Paris Agreement Architect Calls the End of Coal – in the Middle of a Coal Rush

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, at the COP17 in Durban, South Africa, author UNClimateChange, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Former UNFCCC secretary Christiana Figueres, architect of the Paris Agreement, has called Australia’s planned giant new coal mine a “Kodak moment”, a doomed investment in a superseded technology, right in the middle of an unprecedented global rush to new coal capacity.

The ‘Kodak moment’ for coal, and why the Adani mine could be a financial disaster

The World Today By Stephen Long

The woman who led the world to a global climate change agreement has a message for Australia: “You really do have to see that we are at the Kodak moment for coal.

Christiana Figueres, until last year the executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, doesn’t mean happy snaps for the family album.

Rather, the decimation of the once dominant photographic company Kodak by digital change — in the same way that coal-fired power is being eclipsed by renewable energy.

She hopes to see coal, like those sentimental moments in time captured in photographs, confined to history — with the world remembering the contribution the fossil fuel has made to human development, while recognising the need to retire it as a fuel source because of its contribution to global warming.

And, she says, it’s happening.

“The fact is that we are already seeing the decline of coal, we are seeing more and more countries phasing out of coal,” Ms Figueres, who is based in London, told the ABC.

“We just had 25 countries come together [at the latest international climate change talks] in Bonn to say that they are moving out of coal in the short term.

“That does not include Australia or India or China, but you can begin to see the trend.

“India is headed for peaking its coal consumption by the year 2027.”

Read more:,-and-why-adani-could-be-a-disaster/9197134

Back in the real world, even green Europe is finally tiring of the expense and empty promises of the renewables industry (h/t Benny Peiser);

Spain resists coal phase-out

By Aline Robert

The Spanish government is challenging a decision by its main electricity provider to shut down two coal-fired power plants. An attitude that contravenes the Paris Agreement on climate change. EURACTIV France reports.

The Spanish government has engaged in a strange stand-off over Iberdrola’s plan to phase out coal, announced at climate talks in Bonn last week. The company’s CEO, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, pledged to close Iberdola’s coal power plants, including the two Spanish power stations, in Lada in Asturias and Velilla, in the autonomous community of Castilla y Leon.

The Spanish company’s plan is to become carbon neutral by 2050, with a 50% reduction of its emissions in 2030 compared to 2007, and investments of €85 billion in renewables in total.

Electricity utility Iberdola is directing 42% of new investments into networks, hoping to reap the benefits of an economy-wide electrification process currently underway in Europe and across the world, a senior company executive has told EURACTIV.

However, rather than encourage the country’s biggest electricity provider, the energy ministry drafted a decree on the procedure of closure of energy facilities, which poses new and very restrictive conditions to close an electricity production site: a site cannot be closed if it is profitable, or if its closure is a threat to the security of supply, or if the prices of electricity may climb.

Read more:

Germany meanwhile is clear felling protected ancient forests to dig up more coal (h/t Benny Peiser).

German court: Ancient forest can be cleared for coal mine


BERLIN — Nov 24, 2017, 11:21 AM ET

A court in western Germany says an ancient forest near the Belgian border can be chopped down to make way for a coal strip mine.

Cologne’s administrative court ruled Friday against a legal complaint brought by the environmental group BUND that wanted to halt the clearance of much of the Hambach forest.

Read more:

Sadly the German article does not detail whether the remains of the ancient forest will be fed into Britain’s huge Drax coal and biomass generator.

And lets not ignore China’s promise to boost their coal capacity by an entire Canada worth of energy by 2020.

One day coal will be superseded; nothing lasts forever. But with formerly green Europe chopping down ancient forests and preventing plant closures to stave off energy disaster, with Asia building coal capacity as fast as they can churn out new generators, I suggest Christiana’s claim that coal is over is a little premature.

126 thoughts on “Paris Agreement Architect Calls the End of Coal – in the Middle of a Coal Rush

    • The real fossil fuel issue is whether gas can continue as a premium fuel at a lower BTU cost long term. shale, deep gas, ocean hydrates…

    • whenever the rich and powerful tell you it is time to buy, one should immediately sell.

      follow the money. saving the earth is all about getting a bigger slice of the pie by preying on the fears of the gullible.

      Alberta will all its oil has the most coal fired power plant of any province in Canada.

      most of Canada is too cold to grow any crops. only the southern portion allows agriculture. but our politicians are scared to death it might get warmer.

      news flash. average annual temperature of Canada. 0.5C.

      what grows best in Canada? rocks. every spring the fields have a new crop due to frost heave.

      • ..meanwhile, back in the Canadian Kapital, the leader, Just-In shows up at the 2017 all Canadian tradition, the Grey Cup in a blinding snowstorm, headpiece covered in drifting snow and never mentioned his apparently highly successful Karbon Tax effort in the affair . #CoolCanadaCarbonCuts #KeepKanadaCold. #GreyCup1939. #ClimateAsUsual …etc. #sarc

      • Canadian phase out of coal COP23 signers.

        Quebec with about 95% hydro-electric power.

        Ontario has already phased out coal as a source of power.

        B.C. has hydro-power.

        Alberta uses coal to produce power. Change to natural gas and renewables?

        Manitoba has hydro-power.

      • According to Wikipedia

        British Columbia: ~ 90% hydro-power generation

        Manitoba: ~ 95% hydro-power generation

      • Oh Jeff, I think Ms Figueres knows exactly what a Kodak Moment is. I think she has Figuered it out that Kodak was an EVIL CORPORATION that made billions from selling a SATANIC technology that froze people’s lives in time and made prurient perverts of us all by seducing us into looking at these vile images from the past and form judgements about people and places, to think we remember history and so on.

        For example, look at the photograph of Ms Figueres in her mauve jacket with her lips prsed like a cat’s sphincter to express moral superiority. I mean that’s not the real Ms Figueres! Is it?

      • She may understand the term, but the author of the piece, Stephen Long, obviously does not. I was always under the impression the term referred to: A “moment” that cries-out to be “captured” for posterity with photographic evidence.
        Regardless of the hashed metaphor (neither are appropriate examples) Ms. Filgueres misses the point entirely.
        Her advice is more akin to “If every one else is jumping off the bridge, you should too.”
        Which kind of flies in the face of parental advice to adolescents against acting as stupidly as the rest of their friends. My guess is that she missed that talk with her parents.

      • Rocketscientist is correct: a “Kodak moment” was a marketing term used by Kodak to refer to something VERY POSITIVE. Something you wanted to memorialize and would regret not doing so (on film of course). Perhaps a birthday or anniversary. or perhaps just a small child greeting a new puppy for the first time.

      • Wow, Saward! That was graphic. We have three cats. I’m using that simile in the future… without attribution, because my memory is crap. But I love it!

  1. “One day coal will be superseded; nothing lasts forever.”

    Will all of you tolerate such blasphemous heresy against COAL ITSELF? To imply that there is anything better – or that it could run out – ridiculous! COAL COAL COAL!

    (Am I doing it right, folks?)

    • (Am I doing it right, folks?)

      No. In fact, it sounds like you’re mocking us.

      There’s nothing sacred about coal. The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

      Coal will be superseded when a ‘better technology’ comes along and makes it uneconomical. I’m pretty sure that ‘better technology’ won’t be wind and solar.

      • “when a ‘better technology’ comes along and makes it uneconomical”

        At the moment, that is only GAS. Wind and solar need not apply.

        As the price of gas prices ease upwards, coal will again surge.

        Beauty of coal is that it provide plenty of atmospheric plant food,

        you know, CO2, that Fundamental Building Block of ALL life on Earth.

        I can see a time when thorium nuclear, or similar, is used to break down limestone to release that much needed CO2 into the atmosphere.

      • Who would be surprised if the “Globalist” achieve their goal of controlling the world via the lever a certain hockey stick provided, then turn around and reopen coal mines and coal plants they had shut down during their climb to power?

    • I agree with your point – if free markets continue to exist, coal will never “run out” just like we will never “run out” of oil.

      But notice the comment doesn’t say “run out” it says superseded, which is something completely different. Are you creating a straw man?

    • Coal is dead in the same way that electric lighting, central heating and regular meals are out of vogue.

  2. The trick is that it doesn’t matter to Iberdrola (a Spanish power company) if the electrical system is stable or not. They are only concerned with profits. And due to government medaling, renewables are more profitable right now. They probably even are hoping for even more government money to fix the problems that over reliance on renewables is bond to create. It is a win win for them; not so much for citizens.

  3. Ah yes that would be the Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change who said:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution ”

    That must be taken in the context of the stated intent of many in the IPCC and the Green blob to de-industrialise civilisation and which means a return to lifestyles of the 15th and 16th centuries.

    And that needs to be thought of in the light of statements made by Maurice Strong of UNEP and the founder of the IPCC:

    Strong’s statements explaining why he set up the IPCC and what it was to achieve
    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or…. one invented for the purpose.” (Maurice Strong – speech to Club of Rome – and “invented” referred specifically to ‘Global Warming’)

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” . and those encapsulate what lies behind and is the reason for ‘Global Warming / Climate Change’ .

    and of course not forgetting that Climate Change’s other purpose is to redistribute global wealth and has nothing whatsoever to do with any climate change that may or may not happen on earth as another IPCC “luminary” made quite clear:

    Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole …… We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy ……….. the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. ”

  4. From the article: “I suggest Christiana’s claim that coal is over is a little premature.”

    She is delusional. Wishful thinking.

  5. One of the 25 countries that told Bonn it “would be moving out of coal in the short term” was Niue – a Pacific rock that has delicious limes and passion fruit, but alas no coal. Population of 1600, area about 100sq miles and not a member of UN (New Zealand represents it).

    All 25 together currently account for less than 15% of global coal use. Does not include China, India, USA, Germany, Japan or any other major.

    IEA predicts very little reduction before 2040. I bet Kodak would have loved to see figures like this.

  6. Coal is not being eclipsed by renewable energy. Of course, that is the sound bite lie she would like the public to believe. She is attempting to create a fact-free belief for the lap-dog media to parrot. The fact is natural gas and fracking are the reasons for coal’s diminished use.

    During Barack Obama’s disastrous tenure it was often noted he made statements that seemed to come from an Alternate Reality. I would suggest that Ms Figueres suffers from that same affliction. At least now Ms Figueres is no longer in a policy-relevant political position.

    • Joel I think that you are being a little optimistic in saying ;
      – “At least now Ms Figueres is no longer in a policy-relevant political position.”-
      because she now heads a Climate Change policy Group at the Lancet, which has a considerable , and justified, reputation on public health issues . They have recently started a new , open access, journal called Lancet -Planetary Health .
      The first edition has the following articles :
      ” The transition away from coal is inevitable”
      “Exiting the Paris climate accord: Trump administration misses the rising tide”-
      The editor of the journal is Raffaella Bosurgi and she clearly has an interest in the renewables sector :
      To quote :

      _Raffaella Bosurgi, Editor-in-Chief
      I combine an MSc in Environmental Technology from Imperial College in London and a PhD in neuroscience from University College of London and University of Freiburg in Germany with a postdoctoral fellowship from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Rome.
      I have many years of international experience in academia and in the biomedical publishing sector. I have previously worked for Italian energy company Enel Green Power to develop projects aimed at incentivising renewable energy projects in Italy and in developing countries.
      I was a Senior Editor for The Lancet Infectious Diseases and more recently a Deputy Editor for The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology before moving on to The Lancet Planetary Health in 2016. My interests include climate change on human health; renewable energy and benefits for the health; environmental change and mental health; land use change and vector-borne disease; sustainable cities; freshwater scarcity and communicable diseases; natural disasters and human displacement_

      To adopt the quote from the leader of Sinn Fein to the case of dear Christiana : “She has not gone away you know”.

      • “Lancet -Planetary Health”

        Now that’s funny.

        If there was ever a bigger player, jumping on the AGW bandwagon, with only a tenuous link to it, this has to be it.

        Too bad if the climate takes a little blip and temperatures head South within the next few years, as is confidently predicted.

        Boy, will the Lancet end up with an entire chicken farm on it’s face.

      • I am biomedical researcher PhD, formally trained in molecular biology, cellular biology, biochemistry, virology and immunology. But I have do not hold the professional qualifications necessary to credibly run a journal on Climate. Neither does Ms. Bosurgi. But she obviously wasn’t appointed to her position based on professional training or qualifications, but more likely her political views.

        The Politicization of Science essay (“Why Politicized Science is Dangerous”) by Michael Crichton is more relevant than ever. I doubt any of those who believe in climate change have ever read it or even understand the i he addressed in that essay.

      • While I have read few articles from the Lancet, the one by G. Persad, A. Wertheimer, and E. J. Emanuel (as I recall from the misnamed Affordable Care Act), 2009, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Vol. 373:423-431, published in their Department of Ethics, still bothers me. While they attempt balance, their only figure is “Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system.”

        It looks like Eugenics, not the still useful original pure science type, but its political applications. The figure has the youngest from near birth with the least priority, increasing to the early 20s, then decreasing steadily to the 50s, then rapidly for a decade, leveling off, never as low as the near zero. This looks like the ages when medical interventions are least needed. When they talk about “Disability-Adjusted Life-Year Allocation,” (WHO endorses), this sounds like at the very least top-down management.

        My main mentor in life was a parasitologist. I suspect that he would be quietly skeptical of “Planetary Health.” We have both been skeptical of extensive, appeal to authority, flaunting of administrative positions. Professionals who get fired have these. I have a doctor who does his homework, not his vanity.

        I also would have no professional credibility in most of these fields, but I could find out quickly if a claimed authority, as some obviously do, misunderstood the closely related to climate science ocean pH. And a few medical interventions.

  7. She suffers from the mental delusion of Greenbrain. Those afflicted live and speak as though inhabiting an entirely different world, not unlike Alice’s Wonderland.

    • A real mad hatter.

      (The original phrase “mad as a hatter” originates from traditional hat-makers, who commonly exhibited symptoms of mental instability. The likely cause was the lead-based dyes and noxious glues they were exposed to on a daily basis while plying their trade.)

      [Mercury, much more than lead. .mod]

      • ‘Mad as a hatter’ derives from the days of beaver hats. The coarse outer fur of the beaver pelt had to be removed, leaving the fine inner fur from which the hat was made, and removal was effected by rubbing the pelt with mercury. The hatters absorbed mercury through their skins, resulting in severe mercury poisoning, the symptoms of which could be mistaken for insanity.

        BTW, the official residence of Canada’s prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, used to be a hatmakers establishment, and the grounds surrounding the house are heavily contaminated with mercury as a result.
        This may explain some of Canada’s policies in the past.

  8. I thought I read – not sure where or when – that should a grid powered basically by renewables fall out of sync and collapse, it was not possible to bring it back up without some form of baseload generation, be it coal, gas, nuclear, or at least hydro. If it had only a small amount of baseload available, I would have to expect that the time it would take to switch in and resync the renewable generation would be tedious and time consuming, leaving much of the grid in the dark for quite a long time. I don’t know if that is true, but it would seem if it was, a grid running off renewables would only be a temporary thing at the least, and certainly an intermittent one at worst.

    • Largely true, as I understand it. When people speak of “grid inertia” they mean that literally. Conventional generation is based on thousands of tons of spinning iron, storing ½(Iω²) worth of energy. Producers are directed by the grid managers to ramp up or down, trying to maintain the nominal grid frequency of 60 or 50 Hz. If one generator is lagging, the grid tries to get it to speed up, or slow down if it’s spinning too fast. In this way it is self-regulating. If there is a surge in demand, the generators grid-wide will slow down as energy is pulled from them to supply the load, likewise as demand falls, the generators will speed up. It’s a very delicate balancing act, and the inertia is what makes it possible. Wind turbines (generally) get their sync signal from the grid, that is, non-wind turbine sources, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to feed the grid at the proper phase angle. Loose the sync and the wind source disconnects from the grid.

    • Suspect. Using 1PPS as sync signal should do it. Can be received everywhere. And synchronizing the phase of a 50/60 Hz frequency with ~100ns precision will be good enough.

      • Has anyone actually modeled this “solution”? A 1 Hz sync signal is unlikely to be responsive enough depending on the size of the grid. Protective devices now operate within 3 cycles or so to isolate unstable portions of the grid and prevent the whole thing from collapsing. If you force them to wait 60x as long you are likely to see a lot of equipment damage on a regular basis. Or maybe I don’t understand your suggestion…?

      • “Using 1PPS as sync signal should do it”
        No it won’t.
        1) Suppose the grid gets unbalanced (so that the frequency drops, for instance). It will take a some time and effort to restore the frequency, and that’s just what you need. Your signal solution will not try to restore the frequency, it will try to restore the initial phase, which is not needed and would require some time with over frequency. So it is useless.
        2) it is not so easy to sync the signal. The grid is just that: a grid. So two points are not linked by a single line, but by several, with several length and different delays. that’s the reason why FM radio station don’t have a single frequency that applies everywhere in a country.
        3) not robust, for obvious reason.

        It is far simpler and better to rely on the implicit signal of the grid frequency the producer locally experience and measure himself.

      • D. J. Hawkins

        I thought of a startup by “renewables” after blackout. You also may calibrate your computer clock (by software) with the 1PPS and read the clock at every 0-crossing of the phase (or even more frequently if you can measure the amplitude also). And to calculate the frequency offset to 50/60 Hz is just a division (q = frequency, r = phase offset).


        I don’t, see

        The GPS {1}PPS output has a functionally infinite propagation speed, as all {1}PPS pins theoretically would go high within the error band (~30 nanoseconds {or feet if you like}), invariant of their physical distance.

        {…} my additions


        Sorry, I disagree on all points.
        1) see above.
        2) see
        (Wiki, but I checked it)
        also: if two grid points are connected by several lines at the same time phase differences are unavoidable if there isn’t a delay circuit switched in. So the connection points will always be a multiple of the propagation time of one cycle away from each other. At least I think this would be smart.
        3) ?

      • 1) “above” doesn’t address the point: you don’t need the grid to keep the phase, you just need it to keep the frequency even if the phase moved somewhat doing so, and you don’t need to mess with a good frequency just to restore previous phase.
        2) you can indeed workaround… but why would you? what’s the need?
        also: you objection is valid. I guess it is addressed in some way (i don’t know how), however, i am not sure the way it is addressed will also address (or not) the variation of phase from variation of frequency issue (which is not exactly the same) ?
        3) will you trust the signal, depending on other utilities doing it, too, with potentially catastrophic results for you if for some reason they don’t ? or trust locally measured real frequency ? If both agree, one of them is useless. If they don’t… well, one of them is useless, too, so you decide which one.

        [?? .mod]

  9. Christina has gotten a little ahead of the company line. While most activist cheerleaders are careful to boast about “% growth” of that segment she forgot herself and said ” ….in the same way that coal-fired power is being eclipsed by renewable energy.”.

    As a former Kodak manager I can attest that Eastman would still be a giant in the industry if digital now had the same absolute share of the photography market that renewables have of the energy market.

    The fact that Eastman Kodak INVENTED digital photography did not give them any advantage in controlling the transformation to the new technology (despite major attempts to do so). In the real world it is the market (demand) that is the deciding factor. In that respect the demand for renewables (despite the IPCC and governments’ push) is nowhere close to the consumers’ pull for digital.

    • Every attempt I saw from Kodak to make digital cameras was a complete disaster.

      Turns out almost no one is willing to pay extra for ‘green’ power when offered as an extra on a power bill. Strangely, people will vote for green power, somehow believing that it won’t cost extra, then complain about the power company ripping them off when their power bill goes up by 30% (or more).

      • Jeff said in part: “Every attempt I saw from Kodak to make digital cameras was a complete disaster.”

        When it comes to pioneering, there is a lot like that in history: followers learning, at little cost to themselves, from mistakes of the leaders.

    • “In that respect the demand for renewables (despite the IPCC and governments’ push) is nowhere close to the consumers’ pull for digital.”

      And with good reason. Digital imaging, once it matured (and to an extent even before it matured) quickly eclipsed the image quality that could be gotten from film of equivalent ISO values.

      By contrast, “renewable” energy is utterly useless compared with fossil fuels. “Renewables” are not dispatchable, consistent, or reliable, all attributes necessary for useful power generation (and this is just for electricity, never mind transport and heating, for which “renewables” are not even a reasonable consideration). The only reason for the expansion (and for that matter, existence) of “markets” for wind and solar is government mandates, subsidies and bone-headed “climate” policies. When governments pick the winners and losers, we all lose.

  10. Still burning luverly smokeless coal in a solid fuel burner and wondrous stuff so it is. Mind you, I missed the other “Kodak moment” too and still shoot luverly film. They will have to prise both out of my cold dead hands.

  11. Wait until the next big cold “snap” (2019-2020 by some predictions). If that happens you’ll see wholesale abandonment of intermittent sources. They have about 2 years to figure out a storage option and if they don’t, bye bye

  12. Just had a thought – if people like Christiana hadn’t tried so hard to delay construction of the giant Australian Carmichael Coal Mine, maybe there would have been no need to cut down that ancient German forest.

  13. Whenever I think of coal I am reminded of a time when camping on an island in the Ohio River when we searched the beaches for smooth black “stones” of perfectly good, hard coal, and what a wonderful campfire it made. Coal is amazingly safe once it is out of the ground. It is reliable, needs no special storage, and can be kept indefinitely; just pile it on the ground. Coal will remain the most reliable, trustworthy, and obtainable source of energy for a very, very long time.

    • Steve Lohr

      I’m not a God fearing man, but I find it extraordinarily coincidental that around the time the earth was at it’s coldest, and most CO2 depleted, man popped up and discovered how to control fire.

      Nor do I believe that CO2 has anything significant to do with planetary warming, but it also seems extraordinarily coincidental that accidentally, haphazardly, naturally sequester CO2, was found to be the source of man’s industrial progress over the last 200 years which, again coincidentally, released tonnes of CO2 back into the atmosphere to allow plantlife to flourish, once again.

      Theologically, one could perhaps argue that God screwed up on a couple of occasions before anointing man as the planets saviour. Or at least, his latest attempt.

      I wonder how well that fits with Biblical teachings.

      It could almost make us all convert to religion were it seriously considered. Perhaps that’s the old man’s plan.

      • HotScot
        I figure I am in the same club as you when it comes to the “higher power”, and while there are perfectly reasonable explanations for things, I sometimes wonder. My son works with computer programs and one of the things we always talk about is validation. Validation, of course, requires prior knowledge of the right result against which tests are run to check performance. The program doesn’t “Know” the correct result but it is required to return the correct product, so how do we know it is working correctly, we check it against an external, independent set of inputs with known expected outputs. Failure to produce the correct answer is a validation failure. For some reason I said it is one of the arguments for the existence of a god because if we operate like a computer program we shouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong. Whatever behavior we come up with shouldn’t cause us to detect an error. We looked at each other for a moment and then resumed a discussion of the problem at hand. That was a horse to be beat another day.

        • Steve Lohr

          My Fathers belief was that when he died, he was dead. I suspect his belief was much the same as mine, that I’ll deal with what’s in front of me when it appears.

          I have always considered religion as almost a cowards way (the expression is perhaps a bit harsh) of dealing with life and the challenges of morality, humanity etc. Do what you want in mortality, ask for forgiveness in death, and the hereafter is all rosy.

          If I ever meet God, I’ll asked to be judged by my actions, not all good, but also against the actions of his faithful, many of whom have conducted despicable acts in his name.

          Would I ask God for forgiveness on meeting him? Yes of course I would, because I would have been proven wrong, and he would deserve at least that respect.

          And I suspect my old man will still be arguing the toss with God, if he does exist, on the same subject, to this day, after 30 years.

          Yet I hope God does exist, and suffers the pain of man’s inhumanity to man every day. If he can shoulder that burden, the you and I have no problem being accepted into his kingdom.

          But I don’t hear anything about him having to ask any of we mortals for forgiveness.

          A bit of a one way street really, to whom does God confess his many sins?

  14. “coal-fired power is being eclipsed by renewable energy.” says Stephen Long.

    according to BP 2016 energy report global production: (took me 2 seconds to google this)

    renewables was about 1%
    coal was about 30%

    Stephen Long is either a terrible reporter who can’t perform the most basic tasks pertinent to his job or he is an outright dishonest man trying to con his audience for some reason.


      • I think this problem is created by rapid growth of renewables – starting of course from a very low base. Somehow this gets morphed into an assertion that fossil fuels are on the way out.

        I hear this a lot. It’s a popular non-fact being peddled by all the time by ignorant people. I heard it recently from a guy selling shares in wind farm projects.

      • The rabid growth of renewables is the result of subsidies and mandates.
        Remove them and rabid growth quickly turns into abandonment.

    • The disconnect likely takes place due to the fractured nature of the energy market. It’s (very) roughly a third each for electricity, transportation, and industrial/commercial/residential, as tracked by the EIA. Renewables are really only feeding into the electrical sector. So overall, their penetration in electricity is a third their general penetration.

    • A transformation guided by a centralized policy perspective adopted by a self elected world government will certainly make the life of everyone on the planet different, but not in the nice way that some progressive may wish to imagine. Despite the abundance of spectacular failures of socialism within the past generation, like moths to a flame a large number amongst are rushing headlong into this direction, in the misguided belief that ‘we will do it right this time’.

      • As one young communist explained to me, “This time it will work, because this time we will be the ones in charge.”

      • As long as there are people, like most of us, who would like to have more than what a central authority may provide or allow, there will be under-the-counter transactions and a healthy black market.. Even in fully communist societies, capitalism thrives. It is human nature and won’t be undone by the utopians.

  15. Kodak is a topic that is near to my heart. Back around 1980 Kodak decided that today’s bottom line was more important than producing a great product. Kodak had great technology, they knew how to do it right, they could have stayed in the lead, but they let Fuji eat their lunch. Executive bonuses probably became the name of the game for them. Losing at the digital game was just the icing on the cake.

    • Albert said in part: “. . .Executive bonuses probably became the name of the game for them.. . .”

      Perhaps to a degree. But the extraordinarily kind way they treated ALL their employees (like their famous “Wage Dividend”), which they could well-afford originally, was more draining in the long haul.

  16. A paid shill will say anything to try to get you to believe, whether it is true or not. There sure are a lot of them out there.

  17. Like Obama, HRC, and host of other conniving Progressives Fugueres isn’t going away. Even when she dies, steps out of favor, or becomes useless to the ’cause’ there’s someone there to replace her. As long as the Progressives control the media it will be a challenge to maintain Democracy and Capitalism. AGW is just another tool in the quest for power.

  18. The the thing that always gets me is that they refuse to say much of anything about Nuclear Power. If the situation is so drastic and threatening then any danger from nuclear power surely is less a risk and should be embraced as a relatively quick answer to the reduction of carbon emission.


    • They absolutely hate nuclear power for some reason. From Dr. Phil Jones, former head of the British CRU, Climategate email 0837094033.txt:

      Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !

      Like you say it simply doesn’t make sense that they are worried about nuclear safety in the face of what they claim is the imminent end of the world.

      • some Greens – the Guardian’s George Monbiot – are pro nuclear.

        The real objection in the UK is the enormous cost… if and when the Hinkley Point reactor comes online in the UK it will riase electricity costs, hitting the poorest families

      • Oh come on Griff, this hypocrisy of yours is just plain insult.
        Insult, to use the “poorest families” as some kind of human shield.
        Insult, because you just don’t care to hit them when it comes financing your so dear bird-choppers and bird-fryers, even more expensive than nuclear. You are SO happy that Germany doubled electricity rates, just to pay for them.

        The cheapest way to produce electricity nowadays, and for the coming decades, is hydro and gas. But Hydro is not allowed anymore, so this leaves gas. Everything else is hitting the poorest families, and that indeed includes nuclear, and even more so wind and solar.
        Anyone promoting anything else as just no right to play the “poorest families” card.

    • jakee308,
      I am convinced that those that push this global warming meme have never sat down and thought their fantasy through .
      The modern world depends on energy and the cheaper the better as all wealth comes from energy .
      Go back a hundred years and see how the serfs lived compared with the ruling class .How many men to dig a canal by hand and horse powered wagons and some gunpowder .A hydraulic digger can do the work of many and this is repeated in every workplace and industry in the world .
      If it is so important to phase out fossil fuel energy then nuclear power is the only option at this time .
      If all the money that has been wasted on climate change had been put towards developing a safe nuclear power option then coal could be left in the ground for another millennium,
      I am convinced that those that push for zero carbon energy have no idea how the world works and the quickest way to poverty in any country is to De-carbonize which in reality is to de -energize an economy .
      I wonder which green government will be the first to try this experiment and how long will the people stand for a social experiment that pushes the majority of the population into poverty .

      • Well, the change is already underway in more than half of the EU countries (and the UK). Sweden has set its date for being zero carbon… its largest brewery (carlsberg) just went 1005 renewable heat and power…

      • watermelon are all in tertiary or government jobs, they believe in “Knowledge economy”, they see only minute amounts of electricity they need to work : a desk in a Zero-energy building, computer and phone, and that’s it. Isn’t that so small, that it can be powered be renewable with a minute battery back-up?
        They don’t see the background of huge energy use that allows this to be.

      • “how long will the people stand for a social experiment that pushes the majority of the population into poverty”
        Political experience shows that, as long richer neighbors are hit harder than they are, and they are presented some scapegoats to blame instead, or that they got some POWA to show they are the MASTA over others, many people are quite supportive of impoverishing politics.

      • So..When will that brewery begin producing the CO2 free Beer??
        Tried the Carbon Free variety once but it left me flat

  19. A strange article.

    No evidence coal use is actually increasing…

    Spain will no doubt come round: it doesn’t need the coal generation and all 170 jobs affected have been promised new work… and Eric missed the similar stand off over 2 small coal plants in Italy, part of the large coal/gas shut down Enel is carrying out on its fossil fuel plant.

    Germany isn’t using any more coal…

  20. I’m amazed that someone hasn’t written a book on the Trump Effect. It is an amazing bit of sociology that the long corrupted discipline of sociology will never touch. Psychologists could also have had a field day with the career ending climate blues of a number of climate scientists because of the Pause but instead, chose to be enablers of their faux rationale for the disorder – supporting classic psych D*nile.

    In these events, its as if sensible people have had to go underground for survival, but with an iconoclast like Trump coming along and giving them “permission” they have re-emerged from hiding and have begun to turn this whole ugly mess around.

  21. She was on BBC Today recently spouting death of coal. Was she challenged by the egregious Humphreys? No

  22. More than 400m people are dependent on the direct combustion of coal for domestic heating and cooking. There is no reason for them to stop doing so.

    That said, there is no reason not to use modern technology when burning it.

    The number of people dependent indirectly on coal for electricity is far larger of course, in the billions. If there is a shared right to emit CO2, the poor should have their share as well. This equal rights approach may have negative consequences for Ms Figueres and her workmates because they will have to reduce, reuse and recycle more than most. I see no reason why she should place any of the burden on those who are already poor.

Comments are closed.