G7 Joint Climate Statement “Scuttled” Because President Trump

Official White House Photo of President Trump

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Politico claims that efforts to formulate a joint G7 statement on energy policy were abandoned, because President Trump would not agree to guarantee the USA would remain signed up to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies

Documents show the administration pushed other G-7 countries to embrace larger roles for nuclear power and fossil fuels. They refused.

By ANDREW RESTUCCIA 04/11/17 07:14 PM EDT

President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround on U.S. climate policy is fueling tension with several of America’s closest allies, which are resisting the administration’s demands that they support a bigger role for nuclear power and fossil fuels in the world’s energy supply.

The dispute blew up at this week’s meeting of G-7 energy ministers, at which Trump administration officials pushed to include stronger pro-coal, pro-nuclear language in a proposed joint statement on energy policy. The fight had been simmering behind the scenes for weeks as the White House, Energy Department and State Department clashed with negotiators from other G-7 countries over the statement, according to an internal document obtained by POLITICO and interviews with diplomats.

The feud comes as Trump, who often touts his “America first” approach to foreign policy, is considering whether to pull the United States out of the climate change accord that the Obama administration and leaders of nearly 200 other nations negotiated in Paris in 2015. Some Trump advisers have suggested that he should remain in the deal — but in return, should demand concessions to aid the fossil fuel sector.

G-7 officials, led by the Europeans, refused to agree to stronger language touting fossil fuels without assurances from the United States that it would stay in the Paris climate change agreement, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

The U.S. emphasis on coal “was seen as an issue for all of us,” one G-7 country negotiator told POLITICO, noting that Canada, Europe and Japan all expressed frustration about the Trump administration’s position. The United States’ refusal to discuss or mention the Paris agreement in the joint statement was EU’s “biggest” red line during the meeting, the negotiator added.

Asked for comment, a White House official said Trump “has emphasized the value of the U.S. energy sector as a strategic tool in U.S. foreign policy.” The official added: “All U.S. energy resources and technologies, including coal and nuclear, should play an important role in achieving universal access to affordable and reliable energy.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-fossil-fuels-g7-tension-237129

A lot of people mischaracterise President Trump’s policies as an attack on renewables. President Trump’s stated goal is to lower the cost of energy, and ensure US energy security. If renewables can compete on cost with coal and gas, as advocates frequently claim, they will remain a welcome component of the US energy mix.

Advertisements

151 thoughts on “G7 Joint Climate Statement “Scuttled” Because President Trump

  1. From the aricle: “Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies

    Documents show the administration pushed other G-7 countries to embrace larger roles for nuclear power and fossil fuels. They refused.”

    Trump is just trying to talk a little sense into them.

    • They refused now, but the sign is very, very clear: The one superpower in the world is trowing overboard a lot of useless and expensive mental garbage. Everyone is free to follow that example. And IMO they will, after a suitable period. UK is already having second thoughts about its climate policy. Germany is a joke; the big planet saver is not reducing its co2 emissions at all, but slightly increasing it, because of their energy about-turn.

      • Surely not, because Germany, Italy and Japan push coal power in order to save the planet, see? That difference in attitude could mean yes or no to very many millions in CAGW research funding, and that’s what it’s all about.

        Burn coal and pay = ok.
        Burn coal and don’t pay = end of the world.

      • But they will hedge their bets in case the other Party doctrine comes back in vogue to reward them.

    • It must be a very bitter pill to swallow that the most politically incorrect, “unprogressive” leader is the only one speaking sense. All of them know this is just a sham and they really can’t do all the things they promised in Paris without committing political and economic suicide, but Trump has the luxury of actually stating it out loud, since he is in no need of a Nobel Peace Prize, a blessing form the Pope or a Christmas card from Leonardo whats-his-name.

      • “For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword.”
        (That’s a modern Bible version)
        And in relation to the climate alarmists:
        “For all who take hold of politics will die by politics.”
        For politics is a two-edged sword indeed, and the alarmists should have given this tool some serious consideration before embracing it.

    • The new US administration has its work cut out. They are alone against the Rest Of the World.Yes the ROW is ill-informed and gullible, but the AGW meme has been repeated for so long, and the green lobbies are so influential, that other leaders will prefer to isolate the US than to break ranks. They will keep on spending billion$ to fight natural climate variations while waiting for the US storm to pass.

      Trump needs a couple of allies on the world scene… Any prospects?

      • “The new US administration has its work cut out. They are alone against the Rest Of the World.”

        I think the realtiy is far more rosy. IMO, there is a large number of both politicians and scientists in the western world sitting on the fence or in the closet, waiting for the right moment to renounce climate alarmism. it’s only a matter of timing. The rest of the world does not care one hoot. Except when there is some money to be had form guilt-ridden westerners.

  2. “If renewables can compete on cost with coal and gas, as advocates frequently claim, they will remain a welcome component of the US energy mix.” Great approach. This will lead directly to the proof that they cannot compete. Of course he will be attacked for ‘selling out our children’s future’ and that will lead directly to proof that natural variation controls the climate and we have control of pollution through the use of fossil fuels if we apply known, tested, and available technology. Not even 100 days yet.

    • That is a reasonable stance. However all energy producers should be subject to an analysis of subsidies, both direct and indirect, and the resultant costs from their generation. For example Nuclear power in the UK is proposed to receive substantial subsidies which are rarely criticised in the same was as those for renewables.

      • The subsidy can be seen as part of the cost of meeting climate goals and avoiding fossil fuels. Cheesh, you guys want both sides of the argument as needed. Also, the much publicized “subsidies ” for fossil fuels is really deductions for business costs. The industry pays hugely in taxes to all levels of government while there is no net tax payed by renewables. This part of the problem. If you shut down fossil fuels, a huge loss in gov revenue is exacerbated by the need to subsidize renewables. Regarding nuclear, the costs are grossly inflated by need to so overdesign to meet fantom safety concerns. Even fake-information purveyors wiki in their entry on nuclear electrical plant accidents reveals it to be the safest energy source we have. Did you know that France the biggest user has had only one death and it was an accident in a spent fuel processing plant (what, forklift accident? ).

      • If liberals would be honest for once, since CO2 is a net benefit to mankind, any activity that generates CO2 should be subsidized, not taxed.

      • The UK is entering the twilight zone, by having to subsidize coal, gas and nuclear, because of the subsidies and preferred market access given to wind and solar. They need FF and nukes for backup and to stabilize the grid, but the FF/nukes are not profitable just being backup. So they need subsidies.

        At least the UK has the presence of mind to keep FF/nukes, unlike South Australia. But it is a very perverse world when you have government subsidies, so that an industry can compete with government subsidies.

    • Markl, a money quote from Eric’s post is:

      President Trump’s stated goal is to lower the cost of energy, and ensure US energy security.

      I fail to understand how anyone could argue with those as overall objectives, no, requirements of any sane government..

      • For some reason, liberals tend to feel that the US is unique amongst the countries of this world, in that it is not permitted to look after it’s own interests first.

      • ‘For some reason, liberals tend to feel that the US is unique amongst the countries of this world, in that it is not permitted to look after it’s own interests first.’

        Parasites are like that in regards to their hosts.

  3. Yes, if renewables can compete on any basis that does not mandate them. Thus far, renewables fail on both price and reliability.

  4. From the article: “Asked for comment, a White House official said Trump “has emphasized the value of the U.S. energy sector as a strategic tool in U.S. foreign policy.” The official added: “All U.S. energy resources and technologies, including coal and nuclear, should play an important role in achieving universal access to affordable and reliable energy.””

    Well, I guess that leaves out windmills and solar thermal since they aren’t affordable or reliable energy.

  5. “If renewables can compete on cost with coal and gas, as advocates frequently claim, they will remain a welcome component of the US energy mix.”

    With the exception of windmills and solar thermal which kill wildlife so are NOT welcome to those who love animals. There are better alternatives to windmills and solar thermal. There is no need to slaughter wildlife in order to turn on our lights.

      • I see that the RSPB in Britain is making noises about windmills killing birds. Apparently, they haven’t heard that killing birds is necessary to save the planet. Perhaps they are funded by big oil, or big coal, or something.

        /sarc

      • Eric, you are so right. If renewables were not exempt from environmental laws and had to pay the same price for killing a protected species (e.g bats songbirds, hawks, eagles, waterfowl) they would be out of business right away.
        Let’s hope that the Trump Administration fairly and justly apply the environmental laws of the Federal Government and the States to all forms of energy production, transportation, transmission, and were not given any taxpayer incentives or direct funding. In addition to draining the swamp it is also necessary to level he playing field. Many social, environmental, and energy reliability problems would be solved. Equal justice under law.

      • RSPB were previously in favour of windmills until the bodies started stacking up.

        The precautions demanded in UK to protect bats when doing work on old buildings are absurd, (including puting trace heating into the roof space to offset the effects of insulation at ceiling level!). Bats fouling church interiors cannot be removed. Yet millions are killed by windmills and nobody bats an eyelid. One client made the barn comfortable for an owl prior to the conversion application which dealt with the bats in an eco friendly way.

      • Eric, they should include in cost the area of land sterilized from other uses. National park lands have been cleared in Denmark, UK, Germany…. One of the reasons so many birds and bats are killed is because of the vast tracts of rural land that has been encroached upon. Bats are obviously skilled at avoiding collisions with things but they seem to be confused when the “forest” is constantly swinging it’s branches around.

        You will note that like a plague of locusts, ideological climate “scientists” have searched out every tidbit as nourishment for the mosaic of climate disaster. Some one has a list of ailments human, other species, landscapes, seascape and atmoscapes have suffered. Might there be spreading diseases like Zika virus, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, Malaria, Ebola (all on the ailment list) resulting from thinning out birds and bats. Now there is a climate study I’d not complain about funding!

      • Bats are used to avoiding things that are in front of them.
        Nature never equipped them to avoid things that come in from the side.

      • My understanding is that bats are not killed by being struck by the blades, but rather by “acoustic percussion”, or some such thing. It is the boom-box noise that crushes them, or perhaps their echo-locators.

    • So as a lover of wildlife, do you campaign for their protection in any other situation, such as the harm resulting from the generation of conventional power resources?

      • Then by your remark how on Earth did any wildlife survive to the present day. Just a thought.

      • The government actually takes care of this in regulations which they suspend for renewables. And yes the public rightly protests wanton destruction of wildlife.

        You should be ashamed of yourself Gareth, that you have no qualms about killing off bat’s and birds by the millions to combat CO2 which is already greening the planet and burgeoning world food supply. Using your marksbrothers accounting for ‘social justice’ the fossil fuel industry should be paid handsomely for the net benefits of increased CO2.

      • A world class genius such as yourself should already be aware that the protections you demand are in place and have been for a generation.

    • You’re citing myths that are simply bullshit, yet you guys keep repeating the lie as if it were true. Wind generators kill extremely small numbers of avians – not even in the noise level of total avian annual mortality. Most avian deaths in the developed world today are caused by loss of habitat, flying into obstructions (buildings, especially windows, vehicles, powerlines, communications towers, etc. – all of which vastly, by many orders of magnitude, exceed the total number of wind turbines in the world today) and predation (particularly by feral cats).

      According to studies published by the US NWS, wind turbines account for less than 0.01% of all avian mortality in the United States – about the same number of avian fatalities as result from collisions with aircraft (about 25-28 thousand per year) … as compared to 550 million avian fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings .. 130 million from collisions with power lines .. 100 million via cat predation … 80 million from collisions with vehicles … 67 million from pesticide exposure … and so on down into the tiny sub-noise level fatalities caused by collisions with wind turbines.

      Solar PV has zero impact at all on wildlife.

      • Ugh you accuse others of lying then trot out a mix of BS yourself. Why is the wildlife kill data proprietary, why did wind farms sue to keep wildlife kill data from being released to the public, why are 30 year kill permits even needed. You mention the tired cat predation lie, do you have the data on raptor deaths, no because its proprietary! Cats do not kill eagles and owls, turbines do!. Read the news, solar PV does kill we lost an endangered clapper rail here in Cali only publicized because it was so rare and impossible to hide the fact. We don’t know what the real numbers of wildlife killed are because we there is no public oversight in the collection of the data. If you want this “green” energy then demand transparency. When the data “green” companies collect is proprietary, which means it will damage their business if the public knows is so bad you have to ask yourself why are they hiding this info. Especially since the data is from their own employees doing the half hearted efforts to find kills and injuries. Transparency and public oversight are essential and should be welcomed by “green” energy.

      • Nice rant Terri. And factual. You identify one huge area of Progressive hypocrisy, that is, transparency is always for their opponents.
        :)

      • Solar PV’s zero effect on wildlife will come as a surprise to the desert tortoises and small animals who’s habitat has been stolen, sunlight taken, dwellings uprooted and paved over….
        Even on rooftops the effect is NOT zero.

      • Much of the impact for solar comes from the mining needed to extract the rare earth minerals needed to make them.
        Most of such mining occurs in parts of the world where environmental regulations are routinely ignored, assuming they have any in the first place.

      • “You’re citing myths that are simply bullshit, yet you guys keep repeating the lie as if it were true. Wind generators kill extremely small numbers of avians ”

        On a per GW/Hr basis the slaughter of avians is considerable. If it were even possible to scale renewables up to fossil fuel levels the slaughter would be such that hardly any would remain. All avians would soon go the way of the passenger pigeon.

      • Duane – While birds are killed in larger numbers by means other than wind power generating turbine blades, the number killed are not insignificant. Let’s do a quick study: Take all estimated bird deaths from unnatural causes, subtract windmill-caused mortality estimates, and look at how many birds would be alive in the absence of the windmills.

        Searching for and adding those graphics was a heart-wrenching exercise. Now I understand the effectiveness of WWF advertising approaches. Very impactful..and only added as point emphasis.

        Also, your statement ‘Solar PV has zero impact at all on wildlife’ is belied by the following:

        Although Ivanpah is a concentrated sunlight boiler vs photo-voltaic in technology.

        Still, for the most part your argument is invalidated by readily-available evidence to the contrary.

        Regards,

        MCR

      • Who will speak for the bats? And hush, don’t mention the infrasound, which drives all animals bats.
        ===========

    • Before we fall prey to blind spots, it should be noted that all energy production affects wild life both beneficially and detrimentally. Water exchange inflows/outflows for coastal plants dramatically affect sea life near the plants by warming the water (good) and sucking in sea life to its doom (not so good). Coal production and transportation has its wildlife costs as does petroleum extraction.
      I am all in favor of a COMPLETE accounting of all the affects and their consequences. I feel that because fossil fuels have been in use for much longer we have a more mature understanding of all the benefits and detractors. Renewables on a large scale implementation are relatively new to the scene and we are only now realizing the detrimental effects from them.
      That being said, I say bring on the assessment, as I believe renewables are “Not-Yet-Ready-For-Prime-Time”

      • Power plants have grates and filters designed to prevent sucking anything into the heat exchanger.
        Inside heat exchangers, water goes through small tubes that can be blocked by sucked in debris.

    • I wish that someone would put out a piece like the Gorey movies, showing the real problems with wind and solar power. You know–Show it in all the schools to young kids, , the millions of birds, bats, eagles, hawks slaughtered, whales stranded, while the Wildlife Endangerment laws are being “legally” bypassed with “exemptions”. They want to keep hikers and off road vehicles out of parts of the deserts, but find no problem in putting in hundreds, if not thousands of acres of solar panels, which require roads, electricity and lots of water for maintenance . Desert tortoise has not a chance. But hey! All good in the end. To heck with the means.

  6. “If renewables can compete on cost with coal and gas, as advocates frequently claim, they will remain a welcome component of the US energy mix.”
    Depends if you only consider “cost” to include money.

    • Like the lives of rare wildlife? Like the lives of humans in poverty? Like burning our forests and stripping prairie land to plant more biofuel corn?

      The costs of “renewables” are far more than the money falling into the greedy pockets of the Green Industrial Combine. They are way too much.

    • Today PV is cheaper than coal, gas, or nuclear, as measured by actual Power Purchase Agreements entered into by US utilities. Subsidies don’t figure into PPAs because those are realized only by the owner of the generators and aren’t part of retail sales revenues. PPA are averaging $50-75 per MHh for sola, and continuing to decrease with the drastic reduction in manufacturing cost of PV panels in the last decade. Conventional coal is going at about $95, nuclear also at $95, conventional gas at $75. Wind (onshore) at an average PPA of $24.

      Dispatchability is an issue with wind, but not solar. Solar generation rates are extremly predictable, varying only with cloudiness, which is highly predictable on an annual cycle basis. Solar is generated only during daylight hours, but daylight hours are when power demands are at their greatest anyway. So non-renewables make for very good baseline production with solar PV taking on the daytime peak demands.

      • you have it backwards … PV is best as baseline production support with non-renewables available for peak demand (and baseline as well since PV can’t cover the baseline) … PV can’t ramp up for peak demands, non-renewables can …

      • Duane, How about the land area required. And even with your ecomarx accounting, the ‘small’ number of birds and bats killed is measured against the small amount of power generated. Imagine what we would have if we generated all our power from this idiocy. Imagine the orders of magnitude more electrical lines needed, too. Imagine still needing substantial fossil or nuclear to back it all up. I’m afraid imagination is not the strong suit of those who’ve memorized their climate catechism. It’s all going to be dead soon anyway and then ecomarx will be working on you for the next doom boom, despite you finding out that there was no disaster awaiting you in climate. Full disclosure I’m an engineer and geologist. You?

      • Nobody cares that clouds are predictable on an annual basis. Power is dispatched second by second. If clouds aren’t predictable at that level, then they aren’t predictable.
        Power purchase agreements, as dictated by federal and local law.

    • Funny how you Warmunists are always trying to add their fantasy “costs” onto the use of fossil fuels and nuclear.

    • Cost includes many things. As an amature photographer the increased installation of windmills in the Eastern foothills over the last decade has totally wiped out any chance for good scenic shots. Considering that these installations are yet but a gleam in the eye of the CAGW fanatics the worst is yet to come.
      Of course these people all live where they want to wake and walk over to their “eco friendly Starbucks for a free cuppa joe in the morning while discussing their next NWO move.

      • They are going to be having meetings about putting offshore windmills off the California coast. I don’t know where, San Luis Obispo was mentioned, but with lots of the of wealthy Greenies living in view of he coast, it will be interesting to see which wins out. They wanted the Oil Rigs off Santa Barbara removed because of “Spill;;” problems, the last one in 1969, but really don’t like looking at them. Wind turbines would really fit into the view of the horizon, blotting out the view of he Channel Islands. As an aside, there is more natural seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel of both oil and methane, than there has ever been spilt, on the order of magnitude of 80-130 Exxon Valdez spills.

  7. “Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies”. The headline is a load of tosh. Trump knows CO2 does not drive climate, so he is not making climate demands.

    • Literally everyone at that level of discourse knows this but remain locked in denial at the thought of missing out on tapping one of the greatest financial spigots of all time, let alone the opportunity of dragging everyone into global-governance-by-administration, against which there is no electoral revolt.
      Trumpian push-back “roils” only those who feel increasingly exposed for their disingenuousness, as their eco-Marxist Agenda unravels.

  8. This position of Trump’s is somewhat surprising as his daughter and son-in-law (who are more green than Trump) are supposed to be more dominating among the inner circle of advisers – at least that is what the gossipers are saying.

    • Gossipers aren’t saying it. The LSM is saying it, hoping to confuse the unwashed masses and to further indoctrinate the political and scientific illiterates.

  9. More #WINNING against the Climate Hustle and George Soros!

    I was a #NeverTrump guy until he won the GOP nomination. Then I was resigned.
    During the campaign I was a #HillaryforPrison supporter more than anything else.

    Now with Trump as #45, I couldn’t happier with his cabinet picks, his Supreme Court pick, and now his push back against the global climate hustle and the Paris Climate Treaty disaster.

    Even if he were to resign or get impeached tomorrow, everything he has done so far, including Mike Pence as VP, has made me a believer in supporting this guy to stop the Leftist destruction of this country under Obama.

    In hindsight, I doubt any of the other GOP candidates have the Cajones needed to take on the Climate Cabal like Trump is now doing. Let’s just hope the Secret Service is up to the task, because I have no doubt the Left has an ultimate plan should their attempts to de-legitimize and force Trump’s resignation fail.

    The Climate Leftists ARE that ruthless.

    (Seth Rich was unavailable for comment on this comment)

    • Glad to hear that you are on the Trump Train, joel.

      We got real lucky with Trump. We, the U.S. and the whole world, were heading for a train wreck before Trump, but now it looks like we have a chance to right this ship. Not just any Republican could do this. We need a special person involved and it looks like we have one in Trump.
      Leaders like this don’t come along every day.

      Trump is the right guy at the right time. Divine Intervention? I don’t know but I’ll take it, however he got there! :)

  10. They can throw billions at the CAGW fantasy, but they cannot be bothered to spend money on defense against Russia and the Jihadis.

    Heck with them.

    • Walter Sobchak,

      The “Jihadis” – ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, the FSA etc. – are proxies of the US government and its allies. The only people fighting against them are the Syrians, the Iranians, the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Russians. Capiche?

      • Wrong. Jihadis are a magnet for sunni muslim fanatics because they seem the strongest defence against shia muslim fanatics: Alawites Iranians, Hezbollah. Assad NEEDS them as an alibi – he nor the Russians NEVER bomb their capital Raqqa. Idlib is not ISIS territory but other sunni groups many non-globalist jihadis ans some sunni non jjihadists rebels. The only ones who bombard Raqqa are the US and it’s allies. https://syria.liveuamap.com/

      • ISIS hates hundreds of people and groups. Some of these are people who are also hated by the US.
        Therefore ISIS is a US puppet.

      • Well, you have to wonder what Putin is thinking siding with one radical Muslim group over another. I know he thinks this gives him strategic positions in the area with a naval base and airbase in Syria and airbase rights in Iran, but to what end?

        Is Putin planning on taking over the entire Middle East? I can see why he would want a naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, but the rest of it I don’t understand. Does he think radical Islamists of either side are going to be friends with Russia? All Putin will accomplish by messing around in the Middle East like he is doing is to make a large majority of Muslims angry at Russia. Slaughtering innocent men, women and children in front of the world’s eyes is not a good thing for Russia to be doing.

        In Syria, Trump should aim to separate Russia from Assad (which he is doing) and should try to get another ceasefire in place so the wholesale killing stops.

        There have been several ceasefires in the past but everyone of them have been violated by Assad and the Russians, not the other side. In this atmosphere that has been changed by Trump’s attack, there may be a chance to get a real ceasefire, and then we can start working on the longterm solutions, which should include ground troops from friendly nations and nations with a stake in the outcome. This would include all NATO nations, since the refugee crisis is destabilzing the entirety of Western Europe, and should include Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. There is no need for large numbers of American troops to accomplish this goal. There are more than enough troops in the area, and their leaders are willing to commit if the U.S. leads the way.

        Russia could do itself a lot of good by abandoning Assad. It will do itself no good by sticking by this madman. We used to think Assad’s father was a brutal madman, and he only murdered 25,000 of his own people to keep himself in power, but his son, Bashar makes him look like a harmless schoolboy by killing over 500,000 of his own people to keep himself in power. This is what you are hanging your hat on, Mr. Putin?

  11. So glad adults are in charge now. Watching Obama’s legacy of destruction being remedied one signature at a time warms my heart. The democrats tried to destroy America, got close even…now we are back on course to greatness once again. Sorry snowflakes.

    • I know he is the President of the USA, but it feels like he is my President. #MyPresident. (Did I get the hashtag thingy correct?)

      • “I know he is the President of the USA, but it feels like he is my President. #MyPresident. (Did I get the hashtag thingy correct?)”

        In a way, Trump is leading the whole world, so yes you can say he is your president, too. Welcome aboard!

        It’s amazing what a real leader can get done when he puts his mind to it. And all the other leaders of the world suddenly find themselves to be followers. Which is good if the leader is leading in the proper direction.

  12. Thank God we finally have a Chief Executive who understands fundamental economics, supply-and-demand, and the essential importance of cheap, abundant, reliable, and continuous energy.

    Modern life requires all of the above. South Australia, Spain, Germany, and [sad to say] England are providing real-life evidence that “renewables” can only provide sustained misery and energy poverty.

    • Only in a quasi sort of way. He’s not a capitalist, though he’s not a socialist, either, which is a plus.

      • No, Mark T, IMO Trump is just a pragmatist. Rather than trying to adapt his world view to fit into the now clearly outdated Left / Centre / Right traditional political spectrum, he has identified the need for a new paradigm, and is fulfilling it (admittedly against all odds – he has the Left, Centre and Right agin him). Reminds me of Machiavelli’s comments in The Prince about the difficulty of introducing change.

  13. They’re mad because they need the cash cow we brought to the table. Take a baby’s bottle away…

  14. I would like this administration to claim the moral high ground. Of course they are right about the economics and do a fine job speaking that truth, but they are silent on the morality of cheap, abundant energy and the immorality of making life-sustaining energy harder to acquire for the third world. They are silent on the great benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. They are silent on the great benefits of a gently warming world. They are silent on the outrageous fear mongering that gets more shrill as the science supports those fears less and less. They are silent about the dangers and ecological threats found in renewables. They are silent about the actual purpose of the global warming scheme, which has everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and power and nothing to do with climate. They are silent about the Science Industrial Complex that is more concerned with the climate money train continuing than doing real science.

    If the global warming theory was accurate, the proposed solutions would still be far worse for humans and the planet, than the actual climate change. Since the threat isn’t even real, these so-called solutions are even more egregious!

    We have the economic argument, the scientific argument and moral argument all on our side, but we are up against a well-entrenched paradigm. It will take a well-rounded effort by this administration to shift the collective consciousness. Speaking only of economics induces an immediate coma in 2/3 of the population. They need to speak with authority about the science of climate and immorality of the climate hustle community!

  15. noting that Canada, Europe and Japan all expressed frustration

    Yes, Canada is VERY frustrated. That way nobody notices all the pipelines being built so that they can sell oil to the equally frustrated Japan and Europe who are eagerly going to buy it. So frustrated. Oh, and expressive!

  16. “The U.S. emphasis on coal “was seen as an issue for all of us,” one G-7 country negotiator told POLITICO, noting that Canada, Europe and Japan all expressed frustration about the Trump administration’s position.”

    I thought that Japan was increasing its use of coal – is that not so? And, of course, Europe, which is dominated by the Federal Republic of Germany, isn’t really in a position to talk, with Germany increasing its use of brown coal.

  17. Quote: President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround on U.S. climate policy …

    What turnaround? If anything he’s been slow to act on his promises but the direction has been consistent.

    It would, however, be a turnaround if the US continues to have anything to do with the Paris non-agreement, the fake agreement with China, and the United Nations generally.

    • re. Donald Trump’s turnaround.
      The author is wrong by one letter.

      President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround on U.S. climate policy …

      should be

      President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround of U.S. climate policy …

      Details matter big time. Was it sloppy thinking or bad proofreading? It doesn’t matter. Andrew Restuccia, the author of the article, should be deeply embarrassed … assuming that he wants to think of himself as a professional journalist.

      I used to know a professional typesetter, back when newspapers employed such people. Such an error would have left him scarred for life.

      • The two sentences do not carry the same meaning.

        In the first case, it implies that policy hasn’t changed, but Donald Trumps views about (on) it have..
        In the second case it implies that policy has changed, due to Donald’s activities.

      • Leo Smith April 12, 2017 at 11:35 am

        The two sentences do not carry the same meaning.

        I’m giving Restuccia the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he means, correctly, that President Trump has changed the government’s policy.

  18. “A lot of people mischaracterise President Trump’s policies as an attack on renewables. “A lot of people mischaracterise President Trump’s policies as an attack on renewables.

    It would be just as accurate to state: “A lot of people mischaracterise President Trump’s policies on anything.”

    • I hope they are an attack on renewables..

      An expensive solution that doesn’t work to a problem we don’t have.

      Why isn’t Apple making windmills?

  19. “G7 Climate Statement Scuttled…”
    Deep Sixed. Sent to Davy Jones Locker. Feeding the Fishes…. Oh Yeah!

    It’s another Great Day for the United States Of America and all who love Her!

    The G7 climate statement wasn’t the only thing that was scuttled. As of April 7th, China is refusing to accept coal shipments from North Korea, according to Reuters. This was a major source of income for North Korea. To make up for the coal shortfall from North Korea, China has ramped up imports from the United States.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-coal-exclusive-idUSKBN17D0D8

      • “China’s way of yanking Kim’s chain.”

        China is apparently doing a lot of yanking on Kim. They warned Kim yesterday that Trump was emotional and unpredictable and that Kim should watch out! :)

        And I just saw this article where China is threatening to bomb North Korea’s nuclear weapons test facilities if they do further testing.

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/china-threatens-bomb-north-koreas-nuclear-facilities-if-it-crosses-beijings-bottom-l

        It looks like China is getting onboard the Trump Train over North Korea. And they should. They can use this as a method to at the least thoroughly reign in Kim, and if they do, I predict they will get very good treatment from President Donald Trump. Trump’s friendship will be worth much more to them than a Korean dictator. He’s been a thorn in their side for a while anyway. This is their chance to do something about it and get something good from doing so.

        Go Trump! Show them how it’s done.

        Btw, I saw an article today quoting a Trump administration spokesperson as saying there is no evidence that North Korea has a functioning nuclear weapon.

      • NorK has nothing to lose. As they have nothing. But China has found prosperity. And they know they have a lot to lose. Politics makes strange bed fellows

      • “NorK has nothing to lose. As they have nothing. But China has found prosperity. And they know they have a lot to lose. Politics makes strange bed fellows”

        One benefit of China taking the lead in using military force to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons is an attack by China on North Korea would not necessarily result in a ground war involving South Korea.

        This changing of the dynamic by Trump with his decisive actions in Syria demonstrates just how smart and quick the Chinese are. They see the inevitable that North Korea is not going to be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and so they have jumped out in front of Trump and are saying they are going to take care of this matter themselves. That’s the way we like it.

        China should give Kim Jung Un an ultimatum giving him say seven days to voluntarily give up his nuclear weapons programs and missile programs, otherwise China is going to attack and destroy these facilities militarily. By air bombardment initially, and with ground forces if that becomes necesarry.

        During this week, South Korea should evacuate Seoul and surronding areas and get all those people out of North Korea’s artillery range, just in case Kim Jung Un really is crazy and starts a ground war in South Korea in response. Yeah, I know that’s expensive but not as expensive as putting 20 million South Koreans under North Korean guns.

        With China hitting North Korea in North Korea, and the U.S. and South Korea hitting North Korean forces around Seoul and points north, Kim Jung Un won’t last long even if he does try to fight it out.

        I must say I’m more encouraged about the world situation than I have been in a long time. We have a very good chance of solving the North Korean problem without resorting to full-scale war, and the Russians handled themselves very well over the Syrian bombings. They don’t like it naturally, but they are not going crazy over it, either. A good sign. And we are talking together which is definitely a good sign.

        If we can talk Putin out of supporting Assad, ole Trump will have neutralized some very bad actors on the world stage.

        That leaves the Mad Mullahs of Iran to deal with.

  20. QUOTE

    TO ENSURE UNINTERRUPTED, RELIABLE AND COST EFFICIENT ELECTRICITY SUPPLY FOR THE NATION, THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO DIVERSIFY AND BALANCE OUT THE GENERATION FUEL MIX BY BRINGING IN COAL AND LNG INTO THE MATRIX.

    2007 MIX

    HYDRO…………..5%
    COAL……………..27%
    GAS……………….68%

    2016 MIX

    HYDRO……………..4%
    GAS ……………….45%
    COAL……………….51%

    THE COST OF COAL IS CHEAPER THAN GAS

    UNQUOTE

  21. G7? I wouldn’t even agree to treat France, Germany and Italy as separate countries . . unless they agree the US gets fifty votes . . Mr. Junker ; )

  22. Australia, after three auctions, the Clean Energy Regulator has purchased 143 million tonnes of carbon abatement costing Australian’s $1.7 billion from the total pool of $2.55 billion allocated for carbon abatement in recent time.
    The left, the Greens the ex Goldman Sachs mad-men (our PM) are in for a rough time as the new right parties take up the voice of ordinary Australians becoming increasingly bitter about the privileged chatting class picking their pockets.
    Go Donald & Co!

    • “6 of the 7 sticking to Paris and CO2 reduction and renewables then…”

      Yeah, but they are all having second thoughts and Trump’s position is just going to make them think some more about where they have been, and where they are going. Their finely laid CAGW-busting plans are starting to run up against hard reality.

    • Ha! ‘Consensus’ appeal…… with no consensus.

      C’mon Griffter, that con game is soooo ‘over’.
      Surely you can do better than referencing a nontreaty nonagreement, to constrain the essential food of all plant life, and by food-chain extension, all Life on planet Earth?

      CO2 makes the planet GREEN! No batteries needed…..

  23. Numerous coal fired power plants are already mothballed or slated for shutdown due to MACT and/or regional haze regulations. Perfectably viable generation sources taken off line by these thinly veiled radical environmentalist tools and the use of sue and settle tactics. If Trump is serious about saving coal jobs and communities, he needs to revisit these issues. It’s not “sustainable” to idle a 1400 MW coal fired generating unit and replace it with a 1000 turbine wind generating facility and news transmission lines backed by newly constructed gas fired power capacity. IMHO it’s wasteful and a poor use of existing resources, not to mention economically damaging; much like cash for clunkers.

  24. “considering whether to pull the United States out of the climate change accord that the Obama administration and leaders of nearly 200 other nations negotiated in Paris in 2015.”
    ____________________________________________

    200 nations want to participate; and only 4 are willing to pay.

  25. “That may not sit well with Democrats and environmental groups, who have long argued against spending billions of dollars to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants when the same money could help speed the transition to wind and solar power.”
    __________________________________________

    But that sits well with reasonable people who have long argued against spending billions of dollars for environmental groups when the same money is needed for a transition to a healthy economy.

  26. “G-7 officials, led by the Europeans, refused to agree to stronger language touting fossil fuels without assurances from the United States that it would stay in the Paris climate change agreement, according to officials briefed on the discussions.”
    ___________________________________________

    Thei’re free to refuse.

  27. “EU’s “biggest” red line during the meeting, the negotiator added.”
    ____________________________________________

    EU + Obama are known for their red lines others should hold.

    • EU red line! LOL. Gee they are getting tough. They are now making red lines that won’t show in a sea of red.

  28. ” If renewables can compete on cost with coal and gas, as advocates frequently claim, they will remain a welcome component of the US energy mix.” —

    what’s not to understand here!

  29. This falls under the heading of – you have to poke a sleeping bear. Trump has made no secret of his desire to ignore (there is no pulling out since it was not ratified by the Senate) the Paris Accord. So their lame excuse of “not knowing” indicates pure political speak for “never trust what a politicians says”.

    Their problem is Trump is not a politician.

      • “All CEOs are politicians.”

        Not all (e.g., Steve Jobs and Henry Ford); and the ones that are “politicians” aren’t politicians in the sense that politicians are.

  30. its a “lemming thing” really
    they all KNOW that the climate accord is going to harm their economy/manufacturing/social structures.
    that IS the intent.
    so
    it isnt as much as an honest and real worry about Co2 n climate
    as a control and power grab that harms the majority for the benefit of few.
    and if anyone doesnt join in and lose with them?
    tsk tsk, suddenly their deep commitment to climate matters goes right away!

  31. Without CO2 life could not exist on this planet, it is the most essential chemical compound known to mankind. One has to think about the level of insanity that lead to CO2 being declared an “pollutant”.

  32. Trump is a very practical man. He doesn’t get bogged down in the weeds. His position on energy is extremely practical and rejects political ideology. In essence, “whatever works” that meets current law and economic reality. As far as Trumps philosophical position on coal is concerned, it simply needs to compete with other energy sources on an equal footing. Unfortunately for “Big Coal”, the economics for its continued use are being turned against it as the supply of fracked natural gas plummets, the cost of scrubbers escalates, and the cost for physical transportation of it makes it less and less economical.

    In Oklahoma, OGE coal fired power plants are being converted to natural gas. Even though these plants are relatively close to the Powder River Basin coal mines, established Regional Haze standards pit the cost of scrubbers against the cost of conversion to natural gas. The gas comes from Oklahoma and Texas where the transportation cost is a pittance. It simply comes down to basic economics that will end our reliance on coal. People just won’t pay higher rates to keep a miner employed when there is a significantly cheaper alternative.

    • Not true, and also a red herring on your part. All anyone asks is that coal be allowed to compete on an equal footing. And coal most certainly is competitive with NG, although not in every case. The key to a free market system is competition. Without coal, NG prices would tend to spike more, and also tend to rise.

    • I live in Oklahoma and have a coal-fired powerplant on the other side of town, and there was talk a few years ago about converting over to natural gas, but the problem was doing so would increase the price of electricity, and so noone around here wanted to do it, so it is still being powered by coal, our rates haven’t gone up, and I haven’t heard any talk about turning it into a gas-fired facility lately. Not saying that’s not happening somewhere in Oklahoma, but it’s not happening here.

      • Smart utilities have to weigh the cost of conversion over the savings and estimate a pay back that is reasonable. If the payback is over 20 years, they normally would not do it unless mandated (read: anti-free market) by government. The price of Nat Gas over time is NOT known, but then neither is coal. However, the proven reserves of coal are a lot larger than for Nat Gas. So the price (again, barring government interference) is more predictable.

  33. In case anyone is interested, the Energy Information Agency has updated its info on U.S. energy use by source as shown below. These are preliminary end of year totals for 2016.
    Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.

    “……In 2016, about 4 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity (1) were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.(2) About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016.(3)

    Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016 (1)

    Natural gas = 33.8%
    Coal = 30.4%
    Nuclear = 19.7%
    Renewables = 14.9%
    Hydropower = 6.5%
    Wind = 5.6%
    Biomass = 1.5%
    Solar = 0.9%
    Geothermal = 0.4%
    Petroleum = 0.6%
    Other gases = 0.3%
    Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
    Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2% (4)

    Notes:
    (1) Preliminary data for 2016.
    (2) Electricity generating facilities (power plants) with at least one megawatt (or 1,000 kilowatts) of total electricity generating capacity.
    (3) Small-scale solar photovoltaic systems are electricity generators with less than one megawatt of electricity generating capacity that are usually at or near the location where the electricity is consumed. Most small-scale solar photovoltaic systems are installed on building rooftops.
    (4) Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis……”

    Don’t recall the totals for earlier in the year, but I would guess that coal-sourced electricity is down and NG is up. Solar has “soared” all the way up to 0.9% after being at 0.6% earlier in the year (I still laugh). Nuclear dropped slightly to 19.7% because of the nuclear plant shutdowns.

    Note that they list pumped hydro for the first time. It’s negative because it uses more juice than it produces. Interesting and probably not good news for wind and solar advocates—at least at this point in time.

    • These numbers are a little bit confusing. It looks like hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal are all grouped together as “renewables”. Perhaps if those 5 were indented.

      • Remove the 5 individual renewables from the list, and it adds up to 100. The 5 individual renewables also add up to what is listed on the Renewables line.

      • That’s because the renewables are being counted twice. Once individually, and once again under the category of renewables.

    • Yes, I should have taken the word ‘renewables=14.9%’ out of the list. The five items listed below it are the breakdown of the renewables that add up to 14.9%.

      Sorry about the confusion.

      • I like seeing the breakdown of renewables. Either as a separate list, or indented to show dependency.

    • I don’t understand Note (4). Pumped storage isn’t generation; it’s storage. Why is it even on the list?

    • Hmmm, from LLNL 2015 Electricity Generation sources:
      Solar 0.25 – 0.66%
      Nuclear 8.34 – 21.93%
      Hydro 2.38 – 6.26%
      Wind 1.81 – 4.76%
      Geothrml 0.16 – 0.42%
      Nat Gas 9.99 – 26.27%
      Coal 14.3 – 37.60%
      Biomass 0.52 – 1.37%
      Petrol 0.28 – 0.74%

      Couldn’t have changed that much in 1 year. Somebody is wrong. I’ll put my money on Lawrence Livermore Labs.

  34. Some Trump advisers have suggested that he should remain in the deal — but in return, should demand concessions to aid the fossil fuel sector.

    These “advisers” are nothing but snakes in the grass, attempting to lead Trump astray. I hope he doesn’t fall for it, and promptly fires them.

  35. Solar power has reliability problems because they stick generators where the sun don’t shine. Plenty of uninterrupted* full power from a geosynchronous satellite. Of course, environmentalists would complain about endangered vacuum.

    * except 80 minutes for a few days each spring and autumn.

  36. Here is the way the world really works. 1) Defense spending among the G7 relies on US spending a lot more on ultimate protection, 2) Trade gains depend a lot on US not playing the behind the scenes games they play like industrial development strategy of killing the competition with government support, 3) Buy votes to stay in power with travel and leisure benefits based on items 1 and 2 above, and 4) Support bad and sometimes faked climate science agendas because items 1 and 2 enable it in their budgets and they might get a bonus out of the deal with even weaker US competitiveness and cash payments to third party countries that might buy their exports and services. Anything else is in the misc. column.

  37. President Trump would not agree to guarantee the USA would remain signed up to the Paris Climate Agreement.

    Since the US Senate has not ratified the agreement the US is not a party to the agreement. No US President has the power to guarantee that the US will be a party to any agreement. That power is a power of the Senate and resides only in the Senate.

    • Total BS. We received “climate credits” on a couple of our bills. These “credits” were derived from moneys taken from cap and trade fines levied against businesses and utility providers and ostensibly for the homeowners to spend the savings on energy savings devices. But we could spend them on anything. A full on Socialist program designed to buy the minds of homeowners to the advantages of supporting Climate Change activities enacted by the state. A total Robin Hood program where the victims were businesses, industry, and energy producers.

      • “…but does it mean that California did indeed for a short period fall into a negative cost situation for power?….”

        Not that I’m aware of. It just means they had excess power that went to waste. It’s impractical to reduce output of a power station for “just a couple of hours” on a moment’s notice so I don’t know where the cost savings would come from. We still haven’t figured out what to do with the excess electricity returned to the grid by homeowner PV panels. We allow credits against their grid usage but without storage the power is wasted as far as I know. This is just another California propaganda fluff piece on how ‘Green’ it is.

Comments are closed.