Trump’s Paris decision challenges bad science, economics and energy politics behind treaty
Al Gore says President Trump’s Exit Paris decision will bring “a global weather apocalypse.” Coal-billionaire Tom Steyer called the action “a traitorous act of war.” Please. What would really impact our planet’s habitats, wildlife and scenic vistas are the millions of wind turbines and solar panels the world would need to generate expensive, intermittent electricity – if we abandoned the oil, natural gas and coal that still provide 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. And for all that, at best we would get an undetectable 0.2 degrees C (0.3 F) less warming by 2100 … IF plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change and extreme weather.
Generating just 20% of US electricity with wind power would require some 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, up to 18 million acres of land, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. Multiply that times global needs, and you get the picture.
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
In the wake of President Trump’s exit from the Paris climate treaty, reactions from other quarters were predictably swift, nasty, sanctimonious and hypocritical.
Al Gore paused near one of the private jets he takes to hector lesser mortals to say the action will bring “a global weather apocalypse.” Billionaire Tom Steyer got rich selling coal but called the President’s action “a traitorous act of war.” Actor-activist Mark Ruffalo railed that Trump has “the death of whole nations on his hands.” Michael Moore said the action was “a crime against humanity.” Former President Obama said it threatened “the one planet we’ve got” (to say nothing of what’s left of his executive orders legacy).
In truth, President Trump’s bold decision underscores the ill-informed science, economics, ethics and energy politics that have driven climate cataclysm caterwauling for decades. His exit decision, his insistence that NATO members pay their agreed dues for defending Europe, the impacts of widespread green energy poverty, and the hard economic and environmental realities of wind, solar and biofuel “alternatives” to fossil fuels will likely awaken other leaders – and persuade other nations to Exit Paris.
Of the 28 NATO members, only the US, UK, Poland, Estonia and Greece have met their defense spending commitments, leaving a shortfall of $134 billion a year and compelling the United States to shoulder over 65% of the alliance’s total defense spending. Germany and some other members have now grudgingly agreed to increase their payments, in response to President Trump’s request, Russia’s actions in Crimea, Georgia and elsewhere – and growing threats of Islamist terrorism.
In the wake of London, Manchester, Brussels, Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Twin Towers and countless other attacks, it is ludicrous to claim supposedly manmade, allegedly dangerous climate change is the world’s biggest worry. It’s totally unrealistic to imagine that NATO members can pay their fair share for defending Europe and then pay what the Paris Treaty expects for the Green Climate Fund, while shackling their economies with job-killing renewable energy policies, and spending billions on welfare for unemployed workers and migrant families from the Middle East.
The Paris climate formula provides that GCF payments are to start at $100 billion per year, of which the US share would have been $23.5 billion. Former UN Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary Christiana Figueres has suggested that $450 billion a year by 2030 would be appropriate, Competitive Enterprise Institute energy and climate director Myron Ebell points out.
Ms. Figueres has also said the UN has “given itself” the task of replacing the free enterprise capitalism economic model with a global governance system. Her colleague Ottmar Edenhofer bluntly stated that the real goal of UN climate policies is redistributing the world’s wealth – in $450-billion-a-year increments.
Developing Countries and kleptocratic leaders demanded this windfall to join Paris. Their enthusiasm over staying in Paris is likely to reflect now-rich nation declining excitement about paying into the Fund, even though the treaty does not obligate DCs to reduce fossil fuel use or emissions until at least 2030.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel gamely said she will now work “more than ever” to “save our planet.” A number of US cities and states pledged to remain committed to treaty obligations. How exactly will they do that? Will they pay billions into the Fund – and blanket their lands with enough wind, solar and biofuel installations to be completely renewable in three decades? Build more of the only CO2-free electricity sources that are reliable and affordable: nuclear and hydroelectric facilities?
Most of these national, state and local leaders oppose nuclear and hydroelectric as strongly as they detest fossil fuels – and the states and cities are already burdened by soaring electricity prices and government debt. Virtually none have considered the gargantuan costs of this “energy transition” – or the fact that total global adherence to the Paris Treaty would prevent an undetectable 0.2 degrees C (0.3 F) of warming by 2100. Their own self-aggrandizing efforts would prevent perhaps 0.01 degrees. (And that assumes carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change, instead of changes in solar energy output, cosmic rays, ocean circulation and numerous other natural forces that actually control Earth’s climate.)
The United States and world still depend on oil, natural gas and coal for 80% of their total energy needs. More than 53,000 US wind turbines still supply only 2% of the nation’s total energy; thousands of acres of photovoltaic solar panels supply barely 0.3% of US energy; corn ethanol from 40 million acres (equal to Iowa or to Austria and the Czech Republic combined) supplies just 5% of its transportation fuels.
Land and raw material requirements for wind turbines underscore the true impacts of renewable energy.
Between 2010 and 2015, global electricity consumption grew by more than 2 billion megawatt-hours (2,000 terawatt-hours). Meeting just this demand growth of 400 million mWh per year (not total global electricity demand) solely with wind energy would require installing some 100,000 new turbines every year (generating electricity 25% of the time), as nations continue to electrify their far-flung communities.
Thankfully, African and Asian countries are actually doing so by building “mere” hundreds of new coal- and natural gas-fueled power plants, to generate abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for their people. Converting the entire planet to constantly fluctuating, unreliable, expensive, subsidized wind power would require trillions of dollars, hundreds of millions of acres, and incalculable raw materials.
Industry and other data suggest that generating just 20% of US electricity with wind power would require some 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, up to 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% of the year that the wind is barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.
Now consider where all these raw materials must come from, how they must be extracted from the Earth and turned into finished products, and how much (mostly fossil fuel) energy that requires. Concrete is made from limestone, silica, alumina, iron, clay, fly ash, gypsum and gravel. Steel requires iron, nickel, chromium, manganese, carbon and molybdenum. Fiberglass is composed of silica, other minerals and petroleum. These materials and copper are mined in countries all across the planet.
Nearly all rare earth metals come from Mongolia, and lithium for batteries (to store the turbines’ electrical output) from the Democratic Republic of Congo, under horrid to nonexistent environmental, health and child labor standards. Their toxic and radioactive wastes are turning vast areas into desolate wastelands.
Those are enormous impacts – and wind turbines require some 100-200 times more raw materials per megawatt of electricity actually generated than modern hypercritical coal or combined cycle gas turbine generators. Total energy inputs to manufacture, transport and install wind turbine components are also lopsided. Just imagine the land and resource needs if all electricity were wind-generated and all cars were electric. To call this “clean” energy, “sustainable” power or “environmental justice” is simply perverse.
Think back on the incredible energy technology advances since 1917 – from wood and coal in primitive stoves, furnaces and factories a century ago … to the coal and gas turbine generators, hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, high-tech transmission grids of today. Ponder the amazing advancements in medical, computer, communication and other technologies during the past century.
Imagine what wonders our Ultimate Resource – our creative intellects – could invent over next century, if we have the freedom and capital to do so. If misguided climate change, wealth redistribution, renewable energy and global governance demands do not shackle those opportunities. If we’d stop giving decision-making authority to people who have never been in factories or on farms (much less worked there), and think food comes from grocery stores, electricity from wall sockets, “clean energy” from magic.
President Trump has been vilified for challenging “accepted wisdom” on NATO, terrorism, climate change, and the ability of wind and solar to power job creation and economic rejuvenation in the USA and other industrialized nations – and to enable poor families worldwide to take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. History will prove him right.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
When President Trump announced that America is withdrawing from the Paris Accord, he didn’t say that CAGW is a fraud. I think he even gave lip service to the nation’s carbon footprint. I’m worried.
Commie Bob – he couldn’t say that out loud. If Trump had said that CAGW is a fraud, the New York Times and others in the main stream news media would have run headlines like “Trump doesn’t believe in Science” or “Trump denies Science.” In all likelihood he is aware that global warming is junk science. But he avoids a lot of grief by simply saying it was a bad agreement.
It was just like what he said about re-negotiating the Paris Agreement. It will never be re-negotiated. But it is easier to kill it by saying it was a bad agreement than by saying it was based on junk science and genteel superstition. He has a hostile and superstitious news media to consider.
There are still a lot of rain forests left that can be slashed and burned to plant palm for oil (biodiesel) and cane sugar to make ethanol for gasoline.
Ah, the makings of a true Green.
Poland and Estonia are a bit too close to Putin’s Russia for comfort. It’s no surprise they invest in defence.
The UK is honourable. Of course we keep our word.
But why is Greece so much more honest than Germany and the rest?
They are bankrupt.
They are almost at war with Turkey, a fellow NATO member.
..I don’t think Turkey will remain a member of NATO for much longer….The other Arab nations in the area are much more aligned with the U.S. lately…Turkey has attacked the Kurdish troops that the U.S. was supporting in the fight against ISIS…
Very small commitment, and they need the defense spending to control the refugee problem.
Trump may not be pro-wind, but the people elected in addition to Trump are and turbines are going up everywhere. The money is flowing freely, environmental damage growing and all the while people are thinking things were going to improve. Your congress has made sure that WILL NOT HAPPEN. Wake up.
Remove the Obama 30 year rule allowing power companies to kill eagles.
Remove the mandatory feed-in rules, too. Placing unreliable power sources above dispatchable power leads to situations like South Australia.
That one really makes me mad. We are definitely living in a bizarro world when “environmentalists” claim killing birds of prey is acceptable. Of course, one must remember that people who call themselves “environmentalists” are usually just mental, hate people in general, and are mostly interested in telling other people what to do. Hence the support of policies like managing the entire Pacific Northwest for the benefit of a single species, even though doing so harms hundreds, if not thousands of other species.
There are actual problems that are causing harm today, and they are being ignored in favor of a faddish “potential” problem that is scientifically shaky, to say the least. So-called solutions are creating MORE actual problems. I cannot imagine that a massive increase in wind turbines will not have a negative effect on birds and bats. What was the point of banning DDT if we are just going to put up bird-shredders?
Have faith Sheri. Today Michael Gove was made Environmental Secretary in the UK. When he was Education Secretary he opposed the introduction of climate change into the national curriculum. Here’s hoping he’s also a sceptic, and as he was invited to meet President Trump, I suspect he might be.
Perhaps the UK might be the second country to withdraw from Paris. That would be a couple of big steps in the right direction. And windfarm contracts can’t just be cancelled overnight. It will take time for them to be wound back in.
…Patience little grasshopper, patience…..
‘Build more of the only CO2-free electricity sources that are reliable and affordable: nuclear and hydroelectric facilities?’ – I would like to point out that hydroelectric plants are not necessarily so reliable….
The only unreliability of hydro is drought, but this can be known well in advance. It’s not like wind or solar, that can be there one minute and gone the next. The problem with hydro is that there aren’t many places left where it would be significant. Hydro is used quite often to back up unreliable wind and solar. When the water is there hydro is just as reliable as any other reliable power source, and it can spin up faster that any other generation technology, including open cycle gas..
I thought Hydro failure has contributed to the downfall of Venezuela?
Another problem with expanding hydro is that the lakes created by dams flood large areas of populated land upstream. In mountainous areas, that is generally the only land where settlement could occur. For example, in the first half of the 20th century, there were fully-designed tentative plans to build many dams in northern New York’s Adirondack region. A few were built, but thank goodness, most were not. It is really shocking to look at those plans and think what the geography would be today had those dams been built. They were to benefit the heavily populated areas in the tidewater Hudson River region from Albany on south to NYC. Those lakes would have flooded exactly the same areas occupied by glacial meltwater lakes 10,000 years ago.
“Greg Woods June 11, 2017 at 2:00 pm
I would like to point out that hydroelectric plants are not necessarily so reliable….”
Roughly 80% of power in New Zealand comes from hydro. Seems to work, reliably, there.
All true but it’s like pissing into the wind trying to get the message to the masses. Those supporting CAGW own most of the media and treat it like a propaganda machine instead of an information source.
“…and treat it like a propaganda machine…”
Isn’t that the truth.
The media has always been a propaganda machine – look at how we got into the Spanish-American war, for example. But in the past there was competing media – most cities had two news papers and readers could usually get both sides of the stories. Today most of the mainstream media is owned by three or four large corporations and they (journolist) apparently collude with the DNC to decide what the narrative will be.
Left-wing Liberal Democrats and the Main Stream media have no sense of numbers, science and reality.
That’s why they think we can power the world’s economy on wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.
Trump got elected by a working class. It still exists, but efforts are underway to replace it with a welfare class – via Nancy Pelosi’s “safety net”. (By the way, there is a Nancy Pelosi Drive in the Golden Gate Park, San Francisco.) If you get money for doing nothing, would you vote to have that privilege taken from you?
..That is because most liberals live in big cities…They have only ever seen a Hiefer on T.V. !
Leave Hillary out of this.
Eddie Mair and Roger Harrabin have now blocked me on their twitter feeds. The BBC has blocked my emails when all I do is give them numbers that contradict their rhetoric and this behaviour is repeated by all of the people I contact who promote alarmist rhetoric so you have to believe that they know their rhetoric is false and to even enter conversation with you jeopardises their reputation and I supposed their income.
But they don’t appear to be giving up any time soon. a few days ago UK greens were happy clapping that for 30 minutes UK wind and solar managed to generate 57% of the UK’s energy demand but when you respond as I did by pointing out that on the 2nd of June at 0809 the demand was 32Gw and wind was generating just 0.34Gw meaning at that time the UK would need 658,000 wind turbines to meet demand entirely from wind they get irritated as though they really are desperate to reveal any sort of incident that could concrete their ideology and find it objectionable that anyone should even dare to contradict their propaganda but surely they do know that wind and solar is not a reliable form of electricity generation don’t they?
The green solution. Replace 160,000 TWHr’s of global energy with wind but OMG look at the numbers, more holes in the ground, conservation, harming the planet?
183,401,000 Wind turbines needing:
461,250,000,000 tons of refined steel for the towers
461,250,000,000 tons of refined steel and concrete for the foundations
645,750,000,000 tons of rock for the foundations
13,099,500,000 hectares of land.
The American continent is just 4,254,900,000 hectares
59,040,000,000 tons of refined copper, steel and alloys for the turbines
738,000,000 tons of neodymium for the turbine magnets ex China
14,760,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelle
11,070,000,000 tons of petroleum based complex composites for the rotor.
And you still couldn’t guarantee to boil and egg?
End the carbon economy, banish all petroleum products from the planet then after you have done that please tell me how you are going to transport 1,051,312,500,000 tons of iron ore across the planet?
Remember this a wind turbine lasts for about 20 years and just to ship enough iron ore to manufacture 183 million of this imbecilic environment destroying monstrosities would demand 2,766,611 voyages to carry 1,051,312,500,000 tons of iron ore in a 380,000 ton iron ore carrier would burn 13,418,063,350 tons of bunker fuel but it gets worse. Each ton of iron ore needs 450kg of coking coal which of course also needs to be shipped across the planet.
473 billion tons of coking coal would demand another 1.2 million sea voyages consuming another 6 billion tons of bunker fuel and you believe that end the carbon economy would be a win win situation for the planet and its environment and of course end your concerns about wildlife and its habitat, dream on.
If wildlife and its habitat are your major concern, then recognise that you could generate 160,000 TWh’s of energy with just 7,272 4000 MW super critical Siemens coal fired steam turbines consuming just 211,881 hectares of land or just 1.6% of 13 billion hectares of land needed for wind turbines.
Wind turbines and solar farms the prodigal(s) of environmentalism but you cannot have wind or solar farms without oil and they cannot be serviced or repaired without oil, demented. Do you imagine like Caroline Lucas and Juniper that wind turbines appear overnight like mushrooms? Just another little green inconsistency as Lucas would say, Ho Hum.
Prof Brian Cox interviewed a scientist who made it clear beyond reasonable doubt that even if wind turbines provided a solution to mitigate Co2 then the planet does not have the physical land mass to build enough to make a difference. And even if that was not true we could not build them fast enough but if we could we could not guarantee to be able to boil an egg on any given day. Imagine having to peer out of the window to see if the wind was blowing before you could take a dump in your green methane retrieval device. Even worse what happens if the wind stops blowing after you have inserted the pipe in your rectum and you cannot remove it because of negative suction without risking the complete implosion of your bowels, OMG another catastrophe.
Wow, really strong arguments. Love it!!
..you can bet all the 200 plus countries that get paid are not going to change their minds
maybe they will when there is no check?
Have no fear; China, the new “climate leader” will gladly pick up the tab.
One just places Gore, Steyer, Figueres, et al in front of wind turbines doing their handwaving==>instant reliable power/s
Wealth ransfer is the name of the game. I have no doubt Trump has seen through this and he is on his own to fight this bastard child from hell.
It’s going to take time to change things. Trump can’t just wave a magic wand to reverse what 8 years of the Obama administration set in place. But with his announcement that we are pulling out of the Paris fiasco, the worm has turned. And yes, others will notice that it has, and may decide that maybe it would be a good idea to start doing things that actually benefit them, instead of worrying about “the planet”.
Two minor fact corrections. Important to keep all skeptical stuff as correct as possible to avoid ‘flat earther’ accusations.
1. Australia and US have enormous rare earth deposits. These metals are not actually rare; theynwere just very hard to extract and identify in the early days. China is the main world supplier because they do not impose the important and expensive extraction environmental controls otherwise mandated. (Rare earths are mildly radioactive, and usually associated with real nasties like arsenic.)
2. Chile and Bolivia are the largest world suppliers of lithium carbonate. Congo is a large supplier of cobalt (copper byproduct), not lithium. Congo cobalt is classified as a conflict mineral. One of two major LiIon battery cathodes is lithium cobalt oxide. The other is lithium iron phosphate.
“Australia and U.S, have enormous rare earth deposits.”
Do you really think Australians or Americans would tolerate what China is experiencing due to rare earth metal extraction? Do environmentalists even know about this? Take a look at the truth.
This is the best article written so far of the world energy situation and it should be sent to all major news papers around the world and all TV news and radio stations across the planet …We get nothing but propaganda about green energy and climate change in our newspapers and TV news broadcasts here in New Zealand .How many news outlets would even mention this as a press release ?
They don,t want to know that their crazy ideas will not work and with the technical revolution that is about to arrive in the next twenty years affordable energy will be required or countries will be left behind such as Denmark with lots of expensive renewable energy and virtually no growth .
As I understood it, it was the US negotiators who effectively made the Paris wording a non-enforceable agreement. I’m confident that this was not just to avoid the US senate: Even under Obama they knew that those amounts of money handed over as cash would simply not be forthcoming. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
They may not undestand climate science and computer modelling, but these people do understand money and how best to extract it. The main intention was probably just to make the virtuous ‘promises’ and keep the wheels of bureaucacy turning by greasing the palms of the individuals and organisations involved. That way they will still be there in five or ten years time to move the ratchet another small step when the next opportunity arises. Slow and incremental, bleeding off just enough to stop the host from complaining too loudly. as some of the explicitly stated, the climate is only of secondary importance.
“Will the #ParisAgreement exit bring more rational climate policies in our future?”
There’s always hope.
It is now obvious that everyone was excited to be getting free money from U.S.
Lobbying for Paris Accord was an investment, or campaign, for them – one they thought they were sure to win.
THIS is why the unexpected Trump win is being fought so vigorously in the U.S.: everyone had counted their chickens before they hatched, and were dreaming of how they would indulge themselves on their newfound wealth. Including congresspersons on both sides of the aisle – you would have to be dumb not to see the chance to get in on the ground floor of the many investment opportunities – the banks that would have been skimming their modest portion off of the trillions flowing around the planet are well known to the congress-critters.
Now, with Paris Accord dead, they have much less of a plan for a pipeline.
If the Chicken Little The Sky is Falling campaign quiets down a little, many people will be able to sit back and realize the failed dire predictions, etc., and wake up to the scam.
One of the bizarre features of warmists’ thinking is there rejection of nuclear power. It has been proving 20% of our power for the last 60 years, without a single fatality. Naturally, empirical data means little when the Sierra Club can imagine a scenario in which the dangers of radioactive materials are loosed on the public. Considering the recently enacted emergency equipment centers established near both coasts, which can airlift any equipment to any nuclear plant in trouble, couped with the newer plant designs that make a very unlikely event (a major nuclear accident)
an estimated 10,000 less likely event, and you have to wonder why warmists aren’t rushing to build nuclear plants. Or why they are so ignorant about the emerging molten salt nuclear designs, in which dangerous situations simply cannot happen, regardless of human actions, etc. Warmists
also apparently are unaware of just how close we are to a revolution in automobiles, to electric.
We are very close and if the cathode rod and anode development comes to fruition (and the cathode design looks like a no brainer) the revolution will be as sudden and complete as the talkies
takeover of the motion picture industry.
The costs to build and the costs to dismantle make nuclear currently uneconomic.
Made so by people just like you.
Griff==>for greens to decry the cost of nuclear power is sheer chutzpah. As a long standing tactic of the anti-nuclear movement has been lawfare to raise the cost of nuclear, much of the cost, and responsibility for those costs, are on the greens.
To define the Yiddish word you, which as a Brit might not know, the usual extensional definition of chutzpah is a person who murders his parents, and then claims he deserves mercy as an orphan.
“An act of war” ?? Against which country ?? These people clearly do not think before they speak !
I wouldn’t hold my breath on electric cars. Notwithstanding the ridiculously cheap e-gallon here in Quebec (1/5 the cost of gasoline) and a heavy government subsidy of up to $7,000 for the purchase of an electric car, I still can’t make the case for one. And don’t forget this little fact. If and when electric cars become numerous, they will displace gasoline and diesel burning cars that pay a significant amount of tax in the purchase price of fuel. What then? Who picks up the difference?
There’s already talk about taxing EVs by the mile. A necessity if roads are to be maintained and what about all the other things that get paid out of gasoline and oil taxes? And there’s a lot of them.
That means ve get to attach a little black box to your vehicle so ve know vhere you are going to and vhere you have been.
Already there for most EVs. They already know where you’ve been…… and where you’re going if you use the navigation.
I think it is clear that nearly from its beginning UN bureaucrats have been frustrated with a financing system that relies on member states voluntarily paying their dues. Many do not or pay late and less than promised. The UN bureaucrats have dreamed for years of implementing some form of global tax that would assure a steady stream of ever increasing funds. Obviously they see a “carbon tax” which they can justify by claiming it is necessary to fight CAGW as a perfect solution. They know that they’ll get lots of support from socialists who want to see a global government controlled by liberal elites as well as corporations who will be delighted to provide the high profit products needed and be paid with what’s left after corrupt bureaucrats skim off whatever they can.
It doesn’t matter whether the concern is real or whether there is a solution if it is (even though it is increasingly clear it is not). They know that once a tax is imposed, it never goes away. If they succeed it doesn’t even matter if the CAGW concern is proven to be a non-problem. Another global crises will simply be invented to justify an even greater need for higher global taxes.
Look at nearly any government bureaucracy – their main priority is to increase their size and budget. They virtually never go away even if the issue they were created to deal with does. But even worse, government bureaucracies rarely actually solve the problems they are supposed to address. E.g poverty, drug abuse, affordable healthcare, smoking, quality education, etc. The bureaucrats seem to always say that they are close to solving such problems, but just need more money.
It’s much more a problem with the UN though because they’ve stretched their duties FAR outside of their intended function. They definitely need to be reeled back in to their initial job description….. which they are failing miserably at.
Your last paragraph illustrates the inherent fallacy of government control. A private entity is paid to produce goods or results – otherwise a competing entity will take their business. Government agencies only compete for more funds as you noted. There is no outside controlling market to inhibit bad performance ergo it is inevitably inept.
“Paris Agreement has more problems than just Trump: Clean technology isn’t advancing fast enough”
How long can this fact be overlooked by the alarmists?
The argument over how much warming will occur and the impact on climate change is not significant until when one weighs in on the impact on energy supply. While the media likes to tout Wind and Solar it is clear that these are not ready to sustain our present lifestyle, unfortunately transportation fuels are an even bigger problem since biofuels are no where capable to replace liquid fuels. The electric car remains elusive and it seems impractical to believe the grid could expand to replace liquid transportation fuels.
Any honest person who knows the energy business is painfully aware of the now certain fact that “renewable” energy is no where near ready to replace fossil fuels for many decades even after spending enormous sums of money.
Rushing prematurely to eliminate the use of fossil fuels before the alternatives are fully available will certainly be a disaster for mankind. While I do not agree with everything from the IEA (International Energy Agency), it is a welcome admission and warning that we are headed for trouble if we continue to depend on non existent energy sources.
Now the IEA has flagged the problem that under Obama significant progress has not been made with renewable energy to meet the climate change goals. No surprise here except to admit the failure by Obama.
“Paris Agreement has more problems than just Trump: Clean technology isn’t advancing fast enough”
Where I am at odds with the IEA, it seems that they believe a better ($$$$) policy will correct the problem I am not optimistic that the problem can be fixed for many decades. No responsible government plan should depend on currently unavailable energy sources with an uncertain future, not knowing if or when they will be available to satisfy the worlds energy needs. Currently many plans assume there will be some yet to be discovered technology to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Many government mandates including the goals of the Paris accords are irresponsible in risking their economy and welfare of the citizens based on either ignorance or false optimism that new energy sources are just around the corner.
Technology does not work that way.
Hopefully Governor Brown and the other fools will listen to the IEA and wait until alternative energy is available. I doubt it, he is so obsessed with the issue and cannot thing logically.
“Paris Agreement has more problems than just Trump: Clean technology isn’t advancing fast enough
Just 3 out of 26 energy technology categories the International Energy Agency tracks are on pace to help meet global climate goals.
The IEA has a fairly straightforward solution: implement policies that will encourage investment in these technologies and work across borders to develop them.
The technologies needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s climate goals are not developing quickly enough, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.
Nearly every country in the world has committed to take action under the Paris Agreement to slow global warming. But only 3 out of 26 technology categories tracked by the IEA are on pace to help do that, the agency concluded in this year’s Energy Technology Perspectives report.
The IEA, which advises countries on energy strategy, has a fairly straightforward — if not easy — solution: implement policies that will encourage investment in these technologies and work across borders to develop them.
“Many technology areas suffer from a lack of policy support, and this impedes their scaled-up deployment,” IEA said. “Energy efficiency, bioenergy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are notable examples of where significant potential for technology progress remains, but strong policy signals will be required to trigger the appropriate investments.”
Trump is absolutely RIGHT
There are continual developments in wind turbines – 9 mw units now being rolled out – in offshore wind installation (cheaper, quicker), solar panels (thin film, peroskivite cells), solar CSP, battery storage, other storage methods, tidal turbines.
This tech is perfectly adequate to supply power to major industrial nations (e.g 32% of German electricity in 2016)
Great news. So when is the wind going to increase so that they will actually generate that much power, because it isn’t happening now. And when will the sunshine in the Northern Hemisphere increase sufficiently to generate power during winter? Not to mention at night?
Even with expensive battery storage, wind power delivers nothing after a few hours of calm. And it is common for calm winds to befall large areas of land at the same time, so you can’t say we’ll plant more of them, because the extras will still be without wind.
Here’s a link to a company called Kohilo that is making an improved vertical-shaft wind turbine. Its bearings are long-lived. It has models in many sizes. It doesn’t need a high mount and can produce power at much lower wind speeds than conventional horizontal turbines. It has models in many sizes. It was just featured on Coast to Coast AM. Caution—it’s not inexpensive.
They look more bird friendly, less obtrusive, and quieter (?), with better output /air speed than the propeller type but are still subject to vagaries of wind. Why people believe “maybe” energy is OK today is beyond me.
Amusing that Mark Ruffalo is concerned about the death of nations when he apparently was not concerned about his mother’s (illegal?) ab0rtion that killed his older brother before birth. Ruffalo had nothing but praise for his mother’s “bravery.” Progressivism is a mental disorder.
Something like this head post would be a good follow-on for Trump or Pruitt to make. It should be thoroughly fact-checked first, and perhaps it should be issued in conjunction with endorsements of it by leading contrarians.
It would avoid taking on too many topics in the climate debate and focus on a single subtopic in depth, which is the proper way to structure this debate. In particular, it would avoid getting into the climate-science swamp, which avoidance is apparently Trump’s strategy.
Al Gore says President Trump’s Exit Paris decision will bring “a global weather apocalypse.”
Did Gore really say that? Good grief. And to think we’re called den***s. It’s easy to dismiss him as just deluded but in fact that’s a straightforward and wilful untruth. (more accurately beginning with L.)
President Macron spoke against this as he issued his invitation to US climate scientists.
Angela Merkel just visited Mexico and spoke on how walls were a bad idea…
…and Germany continues to roll out renewables
The new Korean president is recasting Korean policy on coal power plants…
The Chinese made agreements on climate with the EU and with California.
India is cancelling coal plants.
The US and Trump are increasingly isolated…
…e.g. UK press headlines are about how Trump has cancelled his UK visit as he doesn’t want to face a hostile reception.
Meanwhile, will US domestic action make a huge difference?
No, because coal power plant closures continue – 5 new announcements since Trump took office (and 5 is the total pipeline for planned US coal plant).
Yup, the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
The US president is causing “a global weather apocalypse” and is committing “a traitorous act of war” by not obeying Al Gore and Tom Steyer?
With the same logic he also caused my computer screen to be suddenly spattered with coffee, but paradoxically increased his popularity in my eyes by the same token. How bizarre.
Of course they are all throwing hissy fits – what can you expect – but the general public is yawning – and they all know it.
Rational? no way from that jetset
Excellent essay by Paul Driessen.
We can all continue to make very rational arguments against the stupidity that “Paris” represents, and quote facts and statistics and history; and, we can also point to the likely consequences of only selectively applying the nearly iron-clad laws of the physical world and economics…but at some point the other side has to listen.
“….but at some point the other side has to listen….” Yes but they can’t listen if we have no voice. Don’t give up is the message.
“but at some point the other side has to listen.”
A well-publicized red/blue debate would force them to pay attention.
As long as most of the media is scientifically illiterate the climate con men will try and sell their climate Armageddon but the public is no longer buying it . Way too many lies and gross exaggerations for people that have real problems to address . It was good while it lasted but now it is just the latest farce .