Traffic jams deadly for electric cars
Unless you can turn all heating off
Has anyone actually thought it through? If all cars were electrically powered__ Imagine three hours of traffic jam, battery flat, what are you going to do?
There is practically no heating in an electric vehicle over extended periods. If you are stuck in traffic during the night, no battery energy left, so no heat at all
Call the breakdown services to collect women and children!! They can't even get there because the roads are choked
When the road is cleared no one can move, (flat batteries). How are the hundreds or thousands of cars going to be recharged
It's going to be the same in the summer traffic jams. That's going to be perpetual jams with dead batteries.
Unknown author
*********************************************
China Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Many of the world’s leaders appear to believe that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) constitute an existential threat whose impact is already severe and will become impossible to deal with within a very few years. This has resulted in a number of international agreements, beginning with the Rio Pact of 1992 and continuing up through the 2016 Paris Accords. Despite these agreements, the increase in the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere continues unabated (see Figure 1). In surveying the underlying science, it becomes clear that the role played by China in this story is indicative of a more general cynicism inherent in many of the supposed “solutions” to climate change.
From a minimum in temperature around 1960 (basically the end of a modest cooling trend beginning around 1939, which led to concerns over global cooling) until 1998, the global mean temperature anomaly (the index used to describe the Earth’s temperature) did increase by about 0.5 degrees Celsius. That’s a small change compared to the typical change between breakfast and lunch, though the net increase since then has been relatively insignificant (except for a major El Niño in 2014-16) and appreciably less than predicted by all climate models. It should be noted that the increase was small compared to what was happening in any given region, and temperatures at any given location were almost as likely to be cooling as warming. Despite the fact that increases of CO₂ thus far have been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history, and despite the fact that there have been large increases in the Earth’s vegetated area largely due to increases in CO₂’s role in photosynthesis, governments seem to have concluded that another 0.5 C will spell doom.
One sees frequent references to the agreement of 97% of the world’s scientists. However, as pointed out by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer (and myself), this claim is specious. One also sees references to increases in things like sea level, hurricanes, and other weather extremes, but as been widely noted, these claims are based on the illegitimate cherry picking of starting dates for the trends. There is also the important question of what exactly constitutes an existential threat. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if we continue along the present path, using the current models that seem to overestimate warming, there would be in 2100 a reduction of global gross domestic product of less than 4% (of a total GDP that would be much higher than what we have today). It is hard to call this an existential threat.
Let us ignore the above problems for the moment, and ask why emissions that presumably have led to the observed increase in CO₂ have continued to increase. Figure 2 below shows the likely answer. Increasing emissions from China, India, and the rest of the developing world swamp the small reductions in the Anglosphere and the European Union. Indeed, if emissions from the Anglosphere and the EU were to cease (which is of course an impossibility), it would make little difference. According to the Global Energy Monitor, China is planning the addition of 200 GW of coal-fired generating capacity by 2025. If we assume this is a four-year period and that a large-scale power plant is 1 GW, that would be about one plant per week over the next four years. Why would China intentionally pursue the presumed destruction of the Earth?Moreover, why are the Anglosphere and the EU pursuing hugely disruptive, destructive, and expensive policies intended to reduce their already largely irrelevant emissions?
The answer to the first question is likely to be that China sees the threat of climate change as readily manageable regardless of what one believes about the underlying physics (remember that China’s leaders, as opposed to ours, tend to have technical backgrounds). But they also recognize that climate hysteria in the West leads to policies that clearly benefit China. Indeed, China is actually promoting activities like the Sino-American Youth Dialogue on climate change to promote climate alarm among young American activists. In a recent announcement sent to students at MIT, the Youth Dialogue’s Committee stated:
“With rapid growth of the global population and the continuous expansion of the world economy, carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere have surged. Extreme disasters induced by global warming keep popping up. The world is undergoing irreversible climate change. It is in everyone’s stake to protect the planet we call home. We must confront the problems brought to mother nature by climate change and seek solutions in cooperation, sharing responsibility as two major countries and collectively building ‘a community with a shared future for mankind.”
The letter went on to offer modest cash rewards to those making the most “compelling” arguments. At the same time, the Chinese, unlike the World Bank, have been happy to fund coal projects in developing countries. (It will be interesting to see how the Communist Party implements Chairman Xi’s recent pledge to cease this practice.)
The second question is more worrisome because of the patent illogic of proposals claiming to address climate change. Confronted with natural disasters, it is obvious that richer societies are more resilient than poorer societies. For example, earthquakes in Haiti can result in thousands of deaths. Similar earthquakes in California result in orders of magnitude fewer deaths. Thus, it would seem that confronted with what is claimed is an existential threat over which we, in fact, have almost no influence, it seems obvious that the correct policy would be to increase resilience against disasters. Instead, the West is proposing to do the very opposite. It is hard to think of good or virtuous reasons for such a policy. Perhaps our policymakers have a pseudo-religious wish to expiate the sin of letting ordinary people reach comfortable middle-class standards of living. The encouragement of such policies by China is undoubtedly one of the reasons; certainly, many of the proposed Western responses (electric cars, windmills, and solar panels) will involve heavy investments in China, which dominates the global solar industry and is already the world’s biggest market for electric vehicles.
But I doubt that this is the main reason. To be sure, the common response of politicians to any purported problem is to do “something.” These “somethings” often involve some short-term benefits to the politicians and institutions that support such policies. But in the case of climate alarm, one has to wonder if those politicians who are investing in waterfront property are really concerned about the climate. Nor is the rejection of nuclear power indicative of seriousness.
Debate over this issue has been avoided and even actively suppressed under the fatuous claim that the science is “settled.” Indeed by 1988 Newsweek had already claimed that all scientists were agreed on the subject, even though nothing could have been further from the truth. And the truth has been buried ever since. As former Energy Undersecretary for Science in the Obama administration Steven Koonin compellingly illustrates in Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, the issue remains far from actually being settled. The book relies entirely on the science from the official assessments of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and from similar official U.S. assessment reports. The vicious attacks on Koonin since the book’s release in May indicate the absence of almost any level of discourse. Yet, given what is at issue, the need for an open debate over both our assessment of climate science and the proposed policies is, indeed, desperately needed.
https://co2coalition.org/2021/10/22/china-warming/
**********************************************New Zealand plan to halve greenhouse gases criticised as an ‘accounting trick’
They are not alone in that
Climate change experts have warned that New Zealand has employed “accounting tricks” to create a target for greenhouse gas emissions cuts that looks far more ambitious than it really is.
On Sunday the country pledged to halve its emissions by 2030 aspart of the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C. The announcement was made on the eve of the United Nations Cop26 climate conference.
The previous target, known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC), was to reduce emissions by an average of 30% from 2005 levels, over the 2021-2030 period.
Related: Facing pressure at home, New Zealand’s climate change minister steels himself for Cop26
The updated NDC, has a target of reducing net emissions by 50% below the gross 2005 levels come 2030, or to reduce average annual net emissions over the next decade to 41% below 2005 gross levels.
The target roughly aligns with commitments by the European Union, Newsroom reports, the primary difference being that the European Union aims to reduce most of its emissions within its own borders. New Zealand, on the other hand, expects that less than a third of its emissions will be reduced onshore.
While New Zealand’s share of global greenhouse gas emissions is small, its gross emissions per capita are high and it is one of the world’s worst performers on emission increases. Emissions in New Zealand rose 57% between 1990 and 2018 – the second-greatest increase of all industrialised countries. Earlier this year, data showed New Zealand’s emissions had increased by 2% in 2018-19.
The Climate Action Tracker has given the country a “highly insufficient” rating, pointing out that despite net-zero emissions by 2050 being enshrined in law, the government’s policies focus too heavily on offsetting carbon overseas and through forestry, rather than addressing the root causes such as agriculture.
Bill Hare, from Climate Analytics, a partner organisation to Climate Action Tracker said New Zealand’s latest announcement employs “various accounting tricks”.
**********************************************
Climate Democracy Dies in Darkness
A British leftist group calling itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate has issued a report on what it calls the "Toxic Ten," which are so-called fringe websites spreading "climate change denial." The ten include our group, the Media Research Center, as well as Breitbart, The Daily Wire, Townhall Media, Newsmax, The Washington Times and The Western Journal.
So, any challenge to Greenpeace climate-crackdown orthodoxy is now classified as "toxic" and "digital hate."
Their solution? To press Facebook and Google to "stop monetizing" these conservative sites, stop allowing them to buy ads and to "comprehensively label" their climate reporting as misinformation. You don't have to prove conservatives wrong. Just "comprehensively label" them as false.
Once again, the left wants to win debates by stopping any debate from happening. The founder of this "Digital Hate" squad is a man named Imran Ahmed, who previously co-authored the book "The New Serfdom: The Triumph of Conservative Ideas and How to Defeat Them," with Angela Eagle, a Labour Party member of Parliament.
Ahmed can already count on jihad from the "objective media." Their British socialist friends at The Guardian awarded their report with the headline "'Super polluters': the top 10 publishers denying the climate crisis on Facebook."
Offering any criticism of climate panic (and climate policy) is "super polluting." Does this sound like science, or does it sound like political hyperbole? Naturally, Ahmed told The Guardian, "big tech is once again on the wrong side of science, truth and human progress."
The Washington Post also provided a pliant piece headlined "Breitbart has outsized influence over climate change denial on Facebook, report says." Tech reporter Cat Zakrzewski warned, "The far-right news and commentary site is one of just 10 publishers responsible for nearly 70 percent of interactions with climate change denial content on Facebook."
On Twitter, Zakrzewski gushed, "The nonprofit has been effective in drawing policymakers' attention to falsehoods on social media, as it did with its 'disinformation dozen' report earlier this year."
The Post reporter avoided any evidence of "falsehoods" by engaging with conservative articles. She blithely wrote that, "For years, Facebook has faced pressure to issue a broad ban on climate misinformation," and that somehow doesn't strike her as distasteful censorship.
My column on ClimateDepot founder Marc Morano's book "Green Fraud" was pictured under the Daily Wire section of the report. The MRC section is illustrated with a Joseph Vazquez article on NewsBusters about ... Marc Morano. He's apparently Digital Hater No. 1.
In my Morano column, I noted that the climate panic lobby is never held accountable for failed predictions of doom from decades ago. In one PBS series called "Race to Save the Planet," Meryl Streep claimed, "By the year 2000 -- that's less than 10 years away -- the earth's climate will be warmer than it's been in over 100,000 years. If we don't do something, there'll be enormous calamities in a very short time."
In 2021, that can be defined as climate misinformation.
But panic helps Democrats sell a crackdown. The Post story quoted Sen. Sheldon "Whites Only" Whitehouse complaining, "Facebook and other social media companies make money when they send users down rabbit holes of climate change denial. That's a very dangerous business model for the future of the planet."
Apparently, the "business model" is this: Only the leftists get to talk on climate policy; everyone else should be suppressed. No one is allowed to question the failed predictions and overwrought "solutions" of climate experts like Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The Washington Post should embrace their business model with the slogan "Climate Democracy Dies in Darkness."
https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2021/11/03/climate-democracy-dies-in-darkness-n2598461
***************************************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)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment