congress and the American people and more beholden to foreign leaders, U.N. bureaucrats, and unaccountable NGOs.

Read the whole analysis at Cooler Heads.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (75 votes cast)
Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win -- it's a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment., 9.4 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jrv74jq

143 comments to Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win — it’s a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment.

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Talk about your pea and thimble!
    While all the focus is on COP21, the real tiger is concealed in the TPP!
    The TPP is the mechanism for enforcing “soft” law.
    In addition, the TPP is the mechanism for control of the information made available on the Internet.
    If it doesn’t pass muster, it will just be deleted.

    200

    • #
      Ross

      Rod

      The TPP has to get through the USA system yet and the last I read it will have some difficulty achieving this.

      40

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        The POTUS has about 11 months remaining to satisfy his desire to completely disrupt the global economy and complete the destruction that he started.
        It would be a mistake to underestimate his ability to do so.
        We can always pray that cool heads swill prevail, I suppose.

        151

        • #
          David Maddison

          Some people say Obama has under a year to go and he can’t do much more damage but I think he is leaving his worst to last.

          90

    • #
      RoHa

      The TIPP is, I gather, just as bad.

      20

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    The link didn’t work
    The term “soft law” refers to quasi-legal instruments which do not have any legally binding force, or whose binding force is somewhat “weaker” than the binding force of traditional law, often contrasted with soft law by being referred to as “hard law”.

    30

  • #
    ianl8888

    This thread is in an area I really only have questions for. I suspect there are no answers by precedence or tested Constitutional law. It is an area that I fear, because it is deliberately out of voting reach (to avoid Pielke Jr’s IRON LAW)

    1) If Obama says it’s not a treaty, thereby avoiding the Congress and Senate, is this appealable to the US Supreme Court ? If so, does Obama have to follow any Supreme Court decision, or can he just sit on his hands ? If the GOP wins in 2016 (which I greatly doubt), can they reverse any legislation Obama may have declared, or does it need an appeal to the Supreme Court ? And we have seen the Supreme Court (with one activist Judge) approve the EPA declaration that CO2 is a pollutant, so we should not expect help there anyhow

    2) In Aus, any legislation that has been passed by both Houses can be later reversed by another vote from these Houses (presumably with a different elected membership, ie. after another election). We remember Gillard and Brown crowing that the carbon tax was locked in and the LNP couldn’t unlock it, but eventually Abbott got the Senate to agree to the unlocking

    So in the case of the US, there appear to be elements I have no idea of, nor perhaps are there any reliable answers. In the case of Aus, it needs a definitive election in both Houses – difficult in the Senate with the tiny representation needed to secure a seat by preferencing

    100

    • #
      Mark D.

      Ian, you pose great questions that I don’t have answers for.

      I do have thoughts around them though:

      If Obama (supposedly a scholar of the Constitution) is willing to do something against the “grain” then it is reasonable to assume that he knows that there are weaknesses in the constitution or at least loopholes caused by precedence.

      We do have some democracy left via the Supreme Court but this may be short lived since the next president might appoint up to 4 judges.

      Our Founders had foresight but they may not have considered the entire depth of tyranny. Time will tell.

      60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        My father used to say, “It is the corners that define the box – rub off the corners and the box disappears”.

        I could be argued that Obama has spent the best part of two terms, in rubbing off the corners of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        90

    • #
      cohenite

      In Australia parliamentary approval is necessary before ratification of foreign treaties can occur under Section 51 (XX1X) of the constitution. If the banker introduces some form of ETS/carbon tax which gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the Paris agreement then that ratification may be deemed to have occurred and Australia will be locked into Paris, especially since the ALP/Greens will not oppose any such ETS.

      10

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Thanks Jo

    COP21 Paris Agreement ure is more than a ‘paper tiger’.

    Explains why ‘no legal agreement’ John Kerry could exert such influence on India et al at end of COP21.

    Kerry, BTW, was at 1992 Earth Summit.

    http://grist.org/article/kerry6/
    30 Mar 2007 5:01 AM John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry chat about their new environmental book By Amanda Little

    The environment brought them together. And now, together, they’ve brought out a book on the environment. (No flip-flop jokes, please.)

    —— Heinz Kerry, Teresa (2007). This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-431-6

    Etc etc

    Alice

    30

    • #

      Alice, Did Kerry exert influence on India? As I see it, India was always going to be “bought” on the last day. All the naysaying before-hand put them in a better negotiating position.
      “We really really don’t want to give up cheap energy, but if you pay us enough, give us free IP goodies, carbon credits or ( ….. ) we’ll offer generously to do what we were going to do anyhow and we’ll stand on a podium next to you as well for the press conference.”

      Did Kerry really extract anything at all?

      140

  • #

    You know, I watch commenters like the usual ones who come here rabbiting on about whatever they do, asking for evidence, evidence evidence, links, links, links, and hoping against hope that Paris was finally the time when the World woke up and people might now actually begin to take some real notice of their precious Science.

    Every one of the World’s already developed Countries made commitments to reduce their CO2 emissions, and everywhere I read how this is such a wonderful thing at last.

    Everyone is predicting the death of coal. At long last we have woken up.

    Without fraction of a doubt, those targets each of those Countries set will NEVER be achieved, and even if they were it would entail sending their Country back to the dark ages.

    Let’s actually pretend that in our wildest of dreams, those targets are actually achieved. The target date is between 2025 and 2035, the earliest of those only ten years away now.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE TARGETS (when all of them are added together) from those Developed Countries will be totally and utterly cancelled out by the increase in CO2 emissions ….. just from China alone within five years, at least five years earlier than the closest target date from any of those Countries. That’s EVERY target from EVERY Developed Country.

    They call Paris a success. If this is what they call success, it’s astonishing.

    If they actually think China will stop doing what they are doing just for some ephemeral dreamy UN pronouncement, they are clueless.

    And, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why these people who leave such inane comments here (and you know who you are) don’t have enough nous to actually go out and find out about this. It’s simple enough to chase up.

    No, you just look the other way, say how we need to be doing more, bask in your 2 degrees of satisfaction, quoting Science you have been conditioned to believe, and calling us out as, and let’s be frank here, purveyors of mendacities. (there, did I say that politely enough)

    Nup! we don’t need to tell untruths. We go looking for facts, and then, using Maths (most of which you people seem incapable of doing) shred your useless Paris agreement you claim as such a resounding success.

    These Countries will say whatever the UN wanted to hear. The fact that all the Developing Countries need really do nothing is by the by.

    No one is going to blink. No Country’s Leader who actually wants to remain in power, will seek to cut the proverbial throat of his own Country just to say that at least we’re doing what we promised the UN we would do.

    Coal is far from in its death throes.

    It’s actually just stopped for a smoko, and will be back later on.

    Tony.

    531

    • #
      el gordo

      Would an abundance in home grown shale gas reduce the need for coal?

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2015-12/29/content_22854076.htm

      40

      • #

        el gordo,

        You’d think that China might go down that natural gas fired path eh!

        When it comes to Power plant construction, and you lead the World in implementation of HELE USC coal fired power plants, and with the price for gas so high, what might be a guess as to what China might do with all that natural gas (NG) eh! (Hint! Sell it of course)

        Those new tech coal fired plants are now getting their emissions down almost as low as for NG, and China is perhaps closer to Advanced USC (2018 Demo plant, 2020 coming on stream) than any other Country on the Planet, lowering emissions even further, almost down to the level of NG.

        Traditionally, Thermal Power consists of the two main forms of power generation, Coal and NG, and three or four other very minor plant types.

        So, in the U.S. with their current plethora of NG deposits, and their war on coal, the mix for thermal power is coal fired at 57.5% and NG at 40.9% of all Thermal power generation.

        In China that mix is coal fired at 95.2% and NG at 2.2%.

        China is just not constructing NG plants at all.

        As for reducing the need for coal, umm, if we don’t use it, they’ll just come and get it, if not from us then from whoever will sell it to them.

        Tony.

        HELE – High Efficiency Low Emissions

        USC – UltraSuper Critical

        301

        • #
          James Murphy

          Based on volumes, China has a sizeable oil industry (~4250 thousand barrels of oil per day (TBOPD), compared to Russia at ~10000 TBOPD, USA at ~9600 TBOPD and Australia at ~300 TBOPD), but they have big big problems with very sour oil and gas (stupendously high sulphur content in some fields), which adds to the refining costs.

          They are developing unconventional sources, and doing some pretty clever drilling engineering, it’s just that we don’t really hear about it.

          Note that these figures are for crude oil, not for gas and condensate, and that given the size of the population, their production is not enormous, whatever the source.

          80

    • #
      ivan

      Tony, it was never about reductions as such, that is the public face to cover the merchant banks, Goldman Sachs and others, making a killing from the public purse and individuals pockets.

      You have only to look at the back stabbing in Australia that took place just before the Paris jamboree to get Turnbull as the GS rep at Paris.

      220

    • #
      Ross Stacey

      Tony, I agree with you. You have put this very logically.
      However, the financiers really run this country. The following gives an night into their thinking. I am afraid we are going to take many steps backwards until Science prevails.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-29/verrender-a-turning-point-in-the-future-of-coal/7057474?WT.mc_id=newsmail

      10

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Paris wasn’t just in Paris. It was preceded by a huge misinformation campaign which hasn’t fully abated yet. That is why yesterday’s post re an American professor has great value. Another new straw on the donkey’s back, paving the way for the last straw, which could come soon.

    261

  • #
    Peter C

    hoping against hope that Paris was finally the time when the World woke up and people might now actually begin to take some real notice of their precious Science.

    I was hoping against hope as well!. Once again I am disappointed and I will have to double down to another year of work against the scourge of green blob innanity and the failure of rationalism to attract the attention of the majority.

    80

  • #
    James Bradley

    Hey, should someone tell the ‘boys’ that the conversation has moved on, they sure seem fixated on “10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made.”

    Are they trying to convince us or themselves?

    111

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      They seem fixated on “AGW theory”.
      So far as I am aware, it doesn’t even deserve to become an hypothesis until the null hypothesis cannot be verified.
      The null hypothesis was ironically, and inadvertently disproved by none other than James Hansen.
      Back in the ’80′s, when he was out of the slammer and turning air con units off in Washington, he offered up his ‘models’ of proof of a crisis.
      To make an impression, he ran the models as “business as usual”, 50% reduction in CO2, etc. Then he ran the model with an input of no more anthropogenic CO2, ever.
      That was 35 years ago, and the temperature prediction the model made is exactly what happened in the intervening 35 years. In spite of an increase in atmospheric CO2 of some 30%.
      If the models that caused all the fuss predicted the actual temperatures observed, does that not suggest that the null hypothesis is true?

      161

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Rod Stuart:

        be fair to Hansen, he didn’t turn the Air conditioning himself, that was done for him. Indeed his subsequent career would indicate that he wouldn’t know how to turn it off, but merely how to turn the thermostat up.

        110

  • #
    john karajas

    Judith Sloan in “The Australian” today wrote a brilliantly funny column satirising Ban Ki Moon. Fellow sceptics try and read it if possible.

    110

    • #
      Power Grab

      It’s blocked by a paywall. :-(

      00

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The relevant bits:

        I’m calling it here: 2015 was Peak Twaddle. (I just hope I’m right because I don’t think I can take any more.)
        The only argument I expect to encounter is whether twaddle is the right word. Other possibilities include: drivel, waffle, bollocks, claptrap, blather, mumbo jumbo, tosh, baloney, gobbledygook and codswallop. I would probably accept any of these.
        But for the sake of my argument, I will stick with twaddle because it incorporates the twin themes of nonsense and guff.
        Of course, from time to time it is not clear what the speaker or author of the sentences actually means but that itself deserves the title twaddle.

        There follows some comments on Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull before switching to the UN Secretary General.

        In twaddle terms it’s impossible to go past the comments made by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon at the recently concluded Paris climate conference, or COP21.
        Take this set of modest tweets from one of the maestros of the twaddle set.
        • “The Paris Agreement is a monumental triumph for people and our planet.”
        • “It sets the stage for progress in ending poverty, strengthening peace and ensuring a life of dignity and opportunity for all.”
        Gosh, I thought this was the sort of drivel that only Miss World contestants spouted. But, no, a non-binding climate agreement can do all these things.
        Of course, Ban’s twaddle didn’t end there: “In the face of an unprecedented challenge, you have demonstrated unprecedented leadership. You have worked collaboratively to achieve something that no one nation could achieve alone. This is a resounding success for multilateralism.”
        Evidently, Ban has listened to people — the young, the poor and the vulnerable, including indigenous people, from every corner of the globe. (Let’s just forget about Ban’s carbon footprint, shall we?)
        “They seek protection from the perils of a warming planet, and the opportunity to live in a safer, more bountiful world. They have demanded that world leaders act to safeguard their wellbeing and that of generations to come.”
        In terms of the agreement, there are “solid results on all key points, with an agreement that demonstrates solidarity and is ambitious, flexible, credible and durable”.
        “All countries have agreed to hold global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. And recognising the risk of grave consequences, you have further agreed to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.”
        So my prize goes to Ban for Twaddle of the Year for his comments, which are deceptive, delusional and hilarious all at the same time — complete twaddle, in fact.

        100

  • #
    pat

    john karajas -

    I just popped in to post the link:

    29 Dec: Australian: Judith Sloan: 2015: the year of speaking twaddle
    The best thing about peak oil — that highly dubious concept invented by the green-Left to scare the pants off us (have you checked out the price of oil lately?) — is the rapid spread of the use of the word peak.
    Once upon a time we used to think about peak as the top of a mountain.
    Today, peak is mostly used to describe a veritable excess of anything unpleasant. And I’m calling it here: 2015 was Peak Twaddle. (I just hope I’m right because I don’t think I can take any more.)…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/2015-the-year-of-speaking-twaddle/news-story/fde42993212e7efa7fbaab4d7c6ce259

    110

  • #
    pat

    Anne-Marie likes it:

    28 Dec: ProjectSyndicate: Anne-Marie Slaughter: The Paris Approach to Global Governance
    (Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department (2009-2011), is President and CEO of the think tank New America, Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the author of Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family)
    As a former president of the American Society of International Law, I should bemoan the recent Paris agreement on climate change as a failure. By the standards of a traditional treaty, it falls woefully short. Yet its deficits in this regard are its greatest strengths as a model for effective global governance in the twenty-first century…
    In the United States, as a matter of domestic law, it is an executive agreement, binding only on President Barack Obama’s administration. An executive-legislative agreement would have the same status as a treaty, except that a treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, whereas an executive-legislative agreement must be adopted by the Senate and the House under the same rules that apply to all domestic legislation. An executive agreement made by one administration is not necessarily binding on its successor, but it would have to be explicitly repudiated…
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-agreement-model-for-global-governance-by-anne-marie-slaughter-2015-12

    20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Which climate scientists are going to be admitted? An awful lot is hanging on the coming US presidential election.

      60

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The President does not get to decide unilaterally what is and is not a treaty subject to Senate review.

    However we must not underestimate the “game play” in American politics.

    The EPA managed to side step funding directives by re classifying CO2 as a pollutant… an egregious manipulation of the system if ever I saw one.

    the battle is not won yet …

    and thanks to Jo for posting yet another great article ..

    140

    • #
      ianl8888

      The EPA managed to side step funding directives by re classifying CO2 as a pollutant

      See my post at #3

      There’s a number of serious questions within it as yet completely unaddressed

      And although TonyOz is correct on the technical front, there are a number of politicians, such as the Brussels coterie, who don’t actually need a vote to stay in power. Obama cannot stay beyond November 2016 in any case. That’s the scary part – these clowns don’t care

      110

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Actually he stays around until Jan. 17 but he can’t do anything after Nov. 16.

        40

      • #
        ScotsmaninUtah

        Ian … I agree and I btw did read your post, the details of what the EPA managed to do regarding CO2 were stupifying.

        great post btw :D

        50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The US may have the only political system strong enough to withstand the relentless assault from the army of selfish big-gov dependent enviro-pretenders

    Jo you have wonderful word delivery.

    As for Texans who like BBQs like it is a ritual .. I very much doubt that the leftists will be able to push any reduction in Texas CO2 emissions.

    unless you have a lot of guns …

    120

  • #
    Robert O

    If one refers to world coal production, China is the biggest producer by far, and also imports a lot from Aust. and Indonesia. The point is that for every tonne of carbon used (say coal is 90% C) means 44/12 tonnes of CO2. What is the point of any emission reduction by smaller countries when this will be totally swamped the big three coal users: China, USA and India ?

    60

    • #

      Robert O, you mentioned this:

      The point is that for every tonne of carbon used (say coal is 90% C) means 44/12 tonnes of CO2.

      Actually, the average is closer to 2.86 tonnes of CO2 for every Tonne of coal, and note I specifically used the word average.

      That was one of the first things that piqued my interest back in 2008, and prompted me to Post about just that subject at this following link to my own Post

      Why Does One Ton Of Coal Make 2.86 Tons Of Carbon Dioxide?

      But hey, don’t take my word for it, (because as our resident believers are so wont to say, ….. but it’s just a blog site, hence a pack of mendacities) because as I always do, at nearly all of my Posts. I link to the original. in this case the US Government’s own site the EIA, where it explains it in some detail at this link, and scroll down a little to the second heading titled Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. While the U.S. does all its weight measures in U.S. tons, be aware that this is only 2000 Pounds, and not the Imperial ton, 2240 pounds or the tonne 1000KG, but hey the multiplier is the same no matter what measure you use as long as you use the same one for coal burned for CO2 emission.
      Tony.

      110

      • #
        Bulldust

        Had fun at your site (aced the test), and have always had the same generic query that no one adequately answers. In lay terms, given the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was orders of magnitude (ok much, much) higher in the geological past, why are we here to talk about it today? I have never had an adequate answer to that question from a warmist, or anyone else.

        If CO2 is so, so critical to controlling the heat content of the atmosphere, then surely at several thousand ppm the earth should have been scorched (going by IPCC models), and yet animals and plants were frollicking around… well OK the animals moreso than the plants perhaps. It follows, therefore, to my lay mind, that CO2 is not the main control knob of temperature… it has an impact, certainly, but it is not as important as it is made out to be, and it other factors have a far greater influence. The obvious answer to me is water, in its various forms (liquid water, vapour, particularly clouds).

        Even geologists run scared from my basic question, presumably because they fear the climate change brigade may be listening nearby. Methinks most rock-lickers are closet climate sceptics.

        80

        • #
          Tristan

          If CO2 is so, so critical to controlling the heat content of the atmosphere, then surely at several thousand ppm the earth should have been scorched (going by IPCC models)

          Because we were getting ~6% less sunlight back then. It’s the interplay between the two that determines global heat content.

          29

          • #
            James Bradley

            I’d like to see some research that is verified and replicated to prove that, Tristan.

            80

            • #
              Bulldust

              Exactly. Besides, that only raises more questions. How do you crawl out of cold temps post Permian with a fainter sun and low CO2. No doubt Tristan will copy & paste a readymade fudge from SkS.

              The main point is that we aren’t certain about a great many things involving climate. Anyone who claims otherwise is a shyster of the highest order.

              91

            • #
              James Bradley

              And for the love of God, why do the warmies always insist that the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the Little Ice Age is the climate optimum.

              71

            • #
              Tristan

              I was wrong, it’s more like 4%

              16

            • #
              James Bradley

              Then you can supply verified and replicated research to support your statement, Tristan?

              30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Silence, while Tristan conducts post-hoc document research for any mention of “4%”, in relation to anything to do with the sun.

                The whole historic sunlight question is a crock of manure anyway, because the amount of sunlight reaching the surface is dependent upon the thickness of cloud cover, and we all know that the models can’t model cloud behaviour today, let alone cloud cover in the very distant past.

                90

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Tristan’s link is about “The problems with the faint sun hypothesis” but that was “solved” by claiming that CO2 supplied the Missing Heat, an irresistible lure for Tristan. His 4% seems to come from mis-reading the graph and dating from the start of the Phanerozoic eon.
                I assume that Bulldust was talking about the Mesozoic era when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Taking the end of the Jurassic when the CO2 level was estimated at 2600-2900ppm and the “world’s temperature” was about 2℃ above the present, a quick calculation has the solar output about 0.8% less than at present.
                If he was talking about the Cambrian period closer to the start of the Phanerozoic then the solar output was 2.2% lower and the CO2 level around 4,000ppm and the temperature about 5-6℃ higher than the present, but this was shortly followed by an ice age despite the high CO2 and (slightly) more solar output.

                60

  • #

    Jo Summarizes

    Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win — it’s a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment.

    This obscure legal language is not the only area of failure. Going into COP21 everyone knew that the proposed non-binding emissions pledges were insufficient to reach the 2C target. Para 17 of the agreement makes that clear. In 2030 estimates emissions (with the pledges) will be 55 GTCO2e, against a target of 40. In 2010 emissions were 49 GTCO2e.
    Para 21 is the response. Rather than say that genuine emissions reduction plans should be forthcoming, the UNFCCC will ask the UNIPCC for some more scary stories and some more modelled emissions forecasts.

    POTUS Obama is going to impose policy by by-passing Congress knowing full well that it will be a failure.

    Details are here.

    50

  • #
    Dave in the states

    The US may have the only political system strong enough to withstand the relentless assault from the army of selfish big-gov dependent enviro-pretenders (the “EnviroPo’s”). But it will take determination and effort.

    However, the system is currently not working as designed, because the main stream media have become active advocates of the far left and the left’s agendas, instead practicing the intended role of a free press. Essentially the MSM are performing the same role as the Propaganda Ministry did during the Third Reich in furthering the agendas of the Obama regime.

    Republican’s have not found away to deal with this situation, because they (with the exception of the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and in his own way Donald Trump)lack the courage to take on the media, and how the media sets the narrative, and how the media paints the left’s opponents. So they cave in every time.

    100

    • #
      Mark D.

      Dave in the States, It is my opinion that the Republican party is in complete disarray. You are correct re the media but the GOP have missed so many opportunities to push back it amazes me.

      To me, the situation is so dire that it must be caused by one of two possibilities:

      1. The Party level GOP is infiltrated by Leftists (white ants).

      2. The Party level GOP is populated by completely inept operators.

      Of course there could be some exotic blend of the two but in the end it probably doesn’t matter. If the Party can’t repair itself the 2016 election will be lost. Time is very short for this to happen before mid summer. There must be great push by voters and non-RINO elected officials. A complete upset and take-over of the Party would go a long way right now.

      I might be wrong here but IMHO Trump’s popularity is the bellwether. He’s also just the kind of rogue that could fix what is wrong or blow it completely. With so much at stake, I don’t like many of the Republican presidential candidates.

      I fear too, that Trump would go for a third party race if the GOP doesn’t accept him. We learned with Ross Perot what will happen then. In fact, the circumstances with the failures of the GOP (as a party), and Trump look eerily like the GOP – Perot split when a certain other Clinton came to be elected president. Trump as a third party candidate will assure a win for Hillary.

      Woe is US……

      40

      • #
        Dave in the states

        When I talk to and receive feedback from Republican officials it is painfully clear that many simply don’t know what they are dealing with. It is like they are living in a bygone era. But the Democrat Party is not the same party as it was at the time of JFK. It has evolved into a Marxist/Green party- pretty much in line with the Marxist/Greens that run the UN. A Bernie Sanders run would have been unthinkable before now. Obama realized in very deed what the Democrat Party has become. Obama and his like place their “cause” above all else.

        Republicans still think about reaching across the aisle and compromising to “get things done” like in the old days. They do not realize that compromise with the New Democrats to “get things done” only means enabling the radical agenda of the left. The Republicans won two mid term elections by landslides in the people’s hopes of stopping the Obama agenda-not to enable it. This is why the people are so angry.

        The above situation paved the way for Donald Trump. The people do not care at this point how outrageous Trump is. It’s not about who Trump is, but it is about who he is not. He is not part of the Government Class and culture. The people also love that he survives every attempt by the main stream media to destroy him. They love that he mocks the media and gets away with it. At what point during the Trump victory party will the Republican establishment realize this? The Republican leadership will have a hard time denying Trump the nomination if he continues to walk away with the election.

        The Government Class, MSM, and the Establishment, fear Trump because they have no control over him. They know he will emasculate the bureaucracy including the out of control regulatory agencies such as the IRS and the EPA. He has already said that he will place economic growth and capitalist principles above environmentalist causes and onerous regulations, and that he is a nonbeliever in Climate Change alarmism. They fear that Trump can win.

        Ted Cruz might be the best man for the job, but can he win with MSM tarring and feathering him? Demonizing Cruz has already worked to discredit him. Tarring and feathering Trump only improves his popularity. Many believe Trump can win despite how the media spins it.

        70

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    For those who chose not to research US constitutional law, the argument that COP21 is a treaty is just wrong. For the US, there are three kinds of international agreements the President is empowered to enter into. 1. Treaties requiring consent from 2/3 of the Senate. Thomas Jefferson originally defined what treaties are: mutual obligations forever, which can only be undone by mutual consent. 2 Congressional consent (requiring simple majority enabling legislation). Trade agreements are an example. All such agreements are distinguished from type one by having opt out clauses. COP21 has an opt out and does not require enabling legislation. 3. Presidential executive authority as conferred by the Constitution, in which cases Congress is not involved. This is express in three areas: 1. Foreign policy (e.g. Recognizing nations and ambassadors.). 2. Under his role as commander in chief of the armed forces (e.g. Nato). 3. Under his obligation to uphold and apply pre existing US law. Obama correctly argues that the Clean Air Act, which Mass. V. EPA established enables the EPA to decided whether CO2 is a pollutant (and it controversially has) gives him the power to enter the COP21 agreement by himself.
    The bigger US issue is whether the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan regulations on CO2 are constitutional. They likely are not, and none other than Prof Larry Tribe (Harvard Law and the country’s foremost constitutional law expert) has provided the brief to the 23 states suing EPA on grounds of CPP unconstitutionality. Three separate independent reasons.

    120

    • #
      ianl8888

      Several points, Istvan:

      1)

      For those who chose not to research US constitutional law

      An unwarranted snark – for those non-US people (a world majority), our lifetimes are not long enough to swim in that tar, baby. That’s why we ask direct questions of those who purport to know

      2) The body of your post is somewhat helpful. Essentially, Obama already has the Constitutional authority he needs, courtesy of the initial US Supreme Court decision allowing the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant, subject to:

      3)

      … the 23 states suing EPA on grounds of CPP unconstitutionality

      I’ve seen that said many times. Does this go directly to the Supreme Court, or does it have to wend its’ way through a plethora of lower Courts and appeals first ? (In Aus, the latter would likely prevail, depending on the initial attitude of the High Court [equivalent to the US Supreme Court])

      At what stage is this now ?

      80

      • #
        Rud Istvan

        Right. You might feel offended by point 1. Except that anyone, including the ‘erudite’ author of the blog JoNova cited, could have checked that out in less than 5 minutes. Even Wiki has the general con law cited above roughly correct, because it has been well established for many decades.

        Now, I am a big advocate of checking things out for oneself. And very empathetic when ‘facts’ are confusing or misleading. But utterly unempathetic when they are reasonably clear, and “our side” misstates/misquotes/misinterprets… Needless handing of issues to the ‘enemy’. Not on my watch, not on any of my teams. Ever. Anywhere. So stand down, as you and JoAnne’s referenced subpost is just legally wrong. Stupidly, basely, just wrong. Ignorantly wrong. Got it yet?
        If you take offense at not having checked that out for yourself, please look in the mirror and ask what kind of skeptic your actually are. It took me less than 5 minutes to verify what I remembered from law school. For someone who did not go to any US Law school, takes maybe ten minutes? Next time, spend the ten minutes.

        00

  • #
    dp

    The US Congress has become the fulfillment center for a rogue president. He makes unrealistic but enormously popular promises to the failed governments of the third world and leaves it to Congress to take the heat for or for not fulfilling those promises. The sock puppet, a master of lose-lose, having writ, moves on. It is self-evident that his post-presidency role will find him a recipient and manager (under the auspices of the UN) of those funds he has pressured Congress to commit. His inner community organizer (what he did before ruining the world) is headed for its finest hour. The UN, as you may recall, has no voter base, no checks and balances and is responsible to nobody. A community organizer and rogue ex-president’s paradise.

    Perhaps the world at large will treat him more realistically than a fawning (and ever left-leaning) self-loathing US population has. In 1960 a rotund shoe wielding commissar of the joyless USSR predicted this. I did not expect it in my lifetime.

    100

    • #
      James Murphy

      Obama seems to have come pre-installed with the ‘teflon suit’, and ‘the gift of the gab’ optional extras.

      Sadly it looks like Malcolm Turnbull may also have these optional extras, though I hope I am wrong.

      80

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The mechanisms of this rort impact further than shady deals made at a junket, look at the faux eco compliancy of the MSM, all governmental tiers, education systems, social media, lawmaking, everything has been tainted by this cultish belief system in society.

    It’s been so successful that an entity like the UN can coerce 195 countries to meet under the imminent threat of a failed hypothesis and make demands of said countries to remit vast sums of their wealth to various scheme accounts so they are seen to be fighting a non existent battle to save this planet.

    After writing that I’m still aghast at the absurdity of all this, but feel it’s a fight that has to be fought, I don’t want to be the % of people that assist in taking us that one step back.

    81

  • #
    Jaymez

    commitments are to be enforced via political pressure (“naming and shaming”) rather than through international tribunals or economic sanctions.

    Surely this will only work if global temperatures do eventually rise as predicted?

    Surely there is a limit to how much the surface temperature data can be adjusted?

    Surely the patience of the public will be tested to the point where they will no longer accept the reasons for the ‘pause’ or the differential between the surface temperature data sets and satellite temperatures?

    Just as Canada very quickly walked away from Kyoto when it looked like costing them billions in fines for not achieving targets, I would hope countries start walking away from steps to reduce emissions which are harmful to their economy.

    I live in hope.

    100

  • #
    handjive

    China is the low-carbon superpower and will be the ultimate enforcer of the COP21 climate deal in Paris
    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,telegraph.co.uk

    Until last Saturday, it was an article of faith among Western climate sceptics and some in the fossil industry that China would never sign up to the COP21 accord in Paris or accept the “ratchet” of five-year reviews.

    They (western climate sceptics) have since fallen back to a second argument, claiming that the deal is meaningless because China will not sacrifice coal-driven growth to please the West, and without China the accord unravels since it now emits as much CO2 as the US and Europe combined.

    This political judgment was perhaps plausible three or four years ago in the dying days of the Hu Jintao era. Today it is clutching at straws.

    Eight of the world’s biggest solar companies are Chinese. So is the second biggest wind power group, GoldWind.

    China invested $90bn in renewable energy last year and is already the superpower of low-carbon industries.

    It installed more solar in the first quarter than currently exists in France.

    Isabel Hilton from China Dialogue says the energy shift has reached a point where Beijing has a vested commercial interest in holding the world to the Paris deal.

    “The Chinese think they can dominate low-carbon technologies,” she said.

    (h/t to greeniewatch)
    . . .
    It is to China’s advantage to enforce COP21, as they will supply the 15century technology to hobble western energy supplies whilst strengthening theirs with nuclear.

    You can’t build a nuclear industry without a coal energy power base first.

    It was coal that freed humanity from the whims of windmills and wind, saved the whales from hunting for light at night …
    ~ ~ ~
    Meanwhile, conservative Tom Switzer, at the age, upsetting readers, opines:

    “Illusions are dangerous, particularly in politics.
    Writing in the 1930s, the liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr​ observed: “The prestige of the international community is not great enough to achieve a communal spirit sufficiently unified to discipline recalcitrant nations.”
    And he warned against “a too uncritical glorification of co-operation and mutuality” between powers with opposing national interests.”

    90

    • #
      dp

      Misses the point. China has not and will not disable, disband, or reduce in rate of installation fossil fuel plants. They’re fully aware solar has no storage solution and is unreliable. That reliability comes from fossil fuel. China is also building dams all over the top of the world in the Himalaya mountains. It is possible to have the greatest rate of increase in solar power and still be the filthiest nation on earth and China has proven it.

      90

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…the filthiest nation on earth and China has proven it.’

        They are late starters in the industrial revolution, remember the London smogs of the 1950s and the Clean Air Act.

        China will get its act together fairly quickly, its a dictatorship in good working order and they have no intention of going to war, no matter what Archibald thinks.

        As a commercial nation they fully intend to introduce renewables into Africa in the near future. Later on, as industry grows, they can shift to state of the art coal fired plants.

        The strategy is to woo those nation states without electricity, surely there will be rejoicing in every town and village throughout the continent.

        20

        • #
          Peter C

          China will get its act together fairly quickly, its a dictatorship in good working order and they have no intention of going to war, no matter what Archibald thinks.

          I hope that you are right el gordo! I have just read Archibald’s book “Australia’s Defence”. It did cause me to worry about the future of our region.
          Apart from the Oriental mindset, which I probably do not understand, there is the issue of the island forts in the South China Sea. What could they be for unless it is to seize control of the South China Sea? And if they do seize control of the South China Sea, or threaten to seize control, what then?

          30

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘…what then?’

            Nothing really, its just a sphere of influence. Obama and Turnbull agree that we must keep the Pacific in the hands of the Alliance, because we don’t trust Communists.

            There is no need to be afraid of Chinese ambition in Africa and South America, they will drag those continents out of poverty and the world will be a safer place.

            This new form of capitalism should theoretically end up as the standard model.

            10

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The African Development Bank turned its focus to energy this year, seeking to bring electricity within a decade to the 620 million citizens on the continent who lack it. The institution funds both conventional and renewable power plants, and said it will triple its financing of climate action projects to $5 billion annually by 2020.

        “We have enormous natural resources for clean energy in Africa,” Akinwumi Adesina, president of the African Development Bank, said in an October 25 interview. “We have the potential to deploy 11 terawatts of solar energy, 350 gigawatts of hydro, 110 gigawatts of wind and 15 gigawatts of geothermal.”

        Mail/Guardian

        20

    • #
      el gordo

      Its all pretty straight forward, I’m assuming the ‘worst polluters’ are the ones producing particulate smog in capital cities and the CO2 reduction is the cream on the cake.

      ‘Greenpeace says China has shut down 18GW of old coal plants, and is likely to shut another 60GW by 2020. These are the worst polluters, mostly “subcritical” plants below 50 megawatts. Cleaner ones are being built. The latest “high efficiency low emission” (HELE) facilities cut CO2 by 25pc-33pc.’

      20

      • #

        el gordo, this is in reply to your 3 comments above mine here.

        Earlier this year I saw an article from The Grauniad which was about the most polluted city in China, Baoding in NE China, which has a population of around 1.2 Million people.

        Good article really. Typical concentration on what the city is big at doing, manufacture of renewable (wind and solar) components, and I suppose there might be some irony in that somewhere.

        The journo doing the story could,’t figure out why it was so polluted, oh, until the third last paragraph that is. The old coal fired plant had closed, and there was no major pollution in the city. Cars were still only at a smallish level.

        It seems that the pollution comes from (stress the coal aspect here) coal fired steam boilers in the hundred or more surrounding provincial towns and villages around the city. These boilers are used to provide heating in these towns and villages.

        As with most of China, the major cities get connected up to the grids early on and then they extend the grid outwards from there.

        So, it would seem that the answer to this pollution is simple. Connect them to the grids, still a (literally) humungous part of China’s electricity expansion, As new coal fired plants (and those huge new hydro plants as well) are going in, China is spending just as much on expanding their grids as well. Even so, barely 13% of all generated power goes to the Residential sector. (in the Developed World, that Residential total is between 30 and 38%)

        Of note here is the date the article was written, May 2015, and note the top image of the coal fired power plant with the cooling towers belching their cooling steam. That image was taken two years earlier, because that coal fired power plant is now closed.

        Link to article – Welcome to Baoding, China’s most polluted city

        Tony.

        80

    • #

      What handjive says here is perfectly true, make no mistake, but in actual fact it’s an illusion, where China is being very clever.

      I’ll draw your attention to a graph at the first link handjive gives us right at the intro to his Comment. Take that link and scroll down to the third graph which artfully shows how wind power is generating more electricity than wind, and very cleverly shows the exponential rise in wind power generation, almost approaching the vertical, since 2008.

      This is actually true.

      Wind is generating more than Nuclear ….. but what needs to be seen here is actual context.

      See that total for wind there on this graph (now 12 Months out of date as right now, December 2015, the totals are almost equal) which gives the illusion that wind is, umm, dare I say it, powering ahead, well that total is barely 3% of total power generation.

      Further context shows this.

      China is bringing on line huge amounts of new coal fired power, still at the rate of a plant a week, around 4GW a Month, still, and there is still not really an end in sight to that.

      Just to stay at that 3%, then China would also need to be constructing 400MW of wind power AT THE SAME RATE of construction. (400MW in Nameplate to equal actual power generation)

      They are not actually doing that. Reasonably close to that on some Months but on an overall yearly basis, they are in fact decreasing that overall wind component, only because coal fired plants are so huge, and large scale Hydro is also coming on stream, again further increasing the absolute all source total, so the wind component decreases slightly because the total rises.

      Even so, if they were, it still gives the illusion that China is roaring ahead with wind power. (just one of the two renewables of choice)

      Similar applies with Solar, only to a much lesser degree, as Solar power generation is still only 0.02% (if that) of the total generation, and again, they could lead the World in construction of these plants and it’s impact is still all but zero, as is the same everywhere else in the World.

      As an example, there is a much greater Nameplate for wind in China (now) than in the U.S. However in the U.S. wind power is almost 4% of total generation.

      See the anomaly there. Greater Nameplate but less power generation in comparison to the overall total power generation.

      It’s an illusion helped along by a compliant media which will find excuses to make something seem what it is not.

      Tony.

      130

      • #
        el gordo

        Thanks for the in-depth analysis on this great illusion.

        What is the most practical way of giving the 620 million people of Africa some form of electricity within a decade?

        50

        • #

          el gordo,

          the population of Africa is now close to 1.i5 Billion, all up.

          The dream is to run it from renewables, and hey, that plan will cost literally close to trillions.

          Spend that same money constructing grids, which, even with renewables they have to do anyway, and then start giving them access to the real electrical power which drove all of us in the already Developed Countries into what we have now.

          Only now, instead of old tech coal fired plants we have, they have new tech ones, and I’m certain that China is not going to miss an opportunity like that which Africa looks like.

          Africa must have vast untapped, probably even unfound huge deposits of coal. Imagine the Chinese saying to that Country, say, you have these huge deposits of coal. We’ll build you a shiny new state of the art coal fired plant and even help with a grid. You can use some of that coal, and we’ll even pay you for the portion of coal you want to sell to us.

          Please don’t try and tell me that this is not already happening.

          Niger opened a 600MW coal fired power plant, (Bayswater is 2640MW with FOUR X 660MW units) and that increased their total power generation by a factor of 15.3. That same one (by comparison, relatively) small unit generates the same power that currently is the total power consumption of 23 African Countries with a population of around 145 Million people.

          And the UN dreams of supplying Africa with renewable power.

          Good luck with that.

          Tony.

          120

      • #
        el gordo

        China can easily supply the right mix of energy needs, leaning towards nuclear instead of coal if that’s what it takes.

        http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2015-12/30/content_22864724.htm

        20

  • #
    Brian H

    Jaymez;

    Yes, economics is where the rubber meets the road. The payoff for COP21 is non-existant; who will risk pauperization for no return? Naming and shaming won’t be enough inducement for that pain.

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is a good point.

      It matters not, how high your moral stance happens to be, if you can’t feed your family, all philosophy goes out the window.

      10

  • #
    Ava Plaint

    Paris just lets the holier than thou go on pontificating & the bought up scientists carry on fiddling while governments get on with more serious business.

    40

  • #
    Harry Passfield

    OK, here’s the thing. We can talk about the semantics of the COP-out treaty because we see it in English. But there were what, 195 countries represented? How, I wonder were the nuances in English translated into the many other languages that country reps had to take back to their governments? I mean, the old chestnut of “Out of sight, out of mind” in English is said to be, “Invisible, insane” in Russian (or Serbo-Croat….).
    The whole thing is a stunt. Confusing movement with action.

    101

  • #
    handjive

    Dealing with criminals in climate fr@ud

    OPINION: The Government’s plan for meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitment and 2020 emissions reduction target was released this month.

    It reveals a shocking truth: New Zealand has been a willing participant in a wholesale climate fr@ud.

    We’ve been dealing with criminals and fr@udsters in order to meet our international obligations.

    If our reputation wasn’t shot to pieces after Paris – where we revealed our weak kneed 2030 target – it will be now.

    We have been the biggest abuser of fraudulent carbon credits. Someone should be answerable as an accessory to the fraud.

    Geoff Simmons is an economist with the Morgan Foundation.

    – The Dominion Post

    72

  • #
    pat

    India is the big prize:

    29 Dec: EnvironmentalFinance: Financing India’s renewables revolution
    India plans to build 175GW of renewables by 2022, requiring billions of dollars of capital. What are the opportunities for non-Indian investors, asks Peter Cripps
    If its ambitious targets are met, there will be 100GW of solar (up from 3.3GW currently), 60GW of wind, 10GW of biomass, and 5GW of small hydro.
    Such a build-out will require a massive injection of capital, a figure estimated by some at $300 billion…
    “Large investors such as pension funds and insurance companies have stayed away from significant investments in renewable energy. The use of foreign sources of debt has also has been limited,” says Namita Vikas, group president and country head of responsible banking at Yes Bank (private Indian bank). “There is definitely the need for foreign investors to step in, as the funding may not be domestically available.”
    But is there demand from western investors to fill this gap? The Indian solar investment opportunity remains compelling, argues Andrew Newman, co-founder of Armstrong Energy, a UK-based developer with big plans for India.
    India has a “unique” combination of high levels of sunshine, high power prices – meaning solar can compete in some areas without subsidies – and the size of the market is huge. For these reasons, he argues India is currently the most attractive solar market in the world…
    A report from Vishal Shah at Deutsche Bank said power purchase agreements (PPAs) in the latest round of bidding under the national solar programme are expected to come in below INR5 ($0.075) per KW/h…
    US renewables juggernaut SunEdison has been developing at scale in the country, which is one of its four key markets, along with the US, China and Latin America. At a renewables conference hosted by Modi in February, the firm pledged to deliver 10GW of solar and 5GW of wind projects.
    UK developer Lightsource Renewable Energy has made a £2 billion ($3 billion) commitment to the market…
    Other large corporates have also taken the plunge. Japanese telecoms firm SoftBank, Indian conglomerate Bharti and Taiwan-based electronics manufacturer Foxxconn are planning to invest $20 billion in Indian renewable energy through a joint venture. The new company, SBG Cleantech, plans to create 20GW of solar and wind energy in India over the next 10 years…
    The government has allowed 100% foreign ownership of renewables projects, and renewables projects can receive special treatment in terms of calculating their contribution to the grid over longer periods, ***so they are not as heavily penalised for their intermittency…
    https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/financing-indias-renewables-revolution.html

    29 Dec: RenewablesSeeNews: India’s ReNew Power preps for asset purchases – report
    Roughly 3 GW, or 10%, of India’s installed renewable energy capacity may be up for sale currently and local firm ReNew Power Ventures plans to take advantage of the situation, its head told Mint.
    The renewable power producer, which counts US investment bank Goldman Sachs as one of its backers, is keen on acquiring both wind and solar power facilities that meet its return on investment requirements, founder and CEO Sumant Sinha said, as cited by the newspaper…
    http://renewables.seenews.com/news/indias-renew-power-preps-for-asset-purchases-report-507133

    20

  • #
    pat

    28 Dec: WSJ: Nevada’s Solar Flare
    State regulators roll back the net-metering electricity scam
    Solar energy is no longer in its infancy, but the industry is refusing to grow up. See the tantrum the government-funded industry is throwing at Nevada’s rollback of its net-metering subsidy.
    Last week the Nevada Public Utilities Commission voted to sunset the state’s net metering program, which compensates customers who remit excess solar power generated from their rooftop panels at the retail rate of power. The retail price is about two times higher than wholesale because it also includes transmission, delivery and grid maintenance costs.
    More than 40 states have net-metering programs…
    The principal beneficiaries have been solar-leasing companies like SolarCity and SunRun, which install solar panels at no upfront cost to customers, pocket the sundry government subsidies, and then rent the panels at rates that typically escalate by about 3% annually but are initially lower than power from the grid. Homeowners can shave 20% from electric bills.
    Sounds like a great deal—but there’s no free green lunch, and non-solar utility customers must underwrite this hidden subsidy. Nevada’s utility commission estimate that non-solar ratepayers—who tend to be lower income—subsidize each solar user in southern Nevada to the tune of $623 per year.
    ***Most of this flows to solar-leasing company investors such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup…READ ALL
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nevadas-solar-flare-1451346423

    21 Dec: Livemint: Shailaja Sharma: Low solar tariffs in India could put off potential investors
    Renewable energy firms have been quoting record low tariffs in government auctions to win solar projects in India
    Such tariffs could prove to be unviable—disappointing investors looking for steady returns, say experts.
    Firms such as SunEdison Inc. and SB Energy Corp., a joint venture between SoftBank Group Corp., Bharti Enterprises Ltd and Foxconn Technology Co. Ltd, have been bidding aggressively in auctions after India raised its solar power capacity target five-fold to 100 gigawatts by 2022. Bidding in two separate reverse e-auctions under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission saw US’s SunEdison, SB Energy and local firms like Yarrow Infrastructure Ltd, Reliance CleanGen Ltd and Azure Power India Pvt. Ltd bid lower than Rs.5 per kilowatt-hour (kWh),raising concerns about the long-term viability of these projects
    In a reverse auction, the role of buyer and seller is reversed and a business bid is won by quoting prices downwards…
    “I think the current bids are far too aggressive and competitive bidding route, while reducing tariffs in the short term, is quickly leading to consternation that India despite, higher volume, is becoming an unattractive market from a returns point of view,” said Sumant Sinha, founder and chief executive at renewable energy firm ReNew Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
    ReNew Power, backed by Goldman Sachs SA and the Asian Development Bank, was also a bidder in both the auctions. In the first one, it bid at Rs.4.85 per unit but went with a higher bid of Rs.5.17 in the second auction…
    ***Some of the foreign firms may also come in with cheaper borrowings in dollars or Japanese yen and have an edge over their Indian counterparts, whose cost of borrowing may be higher by 4%-7%…
    http://www.livemint.com/Industry/ix22pVWAXLuH107aPoI6nN/Low-solar-tariffs-in-India-could-put-off-potential-investors.html

    20

  • #
    Ava Plaint

    As Britain braces for its 2nd. named storm in a week, “Frank” (quelle nouvitee) and I hurtle down the M74 out of Glasgow for the English Riviera being buffeted in a high sided vehicle I am gently reminded of more sanguine times, when the weathermen still had backbone & could hold a stiff upper lip. Michael Fish before the 1987 hurricane

    51

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Not quite on thread but FYI

    “Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed suit against the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seeking documents relating to their methodology and internal communications with regard to climate change.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/judicial_watch_files_suit_over_noaa_climate_docs.html

    Via tips at Chiefio

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Julie Bishop and Ban Ki-moon at the COP21 / Picture: AAP

    Q. How many planet destroying plastic bottles of water does it take to save a planet?

    A. 13+

    20

    • #
      dp

      Bottled water is the most important emergency product made today for use in response to events like wild fire, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, terror bombings, and any number of other things. To destroy the economies of scale needed to produce and distribute bottled water economically is irresponsible on a very high scale. When our state was burning last summer bottled water was the number one requested donation followed by a place to bivouac fire fighters. Bottled water show up on pallets in a disaster. Nothing else compares. Bottled water is a critical resource not to be trifled with by immature greenie globe savers.

      90

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The United States fought a war in Korea as “police action” and in Viet Nam and supported wars in many African, South American and Central American countries without every declaring through Congress that the US was at war with anyone.

    Don’t think legality has any issue with what the US, through the President, wants.

    The Republicans may say that they are against the climate non-treaty treaty, but consider the non-show of Republicans at the Ted Cruz Data or Dogma congressional hearing. The US Senate and Congress have historically voted symbolic but not-quite-enough “no” responses to what a President wants. I think both Republicans and Democrats are on-side with the Paris agreements, just as they are on-side with the EPA. True acceptance is reached in the corridors of power; grandstanding and posturing are what happens when votes are required.

    The questions we should endeavor to answer are about why the entire political class wants the self-punitive agreement, if even in appearance only. Do we have historic precedents for this? The only one close IMO is the US handling of Cuba. 50+ years of boycott and isolation, for what and why? Across multiple generations, more presidential elections and for all politicians of all stripes. Why?

    Let’s all watch the Iran nuclear situation. The Republicans say they are against it, and they control the House and Senate, everyone knows its a COP21-style agreement without compliance controls or even solid verification, that has already been breached with the ballistic missile tests. Yet …. where is the active denunciation, the repudiation of Obama’s “will”?

    The halls of power are no more open to our inspection than they were before. Now, though, we know enough to see the disconnect and remember enough to recognize the falsehoods we have been told. The US, Britain, Canada, Australia – which of us above 30 can’t point to promises or positions being 180* off from actions within only months?

    As skeptics we think we are the angels and the warmists are the demons. Recall that the ones supporting slavery in 1861 were Democrats and the abolitionists, Republicans. Conservative/Liberal, skeptic/warmist, actor/politician – I’m not sure our political systems in the democratic west differentiate the two very much. Maybe that is an unknown characteristic of 21st century democracy: the same-old but in silk and feathers rather than leather and chain-mail.

    71

  • #
    David Maddison

    I haven’t finished watching this video yet but so far it is excellent!

    Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie. (About 1hr 15min.)

    http://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

    41

  • #
    RoHa

    “but real commitment.”

    I’m very pleased to see that. I have long said that many of the AGW mob should be committed.

    Which mental health facilities are they being sent to?

    21

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    We can all bemoan the lack of Science and waste of money with no effect on Climate. I think we are all correct.
    However, the financiers really run this country. The following gives an insight into their thinking. I am afraid we are going to take many steps backwards until Science prevails.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-29/verrender-a-turning-point-in-the-future-of-coal/7057474?WT.mc_id=newsmail

    20

    • #
      RoHa

      For the sake of American readers, I will point out that “this country” means “Australia”.

      (Americans use the phrase to mean “the USA”. They are, of course, wrong.)

      40

  • #
    pat

    29 Dec: Town Hall: Patrick J. Michaels: “Homogenized” US Warming Trend May Be Grossly Exaggerated
    Editor’s note: This column was co-authored by Paul C. Knappenberger of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
    The way we measure global temperature is once again facing scrutiny for over-estimating the planet’s warming trends. Our government homogenizes weather data so that all nearby weather stations are all singing the same tune. It’s done to weed out bad stations or failing weather equipment. We discovered such a thing earlier this year when we found that perhaps the nation’s most politically iconic weather station—Washington DC’s Reagan National Airport—was reading temperatures that were far too hot to be plausible…
    Now it turns out that the homogenization itself is suspect and also producing way too much warming. Anthony Watts, a prominent climate blogger without any external financial support, revealed this in a blockbuster presentation at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, a few days before Christmas. Along with three colleagues, he may have invalidated much of the warming in recent years in the U.S. temperature history from our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…READ ALL
    http://townhall.com/columnists/patrickjmichaels/2015/12/29/homogenized-us-warming-trend-may-be-grossly-exaggerated-n2097972/page/full

    50

  • #
    pat

    29 Dec: ClimateChangeDispatch: Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene
    Written by Jonathan DuHamel, WryHeat
    A new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman…
    But the climate hysteria has lost all contacts with science. The hundreds of stupid mammals from all corners of the world who gathered in Paris don’t read Nature. It’s much worse than that, of course. They don’t talk to anyone who has a clue about science, either. They’ve brainwashed themselves into believing that the global warming temperature must be a high-precision, well-defined number and, which is even worse, they may push it in any direction they want by meeting their fellow mammals and signing meaningless arrogant declarations…READ ALL
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/welcome-to-a-new-geologic-era-the-idiocene.html

    50

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The unified real theory of Climate science … CAGW = BS + AGW = SFA

    31

  • #
    pat

    progressive left Raw Story having an MSM melt-down:

    29 Dec: Raw Story: David Edwards: Analysis: Only one meteorologist in entire US linked ‘climate change’ to record hot Christmas
    A Raw Story analysis of thousands of TV weather forecasts in the United States found that only one meteorologist was willing to concede that the record breaking temperatures over the Christmas holiday could be linked to climate change…
    A Raw Story search of broadcast and cable news weather forecasts between Dec. 21 and Dec. 29 (via TVEyes) revealed that Steve MacLaughlin of WTAE was the only meteorologist to note that the weather patterns had been “enhanced by climate change” and El Niño.
    In fact, a number of meteorologists went out of their way to explain why the high temperatures could not be tied to climate change…
    ***But meteorologists outside the U.S. were found to regularly connect climate change to the record-breaking temperatures…
    During a recent interview with MSNBC, science advocate Bill Nye urged meteorologists to talk more about climate change.
    “We have a situation where no one in regular television will say the phrase ‘climate change,’” Nye lamented. “Nobody will mention this phrase…
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/analysis-only-one-meteorologist-in-entire-us-linked-climate-change-to-record-hot-christmas/

    here’s another one to upset Raw Story. Meteorologist Roemer, who is also a Commodity Trading Advisor, doesn’t even bite on the Climate Change leading question.
    El Nino good for GDP, Californian & African crops, housing starts, etc. only downside is if/when El Nino weakens!

    VIDEO: 4mins20secs: 28 Dec: Youtube: Bloomberg Business: Is the Warm Winter Because of El Nino or Climate Change?
    Best Weather’s Jim Roemer weighs in on the warm winter in a large part of the U.S. and its impact on energy prices. He speaks on “Bloomberg Markets.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOOHV1J73Uk

    30

    • #
      john karajas

      The blizzard conditions currently being experienced in Texas are DEFINITELY due to Climate Change or is it Climate Weirding? Maybe the heat is being channeled into the deep ocean as we speak. I know what it is: a stray carbon dioxide molecule has migrated from Texas to Victoria and taken all the heat with it.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        john:

        I get a certain amusement from claims that heat has gone into the oceans deeps ( look! 1 thousand of a degree rise, might be 3 thousandth of a degree etc.) and the follow up that it will all rise to the surface REAL SOON, and warm the earth by (frightening claims).

        I always wonder how? It appears that certain believers failed elementary thermodynamics. What mechanism can turn 3 thousandths of a degree into anything other than slightly less than 3 thousandths of a degree. Do those in cold climates heat hot water to 0.1℃ above outside air temperature and circulate it expecting it to warm the whole house?

        60

        • #
          Another Ian

          Graeme No.3

          ” It appears that certain believers failed elementary thermodynamics”

          Right idea, wrong dimensions IMO

          ” It appears that certain believers were never within a bull’s roar of elementary thermodynamics”

          30

  • #
    pat

    29 Dec: GWPF: Nathan Rao: Historic Weather Records Rubbish Cameron’s Attempts To Blame Floods On Global Warming
    http://www.thegwpf.com/historic-weather-records-rubbish-camerons-attempts-to-blame-floods-on-global-warming/

    40

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic, but fun read (unless you are a union official), is the findings of TURC (Trade Union Royal Commission):

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-30/trade-union-royal-commission-findings-released/7059348

    Plenty of people referred to various agencies for further investigation and a raft of recommendations. Cue Labor stating it was all a Tory stitchup from the start (probably partially true – it was a political gift that kept on giving) and evading any changes whatsoever.

    20

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Bulldust,

      I will scan The Age tomorrow but I will not be surprised if it barely rates a mention.

      I do not see Malcolm Turnbull taking up the baseball bat that has been handed to him.

      20

  • #
    pat

    ABC and its CAGW obsession never ends, even tho most callers/text messagers seem bored with Reese and the topic:

    link is in right side column – second listing for Wednesday 30 December 2015 with headphones icon (date will appear top left of the media player when it opens as 2015-12-30):

    ABC Overnights with Trevor Chappell: beginning at 1 hour in…”Earth Doctor” Reese Halter
    http://www.abc.net.au/overnights/

    Reese is one of the most irritating people ever on ABC, but they keep having him. it’s all ridiculous but, at 1hr11mins30secs in, caller bemoans only alarmist CAGW views get aired on Trevor’s program. begs Reese to suggest someone, with different points of view to him, who will challenge him. Reese laughs his head off. Trevor jumps in, claims he’s invited people on to debate “Climate Change”; indeed he’s invited unnamed “experts” who say Climate Change is non-existent, & he’s organised it twice and both times they’ve dropped out. smug old Reese then goes off on one of his rants. adding 100million to the population each year. caller says why don’t you advocate birth control then? Reese laughs. Trevor says goodbye caller. Reese says he’d get into trouble if he did advocate birth control. someone asks for Reese’s credentials. Reese boasts. Trevor has now decided to look at CAGW simply. number one, he will firstly listen to the scientists. he asks a caller, do we pollute? does pollution affect the environment? does that affect the climate? nervous, intimidated callers answers yes to everything. for Trevor, that’s the main point. we should stop polluting and he’ll leave it up to unnamed scientists to deal with the science. Reese brings up cattle flatulence. Trevor has heard that one. Reese brings up how Greenland, Antarctica are melting. etc. ends about 1hr34mins.

    when will Aussie MSM follow the lead elsewhere and stop boring its audience to death with this constant CAGW rubbish?

    81

    • #
      Bulldust

      This guy could be a contender for Climate Pratt of the Year! Looks like a right dropkick.

      81

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        My thought also, but Obama wears the crown until the end of 2016. Save his name and some of his waffle and nominate him then.
        P.S. Harry & Tristam don’t qualify unless they start making fools of themselves in front of the general public.

        40

      • #
        Yonniestone

        “a right dropkick.” more like a right punt.

        10

    • #
      AndrewWA

      Most of what you can read about Dr Reese Halter is what Reese Halter says about himself.

      “I am a distinguished biologist” but his bio tells us nothing about his life before getting his PhD in ecostress subalpine Eucalypt (Snow Gums) physiology from The University of Melbourne.

      I suggest that from reading everything that’s available Dr Reese Halter is an expert at saying and doing whatever it takes to milk $$s from wherever and whenever.

      The photo with Bob brown tells me all that I need to know….

      40

      • #
        Bulldust

        Well if I was looking at the right web site, he looks like someone with a religious-like zeal. Looking forward to many more prattish remarks. People like that do more damage to the CAGW movement than they realise.

        20

  • #
    pat

    HuffPo Australia one of the few MSM outlets, besides ABC, to give space to Reese. is any of the following a surprise from this guy?

    29 Dec: HuffPo: Reese Halter: Epic Wild Weather, Christmas 2015
    The stunning unintended consequences of burning in excess of 96 million metric tons daily of climate altering, subsidized fossil fuels made this holiday season unforgettable for millions of people around the world who experienced wild weather.
    In October the average temperature across land and ocean was a remarkable 1.79 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, smashing all previous 136 years of NOAA’s record keeping…
    Rather recently the oceans concealed deep within about five decades worth of heat-trapping fossil fuel temperatures…
    An overheating ocean has begun to wreak havoc globally…
    This El Nino, which is supercharged from an overheating ocean, is one of the strongest since 1950 and it’s beginning to spark deadly and very costly climate extremes in Australia, South America, the UK and the United States…
    Torrential flooding across northern England has inundated York, Leeds, Greater Manchester, Cumbria and elsewhere…
    On Christmas Day along one of the most spectacular coastal roads in the world – The Great Ocean Road – an apocalyptic wild fire rapidly incinerated over 5,000 tinder-dry acres and 116 homes along both sides of the Road right down to the ocean…
    As we continue to burn more fossil fuels, expect more wild weather with double the frequency of what my colleagues have dubbed ‘Super El Nino’ events…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/epic-wild-weather-christm_b_8882482.html?ir=Australia

    20

    • #
      Annie

      Ye gods! He’s definitely forgotten our cool summer early in 2015 and the seemingly never-ending cold winter. All that was only weather, of course. Our dry and hot recent spell is too but as far as the warmists are concerned, that is climate. I am talking about Victoria here.

      I was in England twice during the year. In May it was cold and miserable and also for most of the time we were there in July. Our first few days down south were just ‘normal’, nothing unusual. By the time we were heading up the M74 to Glasgow it was cold and wet. We were quite glad to warm up in Dubai!

      20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Check out the photo sequence at the end of

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/the-one-thing-a-scientist-should-never-ever-do/#comments

    “a photo is worth a thousand words”

    40

  • #
    Peter C

    GOP leaders and their allies must mount their own campaign to undercut the global political pressure regime Obama plans to construct

    Whether they do that or not is up to them, but the important thing is that they can! I admire the GOP and also that Americans can sustain a GOP ( Grand Old Party = Republican Party= Conservative).

    Here in Australia we do not have any equivalent. The Liberal Party is called Conservative but they are not and never were. Menzies founded the Liberal Party as a middle of the road party to get back into power. As such the Liberals have even less moral compass than the Labour Party. Ask the Liberal Party what they stand for and you get a hash of policies. They have no philosophy (as far as I know), which can guide development of policies.

    Consequently (as I see it) the GOP is the standard bearer for the Free World.

    21

  • #
    cedarhill

    Few outside the US realize the States have the power to seize control from the Federal government simply by convening an Article V Constitutional Convention which would redefine the powers of the Federal government as limited. There are about 30 States that have passed calls for a Convention. Twenty-nine (29) States of the 34 required to call an Article V convention have done so. Current events and the current President and the totalitarian drive from the Federals might push a few more States over the line. Either that or the US will evolve into just having a series of Supreme Leaders, be it Obama or Trump, each building on the prior one’s actions.

    100

  • #
    Unmentionable

    Well, I’m thrilled to have been saved (again) by people who know, know they know, and have set me straight about what I was doing that was a bit annoying to them. I just wish I knew this stuff better, so I won’t go mucking something else up that may seem otherwise completely undetectable or just made-up. I may need some more of their good advice soon too, so I don’t get bamboozled or led astray by well-meaning morons and super-nerds. It’s all a bit scary having a brain and not knowing what it’s supposed to do, or if I’ve done it right. I’ve now got a whole plenitude of blind-guides to get me to the other side of the land of nothings or I’d never have known there was an emergency going on, all by myself, would I?

    And I think they’re a bit misunderstood too, by some of you more stand-offish people (let’s call it), who don’t realize that bush fires can actually be reduced by building wind farms. Electricity lines make sparks that make fires you see, and wind farms don’t do that. Well, not very often, far more rarely than you’d expect any way, as modern windmills are inherently low-spark technology. I bet you didn’t know that!

    So just think a little next time you wag a finger at those who in fact do know better, or maybe want to call them time-wasting knobs. We can all learn from each other here, and we have a responsibility to save the little plants and animals from .. well, for whatever it is we’re harming the environment for. It’s our responsibility to stop all that, and save the poor little beggars. We should be prepared already to just do the right thing pay money and stop being the problem. Who’s going to save them if we don’t pay for it, eh? That’s all we really need to know when you get right down to it. All the jaw-boning about measuring warm concrete isn’t going to save them, is it? So we’re just getting right off the plot with all that side-issue sort of thing.

    From one caring human being to another, let’s pay to secure our children a future.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrZNrHUtO-8

    00

  • #
    ianl8888


    Twenty-nine (29) States of the 34 required to call an Article V convention have done so

    Interesting

    So assume that 34 States call for Article V

    What might these 34 agree on ? In what ways would the Feds fight this ? (Who controls the army at that point ?)

    20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    more trickery:

    30 Dec: CarbonPulse: Ben Garside: Poland plans lawsuit against EU over MSR
    Poland is to bring a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seeking to annul the EU’s decision to introduce the Market Stability Reserve, the government said on Wednesday after its cabinet agreed the move.
    A government statement said that because the MSR starts in 2019, this violates “the principle of loyal cooperation by adopting measures conflicting with the conclusions of the European Council in 2014”. It said the decision also prevents legal certainty over the current 2013-2020 EU ETS trading period and goes against the EU principle of proportionality by adopting measures leading to the implementation of emission cut targets higher than the bloc’s international commitments.
    ***The MSR was given its final stamp of approval in Sep. 2015, though in a rare instance of the EU legislative process the Council of Member States did not adopt it by consensus. Instead, it was required to be passed under Qualified Majority Voting..
    At least six nations are understood to have voted against the measure – Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Hungary and Cyprus – having objected to its start date of 2019 rather than the 2021 data originally proposed by the European Commission…
    Cases before the ECJ, the EU’s highest court, tend to drag on for years. Lawsuits brought by eight eastern member states over their ETS Phase 2 (2008-2012) allocations were only fully resolved in 2013 after a six-year legal battle…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/13814/

    00

  • #
    pat

    30 Dec: Reuters: Spain’s Abengoa seeks to sell stalled Brazil projects
    Spain’s multinational Abengoa SA said on Wednesday it is seeking buyers to revive transmission-line and other construction projects in Brazil that the company had suspended after filing for creditor protection in Spanish courts…
    The work stoppages are expected to delay the completion of 1,700 kilometers (1,056 miles) of transmission lines needed to link the new Belo Monte hydroelectric project in Brazil’s Amazon with key parts of the national power grid.
    As a result Belo Monte will be unable to generate as much power as expected, Aneel said in a recent report…
    Brazil’s government is counting on Belo Monte, whose capacity of 11,200 megawatts is the world’s third largest, to boost the country’s electricity supply by about 10 percent. Average output from the dam will be about 4,500 megawatts.
    This new power is needed to ease the pressure of growing demand during a drought that has sharply reduced hydroelectric output from non-Amazon dams in Brazil’s northeast and southeast regions…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/abengoa-brazil-idUKL1N14J17U20151230

    VIDEO: 30 Dec: WeatherNetwork: Cheryl Santa Maria: Huge natural gas leak still spewing methane in California
    Now, it looks like the rupture will continue to spew methane into the atmosphere until February or March, when the construction of a relief well is completed.
    Currently, 110,000 pounds of natural gas are hitting the atmosphere each hour from the leak, resulting in the relocation of 2,200 households, International Business Times (IBT) reports. An additional 2,600 households may need to be relocated to avoid long-term health risks.
    The Environmental Defense Fund estimates the environmental toll of the leak is equivalent to the emissions of 7 million cars per day…
    Reports suggest the leak has wasted an estimated $11.4 million in gas — but the cost to SoCalGas is expected to be much higher. According to Bloomberg, the utility may have to pay up to $900 million on costs, including the relocation of residents and legal fees…
    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/huge-natural-gas-leak-still-spewing-methane-in-california/61769/

    00

  • #
    pat

    30 Dec: Merced Sun-Star: Our View: Something rotten in state’s response to gas leak
    The amount of methane gas escaping into the neighborhoods around the southern California town of Porter Ranch is downright frightening. The smell of rotten eggs permeats the air. Homes have been evacuated, classes have moved to far-away school buildings, there’s even a no-fly zone over the area.
    That’s because 1,200 tons of methane is being released every single day from beneath Porter Ranch, a trendy planned community in the San Fernando Valley. The state estimates that’s the equivalent of adding 1 million cars to the highway for a year…
    Put another way, we’ve heard about how much damage our region’s milk cows do to the environment with the methane they produce; the leak is the equivalent to grazing 6,000 cows in the trendy San Fernando Valley community. Then another 6,000 cows the next day and the next and so on…
    In the face of such an environmental crisis, our ultra-green governor has been surprisingly quiet. Perhaps Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t gotten close enough to sniff the methane in the air. Perhaps invisible gas isn’t as interesting as diesel exhaust. Perhaps he’s gotten assurances from his sister, who sits on the board of directors of Sempra Energy, that this was being taken care of…
    Dealing with gas leaks in Porter Ranch isn’t as glamorous as going to Paris, but it will make us safer.
    http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/editorials/article52367340.html

    10

    • #
      ianl8888

      Methane CH4 does not smell like “rotten eggs”

      That status is commonly reserved for hydrogen sulphide H2S

      The drilling geos/engineers are, rightly, in the poop for not anticipating/preventing blowout during drilling. Failure of the cement annulus seal down the hole under pressure is a common and well understood drilling risk which is normally easily managed. We don’t have hard evidence yet as to what caused this, so speculation is just that – and pointless

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I would like to backup Ianl8888 in that methane does not smell. And further for all its status as bad greenhouse gas it is readily degraded by natural soil organisms. Rotten eggs smell is very characteristic of hydrogen sulphide (or hydrogen sulfide on your side of the ocean).

        10

  • #
    William Astley

    http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/2B92F493-C572-47A0-A748-3C4A82B86BC9.html

    The idiotic cult of CAGW is focusing the conversion in the media on future planetary warming which is not going to happen and is attributing any climate change to CAGW. They are ignoring the fact that there has been almost 19 years without warming, they are ignoring the fact that there is cyclic warming in the paleo record that correlates with solar cycle changes, and they are ignoring the fact that almost 1/3 of the paleo record in the last 800 million years does not support the assertion the CO2 has any affect on planetary temperature. Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted, as opposed to a slowdown in the solar cycle. If the past is a guide to the future and my understanding of what is happening to the sun and the mechanisms is correct we are going to experience abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling followed by what causes a Heinrich event.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
    “Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
    The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.”

    http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf
    “Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
    But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations18. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.”

    Oh well, until there is in your face cooling back to the climate wars and liberal madness.
    All of the developed countries have Liberal governments in place and big surprise are running unsustainable deficits. The Economist writers are part of the Zeitgeist, enthusiastic supporters of the madness. Each issue of the Economist now has have multiple articles advocating more spending on health care, more spending on infrastructure, more spending on education, more immigrants, more spending on developing country aid, more spending on ‘green’ scams, and so on, and so on. The Zeitgeist is that deficits do not matter and the secret to more well paying jobs and the end to economic stagnation is more government spending and more government borrowing. Liberal books have been published pushing the assertion that deficits do not matter and governments can solved all problems by spending more, so it must be true.

    http://www.amazon.com/Do-Deficits-Matter-Daniel-Shaviro-ebook/dp/B001CPR5HI/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

    There are now articles every week in the Economist discussing the fact that the developed countries have run out of money to spend on everything and surreally weekly articles that developing countries should spend more money on defense, health care, aid, climate change, take more immigrants, education and so on.

    The following is a real problem that needs to be solved as opposed to CAGW or even AGW which is a non problem. Regardless of the non existence of AGW, the green scams do not work/do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions -ignoring the fact that plants eat CO2 and commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing times, and it is a fact that there is a limited amount money to spend on anything, so wasting money on scams that do not work to solve a non-problem is bad thing, not a good thing.

    The Economist had an interesting article on the UN revised population growth in Africa. The population of Africa is growing faster than estimated and will reach 4.4 billion in 2100 (UN 2015 estimate), up from 2.3 billion (UN 2004 estimate). Ethiopia for example had a population of 10 million in 1950 and will have population of 243 million in 2100 based on the UN revised African population growth estimate. Due to the revised African population growth, the UN estimates the world will have a population of 11.2 billion in 2100, up from the 2004 estimate of 9.1 billion, from the current 7.3 billion.

    00

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 30 Dec: TheNewAmerican: Alex Newman: At Anti-UN Climate Summit, Scientist Slams Alarmist “Religion”
    In a video interview (see below) with The New American after his presentation at the anti-alarmism summit in Paris, Professor Marko also slammed the bogus “science” underpinning the new religion. Numerous summit attendees and experts from across France and beyond referred to the “climate religion” as “climatism.”
    “All the conclusions being reached by the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] are actually flawed conclusions,” said Dr. Marko, who serves as a professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and co-authored The Bankruptcy of Climatism…
    His speech at the summit was entitled: “The Nostradamuses of Climate and Their Erroneous Prophecies” (LINK). It was a big hit among attendees…
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22232-at-anti-un-climate-summit-scientist-slams-alarmist-religion

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘While the El Nino’s impacts will play out deep into 2016, scientists such as CSIRO’s Dr Cai and UNSW’s Dr Santoso expect the event to make way for its opposite – a La Nina – before the year’s end.

    If, as in 1998, conditions flip the other way, with the weather engine shifting back to the western Pacific, areas that have had rain shortages in 2015 may well get floods amid cooler conditions.

    “Extreme La Ninas tend to follow extreme El Ninos,” Dr Santoso said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/el-nino-the-weather-of-2015-captured-in-one-image-20151230-glx45n.html#ixzz3vrOL8GjA
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    ———-

    The west Queensland drought will come to an end next week, which should cheer Numbers up.

    20

  • #
    pat

    30 Dec: Bloomberg: China to Halt New Coal Mine Approvals Amid Pollution Fight
    by Bloomberg News
    China will stop approving new coal mines for the next three years and continue to trim production capacity as the world’s biggest energy consumer tries to shift away from the fuel as it grapples with pollution.
    China will suspend the approval of new mines starting in 2016 and will cut coal’s share of its energy consumption to 62.6 percent next year, from 64.4 percent now, Xinhua News Agency reported Tuesday, citing National Energy Administration head Nur Bekri…
    ***The world’s biggest producer of carbon emissions is seeking to boost the use of renewable fuels…
    “This new policy, along with efforts to eliminate inefficient mines, may help to ease the severe domestic oversupply” of coal, Deng said by phone from Guangzhou. “It will take several years to take effect.”…
    ***China plans to increase wind and solar power capacity by more than 21 percent and have at least 20 gigawatts of new wind power installations and 15 gigawatts of additional photovoltaic capacity next year, according to the NEA statement…
    The NEA estimates China next year will consume 3.96 billion tons of coal, 550 million tons of oil and 205 billion cubic meters of natural gas, according to the Xinhua report.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/china-to-suspend-new-coal-mine-approvals-amid-pollution-fight

    how it’s being reported in China:

    31 Dec: China Daily: Yang Ziman: No new coal mines to be approved for three years to cut stockpiles
    China is suspending the approval of any new coal mines for three years to eliminate stockpiles and increase new-energy consumption, according to a report in Economic Information Daily on Wednesday.
    Nur Bekri, director of the National Energy Administration, was quoted as telling a conference on Tuesday that with production overcapacity expected to last for quite some time, green and low-carbon forms of energy will be the main focus of the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-20).
    Bekri said the administration also plans to shut down 60 million tons worth of outdated production capacity next year.
    During the same time period, he said, more effort will be put into coastal nuclear power plants with new installed wind power capacity expected to reach more than 20 million kilowatts and that for solar power to 15 million kW…
    At the same time, the widespread practice of ***NOT using installed wind and solar power sources, due to difficulties in integrating resources to the national power grid, needs to be addressed, he said…
    ***Current figures suggest some 30 percent of installed wind power capacity in northern regions of China remains unused, and the amount of solar power not being fed into the national grid is also growing.
    Wu Jiang, an economics professor at Renmin University of China in Beijing, said coal will still remain China’s dominant energy “for a very long time”, as not every region has an overcapacity of coal because of widely different energy structures.
    ***”The problem with new-energy consumption is that it’s not easy to integrate it into the conventional power grid.
    ***For that reason, a lot of wind and solar energy capacity has been suspended…
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2015-12/31/content_22877905.htm

    10

  • #
    pat

    30 Dec: Bloomberg: Jesper Starn: Coal Glut, Renewables Make EU Power Cheapest in Decade
    Record-low coal prices and increased wind and solar generation that pushed European power prices to their lowest in a decade may cause further declines in 2016…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/fossil-fuel-glut-renewables-make-eu-power-cheapest-in-a-decade

    31 Dec: Bloomberg: Glencore’s John Mack Says China Is Still Bullish for Commodities
    by Eddie Van Der Walt & Sonali Basak
    China’s economic growth engine will drive raw materials demand in the long term, according to Glencore Plc Director John Mack, who said the commodities firm remains focused on trading.
    Coal prices will keep falling and China isn’t likely to switch to natural gas from coal as much as the U.S. did, Mack said in an interview on Bloomberg Television on Wednesday. The mining company has cut copper output and other companies need to do the same if prices are to recover, he said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/glencore-s-john-mack-says-china-is-still-bullish-for-commodities

    10

  • #
    pat

    ianl8888 wrote:

    Methane CH4 does not smell like “rotten eggs”

    in case you haven’t been following the story:

    19 Dec: LA Times: Tony Barboza: Odors from Porter Ranch gas leak are just doing their jobs — too well
    But the real culprit is a safety feature in a transmission system that carries gas from hundreds of miles away.
    Producers in Texas, the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states inject trace amounts of two foul-smelling chemicals into the gas for a reason that now seems a rich paradox: to let noses sniff out the presence of the otherwise odorless methane…
    The sulfur-like compounds it contains, called mercaptans, are not toxic or damaging to the body and do not post long-term risks, public health officials and environmental experts say. It’s the odor itself that is causing health problems in the San Fernando Valley community.
    “It’s so noxious people have a physiologic response,” said Dr. Cyrus Rangan, director of the Los Angeles County health department’s Bureau of Toxicology and Environmental Assessment.
    The additive is a mix of two chemicals, tertiary butyl mercaptan and tetrahydrothiophene, said Glenn La Fevers, storage operations manager for Southern California Gas. Odorants, as they are called, have been used in gas for so long that people are conditioned to associate their skunk-like smell — which draw comparisons to rotting cabbage, smelly gym socks or rotten eggs — with danger and unease, even at levels close to zero….
    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-gas-leak-health-20151220-story.html

    10

    • #
      ianl8888

      Thanks Pat, but this information simply emphasises my point. The mercaptan additions are specifically to enable methane leaks to be smelled, presumedly based on the concept that smelling a leak is better than inadvertently igniting one :)

      No, I haven’t followed this specific story much, there are so many inaccurate ones around, all aimed at vilifying fraccing … very boring, actually

      Come to think of it, Pat – you’ve signalled your opposition to fraccing several times. This wouldn’t be yet another attempt, would it ? Sort of Gasland VI or something …

      10

      • #
        pat

        I am not in favour of or against fracking. I look at it on a case by case basis.

        in this particular case, I find it interesting that Pres Obama is silent, that Gov Brown is keeping very quiet, that the Gov’s sister is on the board of Sempra, & that it’s been happening before, during and after the hypocrisy of COP21.

        also, I wouldn’t want to be living in the area, especially as it will be several more months (according to the latest estimate) before the problem is fixed.

        00

  • #
    EyesWideOpen

    Oh, brother … I actually think PARIS 2015 was a big win for the CAGW alarmists. The further this big green(brown)shirt machine rolls, the more it becomes cemented in the public mind as a real problem, rather than a financially and politically driven ‘science’ fraud. The BIG LIE lives:

    “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” – Joseph Goebbel’s, Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik (1941)

    If the word English is replaced with CARBON TRADERS, then there sure is nothing new under the sun. Goebbels would probably also have been a CAGW skeptic … unless the NAZI’s had won of course, and then it would be their own Big Lie policy. The City of London however, will be the center of the Carbon Market for Credits and Derivatives, much like Gold, Oil, Forex, OTCD’s, Interest Rate Swaps … etc … market pricing (manipulation) lives in the financial regulatory void (black hole) known as the square-mile: No wonder Prince Charles and Prince Philip are leading the charge to loot the developed world, and ensure the un-developed world remain un-developed.

    As such, I think PARIS 2015 was a big alarmist win, because the BIG LIE tactic is what underpins the scam, and as long as there appears to be a political, ‘scientific’, and economic consensus on CAGW, the BIG LIE peddlers will keep winning. Truth is redefined and assaulted every day that the charade is continued in the public mind.

    “Reality is a series of successive PR stunts played by special interests, for self interest. Truth is just a five letter word, like Fraud.” – Me.

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    A question: On 60 Minutes last Sunday night there was a segment on CSG and during an interview with a farmer at an artesian bore discussion took place about gas from CSG operations leaching into the bore water. To demonstrate a flame at the end of a police was held close to the water exiting the bore head and flames claimed to be from gas in the water were evident.

    Would this not be a normal situation for water extracted via bores drilled into the ground to tap into underground aquifers? After all gas is natural.

    As you would expect the 60 Minutes segment was clearly against CSG.

    10

  • #
    john

    As we know all too well in Australia, ‘elections don’t have consequences’. At the last two elections, 2010 and 2013, Australians voted against a carbon tax or Emissions Trading Scheme, only to have this choice repudiated by changes in Government.

    10

  • #
    Graham

    The message of 23 years of Agenda 21 has still not been learnt.
    International agreements are ‘soft law’ even though enforced by naming and shaming.
    However, us poor citizens can still be prosecuted if our patriotic politicians pass local legislation as they did with AG21, human rights etc.
    ‘Voluntary’ for the government, compulsory for us, people have yet to learn this lesson.

    10

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    Carbon dioxide and water vapour do not warm Earth’s surface: they cool, and the cooling by water vapour can be measured and proven statistically as I have done in a study at the end of my 2013 paper. For more information read my comments starting with this one.

    00