Green Davos: Climate sceptics charm investors
Dr David Whitehouse
The Ballroom of the Dorchester Hotel in London is not somewhere I frequent very often, but the so-called Climate Change Forum conference is always held in such grand places. It’s a conference for what it calls high-net worth individuals, with not a few policy makers, royal families and international celebrities thrown in. The conference was called “Global Investment in Sustainable Development.” Delegates flew in from all over the world. Marc Morano of Climate Depot called it the “Green Davos.”
For the day I was there I was impressed with the ideas circulating around the informal areas. One person told me about his plans for recycling in Africa, another for removing plastic from the oceans, another about how to make hydrogen the fuel of the future. One person told me they founded an institute for global change. I spoke to a couple of others who ran a group advising firms how to achieve their net zero targets – weaving the words resilience, productivity and creativity into almost everything they said. Perhaps this is not the place for details. Offer the pitch, follow up later. One person told me that there are three ways to make money: one is with a good idea, one is to use the system of subsidies, grants and carbon credits to your advantage. And the third? I asked. “Look at the science soberly and then think long-term,” he said.
With investment in sustainability the topic of the day the science of climate change was always in the background. I asked many if they could tell me what the global temperature is and how it has changed in recent years. They couldn’t, adding that all they knew was that it was increasing, everyone knew that.
Outside the ballroom was a stand where a corporate health group had set up, not financial health but spiritual help. One of its proprietors told me that you make better corporate decisions when you are in spiritual harmony with the planet. He would be delighted to come to my boardroom and tell my company how to do it. I didn’t ask how much it would cost, seemed impolite.
At the conference proper someone talked about connecting humanity back to its heart’s values. I looked her up on social media – she had fewer twitter followers than me. Someone else was talking about how to avert the coming global disaster. I quickly looked him up: his investing firm lost more than a million pounds last year. I hope they don’t follow his advice. Another presentation was from Mastercard whose Vice President was talking about a new credit card that counted your carbon dioxide consumption and would cut off your access to money when you had reached your carbon allowance. I don’t think many of the attendees would be keen to use such a card! Someone else was talking about music for climate justice, pity Bono wasn’t here!
The presentations were a mixed bag. Some were fascinating, others were puffery. Many of them trivial, given by representatives of very small companies looking for a green niche and a break. A session on diversity, mainly women, sounded almost like a Meghan Markle speech given six times. It was clearly important to be photographed at the podium, presumably for their website alongside a “connect to me” tab. I got the impression that many delegates didn’t regard the presentations as the main thing.
Sceptical Debate
The reason I was at the conference was to watch the debate between so-called climate deniers Marc Morano and Christopher Monckton and two other speakers. Credit is due to Max Studennikoff, the chairman and founder of CC Forum, who withstood numerous demands and requests to de-platform Morano and Monckton. One of the participants withdrew, saying that in all conscience he could not share a stage with such heretics, presumably preferring his preferred pastime of glueing himself to government offices in protest. I forget his name, as did everyone else.
The other withdrawal was UK Climate Minister Graham Stuart who was to give a keynote speech. He suddenly had unexpected government business, perhaps – it was joked – he was going to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. Later DeSmog activists claimed the credit for dissuading him. One person told me they were unimpressed by his absence: “This is just the audience he needs to talk to if he wants to bring growth into the UK,” he moaned.
The debate itself was all rather surprising. There was no frisson of annoyance or expectation of fireworks as Morano and Monckton made their way onto the stage. There was nobody in the ballroom who was there to protest or cause a disruption. They were interested in what they had to say.
The session was opened by Max Studennikoff who started by saying that extreme events, hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, were all on the increase and, what’s more, the moat around his medieval castle in France was dry for the first time in 600 years! I saw Lord Monckton smile as this was a gift for him to counter. Studennikoff took this with good grace. After the opening statements I got the feeling that the audience decided that the sceptics were rather more substantial than some had expected. A person on the table next to me muttered, “hmmm details!”
There was not that much about climate during the debate as one might have expected. Energy policy, subsidies, clean water, pollution etc. were discussed with not that much between the two sides. On the non-sceptic side one panelist said that after Krakatoa had put 20 million tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere and cooled the world by one and a half degrees, just imagine what 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year could do! Then he mentioned the 97% climate consensus which Monckton swiftly rubbished.
Gunter Pauli was a different matter. To my surprise he had a lot in common with Morano and Monckton and he clearly read the mood of the audience. Sometimes he veered into telling stories about himself, but the audience loved it. Unsurprisingly, the wealthy audience all seemed to agree that wealth is what was needed to clean up the environment. Morano said this came from cheap energy, Pauli said we needed a new system of business altogether and that Net Zero was nonsense and “the opium of the masses.”
The applause was slightly louder for the non-sceptic side, but not by much at all. But where was this applause coming from? One or two sceptical tables, I wondered. No, it was widespread, much of it from the quiet money. Such was the interest in the session that subsequent sessions were cancelled as it continued. No hostility, just some very good questions. Morano and Monckton were pleasantly surprised.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/green-davos-climate-sceptics-charm-investors/
********************************************************UK: Lloyds bank ditches project finance for new oil and gas fields
Britain's biggest domestic bank Lloyds (LLOY.L) said on Thursday it would not support direct financing to develop new oil and gas fields, joining a small number of lenders to push back on funding expansion of the industry.
Lloyds updated its climate policy to make the change, which bars project financing or reserve-based lending to greenfield oil and gas projects, although the policy would still mean it could provide general lending to companies in the industry.
Although Lloyds exposure to the sector is small, the move reflects growing pressure on banks to do more to accelerate the global transition to a low-carbon economy before the next round of global climate talks in Egypt in November.
It also comes just weeks after Britain pledged to give a green light for fresh exploration in the North Sea amid concerns about security of energy supplies amid the conflict in Ukraine.
Despite concern from campaigners that banks are helping lock in climate-damaging emissions, large lenders in the United States have faced political pressure to maintain the flow of capital and most continue to finance expansion in the sector.
Climate groups welcomed the Lloyds move and called on other British banks to follow suit.
"Lloyds' new policy marks an important turning point in the dangerous relationship that exists between leading UK banks and fossil fuel companies," said Tony Burdon, chief executive of pressure group Make My Money Matter.
"By becoming the first of the five largest UK high street banks to stop the direct financing of new gas, oil, and coal projects, Lloyds is making a clear statement on the future of financing for fossil fuel expansion."
Lloyds' exposure to dirty industries is smaller than some of its global rivals, given its focus on Britain's economy.
The bank provided about 1 billion pounds ($1.1 billion) of finance to commercial oil and gas customers last year, according to its latest climate disclosures report, and the sector accounted for just 0.2% of its overall lending
*****************************************
Lord Frost rounds on British government over ‘invented’ net zero targets
Former Brexit Secretary Lord Frost has rounded on the Government over its “invented” net zero target. He argued that the stated goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 was passed with “limited debate” and claimed it has had negative impacts on the energy sector.
Lord Frost’s comments were made during a debate in the House of Lords over what steps should be taken to support behaviour change as a pathway towards net zero. He said: “We all agree that decarbonisation is a very desirable goal, but I would say that aspiration is different from the specific net zero 2050 policy.
“That target was essentially invented by the climate change committee in 2019, passed through secondary legislation in this Parliament with limited debate, and since then has been creating radical change to the economic structure of this country. “And I think my own party is just as much to blame for this situation, and possibly even more so than members opposite.”
He argued that technical measures required to meet this target are expensive, both to install and in its impact on everyday life, that they increase the unreliability of the energy sector and have led to the destruction of reliable supply.
The Tory peer said he finds it “troubling” that behavioural change is being used to “fill the gap”.
He critiqued this method of decarbonisation, arguing it “reduces human welfare” because it “makes it harder for people to do things they would otherwise choose to do”.
Finally, he claimed that behavioural change measures are presented as being voluntary, but in some cases are actually achieved through “legal compulsion”, shrinking the private space of individuals.
He said: “The climate change committee in 2021 said that behaviour change comes through consumer adoption of low-carbon technology such as electric cars. “Well, you don’t get any choice about that – in 2030, you have to buy an electric car. “That’s not a nudging, that’s compulsion.
“Similarly, heat pumps in 2025, that’s compulsion. Closing roads for cyclists, that’s all compulsion. “If people mean legal compulsion, they should say it.”
Lord Frost’s comments come after the Bishop of Oxford urged the Government to do more in terms of supporting behavioural change.
The Right Reverend Steven Croft referenced a new report from the Lords’ Environment and Climate Change Committee entitled ‘In Our Hands: Behaviour Change for Climate and Environmental Goals’.
The spiritual peer praised the Government for its stated commitment to net zero but argued there was a “significant gap” between what it wants to do, and the leadership actually being offered.
He argued that behaviour change was a “key element” of achieving net zero, an estimated 32% of change needed, adding: “We must all play our part”.
Another member of the climate change committee, Lord Browne of Ladyton hit back at Lord Frost’s comments about behaviour change, branding his warning a “groundless accusation”.
The former Labour Cabinet minister insisted that the role of Government is one of enabling people to make more sustainable choices, not compelling them to do so.
He said: “To address the concerns of those who feel that the cause of net zero is being hijacked by those who do wish this regression I encourage them, including with respect Lord Frost, to actually read the reports before levelling these groundless accusations.”
He added: “We do not wish this or any future Government to remove the power of decision-making from individuals, but we want it to fashion a context in which the gap between ethical and practical decision making is closed.
“For those who wish to preserve individual liberty, including Lord Frost, surely a context within which people can make the decisions they wish to make on an ethical basis rather than purely practical considerations is desirable.”
****************************************
Australia: ‘Over-designed’ government megaprojects are bad for environment and taxpayers
NSW megaprojects are being over-engineered with tonnes of unnecessary, costly materials driving up the price and carbon footprint of the multibillion-dollar builds, Infrastructure Minister Rob Stokes has warned.
Stokes said NSW would fail to reach its goal of a net zero economy by 2050 without addressing overservicing in its $110-billion infrastructure pipeline, where concrete and steel are being superfluously added to projects.
Carbon emissions from construction material – including concrete and steel – are estimated to represent up to 10 per cent of Australia’s carbon output. A new report produced by Stokes and Infrastructure NSW has flagged including those emissions in the business cases of future projects.
“We want things to be robust and well-built, but that shouldn’t mean just throwing more concrete and steel into our bridges, roads and railways,” Stokes told the Herald.
“There is an irony here. Because we’ve got very conservative design standards we’re actually putting more concrete and steel into roads and bridges and railways than anyone else in the world.”
Stokes pointed to the recent construction of the multibillion-dollar Metro rail lines as an example of a project that could have used less material without impacting design integrity.
“I think there is a general awareness that we have been very conservative and over-designed some of our station boxes on Metro lines,” he said.
The government is spending tens of billions of dollars on the Metro, which will connect the CBD to the west and south-west of the city, as well as a line to service the new Western Sydney Airport when it opens in 2026. The projects have been hampered by cost blowouts.
Station boxes are excavated for underground platforms, concourses and facilities, while major developments are often installed above them.
Infrastructure funding cuts leave NSW behind Victoria, Queensland
Stokes said a “compliance culture” in NSW had led to an intense focus on mitigating risk and liability in both the government and private sectors.
“I think every engineer that touches a project on the way through … just wants to ensure that their responsibility is entirely mitigated by throwing a bit of extra concrete and steel at it,” he said.
“The sum total of all these little decisions where people are just effectively covering their back means that we’re paying way over the odds, and also contributing toward global climate emissions because of our innate design conservatism, so we need to challenge that.”
The senior minister, who will retire from politics at the next state election, said that more thoughtfully designing the state’s largest projects would cut emissions, save time and taxpayer cash.
“We should be very proud of the fact that we are designing very, very robust structures, but the question we need to ask is, ‘Are we over designing them?’. There’s a cost imperative to that for the taxpayer,” he said.
“But there’s also a climate imperative because every bit of extra design constraint that adds to the bulk of a structure is making it more carbon intensive.”
The Infrastructure NSW discussion paper, set to be released this week, recommends a whole of government approach to measuring emissions in infrastructure.
The Decarbonising Infrastructure Delivery report says multibillion-dollar investment decisions were being made without any understanding of carbon mitigation or management over the life of the asset. It warns that could result in potentially higher costs to retrofit projects to achieve net-zero in the future.
The report also recommends maximising the use of recycled material in building.
The United Kingdom, including the Glasgow Airport Investment Area, and Europe are cited as examples of governments including the carbon impact of projects when weighing up their benefits and cost.
The NSW government earlier this year warned it would need to push back some of its mammoth infrastructure pipeline amid rising construction costs and limited workforce.
The government paper follows a report produced by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia which earlier this year called for ambitious, lower-carbon outcome requirements in major projects.
Stokes said future state governments would need to rethink the way they approached big projects, and instead start by questioning whether they should even go ahead at all.
“One of the very best ways we can decarbonise infrastructure is actually asking whether we need such an expensive megaproject design intervention in the first place. Maybe there are other ways to achieve the same objective,” he said.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment