Ruining the world to ‘save the planet’
The late morning sun danced off the Mediterranean as I took a chair facing Al Gore on the rooftop terrace of the Hilton in Cannes. I was there to interview the ascending messiah, in the foothills of the apocalypse known as AGW. He was to receive awards and accolades for his 2006 film in which (as writer) he addressed An Inconvenient Truth, screened just before we met, at the world’s most prestigious film festival, the altar of cinema.
The West took the message and spread it with fervour, using the film as a platform. Ambassadors were recruited to help sell the gloom, touring schools with a full propaganda kit of slide shows with alarmist claims echoing the film. It was (is!) the first mass hypnosis on a near-global scale. China and Russia (and much of the Middle East) remained untouched by the alarmist onslaught. When your enemy is digging a hole, don’t interrupt…
It wasn’t long, October 2007, that an opposing alarm was sounded in Britain, when a high court judge highlighted what he said were ‘nine scientific errors’ in the film.
The judge made his remarks when assessing a case brought by a Kent school principal and a member of a political group, the New Party, opposed to a government plan to show the film in secondary schools.
The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Gore’s ‘one-sided’ views. The ‘apocalyptic vision’ presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.
The mistakes identified mainly deal with the predicted impacts of climate change and include claims that a sea-level rise of up to 6m would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland ‘in the near future’. The judge said: ‘This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”.’ He accepted that melting of the ice would release this amount of water, ‘but only after, and over, millennia’.
Gore, famously within an inch of the US Presidency in 2000, was emphatic; the climate was threatening. ‘I know this about politics. The political system has one thing in common with the climate system: it too, is non-linear. It can appear to change only gradually. But it can cross a tipping point, beyond which it moves dramatically,’ he said.
Ironically, the film quotes Mark Twain’s wisecrack, ‘What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so,’ with the unquestioning confidence of the truly ignorant.
The salesman’s tricks in An Inconvenient Truth supercharged the already hyped scare campaign which had begun on June 23, 1988. To emphasise the ‘warming’ at the congressional session hosting NASA’s Jim Hansen as a guest speaker on the subject, Hansen’s Democrat ally Senator Tim Wirth scheduled the hearing on a day forecast to be the hottest in Washington that summer. In addition, Wirth sabotaged the air-conditioning the previous night, hoping to ensure the TV cameras could show everyone sweating in the heat. Wirth later told Deborah Amos (NPR News) how he did it:
‘What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot… The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.’
Nobody questioned why it was NASA spreading the warming message, nor why it was in the political arena instead of a scientific setting.
Throughout the West, living standards, the economy, and yes, even the universally cherished environment itself, have been beaten down, throttled, and endangered by the still unproven theory (unproven theory correct!) that fossil fuel emissions drive warming and threaten the planet. Plants, of course, disagree.
But then, the message has always been borne on the wings of political activism, from Jim Hansen and Tim Wirth to Al Gore and latterly in Australia, the evangelical Chris Bowen. I use the word advisedly: climate change as a political movement is more like a secular religion, as has been noted many times before. It can also be described as ‘a cultural disease haunting Western society’, in the words of Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent. In his new book, The Grip of Culture, Andy West ‘overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion’, according to the back cover synopsis.
It is a supreme irony that climate alarmists justify their activism by reference to ‘the science’ while steadfastly refusing to pay heed to scientific reports that challenge their beliefs, or to debate the subject with climate scientists – those not captured by the ruling orthodoxy. And there are a great many of them.
Nick Cater writes in his July 24, 2023, column in The Australian:
‘There are only 83,000 hectares of wet sclerophyll forest left in North Queensland. Ark Energy is just a ministerial tick away from ripping into a thousand to construct an industrial wind turbine development.’
Killing the environment to save the environment, eh?
In Struggle Street (pace Alan Jones), the energy bill hills have grown into mountains. Eat or heat? is the winter question. Small businesses face extinction.
Encouraged by the alarmism, zealous but disinformed protestors who want to Just Stop Oil rampage through cities and art galleries, disrupting city life, adding stress to urbanites (including this Urban).
The chaos of energy policies, here and elsewhere, is the direct result of attempts to ‘save the planet’ by alarmist scenarios that have children terrified, young couples refusing to have children, and corporates falling over themselves to turn from profit to politics, abandoning their purpose. Don’t they see they are helping politicians to be the useful idiots assisting China to ruin the world – weakening it on the way to controlling it? Without firing a shot; Sun Tzu would approve.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/ruining-the-world-to-save-the-planet/ ?
**********************************************
Germany’s Irrationality Against Fossil Fuels Has Made It More Dependent on Them
Governments around the West are currently scrambling toward adopting more and more renewable, environmentally healthy energy sources—with the notable and regrettable exception of nuclear energy—and to set a path for a world of zero emissions in the coming decades.
There is no doubt that the goal of reaching a greener and cleaner future is laudable and something conservatives and free marketeers should support. But the top-down, heavy-handed approach by governments is the wrong one and has already caused havoc.
Let’s look to Germany as an example. Europe’s largest economy hastily implemented its Energiewende, that is, its transition to green energy, a little more than over a decade ago.
It was done hastily since it was a sudden decision made by the country’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who irrationally decided after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster that it was time to get rid of nuclear. Thus, the Energiewende toward a cleaner future started by abandoning what is perhaps one of the best energy sources for getting us to that future.
While this major government-led project was off to a suboptimal start then, it has hardly become better since. The catastrophic consequences, the back-and-forth in policy decision-making, and the economic and social damage of the Energiewende (for instance, the European Commission already estimated in 2014 that the transition would cost a staggering 137 billion euros) have been documented at other points already.
Instead, I would like to highlight the geopolitical effect of Germany having become more dependent on fossil fuels from other countries since the start of the transition. Or, put differently, rather than producing energy itself, Germany has opted to import fossil fuel-based energy from other countries—and Russia in particular.
As the news website Clean Energy Wire has shown, Germany imported 63.7% of its energy from Russia in 2020. Ever since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany had to completely outsource that to other countries, which has led to skyrocketing energy prices.
There would have been a way even after the invasion, of course, to slow down the increase in energy prices and to actually make Germany more independent again in its energy security. But the German government, which includes the Green Party, opted nevertheless to shut off all nuclear power plants in the spring of 2023. Energy security has thus been a practical impossibility.
To secure their energy supply at least to a minimum extent, certain states in Germany have started setting up new power plants based on natural gas.
For instance, Bavaria, the southern state in which most land is owned by farmers and that is nestled in mountains that are protected for their unique ecosystems (that is, not good places for windmills and solar panels farms), set up a new gas plant in 2021 to ensure a reliable energy supply after the federal government in Berlin had decided to shut down all of the state’s nuclear plants.
And after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the federal government ordered the restart of coal-fired power plants, too. Yet, still, the fuels for these gas and coal plants are coming from foreign suppliers.
Thus, in its irrationality against fossil fuel energy sources and in favor of forcing through an immediate transition to green energy, Germany has instead made itself more dependent on fossil fuels, but now from other countries in the world (and primarily from countries that could not be considered friends of the West).
It is merely one example of how government-led environmental policy has actually done very little for the environment but has hurt the people and businesses on the ground while also funding adversaries.
There is a different way, of course, and that is a more hands-off, pro-market approach toward protecting the environment. A regulatory approach will always be needed—it could be potentially disastrous if businesses simply set up nuclear plants without an already existing regulatory framework.
If the government wanted to truly help the environment, however, it would look to free enterprise to find solutions and use those resources that are abundantly available—for example, hydropower in the Alpine regions or the rivers.
In the end, it will always be environmental entrepreneurs—or enviropreneurs—who will truly help the environment. Industrial policy has never been effective. Until governments realize this, they will merely virtue-signal themselves into more and more disastrous policies.
******************************************
Heating Up the Regulatory State
The Biden administration is going to “save” the planet and “save” Americans money by forcing us all to … spend more money. Get it? Neither do we, but according to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, that’s “Bidenomics” for you.
The growing list of household appliances the Biden administration has unilaterally decided is under its purview is getting more ridiculous. Indeed, the administration cannot deny it anymore. So the excuse now is, Well, it’s not happening immediately.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said as much. Team Biden has gone after “gas stoves, air conditioning units with regulation, refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, now water heaters,” a reporter said in an exchange with KJP. “How many more home appliances will Americans eventually have to replace, then, because of regulations?”
“So, just to be clear,” Jean-Pierre responded, “when it comes to water heaters — and it is — it is — it is proposed, what has been put forward, and if it is enacted, it would not take it into effect until 2029. So let’s not forget that.”
Why put off the regulation for another six years if climate change is such an imminent threat? If the world will end in X number of years, as we’ve been relentlessly told for decades, why wait?
The short answer is because it has nothing to do with the climate.
Likewise, the claim that “Bidenomics” is saving Americans money is just as vacuous.
While the DOE claims that the new regulations would produce $11 billion in annual savings for consumers, that claim quickly runs into a wall called “the real world.”
While these heat-pump systems may indeed be more energy efficient on their face, the real-life situations into which these units are placed have tremendous impact on their overall energy efficiency. Since these heat-pump water heaters take from the ambient warm air surrounding the unit, channeling it to heat the water, the temperature of the air around the unit will dictate its efficiency. Therefore, in hotter climates, this system works well, but in cooler climates, much of that energy efficiency is lost. And, of course, lost energy efficiency means lost savings.
Furthermore, there’s the problem of initial costs. These heat-pump water heaters cost an average of $2,800 more than a standard electric water heater on the market today. That’s no small potatoes for most Americans. On top of the price of the water heater are installation costs, which can run much higher than the installation of a standard water heater.
So, on balance, depending upon a variety of factors such as local climate, house size, and location within a house, the potential energy savings may end up being a complete wash due to the high upfront cost of these water heaters. But again, it’s not about saving money or saving the planet; it’s about empowering Washington’s bureaucratic state and giving excuses for unelected bureaucrats to impose ever more control over the American public.
Ben Lieberman, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, “It seems that almost everything that plugs in or fires up around the house is either subject to a pending regulation or soon will be.” Exactly.
It is also deeply ironic that the party most concerned about democracy being threatened is the party most engaged in building a federal government that increasingly circumvents the democratic process.
If such powers are constitutional at all — which is a big “if” — Congress should be the only branch of the federal government looking to pass laws such as the DOE’s proposed regulations. It’s the only way for citizens to hold their elected representatives accountable. But of course, Congress doesn’t want to be held accountable, so elected lawmakers can hide behind the unelected bureaucratic state while asserting, It’s not our fault.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/99147-heating-up-the-regulatory-state-2023-07-26
*****************************************Australia: Victoria to ban all new homes from having a gas connection
Daniel Andrews' Labor government has taken the extraordinary step of banning the option of connecting natural gas to homes in a bid to halve carbon emissions by 2030.
Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio and Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny announced the changes to energy supply on Friday morning, with the policy set to be introduced on January 1, 2024.
In addition to residential housing, any new public buildings which are yet to reach design stages by the cut off date - including schools, police stations and hospitals - must be entirely electric. Commercial properties will be exempt.
The move has prompted swift backlash from breakfast radio kingmakers Kyle and Jackie O.
Sandilands branded the Victorian Premier a 'wandering eyed flop' in a sensational blow up about the policy.
'I'm sick and tired of everyone thinking we're idiots,' he said. 'These laws are for idiots.'
'That government sucks ass. That wandering eyed flop down there can't have the Commonwealth Games because he can't budget, now he thinks ''I'll get the woke losers to vote for me by getting rid of gas''.
The change comes despite electricity power prices soaring by more than 50 per cent in just one year.
'The gas is getting eradicated yet eletricity is going through the roof and now we're forced to do that? This is some bulls**t,' Sandilands said.
The government hopes these new changes will shave up to $1,000 from household energy bills each year.
There is also a hope that there will be cash savings because households will no longer need a gas connection.
Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, told Daily Mail Australia the changes amounted to a 'direct attack on Victorian families who are facing the ever-increasing dilemma between whether to heat or eat'.
'Gas bills for Victorian families have increased by 50 per cent... This price rise is by far the largest increase of any state, and more than double the national average.'
Mr Wild said it would be 'misleading' to simply blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the price hikes - as the Victorian Energy Minister has done in the past.
'Her government has no one else to blame for out-of-control gas price rise but themselves, which has been more reckless than any other state in banning the development of this vital resource,' he said.
'Banning the use of gas is fundamentally out of step with community expectations and is another example of the ever-growing intrusion of the Victorian Government into the day-to-day lives of families.'
New data recently revealed struggling Victorians are increasingly relying on government energy bill relief grants amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.
More than 86,000 of the grants have been distributed in nine months.
The Essential Services Commission revealed 67,413 residential customers required electricity bill assistance in March, the highest number since the relief scheme began in 2019.
Another 55,415 households had help to pay their gas bills over the course of the month.
Even still, a 25 per cent hike was brought in on July 1, spiking annual power bills again by $352 for residential customers and $752 for small businesses.
Prominent think tank the Grattan Institute suggested state and territory governments ban new natural gas connections to homes, shops and small businesses just last month.
Victoria is the first state to legislate such changes, and also partially funds the institute.
The Grattan report said Australia would fail to meet its net zero by 2050 carbon emissions target unless gas appliances were replaced with electric ones powered by renewable energy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12346889/Victoria-ban-new-homes-having-gas-connection.html
***************************************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