The White House scrapped a much-anticipated meeting Tuesday to decide whether it would exit from the Paris climate change agreement.
A White House spokeswoman said the meeting was postponed due to the president’s travel schedule, reported Bloomberg. (Via Washington Examiner)
That may be true, an email I get daily from the White House says this is Trump’s schedule today:
AFTERNOON:
- 1:15PM CDT: President Trump arrives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- 2:00PM CDT: President Trump tours Snap-On Tools
- 2:20PM CDT: President Trump makes remarks at Snap-On Tools – Watch LIVE
- 2:50PM CDT: President Trump signs the Buy American, Hire American Executive Order
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/protecting-the-pact-exxon-shell-join-ivanka-trump-to-defend-paris-climate-accord
“Cheniere Energy, which exports liquefied natural gas, became the latest company to weigh in for the pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a letter Monday solicited by White House energy adviser G. David Banks.
“Domestic energy companies are better positioned to compete globally if the United States remains a party to the Paris agreement,” Cheniere wrote. The accord “is a useful instrument for fostering demand for America’s energy resources and supporting the continued growth of American industry.””
end excerpt
How is remaining a party to the Paris Agreement going to be “a useful instrument for fostering demand for America’s energy resources and supporting the continued growth of American industry.”?
There’s plenty of demand for energy resources. How would remaining in the Paris Agreement change that? Even if Trump did remain in the agreement, I don’t expect Trump to be passing money around to all comers, so how will these energy companies benefit the United States by our remaining in the Paris Agreement, which we are not going to follow. We would still be a member but we are not going to do anything about reducing CO2 other than what we are doing now, which is actually reducing CO2, and we are not going to be giving away money, so where do these benefits for the oil companies come from?
If we stay in then other countries stay in. Those countries then become customers for things like LNG, It’s all about money for this company.
We have been hearing about cheap natural gas prices causing more demand/use for natural gas, which emits less CO2 when burned than coal. This has caused CO2 emissions to drop in the US. “has” is the operative word. The natural gas market fundamentals have turned more bullish for prices. The market price for natural gas spiked to a low at the end of February 2016 that will not be reached again…….maybe in our life time.
There are numerous reasons but the huge supply overhang peaked just over a year ago, with record end of the heating season supplies and we have been gradually eroding the supply surplus.
End of season storage, right now is at a comfortable 2.0 trillion cubic feet and more than 200 bcf above the 5 year average. However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating). Storage is 400 bcf less than a year ago. The record warm February and November caused the lowest Heating Degree Days for those months ever.
This has masked the bullish fundamentals of the natural gas market.
Fundamentals can change of course if prices keep going higher and this provides more incentive for increasing supply( some of which will be lost to increasing exports) but prices in 2016 were probably as low as they will ever be for a very long time.
Odds are that natural gas prices will go higher from here, which will mean that coal will once again become more competitive and in some cases cheaper than natural gas. At the very least, we will need more cheap, reliable and efficient power generating capacity and coal can fill that need. We have 200 years of power generating coal in the ground in the US, more than any other country in the world.
To not maximize our use of this valuable natural resource because it emits a beneficial gas when you burn it, would be the dumbest energy policy position in our history, by a wide margin. To be fair, I’m a lukewarmer that believes increasing CO2 has caused some of the warming and this is causing more high end flooding events around the world. But this is more than offset by the massive benefits to life, our biosphere and agricultural production.
There are pro natural gas energy companies that are for the climate agreement for business reasons, while there are others in the energy sector that want to be on the record of having this position………..for disingenuous, perception/political reasons. Being against it, carries with it, a strong negative label. There is a tremendous amount of money involved for the business sector in addition to the billions for world governments who play the game correctly. Of course that money has to come from somewhere. Guess who pays the bill?
The tax payer. The energy user. The poor. The rich. Those for it. Those against it. Maybe we should just establish a new green climate fund and instead of it using everybody’s money, let’s just take donations from those that believe in it. George Soros can donate several million. Give that money to China and India, not mine or yours for a reason that we think is really dumb.
Authentic climate science is pretty far down on the list of what this climate agreement really means.
“However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating).”
Well, Climate Change science would predict that will happen again and more often…
If so, that would be the first prediction that Client Change science has gotten right.
“However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating).”
“Well, Climate Change science would predict that will happen again and more often…”
This is true, though 1 year is just weather. From a real world perspective, did those most effected have a detrimental effect or benefit?
2015 and 2016 were the “hottest” years ever too.We also smashed previous records for agricultural production for many areas, not in spite of but because of the slight beneficial warming and the increase in beneficial CO2.
Is more food production detrimental or a benefit?
Is a greening planet detrimental or is it a benefit?
Is less energy use for residential heating during the Winter detrimental or a benefit?
Is ignoring these empirical facts, which clearly are worth many trillions in benefits to humans as well as most life and the biosphere of our planet, an authentic way to conduct an objective scientific analysis?
Telling just one side, exaggerating one side, ignoring/giving less weight to valid data that doesn’t line up favorably, giving more weight to theorized(model) data that does line up favorably. Is this the scientific method?
A warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture, warmer oceans will add more precipitable water to that atmosphere. This causes heavier rains and more high end extreme flooding, weather events. This is backed by meteorological principles and the observational world. If you want to be real Griff and support your position, you can site this fact.
However, siting a benefit is counterproductive to your case. Those of us living in this part of the world=100 million+ people, when we opened our gas/electric bills this past Winter, had emotions, reacting to the small numbers(cost to heat our homes) of what you just used as an example of Climate Change science. Were we happy or sad?
Maybe you should twist the record crop yields for the last 2 years in the US as being a problem for farmers because of low prices(supply burden) and the need for additional storage space for their massive crops.
As absurd as that reads, this is exactly what you do when subjectively interpreting everything and anything that might relate to Climate Change science(assumed to be human caused) climate change.
The big problem with the warmer world is a wetter world is that the total energy coming in from the sun hasn’t changed.
It takes energy to evaporate water, so the limit to how much water can evaporate is not the temperature of the air, but rather the energy entering the system from the sun.
If the amount of energy from the sun remains unchanged, then the total amount of evaporation will likewise stay unchanged, regardless of the temperature of the air.
Trump does elevate your blood pressure on these topics we thought we could make book on. I hope he’d rather disappoint his daughter than his supporters on this subject. If he is looking for money for his military, wall, infrastructure and jobs programs, this a pretty weighty anchor to cut the chain from.
I know with activist judges doing lefty bidding we have to be patient but I don’t want to see any relaxing of resolve. Smack these anti-American organizations and their US treasonous citizenry supporters down. “There’s a new sheriff in town” used to mean something.
“The big problem with the warmer world is a wetter world is that the total energy coming in from the sun hasn’t changed”
The biggest problem with that assumption is that empirical data clearly shows that heavy rain events for all time scales have increased globally. As you stated, the sun has not changed enough to account for this. Maybe you don’t want to believe that high end rain events have not increased. As an operational meteorologist for 36 years, forecasting global weather patterns the past 25 years, there is not a shred of doubt in mind this is what we’ve seen.
So why is this?
You can make the case that the warmer atmosphere holding more moisture will mean that less will condense out but a good example instead would be comparing the atmosphere to a sponge. If you saturate one sponge with H2O, then bring in another, slightly bigger sponge and saturated it, then wring both out with the same force, which one will yield more water?
You are right about the sun and evaporation. Also, there is a negative feedback regarding clouds that makes this tricky. If the atmosphere is holding more moisture and we have more (low) clouds blocking the sun, it will decrease evaporation from the sun.
However, the oceans have warmed vs 100 years ago. Regardless of what caused it. A warmer ocean and warmer atmosphere with a constant sun will evaporate more.
Sit 2 bowls of water out, 1 at 62 degrees with an ambient air temperature of unsaturated air of 70 degrees. Set the other one at 63 degrees for the water and 71 degrees for the air.
The 2nd environment will have a bit more moisture. Massively multiply the areal coverage by millions of times to represent the synoptic scale of weather systems and subject those air masses to lifting, cooling and condensation on a large scale. With all things being equal, which one will lead to heavier rains?
There is additional heat energy in the oceans and atmosphere and it doesn’t matter if it came from the sun or somewhere else.
The claim that heavy rain events have increased is problematic at best, completely wrong at the worst.
The problem is three fold, first the claimed increase is so small that if it did actually exist it could easily be explained as part of natural cycles.
The second is that the time period during which accurate climate data has been taken is too short for anything to be proven from it.
The period of time during which this alleged increase has occurred, the planet hasn’t been warming anyway.
PS: You contradict yourself, first you claim that there is extra heat in the ocean, then you proclaim that there is more rain, they cannot both be true.
Finally, the claim is that the oceans have increased in temperature by a couple thousandths of a degree.
1) Such a number is several orders of magnitude smaller then even the most optimistic error bars that can be put on that number. In other words, it’s crap.
2) Do you really believe having the oceans warm up by 0.001C is going to increase rainfall by a measurable amount?
“The biggest problem with that assumption is that empirical data clearly shows that heavy rain events for all time scales have increased globally.”
Not around my neck of the woods. The weather patterns look pretty normal around here. It might be slightly milder weather, but no increase in rain. In fact, the way the weather is looking, my neck of the woods may be a little short on moisture this spring and summer, and when that happens it usually corresponds with a hot, dry summer.
President Trump must deliberately abrogate US participation in the ‘Paris Agreement’. He must do this, on the basis that Obama’s personal commitment of USA to the ‘Paris Agreement’ exceeded US presidential authority. Obama refused to submit this ‘agreement’ to the authority of the US Congress for debate and an ‘up or down’ vote. Rejecting the ‘Paris Agreement’ effectively rejects the illegitimate ‘authority’ and precedent Obama tried to set. If it is not rejected, that very dangerous expansion of presidential power becomes precedent.
Most of the mushy comments on reasons to stay in the Paris web seem unaware of the reality of the power of the US. There will be no such thing as an agreement without the US period! The US isn’t just a one vote country in a world of equals. This is precisely why they can be unilateral in this and purely bilateral in all trade deals, rather than dilute their power by sharing it. No other country other than the US can go it alone because no other country can afford to do without the US. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not the EU, not the UN. This why it’s foolish for the US to not assert itself strongly in its self control interest. The reality is that other countries, deep down understand that the US self interest is in their real self interest, too. It is the chief reason why there is so much anti-Americanism. Since you can’t make them love you, do the best thing.
Anybody looking for an alternative Secretary of State?
dang illiterate corrector “self interest”
Whole heartedly agree, Gary!
Remember Donald Trump is a New York Liberal , and in the end he will behave as such.
Sun Spot
So Says you. Then you also have a couple tens of millions of actual liberals who seem to think Trump is not one of them.
Liberals tend to be purists. Unless you agree with them 100%, you aren’t one of them.
Regardless, New England conservatives would be called liberal in most of the rest of the country.
I should probably say extremists tend to be purists, because I’ve known some conservatives who suffer from the same mental disease.
Though the liberals have a greater tendency to become extremists. Probably frustration from watching their schemes fail over and over again.
Funny, conservatives like me see Trump promoting conservative ideas. I couldn’t be more pleased with what Trump has done. Well, I could be more pleased if he withdraws from the Paris Agreement, but so far, he’s batting 1,000 with me.
Donald won’t withdraw from the “Paris Accord” as it might damage Ivanka’s fashion business
I fail to understand why President Trump would want the US to stay in an ‘executive agreement’ that in reality would require us to borrow billions from China to give billions to China. Seems rather stupid to me and I’m pretty sure the Chinese are having a hard time keeping a straight face when they talk with us about it.
What President Obama is finding out is (what should have been obvious in the first place) that as easy as it is to ‘legislate by executive order’ (in order to get around a recalcitrant Congress) it is equally as easy to ‘repeal by executive decree’. Although i suppose he never expected that Trump would win and expected that Hillary would carry his legislation by executive order forward fro another 8 years.
“I fail to understand why President Trump would want the US to stay in an ‘executive agreement’ that in reality would require us to borrow billions from China to give billions to China.”
Specifically how do the Paris accords require the US to borrow money from China and give money to China?
Where did you think those billions to pay for the stupidity was going to come from, a money tree ?
It doesn’t grow on trees. It grows on printing presses.
“Specifically how do the Paris accords require the US to borrow money from China and give money to China?”
Well, if the U.S. spends any money at all on the Paris Agreement, some of it will be borrowed money, and some of that will come from China.
Half of every expenditure the U.S. makes is borrowed money. If we donate $10 million to the Paris Agreement, we have to borrow $5 million of that amount from our lenders.
Interest on the U.S. debt will soon exceed the budget for U.S. national defense ($600 billion+ annually). The U.S. shouldn’t be wasting money on the Paris Agreement, especially since we have to borrow the money to begin with.
If spending increases, every penny of that increase will either be borrowed or printed. Since the money from tax revenue has already been spent.
For a guy who believes himself to be smart, he sure does ask some dumb questions.
The Paris Climate Agreement was signed by 198 states.
Including 5 net payers:
1. US
2. Great Britain
3. Germany
4. France
5. Italy
Following the rejection of the Paris Climate Agreement
by US + Great Britain
leaves 3 net payers:
– Germany
– France
– Italy
Anybody here who thinks
Germany +France + Italy will save the world?
Excellent analysis of the situation. And with Germany fudging on their emission goals that doesn’t leave a very strong block. But we know it’s not about the CO2 goals and all about the money transfer. I’m betting the man on the street doesn’t understand the real impetus behind AGW.
China is going a stupid and really wrong way:
China has real air pollution – but that stems of the Taklamatan and therefore is mostly built on desert dust.
Refering to ‘carbon’ and ‘CO2’ is as stupid as hindering to a wealthy solution.
Here we go with ‘westerlies’ –
To China; Best wishes from Taklamatan.
Look up google maps
“Kaxgar, Kaxgar, Xinjiang, China to Beijing”
and the old Chinese narrative
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=WFb3WKzDDtLSwALVwIWoDg&q=the+journey+to+the+west+&oq=the+journey+to+the+west+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Mr. Trump is under, I will bet, increasing pressure to break his word on climate. This would be a mistake. Not only from an integrity perspective but politically and more importantly benefits to America perspective. His integrity is something he deservedly greatly values. He can be trusted to keep his word. Boeing under the pressure of even close friends and family to appease them but breaking his own word would damage his integrity. He needs the power that goes to a man of integrity in the tough times to come. When our enemies realized Obama would fold on his word they made hay on that weakness. Folding on climate will lead to other problems. Folding on climate will not gain Mr. Trump one new vote but will cost him many current supporters. Also and perhaps most important, folding on climate will leave in place damaging ineffective policies and expenses which do nothing to help America or the world.
“Folding on climate will lead to other problems. Folding on climate will not gain Mr. Trump one new vote but will cost him many current supporters.”
That’s right.
I can’t imagine an argument good enough to keep Trump in the Paris Agreement. And with Trump fixated on managing our money properly, I just don’t see how he can look at the Paris Agreement and see anything but a huge giveaway of U.S. taxpayer’s money.
Ignoring the Paris Agreement or taking the ball home as some seem to suggest is a cowards way of
dealing with a document that is unenforceable UNLESS Democrats wait in the weeds. as they hope to do , then start shipping $billions in make up money when they get back in power .
If Mr. Trump wants to retain his credibility stop the “HOAX ” as promised or history will show his relatives
influenced him to further the Hoax and he will be firmly in the swamp for everyone to see .
Kyoto was not approved in the USA Congress and that is the last vote by elected officials on the record .
If Mr. Trump is worried about honouring a campaign promise then it is simple put the Paris “Agreement” to a vote like the Kyoto Agreement was . If he doesn’t you will know the unelected White House liberal insiders are running the agenda and he can kiss his credibility good by .
His erratic policy behaviour should be a major worry for the Republicans and the Paris Agreement
is an opportunity to show he won’t be signing on to a $ Trillion fraud despite attempts of liberal whiners furthering their own agenda .
The EPA office in Chicago should either be closed or downsized to a small store front in south Chicago.
Y’all just don’t get it. Trump makes DEALS!
If he sees he can win in making a DEAL using the Climate Change thing, then guess what…
This is government as business.
Is that good or bad or so much different?
We shall see…
In the meantime, think about the possible DEALS.
Um, real numbers?
Not so much.