With an atmospheric river dumping trillions of gallons precipitation on California and other western states, some news outlets have asked how the precipitation might affect Lake Mead, suggesting that the rainfall will do little for the lake or the Colorado River basin which feeds it because it’s drying out due to climate change. Although it is true that the current storm will likely do little to reverse Lake Mead’s decline in the long-term, the reason for its decline is not climate change, but instead, overuse and poor management of the reservoir.
A number of mainstream media outlets ran stories in recent days remarking on the fact that the recent atmospheric river event is dumping more water in a few days than Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir by volume, can hold at full capacity. On February 7, for example, Newsweek, ran two stories on the heavy rains, “Bomb Cyclone To Dump More Water Than in Lake Mead on California,” and “Atmospheric Rivers Won’t Refill Lakes Mead and Powell, says expert.”
These two stories were largely straight forward reporting, the kind of honest journalism Americans used to expect from the media outlets. Newsweek did not attribute the present atmospheric river or Lake’s Mead or Powell present water levels to climate change.
Also, Lake Mead’s water levels are dominated, not by a single rainfall event, affecting areas primarily downstream of the reservoir, but by seasonal snowpack across the course of the winter which, when it melts over time, flows into the lake, its feeder streams, and Lake Powell above it, which is the primary source of stream flow feeding Lake Mead. Last season’s record snowfall on mountains of the Colorado River Basin boosted lake levels.
Courthouse News and the Missoula Current each ran stories covering a trial in which climate activists are suing U.S. Department of the Interior for setting a management plan that fails to account for the impacts of climate change, which they claim is causing lake and river levels to fall.
As detailed at Climate Realism, here, here, here, and here, for example, this is not the first time climate activists, often with the support of the mainstream media, have falsely claimed climate change has caused a precipitation decline in the Western United States, which they blame for recent declines in Lake Mead, the Great Salt Lake, and Lake Tahoe. Mismanagement is part of the story of the decline in some Western rivers, reservoirs, and lakes, but there is no evidence long-term climate change is contributing to the decline. Myriad other factors are, though.
As Newsweek reports, Lake Mead did reach its lowest measured water levels since filling in history in 2022, but it had similar low-level seasons in from 1955-1957 and again in 1964 and 1965, nearly 70 and 60 years of global warming ago, respectively, when temperatures were cooler.
The U.S. Drought Monitor reports that under 35 percent of the Colorado river basin, touching on seven states and parts of northern Mexico, is currently suffering any drought, and only approximately 3 percent of the area is suffering extreme or exceptional drought. A review of the history shows that record lake levels were recorded between 1965 and 1983, with Lake Mead remaining consistently above average through 2002, a representing a 37-year period of sustained above average water levels, even as temperatures were rising. As is noted in Climate at a Glance: Water Levels – Lake Mead, after 37 years of abundance, some decline was bound to eventually occur.
Since then, the Colorado River Basin has on average experienced below average precipitation, but it is in the arid West so that is to be expected. The U.S. drought monitor shows some years with severe, widespread drought for extended periods of time, and some years in which less than 10 percent of the basin was experiencing any drought at all. Regardless there is no clear trend of droughts of increasing intensity that would suggest climate change was causing a sustained decline in precipitation across the basin.
Since climate change can’t be shown to be contributing to Lake Mead’s decline, we must examine other factors which might, and there are many. The National Park Service (NPS) discusses two factors contributing to Lake Mead’s decline that are entirely ignored by climate alarmists: sedimentation and evaporation. Concerning evaporation, the NPS writes, “[e]vaporation in the area is extremely high and represents a significant water loss [equaling] … almost 10% of the average annual inflow.”
In addition, the NPS cites research which suggests that by 1970 the build up of sediment behind the Hoover Dam had already robbed Lake Mead of approximately 12 percent of its volume. Some of that sediment has likely compacted since then, but over the 54 years since that study study was done sediment has continued to flow into Lake Mead and accumulated, so its volume had undoubtedly shrunk even more. Sustained dredging operations would both increase Lake Mead’s volume and provide valuable, fertile soil for those who might want it.
The most important single factor in Lake Mead’s decline, however, is the tremendous growth in population for the region. Arizona and Nevada are two of the fastest growing states in the United States. The number of agricultural, urban, and industrial users of water from Lake Mead and its feeder rivers has grown tremendously in the past 30 years. More people farming in, living in and building homes, golf courses, businesses, in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico, means more demand for water from Lake Mead, whether or not precipitation in the basin has declined. Since 1993:
Ever more people drawing water from the limited and variable resource that is Lake Mead, would naturally result in declining lake levels, unless the stream flow into it were dramatically increased. The latter is precluded by the fact that other states that draw water from the Colorado River, and other tributary rivers in the Colorado River Basin, have also experienced dramatic population growth, meaning there is less water flowing into Lake Mead simply because more people are taking more water out of its tributaries for more uses upstream. The largest source of water for Lake Mead is outflow from Lake Powell, yet Lake Powell is also oversubscribed and has the same problems with sedimentation and evaporation that Lake Mead does, limiting the water sent downstream to Lake Mead. Less flow in, more water withdrawn is a recipe for declining water levels.
And that’s not even counting the increase in water demand from Mexico.
Both California and the Federal government basically acknowledged in December 2023 that over withdrawal is the prime cause of Lake Mead’s declining fortunes. As reported by Fox News, “water districts representing California farmers and other major water users in the state agreed to significant cuts in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.” The government estimates that this agreement by itself will result in Lake Mead rising at least 10 feet. Similar agreements with Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico would be expected to increase Lake Mead’s volume even more.
In short, myriad factors have resulted in Lake Mead’s substantial water loss. Climate Change is not among them.
*****************************************************
EU Parliament groups clash on 2040 climate goal, in post-election preview
Political groups in the European Parliament have offered radically opposing views on the EU’s recommended climate objective for 2040 this week, in a foretaste of debates to come after the June EU election.
For several months, opinion polls have all pointed in the same direction: The European Parliament is set to make a sharp turn to the right after the 2024 elections, with far-right and nationalist parties expected to make big gains at the expense of the Greens, leftists, and liberals.
In other words, the “Green wave” that swept through Parliament after the last EU election, paving the way for the European Green Deal in 2019, is set to come crashing down and recede five years later.
What could this mean for the EU’s climate policies?
The EU got a foretaste earlier this week when MEPs debated the European Commission’s recommended climate target for 2040 – a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels.
Here’s a round-up of what they said.
Nationalists and far-right
Taking the floor at the Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, hardline conservative and far-right groups warned about the social consequences and risk of de-industrialisation associated with higher EU climate goals.
Speaking on behalf of the nationalist ECR group, Czech MEP Alexandr Vondra called out the EU’s “unrealistic ambition” to cut emissions by 90%.
“But the main issue in the climate plan for 2040 lies elsewhere,” he said. “It’s the effort to force people to have a different lifestyle, to restrict their freedom of choice.”
The Parliament debate took place amid protests from farmers who stood outside the building in Strasbourg while MEPs watched EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra present his recommended climate target for 2040.
“Have you informed your electorate about this? Have you been open about your plans, of what their lives would look like if you really do this? Have you told farmers and the people that energy, transport, housing, meat and other basic foodstuffs will be more expensive?” the Czech MEP said.
“How far do you want to go, and how far do you want to try their patience?” Vondra asked Hoekstra, who sat in the first rank of the hemicycle after his presentation to listen to successive speeches from MEPs.
“I think it’s a serious risk to make such a proposal before the elections, without knowing the real socio and economic impact,” Vondra warned.
Vondra’s warning is not to be taken lightly. His political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), is expected to grow its number of seats to 80 after the June election, up from 62 seats in the current Parliament, according to the latest projections in mid-January.
The far-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group, for its part, is expected to grow from 73 seats in the current Parliament to 93 seats after the EU elections.
They were represented in Strasbourg by Sylvia Limmer, a lawmaker from Germany’s AfD party, who warned against the economic consequences of setting ever-higher emissions reduction targets at EU level.
“Look at my own country, the ‘green champion’ Germany. De-industrialisation is progressing happily because companies can’t afford the highest electricity prices around the world,” she exclaimed.
And even though Germany’s share of renewables is nominally at 36.8% on paper, “on many days more than 90% of electricity is generated by coal, oil, and gas” because there is no wind or sun, she snarked.
Meanwhile, the EU’s wealth has decreased to reach 14.3% of global GDP, while emerging economies from the BRIC countries “enjoy rising CO2 levels and rising a rising share of global GDP at 32%,” Limmer pointed out.
“The green red policies are just pretty much the worst economic meltdown that we’ve seen in the history of the EU,” she concluded.
Full story:
**************************************************
Germany’s ESG swindle: 36% of ESG funds invest in coal, 55% in oil and gas
Hundreds of ESG funds approved in Germany present a green image. And at the same time invest in the expansion of coal, oil and gas. How can that be?
A name is a promise. And sometimes this promise sounds so good that you don't even take a closer look. For example, if you invest in a fund called “Allianz Stiftungsfonds Sustainability”. 130 million euros in fund assets, low risk of loss. No tobacco production, no sales of controversial weapons. Sounds good at first. But the last half-yearly report reveals: The fund, which promotes sustainability in its name, also invests in BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor. Corporations that produce oil and gas worldwide.
Sustainability is a best seller. From 2020 to 2021, the total amount of sustainable investments in Germany increased by 65 percent, shows the market report from the FNG trade association. From 2021 to 2022 by a further 15 percent. Sustainability sells. But what's behind it? Anyone who wants to invest their money in the financial market today will quickly end up with the abbreviation ESG. It stands for the English terms Environment, Social and Governance. This refers to the criteria of environmental, social and good corporate governance. Anyone who takes them into account when selecting stocks and bonds can speak of a sustainable investment. But securities often don't keep what their label promises.
New data shows: The Allianz Sustainability Foundation Fund is not an isolated case. The Urgewald organization has evaluated 2,168 investment funds approved in Germany that are described as sustainable. Including all of the four largest main providers DWS, Union Investment, Allianz and Deka. The results are available exclusively to ZEIT. 36 percent of all ESG funds examined invest in at least one coal company, 55 percent in at least one oil and gas company. These include many funds that have phrases such as “Clean Energy”, “Carbon Transition”, “Low Carbon”, “Sustainability” or even “Climate” in their names.
https://www.zeit.de/2024/07/nachhaltige-fonds-erdoel-erdgas-klimaschutz-aktien
***********************************************Germany likely to kill EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Law
Since 2022, the European Union has been developing new regulations relating to the responsibilities of corporations for environmental and human rights concerns. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive expands businesses’ liability, not only in their internal operations, but also in their subsidiaries and value chain. The final draft of the CS3D was released on January 20, but requires final approval by the European Parliament, European Commission, and the European Council. However, the approval appears to be meeting strong resistance from Germany, who have indicated they will abstain from CS3D, most likely killing the proposal in the Council vote on February 9.
The CS3D is part of a series of regulatory actions taken by the EU to address climate change and broader environmental, social, and governance issues. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive created ESG reporting obligations for both publicly traded and privately held businesses in the EU. The directive called for the creation of European Sustainability Reporting Standards, the detailed processes used by businesses to report under the CSRD. The drafting of the ESRS was delegated to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. The first round of ESRS standards were adopted in July 2023, but the adoption of additional standards soon met delays as opposition to the reporting burden on small and medium sized enterprises grew. […]
The delay could be more than a temporary setback for the CS3D. The 2024 European Parliament election is scheduled for the beginning of June. Sustainability advocates are concerned that the composure of the body may change on this issue, removing majority support for both the CS3D and the CSRD.
***************************************
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