Why climate activists love to hate Israel
Climate activists have been busy since 7 October. The demands for ‘action now’ on global warming continue, but affairs in the Middle East are proving to be a distraction for Just Stop Oil. Cries of ‘free Gaza’, ‘ceasefire now’, and even ‘from the river to the sea’ – a chant, purported to be a cry for peace and ‘solidarity’ with Palestinians, but used by those who want to wipe Israel off the map – have now joined, and at times drowned out, the usual green slogans.
Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists took part in a sit-in protest at London’s Waterloo station on Saturday to demand a ceasefire, despite Hamas continuing to hold hundreds of Israelis hostage. The group’s eco-warriors have also been waving placards, condemning Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack: ‘Stop murdering children, free Palestine, end apartheid’. Of course, what JSO won’t tell you is that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing civilians, and particularly children; Palestine/Gaza is in chains thanks to its own theocratic, fascist government – Hamas – and Israel does not operate ‘apartheid’.
He was told by Greta Thunberg to ‘calm down’ as he was dragged off stage
Extinction Rebellion (XR) is also distracted from the looming climate apocalypse. Its website tells how ‘parents from Extinction Rebellion placed hundreds of empty childrens’ shoes’ in Trafalgar Square ‘to represent all the young Israeli and Palestinian lives lost in the ongoing fighting’. While XR does commemorate the 26 Israeli children killed by Hamas attacks on Israel, too many of the placards wielded by climate activists in recent weeks ignore the horrors done to Israel and the children who were attacked, many of whom are still trapped as hostages in Gaza. Israel’s ‘indiscriminate’ murder of civilians is instead the usual target of activists.
For some people keen on the climate cause, this focus can be bewildering. At a 70,000-strong climate protest, at which a keffiyah-sporting Greta Thunberg spoke, the crowd chanted ‘Palestine will be free’. As Greta prepared to speak, a man got on stage and tried to wrestle her microphone away from her, before telling the crowd: ‘I have come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view’. He was told by Thunberg to ‘calm down’ as he was dragged off stage. A ‘No climate justice on occupied land’ chant drowned out his protest.
One might well wonder why some of those passionate about saving the planet have such an interest in events in the Middle East; why the battle against carbon emissions and Israel’s just self-defence following an attempted second Holocaust might be linked. According to XR, ‘Countries at war are less able to cope with the effects of climate change because their ability to adapt is undermined by internal divisions or ongoing violence.’
This seems vague, to say the least. What is clearer is that the climate movement has long prioritised populist, anti-progress, anti-humanist politics over facts, science, or reality. This is an ideological backdrop that can all too easily descend into plain-spoken anti-Semitism and an unhealthy fixation on the alleged evils of Israel.
Not all climate protesters are anti-Semitic, of course, and most would probably be horrified at the suggestion. Regardless, in the case of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, truth, facts and history are brushed over by some protestors to make way for a discourse that tallies with many old anti-Semitic tropes, such as that Jews murder children for kicks. For a few activists, the spurious fixation with ‘climate justice’ itself is a device for pitting the oppressed ‘global south’, which Palestinians represent, against the carbon-spewing, greedy, cruel and racist, rich global north (Israel). Never mind that Israelis and Palestinians live in the same place.
What unites the climate movement is the insatiable desire to blame and ban those things associated with power, profit and greed: free movement in the form of planes and cars; capitalism and the pursuit of wealth for ‘killing the planet’. For Jews like me, there is unease in the climate movement’s disgust of people who travel, whose families and professional interests are dispersed, and who thus constitute a rootless cosmopolitan elite. Ditto the yodelling for persons-of-the-land, communitarian life, the condemnation of those who don’t stay local, who are ‘nowheres’ instead of ‘somewheres’ as David Goodhart’s book put it. Jews generally haven’t had the privilege of digging into earth and soil, of being ‘folk’, and many slurs against cosmopolitans have, over the bloodthirsty years, been directed at us.
Green politics does attract people in good faith, who genuinely see climate change as a worry aside from highly politicked ideas of social justice and ‘equity’. But it is no surprise so many eco-warriors refuse to condemn Hamas, wear keffiyehs and relentlessly attack Israel – easily one of the greenest and most eco-forward states in the Middle East. For enemies of prosperity and the West, Israel – and its legitimate exercise of self-defence – are an irresistible target.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/why-climate-activists-love-to-hate-israel
*************************************************UK Energy Minister Claims Allowing Wind Farms To Hike Prices Will Reduce Bills
Campaign group Net Zero Watch has ridiculed UK Energy Minister Claire Coutinho’s claim that handing a price increase of 66 percent to wind farm operators is part of her plan for ‘bringing bills down for families.’
Net Zero Watch Director Andrew Montford said:
“Poor Claire Coutinho has only been on the job for a few weeks, and her civil servants have already made her look foolish.
The idea that you can double prices paid to generators and at the same time reduce electricity bills is simply preposterous.“
Net Zero Watch’s statement comes after the energy minister announced an astonishing round of price increases, with offshore wind offered at 66%, floating offshore wind at 52 percent, geothermal at 32 percent, solar at 32 percent, and tidal at 29 percent.
The prices for some of these technologies are now up to six times higher than long-term market averages.
Since Contracts for Difference are index-linked, claims that these increases address recent inflationary effects are simply implausible.
As work by numerous researchers has shown, the renewables industry in general, and the offshore wind industry, in particular, has been less than candid about its true capital and operating costs, and the earlier low bids in the CfD auctions were a market positioning and PR gesture that did not reflect the true cost of generation.
We have long predicted that the wind industry would be back with its begging bowl. It is disappointing in the extreme that the government has betrayed consumers by giving in to this blackmail.
Worse still, the 66 percent increase is a minimum: the government is offering wind farm operators ‘more money’ ‘if they reduce carbon emissions in their supply chains and demonstrate positive social impact on communities’.
How much money is not specified, leaving the cost to consumers and taxpayers open-ended.
And Mr. Montford has slammed Whitehall officials for misleading the public over renewables costs and has warned that consumers should expect hefty price increases.
“Just a few months ago, Whitehall was telling us that offshore wind was extraordinarily cheap.
That was a lie, and we are now seeing the truth emerging, with the Government’s complete surrender to green lobbyists.
Consumers and businesses should expect yet more increases in their electricity bills. When will this end?”
In light of today’s cave-in, Net Zero Watch is calling for DESNZ to withdraw its Generation Costs report, which continues to insist that offshore wind is cheap – less than half the figure offered to developers today.
***********************************************
Taxpayers Are Subsidizing Rich Electric-Vehicle Owners—To the Tune of Billions
EV proponents often claim they’re cheaper to own than conventional gas- or diesel-powered vehicles, but that’s simply not true after accounting for the billions of dollars in costs government subsidies and mandates quietly conceal.
The stark reality is the average EV costs at least $53,000 more over 10 years than conventional vehicles, effectively doubling the price of the average new car.
But $22 billion in government handouts to EV owners and manufacturers absorb the extra expense at every stage of the vehicle’s life, from raw-material sourcing to battery charging.
Examining the numbers behind recharging makes this very clear.
While EV advocates claim charging costs are equivalent to $1.21-per-gallon gasoline, the real amount is an order of magnitude more.
Including the charging equipment, subsidies from governments and utilities and other frequently excluded expenses, the true cost of charging an EV is equivalent to $17.33-per-gallon gasoline—but the EV owner pays less than 7% of that.
Over 10 years, almost $12,000 of costs per EV are transferred to utility ratepayers and taxpayers, effectively socializing the price of recharging an EV while keeping the benefits private.
Due to high entry price points—the average EV costs $58,000, the average gas vehicle $33,000—most EV consumers are affluent.
This is socialism for the rich: a transfer of costs from higher net-worth individuals to middle- and lower-income taxpayers.
It’s the equivalent of levying taxes and fees on public-transportation users and those who walk or bicycle to work and using the money to reduce the price of gasoline.
Everyone without a car would be furious if they found out their money was effectively being given away like this. But that’s precisely what’s happening with EVs.
One reason EV recharging costs so much is the tremendous energy density of gasoline and diesel.
A single horsepower is 746 watts, so the engine in a typical American sedan is strong enough to provide more than the maximum amount of electricity four typical American homes are wired to handle.
Conversely, recharging a typical EV at home can consume 10,000 watts at any given time, roughly eight times the power an American home consumes on average.
Not only does recharging an EV require a large amount of electricity; it requires infrastructure capable of handling that much power.
Both are very expensive, and America’s electrical grid needs billions of dollars in additional upgrades to support more EVs.
Most major utilities have already conceded they won’t be able to meet the significant capacity additions needed to support proposed EV mandates.
Instead, utilities are reduced to begging customers to recharge during off-peak hours, often offering incentives like lower rates or bill credits.
Both the vast subsidization of EV recharging and the impracticality of making it a widespread practice are emblematic of the production and sale of EVs as well.
Average direct subsidies from federal and state governments amount to almost $9,000 per vehicle over 10 years while direct subsidies from utilities push the amount over $10,000.
But manufacturers receive subsidies too, and regulations force them to produce more and more EVs, even if the vehicles aren’t profitable.
The regulatory environment is so onerous and blatantly favors EVs, auto manufacturers can’t meet a range of federal requirements without shifting an increasing percentage of production toward EVs, even if consumers don’t want them.
Between corporate average fuel economy standards and Environmental Protection Agency rules, “EVs receive nearly seven times more credit,” the Texas Public Policy Foundation report notes, “than they provide in actual fuel economy benefits.”
Thus EVs have become the only way for auto manufacturers to comply with increasingly stringent regulations that will soon make conventional vehicles illegal—no matter how much consumers would rather have a gas- or diesel-powered vehicle.
Subsidies and regulatory credits amount to almost $50,000 per EV over a decade.
Amazingly, even with all these subsidies, mandates and other incentives, the report points out manufacturers are still losing tens of thousands of dollars per EV; consumers clearly don’t want them in the volume they’re being produced. That’s why they’re piling up on dealer lots.
The lack of demand has led GM and Ford to recently announce they must reduce battery production.
What’s even more amazing is the report actually underestimates the total cost of converting America entirely to EVs because it doesn’t attempt to measure many other additional costs.
These include billions of taxpayer dollars spent on electric buses, charging stations at airports, city taxpayer-funded subsidies and California-specific subsidies.
There are also many indirect costs like the disproportionate road damage caused by EVs, which are heavier than conventional vehicles.
Politicians can hide behind words like they hide the true cost of EVs behind subsidies and handouts, but the numbers don’t lie: EVs can cost twice as much as conventional vehicles, and that’s a losing deal for the taxpayers funding these money pits.
******************************************
An Australian Government (NSW) rejects call to ban offshore gas projects
Environment groups have condemned the state government for its refusal to support legislation to make projects like the controversial PEP11 gas exploration project illegal in NSW waters.
A report from the parliamentary inquiry set up to examine the Opposition's Offshore Drilling and Associated Infrastructure Prohibition bill acknowledged significant community concerns about the environmental impacts of projects such as PEP11.
But it found that key aspects of the bill may be constitutionally invalid or have unintended consequences.
"The focus of this inquiry has been to examine the environmental impacts of offshore drilling and also identify risks with passing the legislation. The inquiry has revealed that the legal framework regulating offshore activities in the state is complex and there are serious risks that could result in negative consequences for the State," committee chairman Clayton Barr said.
"Amendments to the Bill were also considered. However, the majority of the Committee is of the view that amendments would undermine a core purpose of the Bill. Therefore, the Committee has recommended that the Bill not pass."
Rather than ban new projects, it recommended that existing environmental assessments standards be reviewed.
Shadow energy and climate change minister James Griffin said the Liberal's bill was designed to ensure offshore drilling would be banned for good in NSW.
"But once again, NSW Labor under Chris Minns has put the environment last. We call on the Albanese Government to step in and protect NSW coastal waters," Mr Griffin said on Tuesday night.
The Surfers for Climate group, which gave evidence to the inquiry, said the report's key recommendation was disappointing and surprising given the community support to ban all new offshore oil and gas projects in NSW waters.
"We have yet to read in full the report's findings released earlier today. However it is clear this recommendation goes against everything the people of NSW want. The Government needs to tell us: Why isn't it stopping PEP11?," Surfers for Climate co-founder Belinda Baggs said.
"Sea temperatures are rising, pollution levels are increasing and low lying coastal towns are under threat from erosion and flooding because of climate change."
Marque Lawyers partner Hannah Marshall disagreed with the report's findings that the bill may be constitutionally invalid.
"We disagree that the Bill carries any significant Constitutional risk. It does not create any new inconsistency with Commonwealth laws," she said.
"NSW already controls activity in NSW coastal waters. Activity in the offshore areas falls under federal authority. NSW can already 'impair' offshore exploration and drilling activity by denying licences for infrastructure in NSW coastal waters. It is already the NSW policy position not to support new offshore drilling activity. If the idea was that the Commonwealth retain control over infrastructure in state coastal waters, the law could say that. But it doesn't."
A recent Surfers for Climate survey by of more than 1,700 people across Australia, found 98 per cent of respondents "strongly supported" the proposed bill.
According to the survey, the top three reasons respondents gave for supporting the Bill were to conserve the oceans and marine life for future generations, protect beaches from pollution and to create more clean energy jobs.
"Given the Government is serious about climate change, we look forward to it banning offshore oil and gas. We urge Premier Chris Minns, the Climate Change Minister and Resources Minister to draw a line on all new offshore oil and gas projects for good," Ms Baggs said.
The Wilderness Society said many of the risks identified in the report were either hypotheticals that were unlikely to occur, or could be remedied with minor amendments. "We are disappointed by the recommendation, and urge the NSW government to find a way forward and secure a gas-free coastline in step with what coastal NSW communities have been calling for," a spokeswoman 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