Scapegoating ‘Climate Change’ For Every Disaster Hides The Real Culprits
Blaming the climate for every tragic weather event is easy and convenient. However, this can be a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the role of policy and infrastructure failures in exacerbating these disasters
For instance, the devastating floods in Germany in 2021 were not caused by ‘climate change’, but by the failure of local and regional governments to adequately manage floodplains and build resilient infrastructure.
Similarly, the wildfires in Maui in 2023 were fueled by a combination of failed infrastructure and poor land management practices.
Flooding In Germany In 2021
In July 2021, Germany experienced one of the most severe natural disasters in its recent history. Heavy rainfall triggered catastrophic floods, particularly in the states of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia, leading to widespread destruction.
Almost 200 people lost their lives, and more than 700 were injured.
While ‘climate change’ was initially blamed for the intensity of the floods, a more in-depth examination reveals a complex narrative deeply intertwined with infrastructure failures and inadequate policies.
Despite the intense rainfall being forecasted, many residents in the affected areas did not receive adequate warnings about the impending danger.
There was a significant failure in communicating weather forecasts to residents, highlighting a disconnect between weather predictions and actual warnings provided to the public.
Germany’s flood protection systems were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of water, highlighting the shortcomings of existing infrastructure.
Dikes and levees failed to hold back the floodwaters, inundating towns and villages along the riverbanks. The lack of adequate flood barriers and warning systems left many communities vulnerable, and unable to respond effectively to the rapidly rising water levels.
Over the years, urban development has encroached upon floodplains, increasing the risk of flooding.
As more buildings and infrastructure were constructed in areas prone to inundation, the natural capacity of these areas to absorb rainwater was diminished.
Germany’s policies and strategies for adapting to extreme weather events have been inadequate.
The country has been slow to implement measures to reduce flood risk, such as improving flood forecasting and warning systems, investing in resilient infrastructure, and promoting land-use planning that avoids floodplains.
While changing precipitation patterns may have indeed played a part in intensifying the rainfall, it’s important to acknowledge that human activities and lapses in policy are essentially the cause of the flooding.
Fires In Maui In 2023
The 2023 Maui Wildfires was a series of wildfires that broke out in the U.S. state of Hawaii, predominantly on the island of Maui, in early August 2023.
The wind-driven fires prompted evacuations and caused widespread damage, killing at least 100 people and leaving four persons missing in the town of Lahaina on Maui’s northwest coast.
The proliferation of the wildfires was attributed to dry, gusty conditions created by a strong high-pressure area north of Hawaii and Hurricane Dora to the south.
Maui’s dry, leeward side, particularly the region of Lahaina, has a long history of invasive grasses, primarily Guinea grass, introduced for cattle grazing.
These non-native grasses, adapted to the region’s arid climate, flourished, creating a vast fuel load that turned into a tinderbox when ignited.
For years, experts warned of the fire hazard posed by the overgrown grasslands, urging authorities to implement mitigation measures. However, these warnings fell on deaf ears, and the grasslands remained unchecked, a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
When the wildfires broke out, firefighters faced a severe challenge: an inadequate water supply. The region’s water infrastructure, primarily designed for domestic and agricultural use, was ill-equipped to handle the demands of firefighting.
Water pressure was insufficient, hydrants were scarce, and water sources were often too far from the fire lines. These shortcomings severely hampered firefighting efforts, allowing the flames to spread rapidly and cause widespread damage.
Maui’s power grid, operated by Hawaiian Electric, was also a contributing factor to the disaster.
The aging infrastructure, prone to breakdowns and outages, was particularly vulnerable to high winds, a common occurrence in the region.
During the wildfires, high winds caused power lines to snap, sparking new fires and complicating evacuation efforts. The lack of grid modernization, despite repeated warnings from experts, exacerbated the situation.
In the aftermath of the wildfires, ‘climate change’ was often cited as the primary culprit. While the current extended dry period undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the fires, the underlying causes were clearly rooted in human actions and policy failures.
Blaming ‘climate change’ alone overlooks the critical role of infrastructure shortcomings, poor land management practices, and inadequate preparedness measures.
By focusing solely on ‘climate change’, we risk overlooking the immediate and actionable steps that can be taken to prevent future disasters.
In Conclusion
Pointing fingers at ‘climate change’ as the sole culprit for every natural disaster is often a scapegoat to sidestep accountability for human errors and oversights. Such a stance is not only unjust, but it’s also a futile effort to avert future calamities.
Blaming ‘climate change’ alone is akin to attributing a house fire solely to the spark while ignoring the flammable materials, faulty wiring, and absent fire alarms.
It is a convenient excuse that absolves us of our culpability and diverts attention from the real solutions.
We must shed the comfortable cloak of complacency and confront the hard truth: many of the natural disasters we face are the result of our shortsightedness and negligence.
**************************************************
Why Is EU Trying to Block Poland’s Move Toward Clean Nuclear Energy?
Poland lives in a rough neighborhood, sharing borders with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine—with the historical scars to prove it. Indeed, few countries suffered more at the hands of tyrants than Poland did in the last century.
That’s one reason why Poland’s economic rise since the end of the Cold War is so remarkable. By 2022, the nation grew its gross domestic product to $627 billion from $181 billion just 23 years earlier.
It is obvious that transitioning away from a centrally controlled economy operating under Soviet authoritarian rule to a market economy was key to this success. However, this growth would never have occurred if Poland didn’t have access to affordable, reliable energy to fuel its economy—energy it has largely enjoyed since it gained independence in 1989.
Coal, natural gas, and oil have provided the preponderance of Poland’s energy for decades, and coal specifically remains the primary fuel for the electricity sector, providing around 72% of the nation’s electricity. This energy mix has been a winner for Poland with life expectancy as well as per capita GDP dramatically increasing since the end of the Cold War.
Despite efforts to the contrary, Poland is being forced to change what works by the European Union and its drive toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 to fight so-called climate change. The EU requires a series of complicated mandates, directives, and carbon credit systems.
Unfortunately, Polish leaders don’t have the luxury of “greenwashing” their future with grandiose ideas of replacing coal, oil, and natural gas with wind and solar as do their rich Western European colleagues.
First, despite its meteoric economic rise, Poland has some catching up to do to be among the wealthiest EU states. Second, given its history and geographic location, few countries have a greater appreciation for maintaining secure access to energy resources, which had traditionally been anchored in its tremendous domestic coal reserves.
With the EU’s mandate to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (read: reject coal) combined with Poland’s desire to keep growing economically while also maintaining energy security, the nation made the rational decision and decided to go nuclear.
In total, Poland plans to build two nuclear power plants with three large reactors at each plant for a total of 6-9 gigawatts of electricity. For comparison, a gigawatt is roughly enough power to supply a medium-sized city. Poland hopes to get its first new plant online by 2033, with subsequent reactors beginning operations every two to three years afterwards.
While these plants will not replace coal and natural gas in Poland’s energy mix, they will bring valuable diversity while also helping to meet its European Union carbon dioxide emissions obligations.
The Polish government understood that it would be necessary to collaborate with foreign reactor companies to construct the new plants, so it began communications with French, South Korean, and American firms. Upon consultation, the Polish government chose the American firms Westinghouse and Bechtel as partners for the initial plant construction.
This should be the end of the story. Poland is building a strong and secure energy economy, and the EU is getting massive reductions in carbon dioxide, which, by all appearances, is the union’s primary goal.
Win. Win.
But not so fast.
The European Union is now threatening to block Poland’s nuclear plans behind accusations that Poland may not have followed European competition rules, which require multiple bidders be considered and treated equally.
Such threats are counterproductive, potentially corrupt, and juvenile.
They are counterproductive because they hinder Poland’s energy security and the EU’s stated climate agenda.
They are potentially corrupt because the EU apparently wants a French firm to build the first plant, and France has close ties with the Brussels bureaucrats.
They are juvenile because the accusations seem to be more about hurt feelings and protectionism than fair play.
Though the exact details regarding the precise nature of Poland’s consideration of each bidder is not clear from media reports, what is clear is that Poland considered projects from at least three different groups.
Further, making any such determination about fair competition is nearly impossible when it comes to nuclear energy (or nearly any project within Europe). The entire process is crafted by state-run agencies and state-owned industries. And that is layered on top of a state-mandated energy policy to cut carbon dioxide, which is bolstered by any number of state-funded programs that distort the underlying economics of energy. Thus, for a state-owned nuclear company to bring accusations of unfair competition is beyond ironic.
Unfortunately, fair competition in energy markets is long gone in Europe.
But making the claim even more dubious is the “wink and nod” suggestion by EU bureaucrats that any EU efforts to block the Westinghouse/Bechtel deal could go away should Poland clarify that additional nuclear plants would be built by EU companies. In other words, the European Union just wants to make sure a European company gets a cut of the Polish business, regardless of actual “competition rules.”
Ultimately, however, none of this should really matter.
Poland is a sovereign country that has found a pathway to meet its requirements for secure access to energy resources and to help meet the EU’s climate goals. The EU should support Poland’s progress and respect its right to choose whomever they want to build their reactors.
And Poland must stand firm and move in whatever direction it deems best serves its long-term security and economic health.
Of course, no one knows that better than the Poles.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/15/eu-shouldnt-block-polands-move-toward-nuclear-energy
**********************************************Antarctica's ozone hole may not be mending as well as we thought: study
The hole has been at its largest in some recent years. Trying to find a shrinking trend is just imagination
The hole in the ozone layer, which was discovered almost 40 years ago, may not be recovering as quickly as projected, according to a new study.
The implications of the paper are being debated by other scientists as the research questions well-established views on ozone recovery.
Since ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned from manufacturing in 1987, it's been thought the ozone layer — which sits between 15 and 30 kilometres above Antarctica — has been slowly but surely bouncing back.
But in a study in Nature Communications, researchers from the University of Otago suggest the hole's repair isn't as pronounced as we thought, and the swirling mass of cold air around the South Pole might be involved in its delayed recovery.
"That's something that's not thoroughly understood yet, and we have more work to do to understand the mechanism," study lead author and PhD student Hannah Kessenich said. "I think if we're projecting a timeline of recovery it's important to know all the key players impacting the ozone hole today."
Factors influencing ozone
A decade before the hole was confirmed in the 1980s, scientists discovered chemicals used in aerosols and fridges could deplete Earth's ozone layer, which protects us from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation.
CFCs in the atmosphere influenced the annual thinning of ozone over Antarctica, which can have major impacts on weather in the southern hemisphere.
The hole, which grows in August every year before shrinking again in December, can modify wind and rain patterns and contribute to drier conditions in places like Australia.
This year the hole reached 26 million square kilometres in size, about 3.4 times the land area of Australia.
The ozone layer above Antarctica is expected to recover to pre-1980s levels by 2066.
But the new research suggests that recovery trends are not as clear cut when looking at what's called "total column ozone" — all the ozone in the atmosphere above a select point on Earth — over the past two decades.
For instance, Ms Kessenich said there was less ozone around the core of the hole which hovers near the South Pole.
The core is in the middle of the stratosphere, a layer of Earth's atmosphere found about 10 to 50 kilometres above the ground.
"If you separate out by altitude, we see there are regions where the ozone is recovering over Antarctica and regions it is not," Ms Kessenich said.
She said there appeared to be ozone recovery in the upper stratosphere and in some of the lower stratosphere around September, but that "we see at high latitudes, more towards the pole, there is a large region in the middle stratosphere where the ozone is declining".
They calculated the ozone around the hole's core dropped by more than 26 per cent since 2004.
This drop was linked to changes in the mesosphere — the atmospheric layer above the stratosphere — when it descends into the area of rotating cold air around the South Pole called the polar vortex.
New research scrutinised
University of NSW atmospheric scientist Martin Jucker, who was not involved in the paper, questioned the study's conclusions. He said the results relied heavily on the large ozone holes from the past three years. "Existing literature has already found reasons for these large ozone holes," he said.
"Smoke from the 2019 bushfires and a volcanic eruption, as well as a general relationship between the polar stratosphere and El Niño Southern Oscillation.
"We know that during La Niña years, the polar vortex in the stratosphere tends to be stronger and colder than usual, which means that ozone concentrations will also be lower during those years."
Dr Jucker said the study also didn't include data from 2002 and 2019 when there were so-called stratospheric sudden warmings. Stratospheric sudden warming is a phenomenon more common in the northern hemisphere. It's caused by waves in the atmosphere, called planetary waves, which move cool air towards the equator and warm air to polar regions.
"Those events have been shown to have strongly decreased the ozone hole size, so including those events would probably have nullified any long-term negative trend in ozone concentrations," Dr Jucker said.
But University of Leeds atmospheric scientist Martyn Chipperfield, who was also not part of the research, said the paper showed changes in atmospheric dynamics may affect Antarctic ozone.
"The atmosphere is a complex system and many factors can lead to changes in the thickness of the ozone layer," he said.
"We need to remain vigilant on ... [ozone-depleting] compounds but, as the paper shows, also be aware of the impact of other factors such as climate change."
Professor Chipperfield also noted the research used an instrument on NASA satellite Aura which would be decommissioned in coming years without a plan for replacement. "Without a suitable replacement we will lose the ability to detect and understand processes such as this," he said.
***************************************************
Autralia: Billionaire Gina Rinehart gives grim warning: Says climate costs cripple food production
Gina Rinehart has issued a grim warning that Aussies face huge price hikes and fresh food shortages unless the burden of climate change policies are lifted from farmers.
During an address in Bali on Tuesday, the mining magnate made the ominous forecast to mark National Agriculture & Related Industries Day, of which Ms Rinehart is the founding patron.
Australia's richest person, who owns millions of farming hectares, said governments need to cap what agriculturalists spend on achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions to $200,000 - or the entire nation faces dire consequences.
'Otherwise, farmers will have to leave agriculture, and as a consequence, Aussies will see huge food price increases and fresh food shortages,' Ms Rinehart said.
Ms Rinehart, who is the executive chairman iron ore exporting giant Hancock Prospecting, said Australia's agriculture is the 'envy of much of the world' but is 'haunted' by the cost of climate change policies.
'Don't blame the farmer for needing to try to pass on to Australian householders the multi-millions of costs they'll each face, for installing solar power, batteries and multi millions for electric vehicles, and fines,' she said.
The mining billionaire claimed the burden government over-reach and interference fell most heavily on the 'essential' primary industries of agriculture and mining.
She also expressed fury at not being able to clear land, normally for environmental reasons, in a way that might curb bushfires, due to government red tape.
'Government tape drowns us, won't even let us keep our families, staff, pets, homes and investment safe through adequate fire breaks, my blood boils over on this one,' she said.
'Fines and even jail if we try the bureaucracy blocks us or hinders us at every opportunity. Projects succeed not because of government but in spite of it.'
Ms Rinehart said governments continuing to focus on the wrong things were hurting Australia.
'Pandering to minority group activism, the Left and the Greens abetted by virtue signalling, effects political decisions and policy, instead of costs, common sense and economics,' she said.
'Unfortunately, politicians too often forego common sense and real leadership, for noisy public activism.'
She painted a picture of Australia being the 'cusp of greatness' in the late 1960s to early 1970s.
'Government was wary of taking on debt, our nation was developing well, migrants were arriving from Italy and Greece especially, and settling in well, working and contributing, in numbers that worked, bringing with them a desire to succeed in their new country, not wanting Aussie taxpayers' welfare,' she said.
'Our population was educated, skilled and industrious. Government was far, far less intrusive and the welfare state as we know it today did not exist.'
However, she argued that all changed with the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972.
'Trade unions impatient to claim an even greater share of what they saw as this prosperous future, helped to elect a socialist government led by Gough,' she said.
'Policies were put in place that favoured trade unions and popular agendas rather than common sense.'
In the speech, she also called for an end of 'discriminatory limit on work hours' to let pensioners, uni students, veterans, disabled and nonviolent non-dangerous prisoners help fill labour shortages'.
***************************************
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