Climate Negotiations on Hold, Pending U.S. Elections
No matter how big China’s economy has become and how outsized Russia’s influence on geopolitics has grown, the United States is still the straw that stirs the drink on climate policy, an article published in the Japan Times shows.
The article, “Trump stalks global climate talks as COP29 draws near,” describes the planning and negotiations, or more accurately the lack thereof, going on in the lead-up to the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 29) to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 11 through 22. Planning for these conferences, including settling on a theme or main focus, begins almost as soon as the previous year’s event ends, so a year of scheduling and planning goes into it.
In the run-up to each COP, nations send representatives to multiple meetings to establish the framework of topics to be discussed and to negotiate treaty language in anticipation of the lead negotiators arriving, so everyone will be on the same page. The main topic for this meeting is supposed to be (and not for the first time) “climate finance” (it’s always about money, isn’t it?): who pays (rich nations), who gets paid (developing countries), how much, on what timetable, and through what mechanism.
Despite advance agreement on the main topic of the conference, it seems the negotiations have gotten bogged down, in no large part because the payor countries are uncertain what the United States will do or what role it will play if Donald Trump gets reelected as president. The United Nations and most developing countries have argued over the years that the United States, as the biggest source of historical carbon dioxide emissions, should pay the most for climate reparations, mitigation, and adaptation. It hasn’t worked out that way under any administration so far, and Trump was by far the most recalcitrant on this point.
Trump continues to refer to climate change as a “hoax,” saying or implying China and other economic and geopolitical adversary and competitor nations are using the issue as a backdoor means of diminishing the United States, harming its economy, and reducing its influence globally. In keeping with that belief, Trump as president cut climate funding and programs, reprioritized policies to advance America’s interests over those of the “global community” concerned about climate change, implemented policies to unleash American energy dominance, and withdrew the country from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. If Trump is reelected president, COP 29 negotiators fear, probably rightly, that he will undercut the Biden administration’s commitments to policies intended to cut emissions sharply and to contribute a lot of money to various UN climate slush funds.
Japan Times describes the problems hampering significant climate negotiations in advance of COP 29:
The prospect of Donald Trump returning as president is hanging over crucial U.N.-sponsored climate negotiations, with countries “holding back” their positions until they know who sits in the White House.
Veteran observers of climate diplomacy say uncertainty over the election outcome is stalking this November’s COP29 summit, which starts just six days after voters decide between Trump and Kamala Harris.
The election lands awkwardly as governments try to build global consensus in coming months not just around climate but stronger protections for the environment and a treaty to address plastic pollution.
As president, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement on global warming—Joe Biden later rejoined the accord—and there are concerns over what his re-election might mean for climate action.
This year’s negotiations hope to increase money for poorer countries to handle climate change, but some governments have not proposed a concrete dollar figure, wary of committing too soon. …
This apparent wait-and-see approach has frustrated those seeking a new long-term commitment at COP29 from rich nations to pay the trillions of dollars needed for clean energy and climate adaptation in developing countries.
With just two months to go, there still isn’t an agreed definition of “climate finance” let alone how much should be paid, which countries should receive it and how, and who should be on the hook for it.
Wealthy donors historically obligated to pay, like the United States, European Union and Canada, have not put forward a figure, instead pushing for China and other big emerging economies to also chip in.
“Governments are holding back, and they’re trying to hedge their bets. Many of them don’t have a strong enough motive to move,” said Tom Evans, policy advisor at E3G, a think tank.
The U.S. election was “hanging over everyone, and it’s hard to look past that sometimes.”
Clearly, other developed nations can move forward with trillions in climate commitments without the United States participating, but no one wants to go first or be committed to spending scarce resources on a plan that the top industrialized nation is not also committing money to. Doing so would place them at a competitive disadvantage, something they won’t abide—even, evidently, at the risk of destroying the planet, which is what they claim is at stake without action.
This problem for COP 29’s negotiators is further complicated by the recent widespread grassroots rejection of various climate policies in EU countries, reflected in protests and electoral gains by climate realists and the replacement of presidents and prime ministers, both in member states and in the European Parliament. In Canada, meanwhile, the Trudeau government’s coalition has collapsed in disagreements over climate policies.
I have discussed what’s gone on in the EU previously, where right-of-center parties, some relatively newly arrived on the scene specifically in response to costly climate initiatives, have gained representation in various countries’ parliaments, some as the largest or at least the swing vote party, and where right-of-center leaders have come to power. One of the common policy threads through all these right-wing gains and victories is a rejection of the extreme climate commitments and policies imposed in response to past COP agreements. Nations have rolled back various climate crisis technology mandates and blocked new proposals.
The Heartland Institute has played a leading role in the EU’s shift on climate change. Austrian members of the European Parliament asked Heartland President James Taylor to deliver a presentation to members of parliament. After his talk and one-on-one meetings with various delegations, the EU defeated legislation mandating the European Union get to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Before Taylor’s talk and discussions, the proposal had been fast-tracked for approval.
Even the extreme, green, virtue-signaling government of our neighbor to the north is feeling the heat for pushing too far, too fast on extreme climate policies. With grassroots groups raising a ruckus with their local MPs, leading to shifts in local and regional elections, the Trudeau government lost its ruling coalition partner when Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) withdrew from the governing coalition. The NDP’s support had been crucial to Trudeau’s climate initiatives, which have raised prices and cost jobs. The increasing backlash against these policies led Singh to end the NDP’s coalition agreement.
It is an open question whether Singh will now join the opposition Conservative Party’s call for a national carbon tax referendum, which, in the words of Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, would allow Canadian citizens to decide directly “between the Costly Coalition of NDP-Liberals who tax your food, punish your work, take your money, double your housing costs and unleash crime and drugs in your communities OR common sense Conservatives who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime.”
Rising costs have led to a resurgence of the Conservatives, with the ruling Liberals losing previously safe seats in by-elections and polls showing the Liberals currently 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives if elections were called today.
COP 29 will still be held. After all, the ruling elites and bureaucrats will not forego their luxury junket to Baku—it’s the event of the season—but with the turmoil roiling the West it is unclear whether much will be accomplished besides the spewing of a lot of hot air from the attendees and carbon-dioxide emissions from their planes and cars.
And despite the impression that such an outcome would be bad for developing nations, those countries, who come with their hands out to each conference, are doing well amid climate change, with growing GDP’s and increasing crop production and human lifespans. The biggest threats to progress in the developing world are continued reliance on Western handouts with strings attached; government and financial climate policies and restrictions hampering fossil fuel use in Africa, Asia, and South America; and civil strife. Climate change isn’t harming the poor; climate policies are.
****************************************************
Kamala Harris’ Non Sequitur on Energy Independence
We don’t want to be dependent on foreign oil, and we should invest in diverse forms of energy. That’s what we heard from sitting Vice President Kamala Harris in the most recent debate spectacle.
Her exact words: “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”
Now let’s be fair. If she wants to persuade people to spend more money on “diverse” energy sources, then this is a clever angle. If you’re one of those stubborn contrarians opposed to scaring people about the climate, then perhaps you’ll join up in the spirit of American independence.
Renewables are not just about being green—they’re about freedom from the stranglehold of foreign powers. And with people wising up to the not-so-green realities of wind and solar, we would be prudent to find an alternate virtue to which we can appeal. Independence. Very clever.
So much for fair. Now let’s be accurate. If your goal is to avoid dependence on foreign oil, then we can simply use American oil. Our country is flush with the stuff, and we are quite good at getting it out of the ground, thanks especially to the fracking boom.
Ever since 2018, the U.S. has been the world’s largest oil producer—a title previously held by Saudi Arabia and Russia. Among countries well-positioned for oil independence, ours is head of the class. But that’s not a complete picture.
It’s one thing to have the oil (geologically speaking). It’s another to extract it, transport it, refine it into usable products, and get those products to the consumer. Thanks to human ingenuity, we have the science and engineering to do those things in a largely safe and responsible manner. (The dramatic reduction in methane emissions is a good example.)
Accidents are far less frequent than even just 20 or 30 years ago. But even with responsible industry behavior, we face a persistent obstacle—government behavior. The reasons are a topic for another day, but it is a plain fact we have government officials and agencies who raise themselves up as fierce enemies of our friend, the hydrocarbon.
So, they do things like shut down pipeline projects. And they arbitrarily raise the cost to drill on public land while simultaneously cutting the cost for producing “renewable” energy on the same land. And they impose exceedingly aggressive limits and thresholds that threaten grid reliability.
And the pièce de résistance: They team up with media friends to inundate the citizenry with alarmist messaging until we’re all convinced we must quit our addiction to fossil fuels or risk our own destruction. If your friends from the oil and gas industry look tired, this is why.
I should point out this sort of obstructionism does not fully permeate our government at all levels. There are pockets of reasonable thinkers who make some effort toward smart decisions about energy policy. But the anti-hydrocarbon religion has been sufficiently evangelized so as to hinder what ought to be one of our most revered industries. It is certainly the most valuable, existentially speaking.
As we say in The BEN Declaration, energy independence is essential to American independence. In this regard, we agree with Harris: We don’t want dependence on foreign oil. But her solution as advertised is disingenuous and defies fundamental logic.
Very recently, I wrote a blog post where I employed the metaphor of a horse race, the horses being various energy sources. The article ended with the notion that someone might be throwing rocks in the path of the lead horse. And then I watched a presidential debate where one of the candidates implied that the lead horse from our own country cannot finish the race.
So, naturally, she would like us to shoot that horse and put our “investment” elsewhere. Say, there’s a nice palomino over here with a beautiful gold coat and a lovely white mane. Unfortunately, it only has three legs.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/20/kamala-harris-non-sequitur-energy-independence/
*****************************************************No, Daily Climate, People Need Protection from Higher Energy Costs and Weather, Not Climate Change
A recent post at The Daily Climate news website, titled “Op-ed: People need shelter from climate change — their health hangs in the balance,” claims that climate change is making it harder for people to stay safe from the elements and extreme weather, and that federal housing policy is how to fix that problem. This is false on multiple fronts. Climate change is not causing an increase in dangerous conditions for people, and federal policies that involve subsidized housing will not protect homeless people from weather threats.
The authors assert that vice president Kamala Harris’ proposals to expand federal housing policies, including using federal funds to build housing and down payment assistance, “is actually a climate change adaptation policy” because people need shelter from extreme weather. The Daily Climate refers to this summer as the warmest on record and hypes an early start to the Atlantic hurricane season, asserting that “it is growing increasingly difficult to weather the many different catastrophes — a critical threat to health — that climate change is throwing at us.”
Continuing, they write that it is also becoming more difficult for Americans “to take refuge from climate threats at home, as the cost of housing keeps rising.”
They point out correctly that homeless people are more likely to become ill and die from exposure to extreme high temperatures because of a lack of shelter and air conditioning. This, however, is not because of climate change. In fact, none of the things this article asserts as threats to American families because of climate change are genuine.
Regarding the “hottest on record” claims, as always, it depends on what record you look at. As Climate Realism points out here, here, and here, these claims are at best speculative, even though alarmists present them as definite. Prior to satellites, there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe. We are forced to rely on proxy data, which again are location-specific, but even so, many of them indicate that there were several periods in just the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today.
Regarding hurricanes, there was a single early powerful hurricane that came outside the normal window, but the rest of the season has been remarkably quiet. Fearmongering on hurricanes this year, as with many previous above average hurricane season predictions in the past, is falling extremely flat. Global tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is well within normal bounds this year, according to available data.
But the major point of the article is that extreme weather is posing an ever greater threat to an increasing number of people, and especially American families, than before, and this is simply not true.
While it is true that people who are homeless or who don’t have adequate housing and electricity are more susceptible to temperature related illnesses and death, heat and even more so cold, incidences of of people dying from those conditions has declined rapidly around the world over the past hundred plus years of modest warming. It is especially telling that the article focuses on heat, when it is cold that is the real killer. A 2021 Lancet study found that overall deaths due to extreme temperatures have declined in large part due to a massive drop in cold-related deaths.
Ironically, The Daily Climate post complains about the high costs of utility bills, and therefore air conditioning and heating, which are becoming increasingly expensive precisely because of the fossil fuel policies that these same alarmists promote.
Studies have found that Biden’s EPA rules and regulations targeting power plants are expected to cause instability in the electric grid and lead to massive blackouts, because the expectations of the policies are not technologically sound, or even possible, and will only lead to a reduction of power supply. Wind and solar are not dispatchable power, and battery technology is not anywhere near scalable for what is needed. This causes higher prices and less power reliability, which won’t help anyone trying to handle even natural weather extremes. Indeed, real world data suggests that Biden’s energy and climate policies have driven the recent large increases in energy costs across the board, impacting poorer households the most.
**********************************************
Energy entrepreneur says Australia’s solar and battery boom is a ‘clear and present danger’
Israel’s booby-trap explosions – inside walkie-talkies and pagers – that killed and injured Hezbollah operatives has sparked a chilling warning that Australia’s battery storage systems are vulnerable to similar attacks.
While Australia isn’t facing any active threats, Brian Craighead – chief executive of Energy Renaissance which has developed a “cyber secure battery management system” with the CSIRO to power defence bases – says Australia’s love affair with solar power, and cheap Chinese-made batteries, has left the nation exposed.
He says the “hidden threat to national security” is in the software of about 250,000 home batteries that have been installed across Australia – “220,000 of which are from potentially non-friendly” sources.
“These things are good until they turn bad,” Mr Craighead said.
“When everyone talks about battery safety, we tend to think about the chemical stuff – these fires that you see on videos of Tesla cars going up. But those are relatively unusual. The key thing to focus on is battery software … that’s what protects them from overcharging.
“Let’s say you were a bad actor from a bad country, here’s what you could do, and this would be horribly easy. For example, you could say on January 7, 2025, I’m going to turn off the overcharge on 200,000 batteries installed in homes in Australia. Nothing is going to happen until then.”
Mr Craighead said the batteries would then keep charging with solar energy, instead of “stopping at a certain point” and “overcharge is when all hell breaks loose”.
“Whenever you talk about battery problem, it’s because it’s overcharging. Consider that a standard home battery contains approximately 7,500 times more energy than a pager. The catastrophic potential if such a device were compromised is immense,” he said.
“A co-ordinated attack exploiting these vulnerabilities could lead to widespread fires, explosions, and a crippling of our energy infrastructure. The risk extends beyond individual homes. Large, imported grid-connected batteries are becoming integral to Australia’s national energy grid. These massive storage systems, often managed by foreign-developed software, could be susceptible to cyber-attacks or sabotage, posing a threat to national security and public safety.
“There’s a clear and present danger.”
The nature of the risk is similar to the one linked to the boom in “smart home” devices. Hackers have infiltrated devices from baby monitors to spy on families, webcams have been hijacked to take down computer networks, while home thermostats have been raised – given most lack the virus protection and security updates that are found in PCs and smartphones.
Hackers have infiltrated devices from baby monitors to spy on families, and webcams to take down computer networks,
Hackers have infiltrated devices from baby monitors to spy on families, and webcams to take down computer networks,
And when it comes to batteries, Ms Craighead said most people did not think of them as smart devices.
“We describe this as a malevolent actor issue but equally it’s just incompetence. Think of IoT (Internet of Things devices). They just plug them in and nobody maintains the IoT software, so that smart camera you have is massively open to a hack.
“Chinese batteries are being dumped into Australia at the moment – they’re not being sold anywhere else. So it’s probably just as possible that through sheer negligence and incompetence this cheap battery, whoever built it has gone or it has been rebadged three times. They’re not maintaining it.”
The US banned the Pentagon from buying batteries from six Chinese manufacturers earlier this year.
Mr Craighead said it was not too late for the Australian government to take action, urging them to mandate that batteries are cyber-secure and issue product recalls if they’re not.
Energy Renaissance developed a cyberscure battery management system with the CSIRO, which embeds security measures at the core of the battery’s operation, protecting agains malicious interference in the nation’s energy grid.
“There is an architecture to this. We went to CSIRO, and it cost us millions, because they were the only ones that Defence would trust to do it the right way. But nobody does that because the pressure is to get the cheapest batteries in, buy them from China, plug them in and off we go.
“If you said you wanted to store 100 cans of diesel in your granny’s garage, you’d probably think twice about it. But because it (a battery) is this little thing in a box that looks cool, you never really think about it in that way. Any everything I’m saying, just multiply it by 1000 or 10,000 when it comes to big batteries. It’s nuts.
“It’s like pink batts on steroids. That’s the level of risk we’ve got right now.”
Mr Craighead was referring to the Rudd government’s $2.45bn Home Insulation Program, which was axed in 2010 after it was linked to three deaths and more than 200 house fires.
“The tragic events in Lebanon serve as a sad reminder of the potential dangers lurking within unsecured technology. As Australia continues its transition towards renewable energy, we must recognise the importance of securing the systems upon which we increasingly rely.
“There is a path forward. We can mitigate these risks by embracing secure, Australian-made solutions and enforcing strict cybersecurity protocols. The power that fuels our lives should be a source of security and confidence, not vulnerability. Now is the time to act decisively.”
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment