Cheers! ‘Climate backtracking’: Germany Pushes for G-7 Reversal on Fossil Fuels in Climate Blow

From Climate Depot

Bloomberg News: “Pledge to end public financing of such fuels came recently.” – Germany is pushing for Group of Seven nations to walk back a commitment that would halt the financing of overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of the year, according to people familiar with the matter. That would be a major reversal on tackling climate change as Russia’s war in Ukraine upends access to energy supplies. … 

A G-7 shift from a commitment initiated last year and firmed up in May would be a u-turn in global efforts to fight climate change. It would make it harder to rally the rest of the world around more stringent targets and direct investments toward cleaner sources of energy. It would also go against International Energy Agency advice that no new oil and gas projects should be developed if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

By: Admin – Climate Depot

June 25, 2022 1:38 PM

By Alberto NardelliChiara Albanese, and Jess Shankleman

Germany is pushing for Group of Seven nations to walk back a commitment that would halt the financing of overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of the year, according to people familiar with the matter. That would be a major reversal on tackling climate change as Russia’s war in Ukraine upends access to energy supplies.

A draft text shared with Bloomberg would see the G-7 “acknowledge that publicly supported investment in the gas sector is necessary as a temporary response to the current energy crisis.”

The caveat in the proposal is that such funding is done “in a manner consistent with our climate objectives and without creating lock-in effects.”

The text remains under debate and could change before G-7 leaders hold their summit in the Bavarian Alps starting Sunday hosted by Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The UK opposes the proposal, two of the people said. A German government spokesman declined to comment.

EU Leaders Brace for Hard Winter as Russia Tightens Gas Grip

A person familiar with the discussions said Italy wasn’t actively opposing the German proposal. Italy, like Germany, is highly dependent on Russian gas. On Friday, speaking during a press conference in Brussels, Prime Minister Mario Draghi said Italy has managed to reduce Russian gas imports from 40% last year to 25% at the moment. This has been possible also by signing new gas deals in countries including Congo, Algeria and Angola.

Germany has responded to the cuts by reviving coal plants and providing financing to secure gas supplies, while continuing with plans to phase out nuclear energy. The World Nuclear Association, an industry lobby group, is urging the G-7 to boost access to nuclear technologies.

Germany Warns of Lehman-Like Contagion From Russian Gas Cuts

Italy has said it will monitor the potential need to trigger emergency energy plans. Any such move could also see it boost coal production.

German power for next year keeps getting more expensive

A G-7 shift from a commitment initiated last year and firmed up in May would be a u-turn in global efforts to fight climate change. It would make it harder to rally the rest of the world around more stringent targets and direct investments toward cleaner sources of energy.

It would also go against International Energy Agency advice that no new oil and gas projects should be developed if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

EU buyers start tapping gas from storage to replace missing Russian flows

“Where we saw Chancellor Merkel being the climate chancellor at the last G-7 summit Germany hosted, Scholz could go down in history as the climate backtracking Chancellor, which I think would be a real mark on his record, and we don’t need to do this,” he added.

— With assistance by Michael Nienaber, Isis Almeida, Jenny Leonard, Josh Wingrove, and Brian Platt

5 23 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4E Douglas
June 25, 2022 2:08 pm

Reality is like being slapped in the face with a fresh flounder.
Now for Biden’s policy. In

Curious George
Reply to  4E Douglas
June 25, 2022 3:44 pm

Always follow the science. The science of the day.

Reply to  4E Douglas
June 25, 2022 4:14 pm

“…slapped in the face with a fresh flounder”, 4E Douglas?


Thanks, Monty Python!!!


Reply to  4E Douglas
June 26, 2022 1:07 am

Yep: in the UK a while back we had some amusing adverts with the byline, “You know when you’ve been Tangoed”. (Hint: Tango is a sparkling orange drink)

Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 2:09 pm

G7 delusional climate aspirations founder on the rocks of energy reality.

Germany is in deep trouble this coming winter. They know it. Their problem is that EVEN IF the G7 reversed finance course on natgas development funding, it would have next to NO impact by next winter. And financing does not address all the Biden absolute restrictions recently imposed.

The German crash test dummy is launched toward the crash site thanks to Putin.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 2:15 pm

And Putin is squeezing back just enough so that nothing falls short this summer, but they can’t top off their storage for winter. It’s going to get real interesting in about 4 months. It’s a slow motion train wreck.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Fraizer
June 25, 2022 2:42 pm

And they cannot put in an LNG receiving terminal by then either, even if we had the LNG capacity to solve the Nordstream problem.

Putin ‘beats’ NATO without a shot fired—not that he has many good shots left to fire after his Ukraine fiasco. They are running out of modern tanks, precision guided cruise missiles, and aircraft thanks to Ukraine deployment of simple US stuff like Javelins and Stingers. When they break out totally obsolete T-62 tanks from storage, you know the end is nigh. Russia has no chance of making more modern replacements given the embargo on all the key ‘smart’ components they used to buy from the west.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 2:53 pm

Ukraine fiasco??? It ain’t over Baby, til’ the Fat Lady sings….

Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 25, 2022 3:30 pm

The Russians may win. They definitely will be saying “God save me from another such victory.”

Reply to  writing observer
June 25, 2022 4:06 pm

Without air and artillery support, the Russians will win. the will take Ukraine piece by piece.

They started out thinking they would roll into the capitol and replace the government and be done with it. Now they have consolidated their forces and will slowly expand their hold without overextending themselves.

If the Ukrainians had air power while Russia had 10 miles of weapons sitting on a road, it could have been over within 2 weeks, with Russia soundly defeated.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  writing observer
June 26, 2022 1:01 am

Pyrrhic is the word you are looking for.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 25, 2022 8:34 pm

Even if Russia does win, it’s still been a fiasco for them.
They’ve been shown to have a 3rd rate military and their economy is in shambles.
It will take them decades to replace the military equipment that they have lost, if they ever can.

Rod Evans
Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2022 1:57 am

Mark, I can’t think why there would be any urgency to replace that which was obsolete and shown to be obsolete, the moment the conflict began.
The lesson learned with the Ukraine is, numbers are not the prime driver of strength, in modern warfare. The capability and cost of the weapons deployed, that is what ultimately matters.
Drones as cheap as chips and modern telecom systems have shown they will allow an infantry man to take out a tank any day of the week.
Might used to be right, but ‘Bright’ is much better.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 4:03 pm

There is no chance of Russia losing a war with Ukraine.
You are reading propaganda.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2022 4:41 pm

I should add that the more weapons the US sends to Ukraine, the more damage will be done by the Russians, and they’ll still win.

Corrupt Zelensky (and prior corrupt leaders) had refused to let the Donbas region vote for independence. Not sure a majority wanted that. But no vote was allowed. Instead, the Ukraine military killed 11,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians in a civil war since 2014. Russia watched since 2014, and as the war escalated in 2022. they decided to stop it. Instead of a vote in Donbas for independence (from Ukraine and Russia) the region might end up being taken over by Russia like Crimea was. The majority of people in the Donbas region did NOT want to be part of Russia. but many did not want to remain part of Ukraine. Result = a civil war since 2014. 14,000 dead Ukrainians in total (11,000 Russian speaking citizens and 3000 Ukraine military). and perhaps twice as many people wounded.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2022 8:35 pm

Would the US permit New Mexico vote for independence if those with Mexican heritage started demanding it?

The US government killed several hundred thousand people in order to keep the South from seceding.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2022 9:27 pm

There was no indication a majority in the Donbas region wanted independence, so the separatists would have lost the vote, Probably about one third wanted independence — not more than 50%.

Concerning the 700,000 American soldiers and civilians who died in the Civil War: That was the biggest mistake in US history. No other nation needed a civil war to end slavery, only the US. There were a few slave rebellions here and there but not civil wars. Because of that war, Abe Lincoln was the worst US president by far. Any American President who has 700,000 Americans killing each other to solve a problem other world leaders solved without civil wars is a horrible leader.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 1:30 pm

It is a lot more complex than that, but your point is well taken. The war started over secession of the Southern States because the northern state governments and Federal Government were not enforcing federal laws equally for South and North, specifically when it came to their property rights in slavery. Think “sanctuary states”, except the northern states were encouraging the escape and subsequent “theft” of people’s assets, without compensation, in a huge illegal conspiracy. We can agree on how bad slavery was, but the abolitionists could not amend the Constitution to eliminate it. So they used the “by any means available” option.
Secession was not prohibited by the US Constitution, though it was by the previous governing document, known as the Articles of Confederation, which stated it was a “perpetual union”. By the time of the Civil War there were 15 states (original 13 plus Vermont and Texas) that had each been a sovereign nation and joined the Union by ratifying a treaty, basically. It was not a stretch at all that a sovereign nation could decide to get out of a bad treaty, expecially one that had changed its character to harm you. The question of states created from federal land was a different story, in my opinion.
Secession had been proposed before, by the New England states upset with the War of 1812. DDG the “Hartford Convention”, but nothing came of it.
That said, secession occurred without bloodshed. The southern people merely changed their everyday allegiance, and there was nothing the North could do about it. Federal courts and courthouses became state and Confederate courthouses, armories, forts, custom’s houses, etc. Revenues went to the Confederate government instead of Washington. By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration in March, 1861, there were only a handful of federal forts in federal hands in the South, Fort Monroe in Virginia, Fort Sumter in Charleston, Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas come to mind, perhaps one or two in the Gulf. Most had been starved out because southerners refused to provide provisions to federals, and then they became confederate forts.
Fort Sumter was about to be starved out, and Lincoln sent a resupply mission and fresh troops. The understanding was originally that fresh toops were not to be tolerated, but Lincoln added that deal-breaker, and Fort Sumter was fired upon, starting the war. Had South Carolina just left it alone, and let the troops idle their time at the fort and ONLY the fort, as everywhere else, eventually there might very well have been a non-military result, along with two separate countries. Fort Sumter is not a fun place during the summer heat of Charleston.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2022 9:28 pm

Well, it was Soviet-Russia that pushed those Russian speaking ‘Ukraine’s’ into the region after starving to death 3.5 million actual Ukrainians and sending another 50,000 Ukrainians to the mines and gulags of Siberia. Maybe the Ukrainians of today are just tired of Russian political and social interference and didn’t want these ‘Not Ukrainians’ to steal away any part of their country. Especially after Putin took Crimea. But you know, blame the Ukrainians free of the Soviet-Russian yoke of authoritarian terror for their nationalism…

Reply to  Philip
June 25, 2022 10:46 pm

Some Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas region wanted their own nation via a vote. A majority were not in favor. To play it safe, Ukrainians leaders would not allow a vote. So there was a civil war. Those Ukrainians did not want to be part of Russia but it could end up that way.

You can criticize Russia all you want but they lost a huge number of people helping us defeat Hitler.
Concerning the US:
We viciously attacked Iraq after 9/11, destroying a lot more civilian targets than the Russians have done so far in Ukraine, with no justification for that attack. Iraq had no part in 9/11 and their so called weapons of mass destruction did not exist.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 12:22 am

You can criticize Russia all you want but they lost a huge number of people helping us defeat Hitler.

This is not the way I would put it. They didn’t give a damn in 1940 when it was Britain* vs The Corporal. When attacked themselves, Uncle Joe demanded help, and we lost a lot of ships resupplying him via the Arctic route.

*With plentiful resupply from our American friends and help from now-former parts of the British Empire.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jit
June 26, 2022 6:33 am

And don’t forget the Soviet half of the Rape of Poland in 1939-40.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 5:16 am

Your war with Iraq and what is happening in the Ukraine are not equal nor the same.

The Russian separatist force in the Donbas region was and is materially and financially funded by Russia. It wasn’t as you suggest a grass roots want for independence.

Putin put a 100,000 strong army at Ukraine door from Oct. 2021 till he invaded end of Feb. 2022.

In the midterm between 10/21 and 2/22, Canada, the EU, the UK, the USA, NATO, The OSCE, meet with Russian officials twenty odd times trying to convince Putin to alter his course of action. Putin refuses everything, but his going to war.

Ukraine wants to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity while Russia wants “to force the authorities in Kyiv to grant far-reaching autonomy or so-called special status” to eastern Ukraine. But that would turn those territories into “quasi-independent mini states controlled by Russia”, and enable Moscow to have a profound influence on Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies. (see Georgia, Crimea) And that profound influence is death to any nation… Independent nation. Since 2008 Russia has been constantly, by small steps, moving further and further into Georgian territory by a technique, called “borderization”. Russian forces continually moving the fences that mark the limits of its invasion of Georgian territory deeper into Georgia. Its troops simply lift the barbed wire and other devices that limit its invasion at that moment and re-plant them further and further into Georgian territory.
Putin is a disease. But he has his champions.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 7:23 am

The US targeted military targets only during the Gulf War. Your eagerness to embrace any anti-US propaganda is duly noted.
That Iraq had WMDs is well documented, they used them during their war with Iran. That both WMDs and WMD programs were found after the Gulf war is also well documented, though of course those who are solidly anti-US will never admit to it.
As to 9/11, no US leader ever tried to tie Iraq to 9/11, though anti-US types are quick to claim they did.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 1:39 am

And if the Minsk agreement had not been ignored, none of this would have been necessary.

Instead, they deliberately backed the Russians into a corner. Stupidity or malice?

Reply to  Nick Graves
June 26, 2022 3:02 am

Correct. Zelensky poked the Russian bear one time too many. Although Ukraine seemed on the verge of joining NATO since 1997, they had not officially joined as of 2022. But there was an unusual amount of NATO involvement within Ukraine. And those many hard to explain bio-labs.
Grifter Hunter Biden sure got a lot of money from Ukraine’s Burisma, for influence peddling.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Graves
June 26, 2022 3:35 am

“Backed the Russians into a corner”

That’s silly. The poor Russians. They are so misunderstood, aren’t they.

You Putin defenders are pathetic. Delusional, too.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 26, 2022 5:07 am

Hey Abbott you are a propagandized moron.

Reply to  Nick Graves
June 27, 2022 3:57 pm

another Kremlin troll on here
Makes me vomit to see these lies!

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 27, 2022 3:55 pm

how is your boss prighozin paying you for trolling and propaganda on here mate??

we had enough lies from you on here?!

Ever been to Ukraine??

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 6:33 am

They lost the second they crossed the border.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 26, 2022 12:14 pm

You obviously haven’t noticed that it is now an artillery war and Russia is winning it hands down. They have far more guns, stacks and stacks of ammunition, and their guns out range all but a handful of those given to Ukraine. The US M777 is totally out of date and being hit quite regularly by the superior Russian artillery. The UK – sorry, the lying oaf Johnson – has promised to provide obsolete equipment but then found even our outdated stuff was not operational, so had to buy some outdated ex-Belgian self-propelled guns at big cost to us UK taxpayers, to give away and be blown to bits fairly quickly.

The rate of consumption of ammunition can’t be replaced by the NATO countries, nor can all the fancy – and expensive – missiles. The Stinger is obsolescent and the replacement is not yet ready but Stinger production has all but ceased.

But to cheer you up Rud, you are right about the tanks. However, a tactic from the soviet era is not to use the best stuff for the initial assault so you can weaken your enemy. And as far as the ‘attack’ on Kiev goes, there is still doubt as to whether this was not just a way of drawing the best Ukrainian forces away from Donbas and Luhansk – which it certainly did – given that it was never likely to succeed given all the bridges along the route.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Fraizer
June 25, 2022 5:25 pm

Our minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications (and Transport) in Ireland is a member of the Green Party. He lives in an alternate reality, a non-existent parallel world. When things come crashing down he will quietly disappear to live off a generous government pension. When I filled up my car yesterday I paid double the amount I paid before Covid but he will not have sleepless nights over the rising cost of living for plebs like myself.

Micheal from Meath
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 26, 2022 3:51 am

I couldn’t agree more Michael. I find it utterly disgusting that our minister for transport is a green fairy who’s ideology is to destroy our transport sector. He doesn’t want to see any investment in our transport infrastructure, just bicycle lanes in leafy South Dublin. Fianna Fáil are as much to blame for allowing him his desired post as minister of transport.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 2:42 pm

And Western politicians have learned nothing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 26, 2022 3:37 am

Yeah, our western “leaders” are sitll focused on demonizing CO2.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 7:05 pm

Our dear old buddy Vlad has done us a great service by demonstrating that history is not at all, in no way, dead. History is still alive.

Human nature has not changed. We are still infested with evil. We can ignore it when it’s in Rwanda or Syria but the Ukraine is in Europe and the Ukrainians are European. Also other countries are seriously worried that Putin has eyes on them when he conquers the Ukraine.

So, three cheers for Vlad. Now maybe those who commune with unicorns will put them out to pasture.

Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2022 10:31 pm

How is Ukraine a part of Europe? Not historically… Not socialy or culturally… They just want to be a part of the economy of Europe and the benefits that entails.

Reply to  gary
June 26, 2022 8:26 am

So, just like Poland or Hungary then? The UN thinks it’s the seventh most populous country in Europe. link

The Ukraine’s problem seems to be that it makes a great battlefield. link

Reply to  commieBob
June 26, 2022 2:09 am

It would have been better if Putin had stayed put (especially for the Ukrainians of course) so the socialists in charge in Europe and North America would have no one to point the blame to, except themselves for the inflation and supply problems. The energy problems are the result of the governments’ various green plans stretching back years but also to the day Biden took over and got his crayon out.

June 25, 2022 2:20 pm

Is it not amazing. The arguments for fossil fuel today are the same as they were 20 years ago…

Allen Stoner
June 25, 2022 2:25 pm

Russia is not buying these losers off due to the war, so now they can be honest.

Reply to  Allen Stoner
June 26, 2022 2:11 am

I never thought of that! All those sanctions are going to make it hard for greens to get their money from their real boss in the Kremlin!

Reply to  PCman999
June 26, 2022 2:57 pm

I was just going to mention Putin’s funding of green groups!

June 25, 2022 2:30 pm

This is where the virtue signalers fall silent. What was once a great idea to save humanity has become the real catastrophe. Maybe people will start asking for proof of concept now before backing renewable energy boondoggles.

Peter Wells
Reply to  markl
June 25, 2022 2:36 pm

You are assuming that first of all, they will understand the concept of proof of concept, and secondly, they will believe it.

Reply to  Peter Wells
June 25, 2022 3:04 pm

And, third, implement any such demonstrations properly. And, fourth, understand how scaling does, or does not, work. And, fifth, conduct the PoC in the anticipated environment, both natural and socio-political.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 25, 2022 10:56 pm

There have been some small-scale pilot projects for Net Zero electricity and at least one for Net Zero everything. They all failed. The Nut Zero everything project was an island of Denmark (Samso) where they ended up burning a lot of garbage for energy. which is not green, even if called biomass.
They had very good wind in the area, but it was not enough power. I recall they had to import garbage too!
They all had electric cars and electric appliances.
Subsidized, of course.

Reply to  markl
June 25, 2022 3:54 pm

They won’t take blame for the catastrophe. They will merely say it is an acceptable price to pay to save the world, and to reduce problems we need to devote more resources to renewables.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jtom
June 25, 2022 4:26 pm

No, they will blame others, all abetted by a docile media.

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 6:14 pm

Like it is now w/ MSNBC, CNN, and CBS covering for Biden and his cronies.

Tom Halla
June 25, 2022 2:37 pm

Realizing the Energiewende was a misguided failure is the first step. Fracking and reopening and building more nukes is their only way out.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 25, 2022 2:42 pm

But it’ll take time to build up the industry and the plants — and that’s before you get through the whole swamp of activist groups and their lawfare/feet-drag tactics … it’s interesting times and I’d rather like someone else to have them so I can learn from their mistakes .. unfortunately the capacity to observe someone else’s mistakes and take action to avoid falling for the same is lost in the leadership of most European countries, including mine ….

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 25, 2022 3:32 pm

Yes, Fracking and reopening and building more nukes is their only way out. And I suspect that they have started Realizing the Energiewende was a misguided failure. But this isn’t so much about the power to heat homes, it’s more about power over other people. Expect them to come up with more and more absurd ways of explaining things until Energiewende was all about ensuring the future of fossil fuels in the first place. Until someone can actually knock them off their perch, that’s where they are staying.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 25, 2022 4:27 pm

Germany could pay for Russian natural gas in Rubles and get all the gas they want. Even more if they allowed Nordstream 2 to open. Russia wants to sell as much gas as possible to finance their war. But economic sanctions mean getting paid in Euros may be like getting paid in Monopoly money. So Gazprom demanded payment in Rubles. Germany refused. Whose fault is that?

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2022 7:17 pm


We are seeing that fighting a war with sanctions can backfire. Military hardware given to the Ukrainians has helped force the Russians backward to more modest objectives, so has been worthwhile.

The sanctions are looking foolish.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 25, 2022 7:13 pm

There is some intelligence in Germany, even if it is often misplaced.

They can see that the rising use of fossil fuels by China, India, and Africa makes Germans sacrificing “to save the world” through their Energiegewende pointless.

Eyes are opening.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  kwinterkorn
June 26, 2022 3:44 am

I hope you are correct. I wouldn’t bet money on it, though.

Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 2:40 pm

It would also go against International Energy Agency advice that no new oil and gas projects should be developed if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Given that the world outside of the feckless Western countries is going full steam ahead on FF and nuclear, when will some rational politician tell the IEA to stuff it? And tell the UN IPCC to stuff their CliSciFi climate models? Plans based on political ideology will fail with real world consequences of poverty and death.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 2:51 pm

IEA has been a reality loser for over a decade. They did a massive survey in 2008 that showed definitely that peak conventional oil had already been reached, then explicitly denied the conclusions of their own data. Wrote up a detailed, illustrated, irrefutable explanation in essay ‘IEA Fictions’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

IEA is a highly politicized organization based in Paris with little remaining street cred.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 25, 2022 4:38 pm

Thank you, Rud. I reread sections of “Blowing Smoke” often and quote your findings. Anybody without an e-copy doesn’t understand what’s going on. Also relevant:

“Unsettled” by Stephen E. Koonin
“How the World Really Works” by Vaclav Smil
“The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
“A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

All of them, together, explain to the layman what the hell is going on with the climate change scam. The venality and fecklessness of our political class is manifest.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 2:52 pm

That would take one politician with no expectation careerwise. But does such a politician exist? Most unlikely, since they all appear to have stepped onto an escalator heading for supreme authority. Most of curse fail, but once they fail they lose their ability to command notice especially from the MSM. Oh, for an honest politician. Even one!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mike Lowe
June 25, 2022 4:48 pm

Who, like Diogenes The Cynic, will throw the first plucked chicken into the CliSciFi arena of lies? Many people have been carrying lit lanterns into the public square of climate science with no result.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 7:23 pm

In the past, the MSM has kept the lies flowing & destroyed/neutralized anyone
opposing them, but enough of the lies have been exposed & people don’t trust them
as much any more. Brandon’s being blamed for inflation & deliberately raising gas
prices. People think it’s better to replace him vs Putin to solve these problems.
Reality’s biting hard enough & long enough to make enough of a difference this time
to disrupt/delay the climate scam but probably not end it. Once things get better, the
libs & MSM will be back to “old tricks” if some other real problem doesn’t arise first.

Pete Bonk
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 25, 2022 7:00 pm

Poverty and death is a feature, not a bug, to some of these misogynist, so called environmentalists.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 26, 2022 4:05 am

““It would also go against International Energy Agency advice that no new oil and gas projects should be developed if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.“”

The IEA just makes stuff up. They have no idea where the temperatures are going in the future, yet they want everyone to believe they do, and they want everyone to act on their beliefs.

Our “leaders” are basing policy on delusional thinking. Delusional thinking will not lead us to the Promised Land. Instead, it will lead us down the Road to Ruin, as it is doing now.

The Western world needs a non-delusional leader (Trump-like), if we are ever to pull ourselves away from this demonizing-of-CO2 insanity imposed by a handful of dishonest scientists, and bucket-load of conniving politicians, on the clueless of the world.

It’s amazing how far pure speculation can carry things. Our “leaders” don’t know the difference between speculation and evidence. This impaired CO2 thinking could be the end of our civilization if we allow these delusional/conniving leaders to remain in power.

There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life on Earth. Speculation is not evidence. Policy should not be based on speculation, but that’s where we are at right now, and some of us are starting to suffer the consequences of this stupidity, with more to follow.

Our delusional leaders need to go, to be replaced with Realists who know the difference between CO2 speculation and CO2 evidence.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 26, 2022 6:43 am

What happens if “global warming” is limited to 1.6C instead of 1.5C?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2022 10:25 am

Disaster squared?

June 25, 2022 3:05 pm

Build très beaucoup more windmills. That will ensure there isn’t any money with which to backtrack.

June 25, 2022 3:23 pm

“The caveat in the proposal is that such funding is done “in a manner consistent with our climate objectives and without creating lock-in effects.””.

Like getting just a bit pregnant?

I don’t think SCOTUS would approve of this suggestion. They say that once you put in the funding to produce a new bundle of energy you are locked in to produce that bundle of energy.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 25, 2022 5:16 pm

Same here in the States: they want them to supply today but will work to replace them in 5-10 yrs.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 26, 2022 10:32 am

That is not what SCOTUS said, Mike. They said the U.S. Federal government had no role to play in funding or producing that bundle of energy. The upshot is that central governmental planned economies don’t work for their citizens; it just works to meet the desires of politicians and bureaucrats.

June 25, 2022 3:26 pm

DE knows they are well and truly f#%& if the current social democrat/green coalition is putting this in the public record.

June 25, 2022 3:42 pm

It’s a move in the right direction. It seems the US under this administration could be left holding the bag.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  marlene
June 25, 2022 3:59 pm

What they really need to admit is that wind and solar renewables only provide for less than 2% of the world’s energy demand. 2nd, CO2 is a trace gas and can not possibly control the temperature knob on the planet. . 3rd, that they were a bunch of fools in the first place to believe the climate fraud meme. Time for western leaders to grow up and lead.

June 25, 2022 3:45 pm

It’s a move in the right direction. It seems the US under this administration could be left holding the bag – without wind. But plenty of hot air coming out of their collective mouth.  

Tim Gorman
June 25, 2022 3:47 pm

Russia squeezing Europe on fossil energy is really no different than Biden squeezing the US on fossil energy. Unreliable energy (e.g. wind and solar) will *never* be able to make up the shortfall in required energy to keep the Western nations lifestyles as they are today, not in the short term, not in the medium term, and not in the long term.

Fossil fuel *is* the energy storage device with the best cost/energy-density fuel available. No batteries even on the horizon comes close. Nukes are the only thing that comes close and nuke energy comes out of the ground just like bio-fossil fuels.

It truly *is* time for the CAGW hoax to be identified for what it is and for the politicians that bought into the hoax to admit that they were duped. You can’t fix yourself till you admit you need fixing!

Bruce Cobb
June 25, 2022 3:49 pm

They might as well go ahead and cancel COP27. Save money, save the embarrassment. Win-win!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 25, 2022 8:10 pm

And save quite a lot of emissions to boot!

Josh Scandlen
June 25, 2022 3:50 pm

oh man, who woulda thought it would be Putin to save the world from teh Green Nazis. Couldn’t be happier!

June 25, 2022 4:20 pm

The story is completely wrong.

“Russia’s war in Ukraine upends access to energy supplies.”
That statement is very misleading.

Russia’s war makes them want to increase revenues from natural gas. They want to sell as much natural gas as possible to the EU to finance their war. So far their revenues have not been hurt much because of high gas prices.

Economic sanctions forced Gazprom to demand payment in Rubles. It is possible Euros will not have value for them due to sanctions. Nations that pay in Rubles get natural gas. Nations that refuse to pay in Rubles get restricted supplies or none. It’s that simple. You can’t expect Gazprom to give their gas away for free.

If Germany would allow the Nordstream 2 to open, which they are not, and pay for Russian natural gas in Rubles, they’d get all the natural gas they want to buy from Gazprom — even more than in 2021.

But Germany has chosen to “shoot themselves in the foot”. They are punishing themselves by punishing Gazprom. Germans don’t like nuclear power. They want to move away from coal. And they refuse to pay in Rubles to get natural gas. Germany is a major manufacturer, so reliable fossil fuel energy is mandatory. Concerning their energy policies, it seems that German politicians are dummkopf. Not that American and Russian politicians are any better.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2022 7:21 pm

Gazprom? Ruzzia is ruled by the dictator…Putrid Putey Putin…if someone would shoot him, a big problem would be solved. Putey made a BEEG mistake in copying Hitler’s move into Czechoslovakia. Putey is paying a much bigger price than he thought …..any Ruzzians who were dissatisfied in Ukraine should have moved to Ruzzia. Putey is maybe only second to Kimmy Jong when it comes to corruption. Free countries should strive to be independent in food and energy. Free countries should not trade with dictators…period.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 26, 2022 4:11 am

“Free countries should not trade with dictators…period.”

That sounds like a good idea. Why give your enemies any help? Hindering your enemies would seem to be the order of the day for rational people.

June 25, 2022 4:28 pm

Everything in the universe has limits and it looks like the leadership is waking up to the limit people will tolerate. It seems it, the limit, becomes important to leadership only when their own personal position in life is at risk.

Reply to  Olen
June 25, 2022 4:46 pm

People tolerated a lot of “government” in 2020 and 2021.
They won’t tolerate blackouts and really expensive energy for long

Reply to  Olen
June 26, 2022 12:59 am

Everything in the universe has limits

Except for the stupidity of the Greens.

June 25, 2022 7:45 pm

Preventing a 1.5 degree increase in average global temperatures, these words should be removed from from the text of all national and international meeting. It is a meaningless concept yet without it the green devils have nothing. Yet another senseless global scam.

Reply to  Bob
June 25, 2022 8:51 pm

Especially since there has already been over a degree of heating since the bottom of the LIA, and everyone except the alarmists consider that to have been a good thing.

Reply to  Bob
June 25, 2022 9:43 pm

I believe the global average temperature already reached +1.5 degrees C. in 1998 and early 2016, during the peak heat of two very strong El Ninos. As predicted, many people died from the heat. Worse than Covid in 2020 and 2021. It was in all the newspapers.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 2:24 am

Not sure if you forgot the sarc tag, maybe.
Let me add that in spite of any warming and the Climate Emergency, roughly 10x the people die from cold as from heat, so we have a long way to go at 0.15°C/decade before heat deaths become more of a problem than cold.

Reply to  PCman999
June 26, 2022 3:14 am

The sarc tag ruins the effect of my already lame sarcasm.
The fun is when someone believes my sarcasm and starts an argument.

The +1.5 C/ was rounded to the nearest 0.1 tenth of a degree C. and only applied to one month in 1998 and one month in 2016, using one specific global average compilation. My point is that +1.5 degrees already happened twice and no one even noticed. The Climate Howlers didn’t publicize those months because they knew the Pacific Ocean heat release was temporary. Strangely, some climate realists cherry pick those unusually hot years — 1998 and 2016 — and claim there’s been no global warming since then. That’s data mining and I criticize people who do that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 4:50 am

Hansen and one of his colleagues said 1934 was 0.5C warmer in the U.S. than was 1998, so that would put 1934 at the 1.5C threshold, in the U.S. anyway.

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 26, 2022 4:22 am

“I believe the global average temperature already reached +1.5 degrees C. in 1998 and early 2016”

Depending on who you listen to, NASA Climate or NOAA, the 2016 high temperature was 1.1C or 1.2C above the average they use.

The current temperature is about 0.5C cooler than 2016, so that would make the current temperature about 0.6C or 0.7C above the averrage.

CO2 amounts keep increasing, yet the temperatures are cooling. What do alarmists have to say about that?

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 26, 2022 6:54 am

They lie and deny—nothing must be allowed to denigrate the Holy Temperature Trends.

June 25, 2022 11:51 pm

Nice photo.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 26, 2022 12:58 am

Wrong title. It is not a ‘climate blow’. CO2 concentrations have little to do with climate.

Burning coal can be polluting but the Germans have the (Swedish) technology to deal with it. If they had put all the billions they wasted on the wind delusion into clean coal they would not be in the dire straits they are now in.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 26, 2022 6:37 am

It’s even worse.

While Germany along with other Western countries continued to burn coal and gas they advocated the phaseout and non development of such generation in poorer countries and have basically almost cut off all aid for such projects. Why do you think China, and to lesser extent Russia have massively expanded such aid (and influence)

In recent years western governments, development agencies and financial institutions have withdrawn fron virtually all large scale infrastructure, energy and resource related projects in the developing world whilst concentrating on the non problem of climate change.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 26, 2022 7:45 am

How better to keep the developing world from industrializing?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Philip
June 26, 2022 10:38 am

If that is the West’s goal, they are failing miserably. The ChiCom virus was much more successful in that.

Eric Vieira
June 26, 2022 12:58 am

Habeck can start by stopping the construction of LNG terminals in Germany, and then wait and see how his party turns out in the future at the ballot box.

Dr Ken Pollock
June 26, 2022 4:03 am

For those who still use English, “walk back” means “reverse”. Why this British obsession with using Americanisms? “Get go” instead of “start”. “Step up to the plate” – a phrase from baseball, about which most Britons know nothing. “I’m good” for “I’m well” – no judgment on character implied. “Alternate” instead of “alternative”. Alternate means swapping from one to another.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
June 26, 2022 10:41 am

Why this British obsession with using Americanisms?” Because America surpassed Britain a century ago as a world power.

June 26, 2022 9:09 am

Is G7 also committed to developing no new domestic sources of FF? Seems not.

June 26, 2022 9:15 am

Temporary funding does nothind to encourage energy projects that take decades to plan, build and generate a net orofit.

Canada and the US have both shot domestic production in the foot, driving capital offsgore and sparking inflation.

June 26, 2022 9:19 am

I don’t understand why they don’t just turn up the wind and solar power. Simple, no?

June 26, 2022 9:22 am

The war in Ukraine will accelerate the G7’s attempts to impose a global carbon tax before the fossil fuel shortage kills the political will.

June 26, 2022 9:26 am

The WEF is pushing hard to use inflation as the excuse now that covid has conditioned the population to mandates on personal freedom.

June 26, 2022 2:53 pm

I have to admit it: I thought the green nutters would go a lot further before starting to backtrack.

John Garrett
June 28, 2022 4:49 am


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Senior U.S. government officials have quietly traveled to Caracas in the latest bid to bring home detained Americans and rebuild relations with the South American oil giant as the war in Ukraine drags on, forcing the U.S. to recalibrate other foreign policy objectives…

…It’s unclear what else the officials are seeking to accomplish during the mission. But high on the list are likely to be Maduro’s demand that the U.S. lift crippling oil sanctions that have exacerbated hardships in what was once South America’s most prosperous nation [until socialists wrecked its economy]…

Since the March trip, both the Biden administration and Venezuela’s socialist government have shown a willingness to engage after years of hostilities between Washington and Caracas over Maduro’s 2018 re-election, which was marred by irregularities. The U.S. and other nations withdrew recognition of Maduro after that election, and instead, recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader.

Although negotiations between Maduro and the opposition have yet to resume, the U.S. then renewed a license so that oil companies, including Chevron, could continue to perform only basic upkeep of wells they operate jointly with Venezuela’s state-run oil giant PDVSA…

…The U.S. is also interested in tapping into Venezuela’s vast oil wealth as the war in Ukraine has led to a 50% jump in oil prices that is fueling the worst inflation in decades…

…Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves but production has plummeted for the past decade as a result of a drop in prices, mismanagement and the U.S. sanctions. Its presence in the world oil market is today marginal and any attempt to boost production would take time to materialize.

Verified by MonsterInsights