John Kerry Says WEF Davos Elite Are Like ‘Extraterrestrials’ Here to ‘Save the Planet’ – Touts himself as one of a ‘select group of human beings’
Just a note on the WEF: It is the personal creation of German economist Klaus Schwab. It has gradually gained a following over the last 50 years but is just a talk shop. It has however been very good for the small Swiss resort town of Davos.
Schwab is the son of an industrialist who supplied flame- throwers to the Nazi Wehrmacht and was helping the Nazis to develop nuclear weapons. So his background is pretty authoritarian
John Kerry at the World Economic Forum: "And when you stop and think about it, it's pretty extraordinary that we select group of human beings...are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet. I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about quote 'saving the planet.' If you said that to most people, most people they think you're just a crazy tree-hugging lefty, liberal, you know, do-gooder or whatever, and, and there's no relationship. But really, that's where we are."
Marc Morano comment: "Kerry and the World Economic Forum, the UN, and Al Gore all seem to believe they are the chosen ones to save the planet. But, Kerry actually said something we can all agree with when he noted, 'most people they think you're just a crazy tree-hugging lefty, liberal'. Yes, Kerry is correct, most people do think that.
We have heard this type of elitism before. See: Klaus Schwab At 2022 WEF: ‘The Future Is Built By Us, By A Powerful Community As You Here In This Room’ & Klaus Schwab Opens the 2023 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting with a Call to “Master the Future”
Morano: "The Great Reset crowd assembling in Davos genuinely believe themselves to be above the rest of humanity and are able to own multiple mansions and fly private jets while spewing 'saving the planet' rhetoric or even picking up environmental awards.
******************************************************
The Recycling Religion
For decades, we've been told: recycle! "If we're not using recycled paper, we're cutting down more trees!" says Lynn Hoffman, co-president of Eureka Recycling.
Recycling paper (or cardboard) does save trees. Recycling aluminum does save energy. But that's about it.
The ugly truth is that many "recyclables" sent to recycling plants are never recycled. The worst is plastic.
Even Greenpeace now says, "Plastic recycling is a dead-end street."
Hoffman often trucks it to a landfill.
Years ago, science writer John Tierney wrote a New York Times Magazine story, "Recycling Is Garbage." It set a Times record for hate mail.
But what he wrote was true. "It's even more true today," says Tierney in my new video. "Recycling is an industry that uses increasingly expensive labor to produce materials that are worth less and less." It would be smarter to just dump our garbage in landfills.
People think landfills are horrible polluters. But they're not. Regulations (occasionally, government regulations are actually useful) make sure today's landfills have protective barriers so they don't leak.
Eventually, landfills are turned into good things: ski hills, parks and golf courses.
But aren't we running out of landfill space? For years, alarmist media said we were. But that's not true.
In 1987, media gave lots of publicity to a garbage barge that traveled thousands of miles trying and failing to find a place to dump its load.
But that barge wasn't rejected because there was a lack of room. States turned the barge away after hysterical media suggested it contained "infectious waste." The Environmental Protection Agency later found it was normal garbage.
Landfills have plenty of room for that. In fact, America has more space than we will ever need. Sometimes states and businesses even compete to get our garbage.
"If you think of the United States as a football field," says Tierney, "all the garbage that we will generate in the next 1,000 years would fit inside a tiny fraction of the one-inch line."
Putting garbage in landfills is often much cheaper than recycling. My town would save $340 million a year if it just stopped recycling.
But they won't, "because people demand it," says Tierney. "It's a sacrament of the green religion."
The religion's commandments are complex. New York City orders me to: "Place recyclables at the curb between 4 PM and midnight ... Rinse plastic containers ... Separate paper from plastic, metal, and glass." Paper must be tied "with twine into bundles no taller than 18 inches," and so on.
"That's one reason recycling fails," says Tierney. "It's so complicated; people never learn the rules."
Worse, some recycling is pointless, or harmful. "If you rinse a plastic bottle in hot water," Tierney points out, "the net result is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than if you threw it in the garbage."
Since most plastic can't be recycled, what's the environmentalists' solution now? "Stop producing it," says Greenpeace's John Hocevar.
Lots of environmental groups now want to ban plastic.
That's just silly. Plastic is useful. Using it often creates fewer emissions than its alternatives. Plastic bags create fewer than paper bags. A metal straw has to be used 150 times before it creates less pollution than a plastic straw.
Environmental groups rarely mention that, or how they misled us about recycling year after year.
"It's appalling that after telling people for three decades to recycle, they don't even apologize for all the time and money that they wasted," complains Tierney. "Instead, they have a proposal (banning plastic) that will make life even worse."
Plastic is not evil. Recycling is no climate savior. When Los Angeles mandated it, they added 400 big noisy garbage trucks. That creates lots of pollution.
But environmentalists still demand we do things like pick through our trash, switch from plastic to paper bags that rip. California even banned small plastic shampoo bottles
"Some of these rules are just so arbitrary and silly," complains Tierney. "It's simply a way for greens and for some politicians to pretend that they're saving the planet."
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2023/01/18/the-recycling-religion-n2618407
********************************************************UK: Do we truly know the cost of net zero?
Just why is Chris Skidmore’s review into the government’s target to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 called an ‘independent’ review? It somewhat stretches the definition of the word ‘independent’.
Skidmore was the very minister – the Energy and Clean Growth Minister – who pushed the net zero commitment through the House of Commons in the first place in 2019. He remains a Conservative MP. Putting him in charge of an ‘independent’ review on net zero is analogous to Rishi Sunak putting Boris Johnson in charge of a ‘independent’ review into Brexit. That, of course, would be laughed out of the House of Commons. But things seem to work very differently in the world of net zero.
It is pretty clear that support for net zero drops away rather rapidly as soon as people understand its implications
The legally-binding target to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 has the most far-reaching consequences of any piece of legislation in recent times. It is far more significant than Brexit, for example, as it requires Britain to adopt multiple new, extremely expensive and unproven technologies. And yet it was passed through the Commons without even a vote. The commitment to net zero didn’t even feature in either the Conservative or Labour manifestos in 2017, the last election before the measure was passed.
But any dissent doesn’t matter, according to Skidmore, because he has held 50 ‘round tables’. He claims, ‘We heard a clear message for businesses, organisations, individuals, and local government across the country: net zero is creating a new era of opportunity, but government, industry, and individuals need to act to make the most of the opportunities, reduce costs, and ensure we deliver successfully.’ Was it really that unanimous, Chris? And if so, who did you invite to your round tables? I guess my invitation got lost in the post.
Skidmore claims there is strong public support for net zero. This might well be the case when people are asked simply about net zero without any context, i.e. what the implications will be for them personally. Polls suggest around 60 per cent of people are generally in favour. But it is a very different matter when people are asked directly about measures which form part of the government’s net zero strategy.
Planting trees (92 per cent approval in a YouGov poll in 2021) and banning single use plastics (81 per cent) are wildly popular. So, too, it seems is ‘only using renewable energy’ (66 per cent). That is perhaps because the cost implications were not explained in the question. A majority, too, backed a frequent flyer levy (60 per cent). Banning petrol and diesel cars, however, was met with approval of 48 per cent, taxing air fares 37 per cent, increasing fuel duty 27 per cent and restricting consumption of meat and dairy 26 per cent.
It is pretty clear that support drops away rather rapidly as soon as people are allowed to understand the implications of net zero. Most support it only as an abstract idea which does not impinge on them personally.
What we really need is a genuinely independent review of this policy which explains very clearly what some of the known costs are and also looks at the many unknown costs of decarbonising food production, industries, backing up intermittent wind and solar, and so on. As Lord Frost suggested in a tweet today, what we could do with is a Red Team review of the review, which asks the difficult questions – the ones MPs failed to ask when they nodded net zero through the Commons. And it needs to be led by someone who really is independent of government.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/do-we-truly-know-the-cost-of-net-zero/
************************************************Australian State loves coal
NSW will introduce a domestic coal reservation policy to keep the lights on and ease an energy crisis gripping the east coast, in a move expected to open a new battle with major coal miners.
The Australian understands NSW Treasurer Matt Kean will issue orders requiring the majority of the state’s thermal coal miners to reserve up to 10 per cent of their output for NSW power stations by the end of the month, under a new clampdown designed to head off potential supply shortfalls this year.
The orders represent an expansion of rules introduced in December requiring only some coal miners to reserve production for the domestic market, included alongside a $125-a-tonne cap on the price of coal sold to local power providers. They could draw in major producers such as BHP, Whitehaven Coal and Yancoal.
The reservation scheme will aim to dodge a gas strike by energy producers and retailers, frustrated by a lack of clarity after the Prime Minister imposed a price cap and code of conduct on the industry. However, the move could split the NSW coal industry, with those companies already subject to domestic reservation orders likely to welcome the move. Those not affected by current orders are likely to be outraged by the decision.
“This coal cap scheme will see NSW doing our part at the request of the Albanese government to contribute to the national solution of this national problem,” Mr Kean said.
“I know those currently providing coal for the local market will appreciate that companies enjoying super profits on the back of the war in Ukraine will now do their part for the domestic market. Of course they should provide Australian production for Australian consumers.
“These new arrangements will help even the playing field among coal producers.”
The NSW government is consulting with the additional companies. The new orders are likely to require them to contribute about 7-10 per cent of their production to the domestic market. Coal still provides up to 60 per cent of generation needs in the state even as NSW looks to phase out the fossil fuel and replace it with renewable energy supplies.
The Australian understands NSW estimates its generators will need about 22 million tonnes of coal to keep operating through 2023. About 18 million tonnes of that total is already contracted in long-term supply contracts with a small group of miners, including Glencore, Peabody, New Hope Corporation and Centennial.
Under orders issued in late December those producers were required to offer at least 18.6 million tonnes of coal into the domestic market at a maximum price of $125 a tonne for coal with a calorific value of 5500 a kilogram. That is the equivalent of $136.40 for high-grade coal exported to international markets from NSW mines, which generally grades 6000 calories per kilogram.
Mr Kean, who is also the Energy Minister, has decided to widen the domestic reservation policy to meet a potential supply shortfall, after complaints the December orders put an unfair burden on a small group of producers.
The Australian understands Mr Kean now intends to require all NSW thermal coal producers to supply into the domestic market – effectively establishing a domestic coal reservation policy for the state.
The move is likely to draw in major producers such as BHP, Whitehaven Coal and Yancoal, who are not currently required to supply NSW power stations beyond any existing contracts.
Mr Kean’s move is not necessarily a permanent impost on the state’s coal industry, as coal-supply requirements will slowly diminish over the next decade as the state phases out its reliance on coal-fired generation.
It is believed sections of the coal industry have argued that coal is ultimately a state-owned resource, and the burden of supplying NSW power stations should be shared more evenly among the state’s miners.
Most of the mines supplying into long-term contracts with NSW power stations do so as a requirement of deals to privatise state-owned operations in the 1980s and 2000s. Private companies that invested in greenfield operations did so with export markets in mind, and are unlikely to welcome any impost on the price they could receive on international markets.
BHP’s Mt Arthur mine is expected to produce 13 million to 15 million tonnes of coal in the current financial year. Yancoal’s NSW mines produced about 23 million tonnes of coal in 2021.
The Australian understands the new orders will not require miners to break existing export agreements if their mine production is fully contracted, and coking coal mines such as South32’s Illawarra operations and Sanjeev Gupta’s Tahmoor mine are not affected by the new rules. AGL Energy’s Liddell coal plant is due to close in April, with Origin Energy’s Eraring station to shut as early as August 2025.
The final NSW coal power plant will be shut by 2040 at the latest after EnergyAustralia’s decision to bring forward the closure date of its Mt Piper facility by at least two years in a bid to hit new green climate targets.
Coal facilities are increasingly having to switch off during daytime hours when high solar supplies undercut them on price.
Mr Kean has been warning the state’s coal plants will exit early as the fossil fuel struggles to compete.
***************************************
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