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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Global Warming is a war driven by oil and gas against coal… ?

Oh the irony. What if “fossil fuels” were driving the climate debate, but on the Warmie side?

Fossil fuels is a misnomer, there is no collective fossil industry, just a bunch of massive multi-conglomerates competing. And the biggest competition  for oil and gas comes from coal. Gas wins two ways: not only do “carbon schemes” help gas and oil compete, but the more windmills there are, the more gas we need to cope with the intermittency.

William Kay joins some interesting dots. Rex Tillerson, he argues, is a dark knight, painted as the enemy of climate deals yet pushing Exxon belatedly into the BP and Shell mould as another giant gas company that lobbies for carbon credits. The war waged on skeptics for their “fossil fuel”  funding was a red herring to distract from the real direction of the lobbying.

REX TILLERSON: DARK KNIGHT OF THE OIL & GAS LOBBY

Let’s cut to the chase.  The coal lobby and the natural gas lobby are dueling over the captain’s share of the U.S. electricity-generating market.  As The Donald would say, “The stakes are yuge.”  Americans spend almost $400 billion a year on electricity.

Recent figures have natural gas fueling 34% of this market and coal 31%. Percentages fluctuate monthly.  Twenty-sixteen was the year natural gas surpassed coal.  When the climate caper gained traction, in the late 1980s, coal enjoyed a near-60% market share, while natural gas held only 10%.  With this in mind, one plotter around Trump’s table looms ominous.

Tillerson….

As the pitchmen from the 250,000-member Texans for Natural Gas, or from Europe’s  GasNaturally  meta-coalition, never tire of telling us, gas-generated electricity emits about half the carbon dioxide per watt than does coal-generated electricity.  Wielding this fact, BP and Shell emerged, by the early 1990s, as the most effective and deep-pocketed climate crusaders.  Until Tillerson, ExxonMobil was the major Big Oil climate holdout.

Gas needs to be recognised as a “climate industry”:

Natural gas is the Climate Industrial Complex’s dark horse.  The Climate Change Business Journal does not even recognize natural gas, per se, as a climate industry.  The authors discuss only the gas industry’s efforts at reducing fugitive methane emissions and at carbon capture and storage.  To purists, the $1.5-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex consists only of the makers and mongers of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, bio-fuels, etc.  There is no room in their inn for a “fossil fuel” industry whose existence predates the climate campaign.

h/t to GWPF

As I said in 2009 The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show. But then I was talking about how big government outspends big oil to push the global warming theme. I still think banks and governments are bigger drivers than gas and oil, but it is tantalizing to wonder if fossil fuels had a hand in creating the anti-fossil fuels agitprop.

Back to 2017 and Tillerson is Secretary of State.  Hm.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (66 votes cast)
Global Warming is a war driven by oil and gas against coal... ?, 9.7 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

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

130 comments to Global Warming is a war driven by oil and gas against coal… ?

  • #
    Sweet Old Bob

    Add the likely Paris “punt” and this gets interesting ….

    51

  • #
    Peter C

    Short term gain for Long term pain for the gas companies, I suggest.

    It is way past time to cut the Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory down.

    If the gas companies do not realise that they just set themselves up for destruction after Coal has been felt a death blow by the greens.

    181

    • #
      Peter C

      Dealt a death blow.

      61

      • #
        Jason Calley

        The oil companies could make even more money if CO2 sequestration becomes popular. One way to pull more oil from old wells is to pressurize the wells. With CO2 sequestration, they get paid to pump CO2 down their old wells, and then get more oil out as a result.

        10

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Interesting comment Peter. It is never a good idea to feed others to the crocodiles hoping they will eat you last. Then again perhaps those feeding the crocodiles have the power to destroy the crocodiles once their eating is done.

      I must renew my acquaintance with Machiavelli.

      101

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        As europe if finding now on multiple fronts for a range of other issues, appeasement never works….

        SUggesting a trade off to a non existant problem implies we have caved in and partially embraced the green lunacy.

        One point needs to be made consistently – this CAGW zombie never would have lasted more than a day had the gummint not FUNDED it and PUSHED it , as a form of new eco State religion……

        Socialists hate religion ( except where the State is your “god”, which is nothing more than a form of Roman Emprorer worship….) so taking down christianity and replacing it with an eco-pagan State funded “belief system” ( cant call it a religion…tut tut …) is all good….

        81

  • #
    TdeF

    Sure, gas is half the CO2 per kw, but under the devastating Australian RET which I call the Renewable Energy Tax, there are only two categories, eligible and not. Not eligible are ‘Fossil’ fuels.

    So the farce in this huge tax is that as Dr. Quirk has calculated by making no distinction between coal and gas, this means over $100 per tonne for coal CO2 and $200 per tonne for gas CO2! To think that Abbott repealed Gillard’s $23 a tonne and left this Coalition tax in place?

    This vast river of cash is either pure profit or to buy windmills to rent for profit. The only people getting free energy are the people who receive the cash. They win twice. Everyone else loses.

    Possibly it is why Turnbull is talking of an ‘emissions intensity’ scheme as this tax is a reverse carbon tax. The less CO2 you produce, the more tax you pay. So it is not about CO2. It is not about saving the planet. It is about the cash and Green policies which are as ratbag and destructive as the science ignorant people who believe that harming others is for the greater good. Somehow.

    I cannot believe politicians like Turnbull and Andrews and Weatherill pretend there is no massive carbon tax and talk of a new additional tax? Who is paying for all the useless windmills? We are.

    As Richardson wrote in the Australian today, the knives are out for Turnbull, in weeks. However this is about politicians looking after themselves again, not about right and wrong. The RET is wrong, wrong law, a hidden tax which is not a tax.

    Abbott could make this monstrosity the focus for a fast double dissolution. Surely everyone would vote for dropping electricity bills x4 in a week. South Australia’s rolling windmills disaster may do some good after all. Surely Xenophon and Hanson would back removing the RET? It is not about coal or gas. It is about a complete lack of any rational science in an allegedly science based monster tax on all fossil fuels, our biggest export.

    342

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      “To think that Abbott repealed Gillard’s $23 a tonne and left this Coalition tax in place?”

      He didn’t have much choice. Old fatty Palmer had Mr Gore over here and they hatched a plan. Palmer then refused to support critical budget legislation unless Abbott agreed to include a “sleeper” clause of a RET that was never meant to be brought to life. And he would not have done so. Enter Malcom Turncoat, and the rest is history.

      70

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I repeat: I would like to see a judicial inquiry, even a Royal Commission, into the dealings between Clive Palmer and Al Gore. How did Gore persuade Palmer to protect the RET?

        60

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      This “War” has a name. It’s called competition. And there is nothing wrong with the competition of itself. The problem is that this “war” is being played out, I wouldn’t say fought, on a politically skewed field.

      The problem is that policy has been developed on the basis/premise that CO2 is classified as a pollutant.

      The CO2 in the atmosphere does vastly more good than harm, and, despite the fears expressed by some people, there is no evidence that likely increases in anthropogenic addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will change that fact.

      Oil, Gas, Coal? Even Windmills! It doesn’t matter. Just get the bad science off their backs and let sound economics sort it out.

      30

  • #

    While the Sierra Club is now suing Chesapeake Energy (for causing earth tremors) things were pretty sweet between the two organisations just a few years back. Curiously, the original scathing (Mother Jones?) article is now hard to find, but even the green/left mainstream media admits what went on, and what would probably still be going on if Sierra’s competition hadn’t shrieked.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html

    Sierra was due to cop another $30 million in short order when the kissing had to stop.

    Yep. It hasn’t been Bambi versus Big Bad Wolf at all. More Coke versus Pepsi. In fighting its serious competitors, coal and nukes, Big Oil has been colluding with Big Green big time. Big Oil in the climate wars has been the rough equivalent of John McCain’s moderates in that other war: a bad guy who can promptly serve as good guy with a quick change of headgear. Everyone loves a white helmet.

    201

  • #
    Curious George

    Now I understand why most power must come from “renewable” sources (excluding hydro, at least in California). It is the Big Oil and Big Gas, stupid!

    71

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      New Zealand gets most of its electricity from Hydro, which is clean and renewable.

      We sit in awe, as we watch the rest of the Western World self-destruct for the sake of nominal dollars, that will be worthless once the inevitable financial crash occurs and the Western World sinks into a depression worse than the previous one. Lunacy.

      “Excuse me sir, would you like fries with your meal? They are on special today, at only $48,000 a portion”.

      121

      • #
        Dennis

        Financial crash, exactly what the UN IPCC socialists want.

        111

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I think about the USA and how many firearms are owned. The UN trying to control USA – good luck with that….a whole country armed & able to shoot well, and armed to the teeth and severely ticked off…..yeah…absolute suicide…even of they EMP-ed the place, guns dont need electrical power to operate, law and order breaks down.

          61

          • #
            David Maddison

            Yes, the right to bear arms is the ultimate reset button for the US Constitution. Obama was the best firearm salesman in history because every time he opened his mouth with another liberty destroying or pro world government idea gun sales skyrocketed.

            The Second Amendment was a truly innovative idea and basically unique in world history.

            74

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              “the right to bear arms is the ultimate reset button “.

              Maybe, but. Ordinary citizens have no hope against trained and equipped soldiers. There is an advantage though, in that with a disarmed population an invader fears no losses, while even from a hopeless position armed citizens can inflict losses on an invader.

              20

              • #
                Phil R

                Fortunately in the US most military personnel generally are on the conservative side and would likely side with the “ordinary citizens” if push comes to shove (at least that’s my fervent hope). :)

                20

              • #
                Russ Wood

                As far as “no hope against trained and equipped soldiers” goes – I believe that the “Posse Comitatus” act prevents a US Federal Government (or agency) from using US armed forces to enforce domestic political whatevers.

                10

              • #
                Mary E

                The US was fought for, and won by, “untrained” soldiers. They didn’t follow the rules of combat, lining up neatly in uniforms and advancing on a field, no sir. They hid in the trees, fired at the red uniforms, and blended back in with the townspeople and farm hands when done. Oh, later on we got all pretty and decked out with uniforms, and even learned to march and obey orders, but the fact remains the beginning of the Revolution was a set of angry people with assorted personal weapons and attitudes.

                Never discount the armed civilian. As much as I hate weaponry, especially guns of any sort, and refuse to own them, I understand the principal behind the responsible ownership of them, and the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. But I will say this – it had best be for a really good reason if anyone decides to go on the warpath. Killing folks just because you disagree is the worst possible answer.

                20

          • #
            Wayne Job

            I read a fine article recently that one place in Yankee land mandated that every adult must have a gun know how to use it and carry it. Oddly they have the lowest crime rate in America.

            40

      • #
        Curious George

        An optimist learns Chinese. A pessimist learns to shoot.

        91

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Learning both makes sense….

          51

        • #
          Dennis

          Too many Australians seem to believe that the Howard led government disarmed Australian citizens but that is not correct, honest citizens can apply for a gun licence and as long as each gun is registered and there is a good reason for ownership, e.g. member of a gun club or on the land, we can own whatever we like with the exception of many military style weapons. But that does not exclude the Vietnam War SLR that the ADF used I understand.

          22

          • #
            Peter C

            SLR tanks for self loading rifle.
            http://www.5rar.asn.au/weapons/slr.htm

            As far as I know we are not allowed to own one. Maybe there is a special permit.

            30

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              Special permit for professional hunters/pest exterminators.

              20

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Define “pest”….

                The Americans were wise in setting up the 2nd Amendment, notice the only folks who want to get rid of it is the power-mad Socialists…now why would that be?

                20

          • #
            gnome

            Not forgetting that if you do own a firearm your home storage arrangements will be inspected by a team of heavily armed police at least every two years.
            And the definition of firearm includes air rifles and replica weapons. We wouldn’t want you frightening any rabbits would we?

            30

        • #
          Another Ian

          CG

          “A pessimist is an optimist with inside information” as I heard it

          10

        • #
          Phil R

          For people who speak Chinese and know how to shoot:

          Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

          Mao Tse Tung

          10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Have you seen the hills in Oz? Low and dry! Our Hydro potential is not much. And the Greens have barred dam building anyway.

        10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Trump has to realise his biggest hurdle in resurrecting the economy and western values is to scrap the Paris treaty and anything connected to this green nightmare, closing borders, fighting wars, growing business will mean nothing if the deluded notion of CO2 is a pollutant continues to linger anywhere in the democratic system, Jo McCarthy where are you?

    303

    • #

      There also needs to be legislation that prohibits states from implementing climate related regulations. Moonbeam Brown has already done this in California and these regulations need to be invalidated. At least states are prohibited from entering into treaties with other countries …

      71

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        co2isnotevil:

        I am not sure that the Federal Government can stop a State Government from making stupid decisions. Look how hard it is in Australia, and we have little in the way of, or support for States Rights.

        However all the Federal Government has to do is let California collapse. Business has been exiting the State for years, and I believe there is net population outflow. That alone will take a few years to bring the State to its knees. The end result could be helped along by banning the export of electricity to California, but likely also to be subject to constitutional challenge. Banning non-renewable electricity exports to the State would be almost as effective and likely to get their cooperation until they realise what it means. Probably after the first blackout, although our mob are still imitating headless chooks after 4 blackouts.

        30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Bringing down the Paris treaty will do a lot more than just bring back energy security and common sense.

      The myth of Globull Warming is a major way Western Countries and their people are being manipulated and controlled and without the treaty another control and destruction instrument of the elites will be removed.

      We can then focus on the uncontrolled importation into Western countries of some of the world’s most uneducated, unassimilable and violent people from the Third World which are also being used as instruments to destroy civilised society.

      124

      • #
        Dennis

        Yes David but too many people remain blissfully unaware of what is taking place.

        Some in my experience reject any comment on the subject.

        92

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    When powerful world leaders openly struggle for power, the whole world will be in danger, as in world war.

    When powerful world leaders secretly cooperate to deceive the public, the whole world is in even greater danger, like now

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/is-sanity-between-the-us-and-russia-possible/#comments

    81

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      I strongly suspect, but do not yet know for certain, world leaders paid scientists to wildly exaggerate the dangers of nuclear radiation after WWII, perhaps to protect oil and gas industries?

      (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs and soon came back as bustling cities.)

      I know beyond doubt that world leaders have paid, and still pay, atomic, nuclear and particle physicists handsomely to hide the source of energy that powers the Sun and the cosmos, neutron repulsion.

      Even CERN and DOE physicists cannot hide the message indelibly recorded in exact rest masses of all 3,000 different atoms.

      51

  • #
    tom0mason

    Would Big oil and gas do such a thing just because they have bought more than enough political power to enable them to do it? Is the Pope a Catholic? Would they really wish to wreak havoc on Western nations just to gain market share and accrue more profit? Do bears defecate in the woods?

    101

    • #
      tom0mason

      Yep, those oh so nice oil and gas companies don’t mind wars that happen in their interest.
      http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/qatar-seeks-gas-pipeline-to-turkey
      http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

      Now these thing couldn’t possibly happen because governments were persuaded into thinking that what’s good for the oil and gas companies it good for our nation, and as a side effect is bad for Putin’s ambitions for expanding his interest into the middle east?

      00

      • #
        tom0mason

        And this must be some sort of propaganda against the oil/gas companies surely –
        http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/

        Oil/gas companies couldn’t really be party to killing people just for a pipeline could they?

        00

        • #
          Environment Skeptic

          Here is the deal…(Big Banks)

          Indebted oil and indebted gas etc is now largely owned by the Big Banks via debt
          . The financiers (Banks) control the debt, and so it follows the financiers control the indebted oil and indebted gas venture…

          Then they collect at the other end also via the global warming tax scam which goes to pay for government debt which goes back to the financiers again…….

          It is naive to construe that indebted oil and gas own themselves and are autonomous…..it is the financier (Big Banks) controls all

          Who owns the mortgages and thus the whole kaboodle….the banks own everything…..debt to equity ratio grows and grows more debt until the universe is on a bank balance sheet.

          20

          • #
            Steve Keppel-Jones

            Yep. And the international bankers have always pushed for Socialism, to gain more money, power, and control, hence one of the major reasons for the worldwide drive in that direction for the last century or so. The only way out is to avoid using any banks? Switch to a different, public, currency for all transactions, like Bitcoin, or gold? And defend yourself from government opposition with appropriate force?

            20

            • #
              tom0mason

              But bankers are so nice, they lend you money when you need it the least, then demanded it back when you need it most.

              10

  • #
    Mark M

    Trump’s AG Tillerson signs climate change declaration “noting with concern” the Arctic is warming

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/05/trumps-ag-tillerson-signs-climate-change-declaration-noting-with-concern-the-arctic-is-warming-.html

    60

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Did you read the thing? Tillerson is the SOS, not the AG. The arctic is cold Alaska is a US state in the Arctic!

      00

  • #

    Do not waver Mr President. Important to keep promises
    made to the electorate, not regard the cits as a mere cypher
    or blank check -(however you might spell it.)

    81

  • #
    stan stendera

    The funny thing about all this is that the US is building a number of shipping terminals and other facilities to ship LNG to the rest of the world. When this kicks in the temporary price advantage natural gas has over coal will disappear. When that happens American electricity generators will switch back to coal. Can’t happen soon enough.

    71

    • #
      Dennis

      I have read that renewable energy investors, well known names, have been quietly investing in fossil fuels for some time.

      31

      • #

        The smart green set get Big Oil investing in them.

        “At the same time that Clinton’s State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

        “The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact.”

        - ibtimes 04/08/15

        I guess, when you’re Secretary of State, what’s good for Algeria is good for Colombia.

        Meanwhile, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t just about investing in soft drink/fast food giants, private prisons etc. It’s had up to a billion and a half invested in Big Oil, from Exxon right down your humble oil sands producer.

        But I’ll bet these people use the right light globes and turn off their appliances at the point. Actually…

        Actuallly, I won’t bet with real money, if it’s all the same.

        31

  • #
    PeterS

    Hang on a minute! There are many hundreds of new coal fired power stations being built all over the world. If there is a war against coal then it’s only happening here in Australia, and they are winning. Stupid is as stupid does.
    As for any talk about “peak coal” I’m seeing in some quarters remember what they have been saying about oil for the last few decades if not more?
    Finally, if coal is on the loosing side of any war then Australia is definitely going to be in deep trouble in the years ahead. However, reality bites and coal will be around in great strength for a very long time, probably long enough to allow new power generation technologies we haven’t even dreamed about yet to come into play.

    81

  • #
    pat

    30 May: Townhall: Roy Spencer: We Owe it to the Poor to Exit the Paris Climate Treaty
    There are six main issues guiding my position.
    1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement…READ ON
    https://townhall.com/columnists/royspencer/2017/05/30/draft-n2333378

    30 May: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: EPA’s Pruitt huddles with Trump on UN Paris climate pact
    from PoliticoPro: by Matt Daily
    President Donald Trump discussed the Paris climate pact this morning with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, one the administration’s strongest advocates for pulling the U.S. out of the international agreement…

    30 May: CNN: Kevin Liptak: Trump signals he’s ready to exit Paris climate accord, but decision not final
    The White House declined to say when Trump planned to make his intentions known, but officials familiar with the decision say an announcement could come as early as Wednesday.
    Trump met Tuesday morning with EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to discuss the Paris climate agreement, press secretary Sean Spicer said. Pruitt has been a vocal proponent of withdrawing from the accord…

    31

  • #
    pat

    30 May: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Delingpole: Climate Mob Threatens Trump – ‘Quit Paris and You’re Toast!’
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/30/delingpole-climate-mob-threatens-trump-quit-paris-and-youre-toast/

    750-plus comments, most favouring withdrawal, from what I scanned:

    30 May: The Hill: UN chief warns Trump to stay in Paris climate deal
    By Devin Henry
    “If one country decides to leave a void, I can guarantee someone else will occupy it,” Secretary-General António Guterres said during an event at New York University on Tuesday.
    Guterres warned that international adversaries such as China and Russia could step into a global leadership role if Trump backs off the climate commitments made by former President Obama under the Paris agreement. Guterres noted the growth of clean energy in heavily polluting countries like China and said, “the message is simple: The sustainability train has left the station. Get on the train or get left behind.”…

    “It’s very clear that governments are not everything,” he said. “On the other hand we are doing our best, in dialog with the administration and with Congress, to make the U.S. understand that funding the development aid, funding foreign policy in general, funding organizations like the UN, is also in the interest of the American people.”.
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/335689-un-chief-warns-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-deal

    31

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:

      ““If one country decides to leave a void, I can guarantee someone else will occupy it,” Secretary-General António Guterres
      warned that international adversaries such as China and Russia could step into a global leadership role”

      He must be desperate or delirious or drunk (or some other ‘d’) when neither Russia nor China have made the slightest move to cut emissions. Both long ago decided that AGW was a load of Gorefeathers but a handy way to distract and possibly destroy potential enemies.

      20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    30 May: CarbonPulse: UPDATE – BC carbon tax rise coming under NDP-Green coalition government
    British Columbia’s carbon tax will be unfrozen and raised sooner than expected after two of the Canadian province’s left-wing parties reached a four-year coalition agreement to oust the ruling Liberals following this month’s election

    30 May: GreenNewsIreland: MEPs vote to strengthen the EU’s most powerful climate law
    MEPs voted today to increase the ambition of the EU’s most powerful climate law, the proposed Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR).
    The Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) voted for countries to reduce their emissions based on a more realistic starting point. The new starting point will be either the 2018 emission levels or 2020 national climate targets, whichever is lower.

    The proposed ESR sets binding national emission reduction targets for the 2021 – 2030 period for sectors not covered by the emissions trading system, namely transport, buildings, architecture and waste. Combined, these areas account for roughly 60% of Europe’s total greenhouse gas emissions…
    http://greennews.ie/environment-meps-vote-strengthen-eus-powerful-climate-law/

    30 May: (Climate Action Network) CAN Europe Press Release: MEPs improve proposal for key climate policy
    The Committee voted in favour of aligning the starting point for emission reductions with real emission levels. It also suggested to limit the loophole that allow countries to use offsets from the forestry sectors to meet their ESR target (while putting forward a new loophole in a form of an “early action reserve”). The Committee’s proposal would result in almost 400 million tonnes less emissions compared to the Commission’s proposal, which is equal to annual emissions from around 380 million cars.

    Commenting on the results of the vote, Wendel Trio, Director of CAN Europe said:
    “MEPs took a step in the right direction to make this policy work for the climate. The proposal to set a starting point which better reflects actual emissions is the single most important measure to increase ambition when the end target is set too low. Still, without a much more ambitious climate policy for reducing emissions in the transport, buildings, agriculture and waste sectors the EU will not fulfil its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Strengthening the Effort Sharing Regulation would also be an opportunity for boosting the economy, creating better jobs and a more sustainable and prosperous future for everyone in Europe.”

    The new Effort Sharing Regulation will now be discussed by the EU Environment Ministers meeting in Brussels on 19th June. They are likely to reach an agreement on their position then. The Parliament’s plenary is scheduled to vote on its position before the summer break. Then the proposal will be negotiated in the so-called trialogue process among the EU institutions.
    http://www.caneurope.org/publications/press-releases/1400-meps-improve-proposal-for-key-climate-policy

    01

  • #
    pat

    30 May: Daily Caller: Chris White: Coal Powered India Won’t Leave Climate Deal If Trump Bails
    India, which receives nearly 70 percent of its energy from coal production, received more than $500 million in funding for solar panels in 2016 as a sweetener for joining on the 190-member climate accord. It receives only 2 percent of its energy from solar power.
    The country got several loans last year worth $1.5 billion from international financial institutions for rooftop solar power. India got another $750 million in rooftop solar loans from the World Bank — the country also accepted substantial assistance from Western countries before the deal that to $2.5 trillion in aid and grants over the next 15 years…

    colour-coding:

    31 May: AFP: Carol Landry: As US weighs climate pullout, UN wants world to be more ambitious
    - Betting on the green economy -
    Describing the agreement as a “remarkable moment in the history of humankind,” the UN chief stressed that private corporations including oil and gas companies were not awaiting government policy and joining the green economy…
    “Those who fail to bet on the green economy will be living in a grey future,” he warned.
    “On the other hand, those who embrace green technologies will set the gold standard for economic leadership in the 21st century.”…
    Guterres announced plans for a summit in 2019 to review progress in implementing the Paris agreement

    30 May: Newsbusters: Steyer Claims Paris Agreement Withdrawl Would Be ‘Act of War’
    By Aly Nielsen
    According to Steyer, President Donald Trump would be committing “a traitorous act of war against the American people” if he withdraws the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.
    Steyer released a statement meant to defend the Paris Climate Agreement, which read more like an excuse to attack the president on May 28. That was the same day Axios reported rumors Trump would abandon the climate deal.

    In Steyer’s words, Trump is “hellbent on giving corporate polluters free reign to poison our air and water” and “has abdicated American leadership.”
    “Generations of Americans will suffer the destructive effects of Trump’s greedy, selfish, and immoral decision,” Steyer predicted. His hyperbolic rant portrayed the Paris climate agreement as the last hope for the U.S. environment — without which “Trump, the fossil fuel companies, and the Republican Party” would join forces to destroy.

    Steyer founded NextGen Climate, a liberal PAC that attacks fossil fuels and promotes climate alarmism. In 2016 alone, he dumped $91 million into Democratic and liberal campaigns, including donations to Hillary Clinton, making him the largest overall donor for that election cycle.
    The official Democratic Party platform adopted during the 2016 election included NextGen’s goal of eliminating U.S. coal powered energy by 2050…

    In addition to political donations, Steyer gave millions more to various left-wing groups through the TomKat Charitable Trust. Between 2010 and 2014, he gave $28.5 million to groups which included the Center for American Progress, 350.org, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Common Sense Media.

    Steyer’s full statement was available on Facebook and Twitter:
    FULL STATEMENT, ENDS WITH:
    Time is running out, and now it’s up to state and local leaders to protect their citizens from Trump, the fossil fuel companies, and the Republican Party.
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/aly-nielsen/2017/05/30/

    01

  • #
    pat

    30 May: AmericanEnterpriseInstitute: Benjamin Zycher: ExxonMobile endorses the Paris Climate Agreement
    There is a time to weep and a time to laugh. And the recent letter from ExxonMobil urging President Trump not to exit the Paris climate agreement provides a time for both, with a heavy emphasis on the latter. Let us review the letter in detail, subjecting its assertions to the most basic principles of policy analysis…

    EXXON: “We believe that the United States is well positioned to compete within the framework of the Paris Agreement.”

    Translation: The Paris agreement will increase energy costs for everyone, but because the US has a lot of cheap natural gas—asubstantial part of which is produced by ExxonMobil—we will have a competitive advantage within the agreement. Well, maybe so, but we will have even more of a competitive advantage if we exit the agreement while Germany and the other Western economies insist on remaining within it. Does it make sense to shoot ourselves in the foot merely because others have shot themselves in both feet? According to ExxonMobil: Yes!…

    EXXON: “Greater natural gas utilization has helped the United States [prevent] 1 billion metric tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere since 2005.”

    Wow. Global GHG emissions are about 36 billion tons per year, or very roughly 400 billion tons “since 2005.” So “greater natural gas utilization” by the US has reduced GHG emissions by 0.25 of a percent. The temperature effect in the year 2100, again using the EPA climate model: 0.00002 degrees. ExxonMobil should ask itself how useful such propaganda exercises are likely to prove in the long run…READ ALL
    https://www.aei.org/publication/exxonmobile-endorses-paris-climate-agreement/

    31

  • #
    toorightmate

    The hoax, RETs, etc are all based on CO2 being harmful.
    The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

    51

    • #
      el gordo

      True, but how is this to come about.

      Essentially, when Donald pulls out of the Framework Convention he will tell the world that the US has successfully reduced CO2 emissions through fracking. By the same token he will tell them that Germany, India and China have not reduced their emissions over the same time frame, which makes a mockery of the whole system.

      https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152

      71

      • #

        el gordo mentions this (my bolding here)

        …..he will tell the world that the US has successfully reduced CO2 emissions through fracking.

        And this is absolutely correct.

        Okay, so this is complex, but I’ll explain it so it can be understood.

        The headline here is that CO2 emissions from the power generating sector have reduced by 25% in the last ten years, and while expressed as a percentage it (actually) does sound large, but that’s a reduction of 773.63 MILLION Tonnes.

        The rush towards Natural Gas (NG) in the U.S. has indeed caused the lowering of CO2 emissions, because now that they have so much of their own gas, they get to use it.

        There was a lot of maths involved in this. Convert coal to CO2, (multiply by 2.86) convert short tons to Tonnes for both 2007 and 2016. Convert actual NG consumption to CO2 (122 pounds per mcf) convert short tons to tonnes for both 2007 and 2016.

        In 2007, the U.S. began replacing its older coal fired power plants with NG plants.

        The TOTAL power generation from every source started to fall slightly from that year on, and now, 2016, it’s almost back to the same level as it was in 2007, so power generation figures are indeed similar.

        Power generation from coal fired sources in 2007 was 2016TWH and NG was 896TWH. (total 2912TWH)

        It the end of 2016, those figures were coal 1240TWH and NG 1380TWH. (2620TWH)

        That’s 290TWH less, and some of that has been made up with wind power, but that wind power total is only 225TWH, which is only 5.5% of total power generation from every source.

        So, it’s virtually been a direct change from coal fired to NG, and those closed plants were all the smaller and older plants, less than 50MW Nameplate, and most over 50 years old.

        It has resulted in that 25% reduction in CO2 emissions, nothing to do with renewable power but from the change from old coal to new NG.

        And he would also be correct in saying that no other Country on Earth has reduced their CO2 emissions by anywhere near that percentage, because most other Countries have increased their emissions.

        They now have that availability of NG, and that has come about because of Hydraulic Fracturing alone.

        Replacing those old coal fired plants with new tech coal fired plants and reductions would decrease even further, as old coal burns 450 to 480 Plus grams per KWH, and new tech HELE coal fired plants burn 280 grams of coal per KWH.

        Tony.

        83

        • #
          el gordo

          Thanks Tony and I’ll just add this…

          ‘This means the US has cut carbon dioxide emissions by over 700 million tonnes since 2005 – a 12% drop. That drop almost amounts to Germany’s total annual CO2 emissions (796 million tonnes).’

          - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.NBR2f01R.dpuf

          10

        • #
          Wayne Job

          The generation of CO2 from the production of electricity even if harmful is the least of the human races production of CO2 . Why are the fools picking on power generation. Easy target.

          20

        • #
          tom0mason

          Comparisons around Europe look interesting. Germany still looks bad when compared to France or UK —
          https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map

          You can expand this map to include US and Australia.

          00

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “HELE coal fired plants burn 280 grams of coal per KWH.”

          Tony,
          Could not added CH4 improve even that efficiency? OTOH Big piles of coal out back with 80 year fixed production\shipping cost, does allow improved long range planning! Even Aluminum smelting may return. How much graphite is converted to CO2 reducing AlO2 per Kg Al product?
          All the best!-will-

          00

  • #
    pat

    31 May: Australian: Primrose Riordan: PoliticsNow: Rolling news, pictures, analysis from Canberra
    18 minutes ago:
    US in Paris climate accord in our interest
    Australia’s national interest is best served if the US remains in the Paris climate change agreement, Michaelia Cash has told a Senate hearing…
    “Australia’s national interests are best served by US participation in the Paris agreement, consistent with our support for a collective global response to climate change,” Senator Cash told a Senate estimates hearing today.
    Senator Cash took on notice questions about whether the issue had been raised by the foreign minister or prime minister in their talks with US counterparts…

    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Frances Adamson said she was not aware of specific conversations at ministerial level but said wide-ranging conversations have taken place with the US administration.
    She insisted Australia’s position would be known to the White House…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politicsnow-rolling-news-pictures-analysis-from-canberra/news-story/d84041dd288d9cd69fa38c6c52f64614

    11

  • #
    David Maddison

    Just as the warmies have an “Earth Day” I think we rationalists should have a “Fossil Fuel, Nuclear and Hydro Celebration” day to celebrate the wonderful contribution of these energy sources to Western Civilisation”.

    As I have said before, we should not allow warmies to claim hydro as their own as it predates them by more than a century and is also a properly engineered system that when managed correctly can produce continuous and easy to manage power output unlike “renewables”.

    74

    • #
      Matty

      Hydro is money for nothing, as we used to say living in the midst of a 1930′s hydro scheme, but the Greens have yet to earn it as they’ve obstructed it for years.

      20

    • #
      Watt

      We can each celebrate Earth’s bounty & the ingenuity of our forebears in using it to lift humanity out of poverty, ignorance & disease, in our own way.

      10

  • #
    pat

    the “renowned” Edenhofer at the launch of the carbon pricing report Jo covered in her previous “EU economists say…” thread!

    30 May: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Kirby: ‘Dirty lie’ of cheap fossil fuels must end, says German economist
    In forthright language seldom heard in international climate policy negotiations, a ***renowned German economist says it is time for the world to accept the truth about the real cost of fossil fuels, and to reject the lie that coal, oil and gas cost society nothing.
    Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, was speaking at the launch in Berlin of a report on carbon pricing…

    “It is a dirty lie that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have so far come with no cost – they cost us human health, damage to our climate, and billions of dollars in subsidies worldwide.

    “Putting a clear price-tag on CO2 emissions means finally telling the truth. Pricing CO2 is key to climate stabilisation. It unleashes market forces that will punish coal use and incentivise clean innovation.
    “And instead of being another burden for the poor, it can even drive social justice if income from CO2 pricing is given back to the people, as they do in Canada.” …
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/30/dirty-lie-cheap-fossil-fuels-must-end-says-german-economist/

    sure seems like all that CO2 has been great for humankind:

    26 May: Bloomberg: World’s Major Economies to Come up $400 Trillion Short on Retirement Savings
    by Katherine Chiglinsky
    ***Longer life spans and disappointing investment returns will help create a $400 trillion retirement-savings shortfall in about three decades, a figure more than five times the size of the global economy, according to a World Economic Forum report.
    That includes a $224 trillion gap among six large pension-savings systems: the U.S., U.K., Japan, Netherlands, Canada and Australia, according to the report issued Friday. China and India account for the rest…

    “We’re really at an inflection point,” Michael Drexler, head of financial and infrastructure systems at the World Economic Forum, said in a phone interview. “Pension underfunding is the ***CLIMATE-CHANGE MOMENT of social systems in the sense that there is still time to do something about it…

    ***The gap is partially driven by an aging world population. Life expectancy has risen on average by about a year every five years since the middle of the last century, and half of babies born in the U.S. and Canada in 2007 may live to 104, according to the report. In Japan, the figure is 107 years…

    The shortfall might climb at an annual rate of 7 percent in China and 10 percent in India, which have rapidly aging populations, growing middle classes and a higher percentage of workers in informal sectors…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/retirement-savings-gap-is-seen-climbing-to-400-trillion-by-2050

    21

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      …this whole article brings me to another pet peeve I have about gen-smartphone : namely that the whole thing that 20 somethings can effect chnage through social media blah blah is partially true – HOWEVER – the whole social media thing is over stated.

      I’ll qualify that – gen-smartphone havent had to fight in a war like WW2 or deal with a depression as such. Accordingly, they out of touch, and are easily manipulated by emotive images of powerstations and the climate nonsense wouldnt have got as far as it has had they been more grounded in reality, namely I’d expect to see a bit of inner-city-latte-sipping-trendy-on-inner-city-latte-sipping-trendy violence occurring, once one set of trendies who actually *know* whats involved to run infrastructure takes on the useless 1/3 of the population, and pounds home that pie in the sky feel-good b*ll*cks doesnt provide electicity to keep your grandparents alive in a nursing home 24×7…….

      Accordingly, the older generation needs to take to task ( roughly, if need be ) the young things and put them straight, lest they sell the older generation for conversion to solient green….

      Thus endeth the Lesson.

      41

    • #
      tom0mason

      Alternatively get behind Trump and remind him of his promises to the voters…
      http://petition.cfact.org/exitparis/ref/5/

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Steve, Tom,

        I would say, do both. Unfortunately there’s no way to pound common sense and real world experience into someone’s head. It has to be lived. So we seniors better try to take control by more forceful means while trying to educate the youngsters. The trouble is, there aren’t enough Donald Trumps around to vote for.

        20

  • #
    pat

    29 May: Daily Democrat: Louis Hansen: Green goals turning gray across California
    A state senate proposal, SB100, doubles down on existing goals and would make California the second state, after Hawaii, to commit to 100 percent renewable energy and zero-carbon sources for electricity. Renewable energy companies — especially solar and energy tech firms in the Bay Area — are all in. But the bill has received a tepid response from environmentalists and opposition from utilities, oil and gas companies…

    But the push for a greater reliance on renewable power would require increased energy storage, greater regional cooperation and more power sources. And it could drive up electricity bills…
    But the Sierra Club of California and the Natural Resources Defense Council have not taken public positions on the bill. Environmentalists praise the goal, but are concerned about other parts of the bill that may open the door for more natural gas use in the state…

    Arne Olson, partner at the international energy consulting firm E3, said the state would have to diversify its renewable portfolio. Building solar farms can be expensive and take up lots of land, and federal restrictions have banned wind farms from prime desert sites.
    Olson said the state would need to allow more out-of-state wind, hydropower and solar into the California grid. Olson said market solutions and demand charges — such as lower prices during the day, when solar is plentiful, and higher prices at night — are important…
    Expanding energy storage capacity would be expensive, but also necessary…

    “The real worry I would have is meeting peak demands.”
    Hawaii, for example, can’t depend on sunshine 24 hours a day, and uses biofuels like diesel to meet high demand. California power providers currently meet peak energy demand mostly with natural gas…

    PG&E spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said the company was concerned about rising costs for customers with possible expansions and upgrades to transmission and grid infrastructure. The utility wants lawmakers to consider reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the economy, including transportation and other services…

    Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, said natural gas has been the bridge fuel providing the state with energy that is cleaner and often cheaper than other fossil fuel alternatives. Even in California, the sun does not always shine, he noted…
    http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20170529/NEWS/170529896

    no such reservations in Australia. linkes to the Clean Energy Council report:

    31 May: Energy Matters: Australia posts record renewable energy growth in 2016
    A new report (LINK) from the Clean Energy Council has found that in 2016, 17.3 percent of Australia’s electricity came from renewable energy, the highest rate recorded this century.
    The record share means Australia is now “well on track” to meet the government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) for 23.5 per cent of energy (the equivalent of 33,000 gigawatt hours) to come from clean sources such as wind, solar and hydro-electric by 2020.
    Hydropower provided nearly half of the total (42.3 percent) renewable energy increase, thanks to improved rainfall in key hydro catchment areas, but the numbers were also boosted by the completion of 10 large-scale solar and wind power projects.
    6750 battery storage systems were installed in 2016, 13 times the number that were installed in 2015.

    CEC Chief Executive Kane Thornton said the dramatic reductions in production costs of these projects has spurred an extraordinary amount of commercial activity in Australia’s solar and wind sector, setting the stage for another record year of growth in 2017.
    The cost of commercial-scale solar power plants has fallen by 50 percent in the past few years, Mr Thornton added.
    ***These reductions were largely driven by project support funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and innovative finance from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

    But with over 35 RET-driven large-scale projects already under construction or starting this year, the sector is expected to add more than 4,100 direct jobs in the next 12 months.
    The new projects represent 7.5 billion in commercial investment…
    A highlight of last year was the ACT’s reverse auction for wind power. It led to the cheapest wind power ever contracted, for $73 a megawatt-hour at Neoen’s Hornsdale 3 Wind Farm.

    “The changes that are happening across the country right now are extraordinary. Renewable energy is now the cheapest kind of new power generation that can be built today – less than both new coal and new gas-fired power plants,” Mr Thornton said.
    http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/australia-posts-record-renewable-energy-growth-2016/

    from the Introduction to the report:

    Kane Thornton: It’s boom time for large-scale renewable energy…The business case is helped by Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis which confirms renewable energy is now the cheapest type of new power generation that can be built in Australia, undercutting the skyrocketing price of gas and well below new coal – and that’s if it is possible to find investors willing to take a highstakes punt on a new coal plant, which seemed unlikely at the beginning of 2017.

    31

  • #
    pat

    29 May: Scotsman: Lesley Riddoch: Energy policy is vital to Scotland, but it’s being ignored
    I was last in Kirkwall in 2014, for a BBC independence referendum debate, during which local MP Alistair Carmichael claimed Scotland’s renewables industry was safe in Westminster hands and would be destroyed by a Yes vote. He insisted only the UK could afford the infrastructure improvements to enlarge grid capacity and the subsidy needed for developing technologies like marine energy and offshore wind. Of course it would indeed be easier for a large economy like the UK to bear that burden – if its politicians showed the slightest inclination to do so…
    Three years on it’s crystal clear they don’t. Au contraire…

    First came the shock post-election announcement in 2015 ending subsidies for onshore wind power. Scotland was particularly hard hit because we supply the bulk of British renewables; 60 per cent of onshore wind and 92 per cent of UK hydro electricity in 2015. All in all Scotland supplies almost a third of the UK renewables total. Then David Cameron scrapped a fund for carbon-capture – a technology he once described as “crucial” – earmarked for Peterhead. And in November 2015, tax relief on investments in community renewables was axed, drawing most new community wind, solar, hydro or biomass projects in Scotland to a premature grinding halt…
    These UK government decisions left Scotland’s renewables industry high and dry – especially energy rich islands like Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles…

    But there’s a massive problem of grid connection. The infrastructure that lets Orkney send renewable energy into the grid consists of two measly 30 MW cables – a hangover from days when energy was produced centrally in fossil fuel power stations and pumped to remote areas. Now the direction of travel has reversed entirely. On most days both cables are full of green Orkney electricity heading south and there could be far more – a recent Crown Estates Commission survey found almost 2GW available. But there’s no room left in the old cables and despite decades of humming and hawing about new, bigger island inter connectors, prospects look bleak for all but Shetland where the controversial 400MW Viking wind farm will apparently justify the cost…

    Would-be energy suppliers have had to pay to even discover if there’s space on the grid for their plans. Since they’ve known there is no space on Orkney, they haven’t bothered. So SSE has concluded there’s no demand for a bigger cable and haven’t propose a cable upgrade for Ofgem approval.
    ***This ludicrous situation has left Orkney with Scotland’s highest level of fuel poverty beside Scotland’s greatest wind and marine energy potential (pro rata).

    So there’s hardly a word about renewable energy in the Tory manifestos north or south of the Border. Even though marine renewables tick most boxes in Greg Clark’s new industrial strategy – good for the planet, energy-saving, technologically advanced, with Scottish world-leading expertise and strong export potential – they will never fit the funding priorities of a Westminster government which has chosen to rely on fracking, nuclear energy and gas. UK Labour is not much different…
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-energy-policy-is-vital-to-scotland-but-it-s-being-ignored-1-4459846

    21

  • #
    Dennis

    I heard today that there is a strong rumour circulating that the government (Turnbull, Bishop & Hunt maybe?) are plotting to introduce a new carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.

    Another example of a complete lack of judgement in political terms and a determination to push the UN IPCC agenda regardless of what voters might think.

    Maybe this is compliance with a damage control mission from climate change headquarters as the US considers stopping funding?

    32

  • #
    Dennis

    An interesting observation by a young man recently who asked, if fossil fuels are damaging the climate and the Earth is heading towards disaster why don’t governments simply ban fossil fuels instead of taxing them.

    After all, saving humanity is more important than tax revenue, isn’t it?

    No, he was being sarcastic.

    42

    • #
      Matty

      What would you be saving them for if not for taxing ?

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The tax is the objective. They never ban a harmful substance. They want to tax it and spend the money to get reelected.

        10

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Which is probably why hydrogen fuel hasn’t been touched – very hard to tax and would actually solve the CAGW problem were it in wide use and *if* CAGW were actually true….

          My attitude is simply that govts have significant resources at their disposal so much so that they can never be unknowingly ignorant – before you laugh consider what most govts have at their disposal and how they could not understand something.

          Since they know CAGW is a lie, therefore……

          00

  • #
    philthegeek

    I heard today that there is a strong rumour circulating that the government (Turnbull, Bishop & Hunt maybe?) are plotting to introduce a new carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.

    Dont worry Dennis, i’m sure PHON will oppose it. :)

    If there are any of them left in the Senate adter the Electoral Commision gets through with them.

    And all sure to be reported on the ABC. :)

    21

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    When they can’t even get the units right, you know they don’t know what they are talking about:
    “gas-generated electricity emits about half the carbon dioxide per watt than does coal-generated electricity”. How about ‘joule’ instead of ‘watt’?

    51

  • #
    Peter C

    My early morning ramble on Ilkley Moor

    It is always an honour to get comment #1 after Jo makes blog post but last night I was hoping to write something about my holiday in England. It is poor form to go off topic too early in the comments so I had to wait overnight.

    The holiday consists of driving around in a hire car and looking at things that I might have heard about or read about over the years.

    I heard about Ilkley Moor when I was a child but I had no idea where is was nor how it was spelt. I thought it was Ilclear moor. Some one made a comment on this blog about 2 years ago which set me straight. Consequently we spent last night in Ilkley staying in the Craiglands hotel. This is a impressive pile of stones and many rooms but they only had about 10 guests last night. The hotel is dated and the floors creak a bit but the rooms are large and comfortable, which is a welcome change from the guest house in Keswick the previous night where the room was so small that I had to go to bed at 9pm because there was no where to sit. The receptionist told me that Ilkley Moor was right out the back of the hotel!

    The weather last evening was not so good but this morning was clear and the light through the curtains woke me at 04:30 so I got up, put on my tracksuit and runners and let myself out through a side exit which locked behind me. I meant to get my camera from the car but I had taken it inside and I could not re-enter the hotel so I had to go without it.

    I went up a driveway, found a narrow path between stone walls and came to a wooden door in a stone wall. I saw some rabbits near the wall. It reminded of Beatrix Potter. Beyond the wall was the moor.

    What is a moor? It is an elevated area of uncultivated land with acidic soil and low vegetation.. It is also uninhabited. I spent 2 1/2 hours on the moor and saw not one other soul until I got back to the stone wall with the door.

    Taking a path that diverged uphill I came to a lake with ducks. Beyond this the path was narrow and rough and went uphill. Soon after I came to a white washed building called White Wells. There on a plaque I read the story of how a visiting Sunday school group saved an old hymn tune called Craddock from obscurity by making up there own words, “On Ilkley Moor Bhat’at” Which means, on Ilkley moor without a hat.

    Something red was moving behind some nearby stones and grass, somehow staying just out of sight. Ducking around I came across a pheasant, which scuttled off without bothering to take off.

    From the White Wells I took a path called the millennium path to ascend up on to the moor proper.

    40

    • #
      Peter C

      The north side of the moor is an escarpment, hence the path is steep with sharp edged rocks. It occurred to me that my main risk was not a heart attack but slipping and striking my head on a rock. After I got to the top of th escarpment the moor ascended up a more gentle slope. I noticed a bird soaring above me, which then descended and skimmed the ground. It had a long curved beak and made various calls. The cry of the curlew! The first time I have seen one. I have heard that they are becoming uncommon in Britain.

      Some after I was accosted by a fat looking ground bird that ruffled its feathers and sort of waddled about scrapping its breast on the ground. I am not sure what it was but some one can likely tell me.

      Up on top of the moor it becomes a peat bog. A flagstone path has been laid across the bog which made progress possible. The vegetation is ferns, grass and a very low shrub.

      I was going to turn back at 6am but it seems that if I pressed on for another 1/2 mile I might get high enough for a 360 degree view. So I went on and I did get a view to the south across the midlands to Leeds and Manchester. To top it all off there was a stone circle on the top of the moor at the site with the best all around view.

      I was very lucky to be able to walk on the moor. I did not have any suitable clothing for poor weather., nor proper boots.

      I don’t know if I will get to walk on the moor again. At my age I suspect that the odds are against it. I am glad that I took the opportunity when I had it

      50

      • #
        Annie

        That was probably a grouse Peter. You made me a bit homesick when I read of your early hike! I enjoyed the walk up to Old Gang Mine last week but that is a wider track, for vehicles too.

        Eee by gum lad!

        10

    • #

      Oh that’s so nice, Peter, makes me think of
      the Yorkshire Moors in ‘The Secret Garden.’Thx.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMtZ0hTxJu0

      30

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Beth and Annie.

        Grouse, yes in fact I saw two. I think the shrubs I was referring to was heather.

        10

  • #
    Graham Richards

    And here I am believing they’re all dark knights of the Russians and / the Ku klux mob.
    What a wicked web of intrigue we spin!

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer, meanwhile, was asked if Trump believes human activity is contributing to climate change. “Honestly, I haven’t asked him,” Spicer said.

    MarketWatch

    20

  • #
    pat

    30 May: NewsExaminer: Wind company dealt blow by Supreme Court
    By JAMES SPRAGUE
    INDIANAPOLIS — A court saga which has been ongoing for almost two years was finally settled last week by the Indiana Supreme Court.
    The state’s highest court ruled May 25 to deny a request from Flat Rock Wind, LLC. – also known as Apex Clean Energy – to hear the case of the company’s appeal of the decision, made earlier this year by the Indiana Court of Appeals, upholding a Rush County judge’s decision that the Rush County Area Board of Zoning Appeals was within its right to enact a 2,300-foot setback distance for industrial wind turbines in the proposed Flat Rock Wind Farm…

    Apex argued that the BZA did not have the authority to change the setback distance from the county-stated minimum of 1,000 feet, while Bailey ruled that the BZA did, in fact, have such authority…
    The courts also decided that, despite arguments by Apex that the Rush County BZA abused its power by enacting larger setback distances than the minimum stated in the county’s zoning code, those minimum setbacks are simple just minimum guidelines and that the BZA has the authority to enact more stringent setbacks in order to “preserve the health and safety of the public.”…

    The vote to deny the Flat Rock appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court was unanimous, and took place after all the Supreme Court Justices had examined the case and the previous decisions…
    http://www.newsexaminer.com/news/wind-company-dealt-blow-by-supreme-court/article_ddbff16e-d9b0-55d6-8cb6-47f92dce2fae.html

    30 May: Fuelfix: Ryan Maye Handy: Senate bill aims to pull tax incentives for wind farms near Texas military bases
    A controversial Senate bill that would withhold state tax incentives from wind farms operating within 25 miles of military bases made it to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk on Tuesday.

    If signed into law, Senate bill 277 would ideally spare risks for military bases — such as aviation hazards and radar interference — but not prevent wind farms from being developed, supporters have said. But the loss of a tax incentive would be enough to drive some companies away from some areas, leaving rural communities without the property tax boon that often comes with a wind farm, said Jeff Clark, president of the Wind Coalition, a pro-wind energy lobbying group.

    In notes attached to the bill, legislative staff said that supporters of the bill felt “the cost to the state of potentially losing a military base would far outweigh a minor hindrance to the wind industry.”…
    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/30/senate-bill-aims-to-pull-tax-incentives-for-wind-farms-near-texas-military-bases/

    00

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t know why one single fact can’t be endlessly repeated.

    The fact that the anthropogenic load of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 5% (or less).

    Apart from the absence of any plausible mechanism by which CO2 can possibly cause warming, even if it could, how could a mere 20ppm max of 400ppm be responsible for the effects claimed (even though those effects are based on inappropriately altered data)?

    41

  • #
    el gordo

    Comrade Kaye Lee illustrates the pseudo Marxist mindset.

    ‘This path to promote coal was an inevitability heralded by Turnbull’s appointment of Sid Marris as his climate and energy adviser and Vanessa Guthrie to the board of the ABC.

    ‘Marris has worked for the Minerals Council since 2008, after spending 16 years at the Australian newspaper. Guthrie has more than 30 years of experience in the mining and resources industries and is the chair of the Minerals Council. She was appointed to the ABC despite not making the short list recommended by the independent panel.’

    The AIM Network

    10

  • #
    pat

    30 May: Wired: Rooftop Solar Panels are great for the planet, but terrible for firefighters
    by Eleanor Cummins and Nicole Wetsman
    Once they reached the roof, though, they ran into trouble. This home was covered in rigid, electrified solar panels—making it difficult for the firefighters to cut holes in the roof to let smoke and heat escape. Finally, they found enough open space around the panels to jockey an adequate hole. “Our guys had to do what they had to do,” says Paul King, Manchester’s deputy fire marshal…

    Firefighters rarely turn the planning part of their brains off, says Peter Lynch, chief of training at the Vermont Fire Academy. “If you’re driving down the road with a firefighter, more than likely, they’re looking at the next building saying, ‘If we needed to save this building, how would we do it?’” he says. But it’s hard to evaluate a solar-paneled house from the ground. Panels can get in the way of cutting ventilation holes, like they did on Eugene Street. First responders also rely on the ability to turn off the electricity pulsing through a structure—but photovoltaic panels can make their own power. Electrified panels can cause burns, or even blow responders off a roof…

    While the firefighting community has started to recognize and plan for the risks of electrified roofs, they still don’t have all the necessary rules and tools to work around them…
    Modern fire and electric codes require enough space between panels for firefighters to walk and rapid shutdown systems that can quickly de-electrify panels. The latest versions, released this year, also call for clear signage on all photovoltaic panels and wires, so firefighters know what and where everything is.
    But not every state and county in the country is operating on the newest version of the codes—or any at all…

    The National Fire Protection Association is working on protocols for dealing with charged solar batteries—and how to deal with new, trendy solar panels that are so sleek first responders might not see them. In May, both firefighting groups and solar industry leaders met in the first of a series of working groups with the association to find additional gaps in current codes…
    https://www.wired.com/2017/05/rooftop-solar-panels-great-planet-terrible-firefighters/

    22 May: NW News Network: Safety Warning Issued For Solar Systems Made By Failed Company
    By Tom Banse
    Consumers who thought they were doing the right thing by buying rooftop solar systems made by a Pacific Northwest company called Silicon Energy are in a pickle. Many of those solar panels have now been labeled defective and a fire risk.

    The safety warning came from a testing and certification lab called Intertek. It acted after it received reports of Silicon Energy solar modules delaminating or overheating, which could start a fire.
    The testing lab urged consumers to remove solar panels showing any signs of failure.
    The rub here is that the Marysville, Washington-based panel maker went out of business last year and stopped honoring warranty claims. Silicon Energy LLC filed a Certificate of Dissolution with the Corporations Division of Washington’s Secretary of State office last July…

    Brandt characterized what happened with Silicon Energy as “really abnormal.”
    “Their design and materials were quite different from a standard solar panel. They were trying something new in hopes of creating a better, tougher, easier to install product,” Brandt said…
    http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/safety-warning-issued-solar-systems-made-failed-company

    10

    • #
      David Maddison

      “Green” “solutions” are almost always expensive, dangerous or bad for the environment or usually all three. Gangrenes hate humans and will do anything to eliminate them.

      00

  • #
    pat

    Greenpeace tells the Indian Govt what they must do:

    30 May: EconomicTimesIndia: No uptake for rooftop solar in Indian cities
    Despite friendly policies and net metering guidelines in several states and a subsidy of 30 per cent offered by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), the installation of solar rooftop systems has been dismal in leading metros in the country, especially in Chennai and Mumbai, according to the study.
    According to the study, titled Indian Cities Slacking on Rooftop Solar, Delhi, which offers metered connections and a generation-based subsidy in its solar policy, has also failed to shine.
    The study, by Greenpeace India, says that while the country has made good progress in reaching its 60 GW utility scale solar electricity targets, deployment is particularly slow in the residential rooftops sector. The government has earmarked 40 GW as the rooftop solar target by 2022, but as of December 2016, only over 1 GW worth of installations have taken place…

    Delhi, which has a current estimated solar potential of 1.25 GW in buildings and has an official target of installing 1 GW by 2020 and 2 GW by 2025, has installed only 35.9 MW of solar rooftop capacity. Out of this, only 3 MW is from residential installations.
    Mumbai has also been slow in installing solar rooftops in residential buildings. Out of 1.72 GW estimated solar potential, as calculated by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the city has installed only 5 MW of residential solar.

    Tamil Nadu, which offers Rs 20,000 subsidy for domestic consumers under the Chief Minister’s Solar Rooftop Capital Incentive Scheme, has also not been able to make significant progress. The state has a rooftop solar target of 350 MW but not even 2 MW have been installed…

    However, this does not mean India should lower its ambitious targets, as some have suggested. Rather, the government must step up and play a more proactive role in encouraging rooftop installations,” said Pujarini Sen, Climate and Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace India.
    “As the convenor and a founding member of the International Solar Alliance, and a country with abundant solar potential, India’s commitment to clean energy must continue to be robust.”…

    However, the challenges on the ground are more complex. Developers stress that there is a problem of lack of uniform roofs in the country and the fact that roofs are often used for various purposes that doesn’t leave enough space to install big panels. A 10 KW solar plant that can power three air-conditioners and is sufficient for a three-bedroom apartment needs around 1,000 sq. ft. of terrace area.

    Ved Prakash Goyal, an advisor to Applied Solar Power Management, part of the ENGIE group, the largest utility company in the world, said: “In India, everyone puts the water tank on the south side of the roof and it is the direction where you get maximum solar energy. Plus, you have various things on roofs which reduces the available area needed for solar.”…
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/no-uptake-for-rooftop-solar-in-indian-cities/articleshow/58908648.cms

    00

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “A 10 KW solar plant that can power three air-conditioners and is sufficient for a three-bedroom apartment needs around 1,000 sq. ft. of terrace area.”

      No possible way to actually get 10 Watts/sqft from insolation even on the space station! Guess how much those puppies cost!

      30

  • #
    pat

    no MSM carrying the Reuters’ story:

    30 May: Daily Caller: Chris White: Agency On Trump’s Chopping Block Under Investigation For Sketchy Solar Loans
    A federal aid program President Donald Trump proposed cutting is under investigation for giving out nearly $1 billion in loans to several nearly bankrupt solar companies, according to a Reuters report published Tuesday.
    The Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID OIG) is auditing $890 million of loans approved by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a program used to advance loans to overseas business ventures.
    Critics say such business ventures should receive funding from private banks, not from federal agencies.

    USAID OIG initially began its audit in 2016 but kept it under wraps. The probe is centered on OPIC’s decision to fund five Chilean solar farms and a hydroelectric project in 2013 and 2014 – many of the loans are unlikely to be repaid, according to the report (LINK).
    Trump proposed cutting funding for new OPIC projects in his 2018 budget outline released on May 23. Congress will not take up the president’s budget proposal until later this year.

    Three of the five solar projects are working to restructure their debt, sources familiar with the projects told reporters. They said OPIC would likely need to forgive 40 to 60 percent of the loans given to the solar projects. Losses on the solar deals could blow past $160 million.
    Audits of OPIC investments are rare and usually stem from considerations such as “the level of U.S. funding involved” and “reported concerns over the management or performance of a program.”…
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/agency-on-trumps-chopping-block-under-investigation-for-sketchy-solar-loans/

    10

  • #
    pat

    30 May: E&E News: Christa Marshall: Agency axes ‘clean energy’ from tech websites
    The Department of Energy has removed the words “clean energy” from multiple technology webpages, suggesting a greater focus on fossil fuels.
    The “Clean Energy Investment Center” — part of the Office of Technology Transitions — is now called the “Energy Investor Center,” said the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, which monitors federal websites.

    The center works with investors and private companies to find collaboration opportunities with the national labs and federal programs to advance energy technologies.
    DOE removed the word “clean” from other OTT pages and axed links to sites such as the Clean Energy Incubator Network, the website tracking initiative said

    For example, DOE deleted the word “clean” from the phrase “facilitate access to the DOE portfolio of investable clean energy opportunities.” The agency also altered the phrase “clean tech investment” to “U.S. energy technologies investment.”
    In other cases, DOE removed the word “new” from phrases such as “multi-trillion dollar global new energy market.” The changes occurred between March and mid-April, trackers said…

    DOE’s statement said, “The decision was made entirely by the career staff within that office.” It went on, “The Office of Technology Transitions made the decision to change the name to the Energy Investment Center from the Clean Energy Investment Center, which they considered an initial pilot project, to better reflect the broader focus of the project, which includes all traditional and nontraditional energy sources.”
    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/30/stories/1060055293

    10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “I love fossil fuels.” Means you only love coal…
    http://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/
    http://principia-scientific.org/the-true-origin-of-hydrocarbons/
    If you love gas and oil go to Titan..‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan’
    OR look for warming on…lets say Uranus..? Uranus’ atmosphere is about 83% hydrogen, 15% helium and 2% methane; Saturn is composed of mostly helium and hydrogen with traces of methane; Neptune’s atmosphere is made up predominately of hydrogen and helium, with some methane.
    And theres hydrocarbons in..The Horse head nebula. Thats interstellar space. Where are the ‘squashed fish’ and ‘dead trees’ in these places?

    10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      I dont want to push a bandwagon here but this needs more publicity although this information has been around for best part of 50 years or more. Mostly in Russian sources.

      Part here..www.gasresources.net
      ” This first article dealing with the general subject of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins does not itself involve specifically that body of knowledge. This article discusses the reasons which led physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical, mechanical, and petroleum engineers to reject, already by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly-oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials, and reviews briefly the fundamental scientific reasons for the failure of the 18th-century hypothesis1 of a biological origin of petroleum.

      A fundamental attribute of modern Russian petroleum science is that it conforms to the general, fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Although such constraint may seem an obvious requisite for any scientific assertion, the 18th-century hypothesis that petroleum might somehow evolve spontaneously from biological detritus in the near-surface depths of the Earth stands, contrarily, in glaring violation of the most fundamental, and irrevocable, laws of nature: the second law of thermodynamics.

      The second law of thermodynamics is a statement of irreversibility, and is an acknowledgement that spontaneous physical processes “go only one way.” Such property of the natural world is commonly and inevitably experienced in day-to-day life. Such common, irreversible phenomena as heat flow, diffusion, and chemical reactions are constantly observed.

      When any two bodies at different temperatures are placed in contact, and no other action is taken upon them, heat flows from the hotter body to the colder, until such time as their respective temperatures become equal throughout their volumes; at which time the flow of heat ceases; and the process never reverses, so as to return the initially hotter body to any temperature higher (and the initially colder body, lower) than the final equilibrium temperature.”

      Source

      20

  • #
    cedarhill

    Reminds one of the comment a pundit made about the reason behind Iraq invading Kuwait back in the day: “How refreshing to see someone claim simple greed for invading another country and not the usual ones of humanity, etc.”

    One supposes it’s better to have a simple reason such as greed instead of the endless save the planet.

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and it’s no stretch to assume Iraq simply wanted its territory back again. If there was financial gain for Iraq in the process, so much the better.

      Whether that’s selfish or greedy isn’t something I can afford to worry about. Kuwait was a sovereign state whether Iraq liked it or not so we defended Kuwait.

      10

      • #
        Fred Streeter

        Saddam-Glaspie meeting

        Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. – July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

        July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad

        —————— Final Statements ——————-

        U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

        Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

        U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

        On August 2, 1990, Saddam massed troops to invade and occupy Kuwait, just as Secretary Baker, et all, intended.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          On August 2, 1990, Saddam massed troops to invade and occupy Kuwait, just as Secretary Baker, et all, intended.

          I don’t know quite where to start here but several things ring alarm bells for me.

          1. Your gravatar picture is identical to an image of a Fred Streeter who, according to multiple sources, died in 1975: [ source 1]; [source 2]; [photo].

          2. I do not see how you could be that Freed Streeter and be able to know what you claim to know.

          3. I find it hard to believe that Secretary of State James Baker had — implying that the U.S. had — an interest in, much less a hand in the engineering of the Gulf War, although not much surprises me anymore.

          At a bare minimum, your identity does not check out and I don’t believe you are who you say you are. So I hope you don’t mind my asking who you really are and how you have knowledge that would be kept a deep dark secret in Washington DC forever, lest it leak out and embarrass the U.S. Government?

          00

          • #
            Fred Streeter

            how you have knowledge that would be kept a deep dark secret in Washington DC forever, lest it leak out and embarrass the U.S. Government

            Try investigating April Glaspie rather than Frederick Streeter. You will find that the transcript quoted from has been around since September 1990.

            On July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that:
            “The United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq.”

            Embarrassed? Not on your life.

            I am not that Fred Streeter, obviously.
            So what? I like his face – a much nicer character than mine.

            00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’m willing to let coal and gas duke it out. Competition isn’t a harmful thing per se. What I’m not willing to have happen is the UN and its enablers dictate to my country over something that they can’t even show minimal evidence to convince me it’s a threat. CO2 ain’t gonna hurt me or anyone but the generators grinding to a halt will do incalculable harm.

    If we stay in this Paris nightmare we’re cutting our own economic throat. And Trump apparently vacillates from one opinion to another like a neurotic twit who can’t decide what color her hair should be today. I hope it’s because he’s been distracted by the threat of terrorism and not because he’s really indecisive.

    10

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Awaiting the President’s decision

    meanwhile the UK’s Independent says this

    In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analysed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects.

    Using a computer model to predict if the U.S. scraps the Paris agreement .. :o

    link to the article

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/scientists-donald-trump-pull-out-paris-climate-change-agreement-a7759411.html%3Famp

    00

  • #
    pat

    the source?

    (scroll down) May: Axios: Jonathan Swan: Scoop: Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal
    President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme…
    https://www.axios.com/trumps-paris-fair-deal-2427414297.html

    31 May: Reuters: Trump pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal – Axios
    U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Axios news outlet reported on Wednesday, citing two unidentified sources with direct knowledge of the decision.
    (Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)axio
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-climatechange-trump-idUKKBN18R1J7

    00

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 2min13secs: 31 May: Bloomberg: Trump to Withdraw U.S. From Paris Agreement: Axios
    President Donald Trump has reportedly decided to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. Bloomberg’s Kevin Cirilli has the details on “Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas.” (Source: Bloomberg)
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2017-05-31/trump-to-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-agreement-axios-video

    Donald Trump to pull out of Paris climate deal – reports
    Telegraph.co.uk-23 minutes ago
    According to the news website Axios, two sources close to the Trump … tackling climate change as a top priority and considered the agreement to be among his …

    Trump to pull US out of Paris climate deal
    The Hill-4 minutes ago

    00

  • #
    pat

    seems the Paris news is on all the TV networks in US. not online as yet.

    BREAKING: Donald Trump to pull USA out of Paris Agreement on climate change
    Express.co.uk-28 minutes ago

    Trump to withdraw US from Paris Agreement: Report
    Washington Examiner-29 minutes ago

    Reports Trump is to withdraw US from Paris climate deal
    RTE Ireland – ‎35 minutes ago‎

    00

  • #
    pat

    Image from Fox News coverage of Paris Exit
    http://i.magaimg.net/img/nrf.jpg

    00

  • #
    pat

    31 May: ABC America: Jonathan Karl: Trump likely to withdraw US from Paris climate accord, senior WH official says
    President Trump is likely to drop out of the Paris climate accord, according to a senior White House official.
    Although the official cautions no decision is final until the president announces it, the White House is now working on how to roll out and explain the reasons behind that announcement.
    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-poised-withdraw-us-paris-climate-accord-senior/story?id=47741792&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_hed

    CBS has video on autoplay, recorded prior to this breaking story, so ignore:

    31 May: CBS: President Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement
    Details on just how exactly the U.S. will be withdrawing are still being worked out by a team that includes EPA administrator Scott Pruitt.
    A full, formal withdrawal could take up to three years to execute, unraveling one of former President Barack Obama’s major achievements in office to reduce the impacts of climate change…
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement/

    00

  • #
    pat

    joy of joys:

    31 May: BBC: Trump ‘poised to quit Paris climate deal’
    US President Donald Trump is poised to pull the country out of the Paris climate accord, US media report, quoting senior officials…
    News that Mr Trump was moving towards quitting the agreement was reported by the Axios news website and ABC News.
    In response, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying: “Like you I’ve seen the reports but I don’t have any information beyond that…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40108659

    00

  • #
    pat

    oh happy days…

    31 May: SMH: Donald Trump ‘pulling US out of Paris climate deal’: reports
    Washington: US President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, news outlet Axios has reported…
    CBS News confirmed the report, saying Trump had told allies he would be pulling out of the deal…
    Fox News also cited an unidentified source confirming the withdrawal…
    More to come
    Reuters
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-pulling-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal-reports-20170531-gwhms3.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    Trump withdraws from Paris climate agreement: reports
    The Australian-38 minutes ago

    Trump poised to pull out of Paris climate deal: US media
    Daily Mail – ‎8 minutes ago

    not a word yet from theirABC (in shock?) or Guardian.

    goodnite folks…hope it turns out to be true.

    30

  • #
  • #

    The nuclear energy guys swear that the oil and natural gas guys are working with the greens to regulate them out of business. Don’t know that I agree completely, but this story echoes that argument. It is short sighted, remindful of the definition of an appeaser, someone who feeds the crocodile in hopes it will eat him last. Cheers -

    10

  • #
    shortie of greenbank

    I had thought this was obvious? When the carbon tax was pushed through it was even more obvious then with only Coal products taxed and oil products mostly ‘on hold’ as far as taxing is concerned.

    10

  • #